The first witnesses called were the approvers Mullany and Vaughan, who exposed the desperate schemes and needy condition of the conspirators. The latter stated in evidence:-"I was sworn in as a Fenian in 1865 by Timothy Desmond. I saw him on the day of the explosion, between half-past one and half-past two. I was at work at the time at Pugh's Place, near Golden Square. He came into my room and hollered out Ahoy.' I said, Holloa, Tim, have you been muddling it?' He replied, ‘I have just seen my son off to sea this morning.' I could see he had been drinking, but I should not say he was drunk. He asked my wife if she had seen his wife. She told him she had not, and I said, 'You don't mean to say, Ned, your wife has hooked it from you.' He replied 'Yes,' and added, 'She shall never lie beside me again.' He kissed my wife and bade her good-bye, and said he was going to take a jump. My wife told him not to be so foolish. He then leant over the door and whistled to me, and said in a whisper, 'The thing must be done.' I asked him what he meant, and he answered, 'They're going to blow up the House of Detention.' I asked him when, and he said, 'The thing must be done. We have found out from Ann Justice, by going in with Casey's dinner, the time at which they exercise in the yard, and the trick must be done between half-past three and four o'clock.' He then bade me good-bye, and said, 'Jemmy, when I am blasted into eternity, pray for me; or if I get off and am arrested, the next place will be Millbank.' He then kissed and shook hands with me and went away. I didn't see him again until he was a prisoner. I saw English about seven o'clock on the evening of the explosion. He came to the door leading to my room, and said, "For God's sake, Jemmy, give me as much as you can, for we want to send them off.' I asked him to whom he referred, and he answered, 'What! haven't you heard?' I said, 'No;' and he then said, 'The House of Detention is blown bang up.' I then gave him two shillings, and told him I could spare no more, as business was slack. He said, 'For God's sake, give me as much as you can-I want it badly.' The next morning I saw him reading the placard of a newspaper, and saying aloud the word 'diabolical.' I said, 'Holloa, Ned!' and then he added, 'We will burn the whole of London yet, and that will be a sight more diabolical.' I then wished him good-bye. I was at Bow Street at half-past twelve that day.' of gunpowder close by the prison wall, placing a squib | so confirmed, his evidence would not be required at all. in it, igniting it, and causing the explosion. From some Happily for society, men who were engaged in offences of hints that reached the prison authorities, the precaution this kind, when danger and detection were impending, was taken of locking up the prisoners on that day, or were very apt to turn upon one another, and to denounce many of the incarcerated would have been victims. each other to the police. It might be hoped, from the present and many other examples, that those who were mixed up with them in those treasonable practices would learn that their greatest danger was to be found at the hands of those with whom they had been most intimately associated. After recapitulating the evidence of Mullany on the plan for effecting tho liberation of Burke, the lord chief justice examined how far that evidence was corroborated by other testimony. Adverting to the remarkable incident of the letter, his lordship said that when the jury heard Mullany tell the story of that letter they must have received it with doubt and suspicion. It was not every one who knew that secret communications could be carried on by chloride of gold and rendered visible by a solution of copperas; and the incident might have savoured more or less of romance had it not been confirmed by a most marvellous combination of circumstances. When Burke was arrested there was found upon him a small glass bulb, hermetically sealed, containing a certain mineral substance, which when analyzed by a scientific chemist, turned out to be chloride of gold. It was also shown that Mrs. Barry endeavoured to introduce in Burke's stockings a portion of green copperas. The inference was that this man by means of these substances found the opportunity of carrying on a secret correspondence with these persons outside the prison, and thus one of the statements of Mullany was corroborated. The conduct of Burke within the prison was not likely to mislead the jury. It was quite clear that it was the purpose of the conspirators to blow down the wall of the prison on the 12th of December, and that Burke was aware of the event, and prepared to take advantage of it. It had not been shown how it was arranged that the throwing of a ball over the prison wall should be used as a signal, but a ball was used as a signal on both days. When the ball was thrown over on the 12th, Burke fell out of the ring in which he was exercising with the other prisoners, went to the furthest part of the exercise ground, leaned against the wall, and took off his boot as if to take a stone out of it. He did all this with the utmost possible slowness and deliberation, tardily putting on his boot and returning to his place when he could not help doing so. No one could doubt that Burke was aware of what was going on, and that all was done according to the arrangements which he had probably himself suggested. The conduct of Burke was such as strongly to confirm the testimony of Mullany. The attempt to blow up the prison wall on the 12th, and the blowing up of the wall on the 13th, could not have been effected unless at least three or four, or perhaps more, persons had been connected with it. Looking to all these circumstances, the lord chief justice said it would certainly appear that Mullany was truthful in his statement of the design of the conspirators and the means by which it was to be accomplished. That still left the question to be considered whether Mullany was confirmed as to the particular individuals The charge of the lord chief justice was luminous and whom he alleged to have taken part in the explosion. logical. He said the evidence of the alleged conspiracy His lordship then went over the evidence of witnesses to release Burke rested upon the evidence of Mullany, who had seen the attempt of the 12th of December, and and he must without doubt be looked upon as an acthe explosion of the 13th. Having gone into the testicomplice in the act that had been done. It was doubt-mony affecting, respectively, William Desmond, Timothy less competent for juries, if they believed the testimony Desmond, and English, the lord chief justice proceeded of an accomplice, to act upon it, even if it were not corroborated; but juries had for a long series of years been recommended by the judges not to convict upon the evidence of a man who came forward to save his own life at the expense of others, unless his evidence was corroborated. The jury must, however, bear in mind that it was not necessary the evidence of an approver should be confirmed in every particular. If it could be At the close of the case for the prosecution on the 23rd, the lord chief justice said he thought there was no case against the woman Justice, and proceedings were therefore withdrawn against her so far as the charge of murder was concerned. This was also done with reference to O'Keefe on the 24th. An alibi was set up in defence of Barrett, witnesses being produced in court who swore that they had seen and spoken to him in Glasgow the day before, and also on the afternoon of the explosion. to say that the alibi set up in the case of Barrett was the most remarkable that he remembered in the whole course of his experience. If they believed the witnesses examined for the defence, there was an end of the case against Barrett, but in that case Mrs. Koeppel, Morris, and the witnesses for the crown either laboured under the strangest hallucination, or else it was a falsehood, the most wicked and basest that was ever offered in a court of justice to destroy the life of this man. There could not be a shadow of doubt that there was a man who played the part Mullany spoke of, but was there some one to whom all the circumstances deposed by the witnesses in London applied, but who was not Barrett? He therefore said that this was one of the most remarkable instances of an alibi he ever remembered, because they were not dealing with the case of a man who was charged with an offence by those who knew and saw him only for the moment and who had no acquaintance with him before, but an alibi set up and dealing with witnesses who had known the man for months, who were in almost daily intercourse with him, and who saw and spoke to him before and after the explosion. The jury would say whether, from the position and demeanour of some, at least, of the witnesses who spoke to the identity of Barrett, they were not entitled to credit; while, on the other hand, there were circumstances so remarkable and peculiar in the case of the alibi for the defence, that they required their most vigilant attention before they adopted it. The first and most startling reason was that the jury had heard of this defence during the last three or four days for the first time. What was the natural course of a man who found himself implicated in a charge the very nature of which was calculated to excite horror in the mind of any man of common humanity? Would they not expect such a man to say that his defence was a very simple one, that he had not been in London for months; that he had been in Glasgow all the time, and was known to many people there? Would he not say, "I was at Glasgow long before the explosion and at the time when it happened, and I can produce the people who saw me?" If he had done so, the law would have lent him the assistance he required to bring these witnesses to London. But not a word to that effect had been stated. The lord chief justice then recapitulated the evidence first of the three shoemakers, and then of Burgoyne, M'Manus, and M'Corrie, and remarked that, at first sight, it seemed perfectly conclusive and satisfactory. It was just possible that the statement of the shoemakers was true, and that they did repair the boots, and that the altercation did take place with M Nulty, but that the whole affair might have taken place a week later. The second branch of the alibi related to the meetings at Glasgow, in which it was alleged Barrett took part. It still required the evidence of those who had been in daily intercourse with him. His lordship wound up by stating his opinion that no alibi was proved. The jury, after long consultation, found all the prisoners not guilty but Barrett, whom they pronounced guilty, and upon whom the judge passed sentence of death. The prisoner made a long and eloquent speech to show why sentence of death should not be passed upon him. Michael Barrett was executed in front of Newgate, on the 26th of May. The convict had been respited from the date originally fixed to allow of inquiries being made into the alibi set up during the trial. He made no public confession, nor did he directly or indirectly allude to the justice of his sentence. The number of spectators was not large, and they were observed to conduct themselves with unusual decorum. The Private Execution Bill having now passed both houses, and awaiting only the royal assent, this was the last public hanging which took place. On the 22nd of May, Vice-Chancellor Gifford gave judgment in the case of LYON . HOME, a suit instituted in June, 1867, to set aside certain gifts to the defendant, Daniel Home, a well-known spiritual "medium." Mrs. Lyon, seventy-five years of age, with property of her own, married a wealthy husband, by whom she was left a widow in 1859, with about 100,000l. at her own disposal. She was devoted to the memory of her husband, and from mysterious intimations during his lifetime she was possessed with a belief that in some way she would meet him again at the end of seven years. In July, 1866, she learnt that her expectations could be very simply fulfilled by applying to Mr. Home. He was then resident secretary of an institution called "The Spiritual Athenæum," in Sloane Street. Mrs. Lyon read his book entitled "Incidents of my Life," and wrote to him immediately afterwards. Receiving no answer she called, on October 2, and had an interview with him. Within little more than a week from that date she had given him a sum of 24,000. Immediately after this Mrs. Lyon and Mr. Home adopted towards each other the warm language of "mother" and "son;" and on the 8th of November the newly-made mother made a will, in which she assigned all her property to this affectionate son. On the ensuing 10th of December she presented Mr. Home with another 5,000., to make up the 24,000l. to a round sum of 30,000. Mr. Home then assumed the name of Lyon. Once more, towards the end of January, 1867, she assigned him a mortgage | security of 30,000, taking care, however, meanwhile | to have a strong legal deed prepared in order to secure the interest as an annuity for herself. At this point Mr. Home's star had reached its zenith. In February Mrs. Lyon called in Sloane Street, and got back one of her letters. In March she ceased to sign herself "affec tionate mother." In May she saw a solicitor, who assured her she had been imposed upon; but she could not accept the lawyer's advice without consulting another "medium." The familiar spirit of Miss Berry confirmed her suspicions, and in June she had an interview with Mr. Home, in which she indulged in vituperation not less warm than her previous expressions of affection. She demanded the surrender of the mortgage, and Mr. Home, in a subsequent letter to his "dear mother," offered to resign the deed provided she would leave him and his "in undisputed possession" of the first 30,000l., with permission to resume his own name. On the 17th the "mother" arrested her "son," and threw him into Whitecross Street prison; and this suit was instituted to set aside both the gift and the assignment of the mortgage. The judge was of opinion that the evidence proved that at the time when these gifts were made the relation of the defendant to the plaintiff was such as in cases decided by Lord Eldon and Lord Cottenham, when the court held that the donor whilst making the gift was subject to hallucination, or under influence. Therefore there must be a decree for retransfer of the 60,0007. by the defendant to the plaintiff, who was ordered to pay her own costs and those of Mr. Wilkinson, the solicitor. The defendant was ordered to pay his own costs only. RISK ALLAH V. THE "DAILY TELEGRAPH."-This' trial was remarkable from its nature, but chiefly of interest to the public as affecting the liberty of the press and illus trating the practical working of the law of libel. It came on in the Court of Queen's Bench, on the 13th of June, before the lord chief justice and a special jury, being an action for libel against the Daily Telegraph, in which the damages were laid at 20,000. The case arose out of the trial in Brussels, where the plaintiff was charged with the murder of his stepson, Readly. He now alleged that the defendants had, in a series of letters which their special correspondent wrote from Brussels to the Telegraph, from the beginning to the end assumed the guilt of the plaintiff, and suppressed the great bulk of the evidence that was given in his favour; and that even when compelled to state some of the evidence ¦¦ given in his favour, they did everything they could to destroy its force. The plaintiff further complained that the report was altogether an unfair, partial, and one-sided report; that during the trial the grossest libels and calumnies were circulated against him; that after || these letters had appeared, and when the trial was over, the plaintiff acquitted, and his innocence demonstrated, די a leading article appeared in the defendant's paper reiterating all the charges, not in an honest and bold statement that the charges were true, but, by insinuation and inuendo, declaring the belief of the writer that the plaintiff was a murderer and a forger. The trial extended over six days, and resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff damages, 9607. Another action against the Standard failed, as an explanation had been inserted in their case. MARTIN . MACKONOCHIE.-The spread of ritualism was viewed with alarm by most churchmen, and caused a steady and strong opposition to spring up. This opposition took the form of a prosecution against Mr. Mackonochie, the incumbent of St. Alban's, Holborn, which, involving the important question as to high ceremonial, was followed with anxiety by all parties. The case, which commenced before the Bishop of London, was, under the provisions of the Clergy Discipline Act, sent by the bishop to the court of the Archbishop of Canterbury for trial in the first instance; and having been fully heard before the judge of the Arches Court, resulted in a decree made on the 28th March. Mr. Mackonochie was charged with four offences against the laws ecclesiastical, viz:-1. The elevation during or after the prayer of consecration, in the order of the administration of the holy communion, of the paten and cup, and the kneeling or prostrating himself before the consecrated elements; 2. Using lighted candles on the communion table during the celebration of the holy communion, when such candles were not wanted for the purpose of giving light; 3. Using incense in the celebration of the holy communion; 4. Mixing water with the wine used in the administration of the holy communion. The judge of the Court of Arches by his decree sustained the third and fourth of these charges, and admonished the respondent to abstain for the future from the use of incense, and from mixing water with the wine as pleaded in the articles. Against this part of the decree there was no appeal. The charge as to using lights on the communion table was not sustained, the judge holding it lawful to place two lighted candles on the communion table during the celebration of the holy communion. As to the first charge, the respondent pleaded that he had discontinued the practice before the institution of the suit, and the learned judge admonished him not to recur to the practice; as to the other part of the charge-the kneeling and prostrating before the consecrated elements-the learned judge held that if Mr. Mackonochie had committed any error in that respect it was one that should not form the subject of a criminal prosecution, but should be referred to the bishop in order that he might exercise his discretion thereon. Mr. Martin appealed from the latter part of the decision, and he also complained that the respondent was not ordered to pay the costs of the appeal. The appeal was heard before the judicial committee of the privy council, consisting of the Archbishop of York, Lord Chelmsford, Lord Cairns, Sir W. Erle, and Sir J. Colville. The questions raised by the appeal were exhaustively gone into before their lordships, and their judgment was delivered by Lord Cairns in a long and able speech. Having traced the history of the case from its commencement, and read the charges brought against Mr. Mackonochie, his lordship read the answers of the reverend gentleman, as follows: "3. Whereas in the 3rd article, given in and admitted as amended in this cause, it is pleaded that the said Alexander Heriot Mackonochie has-to wit, on Sunday, the 23rd of December, on Christmas Day last past, on Sunday, the 30th day of December, all in the year 1866-during the prayer of consecration in the order of the administration of the holy communion, elevated the paten above his head and permitted and sanctioned such elevation, and taken into his hands the cup and elevated it above his head during the prayer of con secration aforesaid, and permitted and sanctioned the cup so to be taken and elevated, and knelt or prostrated himself before the consecrated elements during the prayer of consecration, and permitted and sanctioned such kneeling or prostration by other clerks in holy orders; now, the same is in part untruly pleaded, for the party proponent alleges that, while he admits that the said Alexander Heriot Mackonochie did on the said two Sundays and on Christmas Day, during the prayer of consecration, kneel and sanction kneeling by other clerks before the Lord's table, he denies that his said party did on the said two Sundays and on the said Christmas Day kneel or prostrate himself before the consecrated elements, or permit and sanction such kneeling or prostration by other clerks in holy orders, as in the 3rd article pleaded. And he further alleges that while he admits that he did on the said two Sundays and Christmas Day, in the said 3rd article mentioned, elevate and sanction the elevation by other clerks of the paten and cup above his head, as is in the said 3rd article pleaded, yet that such elevation of the paten and cup has been wholly discontinued by the said Alexander Heriot Mackonochie during the administration of the holy communion ever since the said 30th day of December, 1866, and long prior to the institution of this suit. That such practice was discontinued in consequence of legal advice, and in compliance with the expressed wish of the Lord Bishop of the diocese of London and with a resolution of convocation, as was well known to the promoter of this suit before he instituted the same. "5. Whereas it is pleaded in the 5th article that the said Alexander Heriot Mackonochie has in his said church, and in within two years last-to wit, on Sunday the 23rd day of December, on Christmas Day last past, and on Sunday the 30th day of December, all in the year of our Lord 1866; and on Sunday the 13th of January, in the year of our Lord 1867, used lighted candles on the communion table during the celebration of the holy communion at times when such lighted candles were not wanted for the purpose of giving light, and permitted and sanctioned such use of lighted candles. Now, the same is in part untruly pleaded, for the party proponent alleges that on the said three Sundays and Christmas Day, in the said 5th article mentioned, the said lighted candles were not placed on the communion table, but upon a narrow movable ledge of wood resting on the said table, and that the said candles were so placed and kept lighted, not during the celebration of the holy communion only, as falsely suggested in the said 5th article, but also during the whole of the reading of the communion service, including the epistle and gospel, and during the singing after the reading of the Nicene Creed, and during the delivery of the sermon. 6. That he denies that the use of such lighted candles is an unlawful addition to and variation from the form and order prescribed and appointed by the said statutes, and by the said Book of Common Prayer and administration of the sacraments, and other rites and ceremonies of the church, and is contrary to the said statutes, and to the 14th, 36th, and 38th of the said constitutions and canons, as in the said 6th article alleged." Having gone very fully into the evidence brought forward by both sides, and quoted copiously all the authorities on the subject, his lordship said their lordships were of opinion that the charge against the respondent of kneeling during the prayer of consecration had been sustained, and that he should be admonished not only not to recur to the elevation of the paten and the cup as pleaded in the 3rd article, but also to abstain for the future from kneeling or prostrating himself before the consecrated elements during the prayer of consecration. Their lordships would also advise her Majesty that the charge as to lights had also been sustained, and that the respondent should be admo nished for the future to abstain from the use of them. I made a short statement in reply, in which he frankly His lordship said that as all the charges had been sus- acknowledged that he accepted the whole responsibility tained, the committee saw no reason why the usual of his charge to the jury. Mr. Justice Lush being afterconsequences as to costs should not follow, and they wards appealed to concerning the draft paper embodywould advise her Majesty that the respondent should ing the substance of the law intended to be laid down, pay to the appellant the costs in the court below, and of wrote:-"I returned the paper to my brother Blackthis appeal. This decisive defeat was received with burn at the time, and I find it is now at his house; but much enthusiasm, not only for its immediate results, but I well remember that it contained only the general probecause the clear and explicit statement of the law on position mentioned by you in the court yesterday, addso important a point would exercise a salutary and de- ing that the application of that principle to the particular terrent effect in future. case required him to tell the jury what was the law of Jamaica. In no other way did it refer to that law, nor did it state anything about martial law, or refer to the case of Gordon. I have shown this to my brother Blackburn, and he agrees that it is an accurate account of what the paper contains." The case of Ex-Governor EYRE came on in the Court of Queen's Bench, before Mr. Justice Blackburn, on the 2nd of June. His lordship delivered a long charge to the grand jury, in the course of which he reviewed the law of the country with reference to the declaration and exercise of martial law, from Magna Charta down to the present time, and said that to keep up martial law for a period of thirty days after an armed resistance had been put down was unreasonable; and no one could doubt that it exceeded much the prerogative of the crown. A third and great question was whether Mr. Eyre caused Gordon and four others to be brought into the proclaimed district and tried. There could be no doubt that Gordon was a pestilent firebrand, in close communication with those actually in insurrection, and using violent language, but he did not think the evidence against Gordon amounted to more than that. He thought he was a violent pestilent agitator, whose injudicious language caused the rebellion; but that he was not a party to an organised conspiracy for a rising throughout the island. It was, however, generally believed at the time that he was so, and no doubt Mr. Eyre really believed that he was guilty. If they thought that Mr. Eyre considered at the time that Gordon was a violent fellow, whom it was better not to try by the ordinary law of the island, conceiving that by some technicality he might escape punishment, but to send him to Morant Bay, try him by court-martial, and get rid of him, it was an act of great and lawless oppression, and they ought to find the bill; but if they were of opinion that he acted in a contrary spirit, and used ordinary firmness, judgment, and moderation, and from a bona-fide belief in the honest discharge of his duties, they would not find the bill. The grand jury, after a long consultation, returned a verdict of No bill. CHAPTER XVIII. Colonial: Canada; New South Wales (Attempt to Assassinate the Duke of A.D. 1868. COLONIAL.-CANADA. HROUGHOUT the whole year much un THR the Fenian agitation. Abortive raids were made across the border, seditious meetings were held, and treasonable documents were circulated. The most atrocious feature of the conduct of the conspirators was attempted assassination in several instances, and the accomplishment of the crime in one case. The hon. D'Arcy M'Gee was a member of the Canadian parlia ment, then sitting at Ottawa; he represented Montreal West. The Fenians entertained for him a deep personal animosity, occasioned by what they considered his betrayal of Ireland. During "the Young Ireland" agitation, in 1848, Mr. M'Gee was one of the active leaders of the movement. His writings and his speeches were full of denunciations of England, and incitement to Ireland to rise in arms against Great Britain and assert her total independence. Having emigrated to Canada, he became a public lecturer, and was noted for his oppo- | sition to his former confrères of agitation. He showed himself to be an uncompromising ultramontane, and placed himself entirely in the hands of priests. When Fenianism asserted itself in Canada and the United States, the Roman Catholic clergy generally opposed it, || chiefly on account of its republican programme, and its opposition to the authority of the priests within the domain of politics. Mr. M'Gee sided with the Church against the Fenians, and was incessant in his efforts to dissuade his fellow-countrymen from having anything to do with it. Moreover, he had become a minister, bore | the title of honourable, and advocated the Imperial connection. Mr. M'Gee had formerly desired his country to have a star and a stripe on the American flag, but for years previous to his murder he was unrelenting in his hostility to American institutions, and to any political connection between his adopted country and the Union. At the sitting of the court on the 8th, the lord chief justice sought to remove a misapprehension that Mr. Justice Blackburn spoke in the name and with the authority of his brother-judges. "Had I understood (he said) that the law would have been laid down as it is understood to have been stated, I should have felt it to be my duty to attend in my place in court on the occasion of the charge being delivered, and to declare my views of the law to the jury. I must add, as my justification for not having done so, that I certainly understood from the learned judge-though I must now suppose that I misunderstood him-that he deemed it unnecessary to raise the question of the legality of martial law, or the effect of the Jamaica statutes. As regards the very serious case of Mr. Gordon, I believe I am right in saying, that almost on the eve of the delivery of the charge, the opinion of Mr. Justice Blackburn himself was, that the apprehension and removal of Mr. Gordon were, in point of fact, unjustifiable. It is not without much pain, and only under an imperious sense of public duty, that I make these observations. The bar have known me long enough not to misconstrue my motives. I am influenced only by the desire of protecting myself against being held responsible for opinions from which I dissent, and to prevent doctrines from going forth stamped with the authority of this the highest court of criminal jurisdiction in the realm-the House of Lords alone excepted-to which doctrines its assent has not been given." Mr. Justice Blackburn and executed. Early in April, the hon. gentleman delivered an able speech at Ottawa, in favour of the union and united feeling of the British American colonies and their connection with the great empire of which they formed a part. On his way home from the house, he was shot dead near his own door. The murderer was arrested. The trial brought out the fact that he was an instrument of the conspirators, and had watched Mr. M'Gee for a long time to find an opportunity of perpetrating the offence with impunity to himself. He was convicted CHAP. XVIII] This circumstance deprived Fenianism of moral weight even among the lowest order of "Irish Canadians,” and excited the horror of all the colonies, and throughout the United States. The ultramontane section of the Irish Roman Catholics at home, the clergy, and the press, made great demonstrations of respect for the memory of the statesman, as they regarded him, and of the man. The circumstance did much to deter working men and peasants in Ireland from joining the confederacy. NEW SOUTH WALES.-ATTEMPT TO ASSASSI- In the course of his visits over the colony the duke consented to join in a picnic at Clontarf, on the 12th of March, organised partly in his own honour, and partly to benefit the funds of a sailors' home. While engaged in conversation with Sir William Manning, a little apart from the governor and the lord chief justice, a person was observed to take deliberate aim at his royal highness with a revolver, and, before the design could be frustrated, fire one barrel. The shot took effect about the middle of the back, an inch or two to the right of the spine. The duke fell forward on his hands and knees, exclaiming, "Good God! my back is broken." Sir William Manning instantly rushed on the assassin, who leaped back a step and aimed the weapon at Sir William. Stooping to evade the shot he lost his balance and fell. The second charge did not explode, and the third entered the ground, the assassin being seized at the moment of firing and his hands pinioned to his sides by Mr. Vial. His royal highness was conveyed to his tent with all gentleness and promptness, as it was evident he was suffering great pain. On examining the wound, it was found that the bullet had traversed the course of the ribs round by the right to the abdomen, and lodged there immediately below the surface. No vital part appeared to have been touched, and there was hope from the first that if the bullet could be extracted any fatal result might be avoided. To the anxious crowds who pressed round the tent the duke sent a message:-"I am not much hurt; I shall be better presently." He never lost consciousness, though he experienced considerable prostration from loss of blood and the shock to his nervous system. At five o'clock his royal highness was placed on a litter and borne by men of the Galatea to the deck of the Morpeth, a solemn silence being preserved by the people, who stood on either side while the cortége passed. The prince, who was lying upon a stretcher with a soft mattress under him, and his head supported by pillows, was lowered into his barge, which was manned by a number of his own sailors. On arriving at the landing-place he was carefully raised out of the boat. neas. 537 address to the people of Ireland. So certain was I of the death of the Duke of Edinburgh, that I stated therein that which I believed would be the fact; and I think I have more than implied that I was but one of an organization to carry the same into effect. I need but say that the truth of the latter portion rests upon a slighter foundation than the former; in fact, that, unless from mere hearsay, I had no foundation for stating that there was a Fenian organisation in New South Wales." After various preliminary investigations O'Farrel was tried on the 26th, found guilty, and executed on the 21st April. The recovery of the prince was so rapid that on the 18th he was pronounced convalescent; on the 24th he walked out and paid a visit to the Galatea, and on the 25th personally interceded with the governor in favour of O'Farrel. Though progressing thus far favourably, it was thought the climate might be against a complete recovery, and his royal highness was therefore ordered He received before leaving home with the Galatea. many evidences of the loyalty of the colonists, and the horror with which they viewed the attempt made upon his life. THE ABYSSINIAN WAR. "Theodorus, King of Ethiopia," a name and style assumed by Dejajmatch Kasai, who, having usurped the throne, become ruler of Abyssinia, was made known to fame and rendered illustrious among his people by having provoked a war with England, in which he lost both his crown and life. An ancient prophecy foretelling that a king of the name of Theodorus would regenerate Abyssinia, restore the Christian faith, and finally become master of the world, induced him to take the sounding title just mentioned. But he was not even content with that; the doughty monarch, with all his other little weaknesses, was sufficiently ignorant to be superstitious, and fanatical to be profane, so he capped his ambitious nomenclature by having a new seal of state engraven with the motto "King of Kings." Dejajmatch Kasai's coronation as King Theodorus took place in the year 1855, when Mr. Plowden, who had been appointed, in the year 1848, British consul in Abyssinia, was in attendance at his court. Mr. Plowden held the appointment of consul until 1860, in which year he was assassinated by a party hostile to the king, by whom he was to all appearances sincerely lamented, and who, to prove the profoundness of his regret, wreaked signal vengeance on his murderers. In the place of the deceased Mr. Plowden, Captain Cameron was appointed, in 1861, consul to Abyssinia; and having forthwith proceeded to that country, presented himself at the capital, Magdala, a fortress crowning a lofty and precipitous height, where he was well received by the king. About the end of October of the same year of his arrival, some unpropitious spirit inspired his majesty with the royal notion of opening a correspondence with Queen Victoria, and he thereupon addressed a letter in the following terms: The moment the assassin was seized a crowd gathered round him, and it was for some time feared that the people would not be dissuaded from inflicting summary vengeance on the spot. As it was, he was cut and "In the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the bruised to an extent which made his removal to Darlinghurst prison a labour of some difficulty. He gave his Holy Ghost, one God in Trinity, chosen by God, King name as Henry James O'Farrel, and plainly avowed of Kings, Theodorus of Ethiopia to her Majesty Victhat his intention was to have murdered his royal high-toria, Queen of England. I hope your Majesty is in It was at first widely reported that he was only one of several Fenian emissaries who had cast lots to take the duke's life; but this was afterwards disowned, and whatever his own political views were, it did not appear that any one beside himself was acquainted with the intended assassination. "I wish," O'Farrel said in his confession, distinctly to assert that there was not a human being in existence who had the slightest idea of the object I had in view when I meditated on-and, through the merciful Providence of God, failed in carrying into effect-the death of the Duke of Edinburgh. I have written to the printers of two Irish periodicals an VOL. IV. 66 good health. By the power of God I am well. My 3 Z |