The New York Herald Newspaper, September 18, 1853, Page 3

: gett, i i HH 3 ge He i Li H filly ip H 3 Hf § f E i te { E i f E orvaments, devices, animais, birds, reptiles, Seances entee bed ‘of's man. ‘This individual tein d as & vag , byt no one can tell who F cr those wrecked at sea, which has proved quit sence. It consiste of a mattress of India hieh is not oaly able to support a weight of = pet pose Hl gail sa ler an “hme. de Bocarme, widow of the Bel marderer who killed hie brother inlaw, M. juies, with nicotine, and was bebeaded for the offence, has been placed under espomage, to her extrava- ant manner of acting with oittdren. It sonears that she was htlesaly ving in great style, instead of living quietly, as she pee oA bave done, after gaining sich a terrible Ceatres are devoid of any interest. The ‘The ra in still abut, and the er, M. uelan, tos taken an associate, M. Paal Mets tects Jam wid, of much capacity, I will conclude this letter by mentioning that I bave been visited by i Couture, the sepowned French artist, who showed me a very shameful letter, published in tne Courier avd Enquirer, of York, and signed by the initials M. D. H Tt appears that these initials are covering the name of a painter from the United States, who, without any cause, bas written a most dis- raceful article against the character aud private ife of an illustrious painter. Not one of tre writer's friends is vble to explain the cause for which he has acted in so cowardly a mancer; and Mr. Couture, who bad given access to all American stadents in Paris to bis studio, has been oblied to take tne de- eision not to receive any one of them for the fatare,. as it is explained in the following letter published in the Journal des Débars of the 31th ult :— Pappresd» qa’un M.D A. peinire Américain, s’est Permie de padlier dane une feuillede New York des atta- by Girigée, BON pas Contre mon talent. qui appartieat ‘on Ie réperation que j’al le droit me voir force, bien qau’a regret, de fermer Aa écicain qut me fersit l’hoa neur de me cemander mes conseils, Cette mesure, qui ne leur @st pas personnelle, m’est dictce par ms juste Busoe, \ibili'é : 4g) éez, monsieur Je Rédacteur, Vexpression de ma hante conricérstion, THoMas COUTURE. In the meantime Mr. Conture has’ sent to the cor- respoudent a letter, in which he assure him, that the next time he meets him in Europe he will give him @ thrashing. BL H.R. LIST OF AMERICANS IN PARIS. R._Ogden Doremas, New Dom. Pratt, Ohio. Yok G@ D. Ditaon, New York, Main M. H. Doremue, ¢o. H, L. Higginson, Boatoa, Mise & M. Dovermus, do. W L King, New York. Mise 8 B.D Doremcs. do. LL. Audenried. Phi\s, Min 8 D Dorermus, do. G Isham New York. Ben P. soulé . P. Tiloridge, Boston. E. J. Jubueon Lexington, Haven. W.H Broze, Baltimore. Dr. M P Piovan La, J L Tey] yr, Onio, J H Jones, Philadelphia, poora <mPe ster, Charles- > J. Prebetr, co. Elias L Simpson, N. York, ©.E Booper co W. Sharp, U. 8. Navy, B Wilson, New Orleans, J.B Creighton. do. 6. Polk ck, Jr., do. D. V. Bernard, U 8, Minis- G Cahen. New York. ter at Be:lia JA. U. Gray, do. T. J. Oceley. Madison, Ind, Miss M.G. Clapman, Bos. N. W Hooker Georg's. ton, 5 J. Hal tead. New York, D B Frackiin, Providence. EP. Tiflla, Obio. B © Thempron, Sew York. W_H. Stevenson, New BR Miltenverger, New Or- York. hans. B Allen, Lexington. Hasnie:B. Siowe, Andover, F G Young, New York, Bass. H. Keve, Now Haven. Rev. Chas. Beecher, Now- Veal. New Jersey. NJ. 3.1 Devan, New York. n Fra |. Kaufman, Lancaster, on. B, F Hoffman, Warren, 0. Q Haskios, New Orleans. E H. Brinley, Connecticut, Giovanni Scoasia. N. York. ‘H. Dyer, Boston. Dr_B Hager. Cnarieston, E D. Long. New York. J. L. Noortmart, Cincin- nati. W_8 Chase, Washiogton, D.C HB, Ridssey, New York. Mr. and Mrs Ly mea, Mass. Elisha Plage, New York, S. J. Kellogg’ Civeinaati. D, New York, ‘W. Bogle. Boston. Jos. T Scott Lexington. Chas. Goodyear and son, New York. W. McMurray, do. ork, . ag iP Doane, Burlington, . W. Buckingham, Zanes- we Ono. Baxah 8 Beecher, do, M K Jessup, New York. ‘A. H Jossup, do Jas Bishop New Jersey. R De Bisnc, New O:leans. F, Lascreovus. do. A. charvet, New O:lesns. . og O. Brinley, Covnegticu’. J. Stark, 8. Kiatey, New Jersey. J. W. Pett, Lexington. J. Lord. Beaton, J. Laliarde, New Oricans, J.J. James, Boston. Misa James, do, Grial and Malo. [From the London Atheneum, Aug. 27 } ) It is eaid, on good authority, that Madame Grisi’s approaching departure for America is equivalent to her retirement from our opera stage. Such an event must not pass without some attempt being made to do justice to a lady who has held longer and more anbroken sway over the English than most musical and than many unmusical—queens have done. ‘Twenty years of supremacy in the same eapital fora dramatic scprano singer, as times go, and as music | stands, constitute a phenomenon of rare occurrence. This command over one andthe same public main- | tained by Madame Grisi has not been so much a ase of authority wielded by genius, as of satisfac- tion excited by’ Baas its exhibited in combina- | tion with those fmpulses f which the many respond * readily, and which the few do not resist. svov meré« H ae Madame Grisi one of the most sumptuously | indsome women that ever trod the stage—not merely did she possess a strong, sonorous, sweet, extensive voice, a legitimate dramatic soprano, Teady at its owner's call, seldom disabled, and capable of conveying almost every emo- tion that its owner pleased to imagine—but her performances displayed an essential fitness | for the theatre, and a Pave of fairl ‘through every par! which she undertook, in conjunc- tion (when the character suited her) with those bursts | of rpontaneous emotion and energy which are more ea than the sublimer and fitter dramatic quali- | ies of a Pasta. If Madame Grisi originated little | uring her career—“‘I Puntani” being the only | ‘opera in which she can be said to have “ created” | @ purt—she executed music in almost every style, ard failed rarely. She has been charged with Jangour and indifference in classical opeta, but this Was mostly confiued to those portions of her task where the dramatic spirit languished. On the other hand, it must be noted that while she was on our sn no other Norma or Lucrezia Borgia than herself had a chance of being looked at or listened % in England—since with all the enormous prestrge of Maile. Lind’s reputation, and the great attrac- , tion of chat lady's musical genius and accom- | phshments, she was totally unable, daring her short | reign, to maintain herself on the ground ozcupied | by her rival, and wisely shrunk back into charac: | ters of the second rank, in which her geculiarities | of voice, originality of style, and simplicity of ex- | et, gave her the advantage. As completiag | is farewell sketch of Madame Grisi, it must be re- | corded, that after studying ond gaining ber sne- | acesses in the slignt and tuneful music of the Ivalian | opera composers, she proved herself able, at that | riod of an artist’s life, when they ger rally con- nt themrelves with going the round of o!d triumphs, ‘to extend her repertory by entering the exhausting domain of grand Freich opera. She must, lastly, be credited throughout her dramatic career wth having shown due respect for hersel by respecting her public. We do not remember a solitary instance ot her presenting herself unprepared and rrect io her music; and the number of apologies, post ponements, &c., &c., to which she has given ¢ a sion, ie small without precedent in the history of the Malian prima donna. Viewed in this light, and the | above combination of qualities rated at their just value, we feel that our chances of seeing a successor Madame Grisi are few or none, and that her place im the history cf opera is amoug the brightest, if not precisely aniong the hig hest, of its stars. le retirement of Signor Mario is, however, a | heevier loss—since, sv far as regards the state of his voice, itis a totally unnecessary measure. With a Tittle more care—with alittle more resy for his obligations as a public servant, (distinct from his obligingness 48 @ private favori we might have looked to him as to the Almaviva, the Don Ottavlo, the Nemorino, the Elvino, the Arturo, and even the Raoul, in “Les Huguenots,” for the next ten years While in the annals of May Pair acd Belgray 0 a, Sige nor Mario will live asthe most fu x singer of remances that ever trod the “velve' if dasa courteous avd courtly recipient o have teen hardly paid to an when ‘the Ladies’ Lame sipo” was done into a | vignette, In the chror 1 of opera he can be ra. corded only 2s poss acherming voice, and be- ing a (of late) passionate actor, but not asa com. ist, and not as even @ respectable muai- We port from hin with regret; but it is a re gretin which vyexation & sires, since we feel that bi heen a case ot power teifed with quibp 8 such BH OL POWE turned Lo good account, THE CASE OF THE HON. CAROLINE NORTON, Interesting Letter from the Poetess, in Reply to her Husband’s Charges. A CLEAR CASE FOR THE NEXT WOMAN'S RIGHTS CONVENTION. To THe Eprron oF THE Lonpon TiMEs. Sir—On Wednesday, the 24th ult., a long letter from Mr. N rton appeared in your columns. I did not expect ever to feel thankful for anything Mr. Norton would say of me; but I do feel most deepl, thankful that he wrote and published that letter. He has now deliberately given to the world, on his own authority and usder his own signature, that histo! which I'had always refrained from giving beson: the circle of my own friends; and he has taas given me an opportunity of refuting slander, of which I shonldooner have availeu myself, but that to do 80 completely I bave been obliged to look ABE mass of papers and correspondence, and I have been too ill since the day I had to shoes in the county court to make the requisite exe! 5 I over the charge brought against me there and iv Mr. Norton’s letter, of extravagance in my ar- rapgements for a home for my sons and myself. The charge comes ill from one who owes me £687, and who does not even depy the debt, but merely says he cannot be compelled to pay it, because, as was stated in court, he is not bound in law, but only “as a man of honor.” 1 pass the Judicrous attempt to fix my fluctuating income at £1,500 a year, by “setting” my literary gains at a permanent £500 annually. Will Mr. Nor- ton and his cownsel pay it, a8 well as “‘set”’ it? Will they insure me health, strength, leisure, and the frame of mind fit for so calm an occupation? Will they state what they think my inzome from literary labor for the present year is reece be, in the tur- moil, distress, and scandal they have brought upon ie? I pass the manifest misstatement of Mr. Norton’s own income, which I could prove by my ma e settle ents, a statement of his former receiver of rents, his own letters, aud my own knowledge, to be nearly double what he asserted it was. ith all that * the world” has nothing to do, and if Mr. Nor- ton bad confined himself to our pecuniary dispute, there would bare been no necessity for public com- int or private sorrow. The sieve I publicly bring against Mr. Norton who has brought so many against me) is a far graver charge than any injustice in pecuniary matters. [ complain that twice in my life he has endeavored, on a false pretence, to rob me of my reputation. In 1836 I bad a quarrel with my husband. Our cause of quarrel was whether [ should or should not take my children to the house ot my brother, who would not receive my husband. I persisted. My husband baffled me by sending my children to the woman who has since left him her property, who threatened to give me into the hauds of the police when I went to claim them, and I le t town alone for my brother’s country seat. Such being our real warrel, 1 charge Mr Norton with contriving that the whole world should believe (as they cid penlevey that my misconduct had oroken up our home, that was an upfaithfol wife, and that my lover was Lord Melbourne. He brought an action agaiast Lord Mel- bourne. TN witnesses for that action were Porette trial to be of the lowest and most degraded c! The chief witness was s dranken, discarded groom, who was then a ragseller in Monmouth street; both he and others were proved to have been sent down to ‘Lord Grantley’s place, and to have received a weekly stipend from his agent while there. The trial was brought in 1836; nevertheless, no evidence was offer- ed after the year 1833; the servants living with us after that time were not called; aie was heard but the witnessing of the ragseller and his compan- fons, who admitted in court that they had received money. In spite of all which strange Ac ranteres, and the fact that a woman is not allowed to defend herelf in these actions, the verdict went against Mr. Norton. In this present year of 1853 1 have a quarrel with my husband. Our quarrel is whether I shall or shall Lot be compelled to cede a portion of my mother’s bequest. I refuse; Mr. Norton insists. I ant count on being certain to obtain a compulsory fulfil- ment of our agreement, which I imagined to be bind- ing. I find myself, on my return to England, with out fands to meet my English ereditors. I stop one action against my at my own expense. I write to Mr. Norton’s own solicitor, in the forlorn hope that Mr. Norton is acting against advice. I come into court against my will, upon subpena,com- elled to 2ppear to prove the debt and agreement. ir. Norton meets me there, in person and by coun- sel, once more to fight his battle against me with cruel treachery, once more te raise the ghost of that departed slander, and to contrive that tne whole world shall believe (as they do believe) that Lord Melbourne was again the subject of our quarrel; that some pledge, stipulation, or promise, was made and broken by me, and that that is Mr. Norton’s excuse for his breach of covenant. I rebut that imputation on Ce os by proved facts; and ae Mocida ab- ea in ne two.columns ofa! of the dead and fiving, Incl luding coarse anecdotes ofthe mother of his grown up sons, which, even if true (which they are not ) he himself dates back to the time when he bed an “ only child’”—that is, twenty years ago. Shall the verdict not once more be against him I was young when this slander was first raised; my children were infants. I was one of a numerous and affectionate family; I had kind friends and a geod cause. I struggled like a drowning eee against disgrace, reached the shore. A ly these miserable affairs were half forgotten by the world; and in Jiterary occupation, devotion to my sons, and the firm friendship of those who knew my real story, I thought to have spent the future of a stormy past. Mr. Norton has not permitted this. Once more he has dragged me into shameful pub- licity; but on his own letter I will rest my justifica- tion, now and forever. f Mr. Norton says he comes forward “asa jogs. trate and administrator of justice,” to prove he fas been just also in his private sffairs. In that ca; city, and with that view, he proceeds to make the followin admissions:—He adm'ts that we did not art on Lord Melbourne’s account, and that before e ever made Lord Melbourve defendant in the ac- tion of 1836, he had already endeavored to establish a case, first against one gentleman, and then—I give Mr. Norton’s own printed words:— shen respecting on or two vihers; but no snfii- ienevises vas found. Then @ negotiation for a geparation wea entered upon. In all that followed he faye he was guided by the advice of Sir W. Follett. Sir W. Follettis deau; but fortunately has left cn record his contradiction of this falsehood, as any one nL ascertain by reference to the Times of Juve 26, 1836, where itis contra: tradicted, on authority, by Messrs. Currie and Wood- gate. I have also a private letter from Sir W. Follett (whom I wrote to to reproach) expressly repudiat- ing the idea of having advised my husband. “I was his counsel,” he says, ‘ not his adviser.” Perhaps nothing can better mark the opinion of the trial of 1836 than the anxiety shown vow their share in i:. Mr. Norton adwits, that after this public trial and these private effurts to establish cases against ‘ one or two others”—‘ It is true that ta 1837 we contem- plated a reunion and that the miserable jest be- tween us was (on account of my having feared to meet him in an empty house as he had proposed), that we adopted in our correspondence the signa- tures of a man and woman, the former of whom hid been hung for luring the latter to his house and there murdering her. He feels that this requires a litue explanation and proceeds to say:— My own conduct I adwit, at that tims was weak and yac lating in the sxtreme. I had lover edness for three cr ‘our years before { married ud after we were united she hed all po ver over me. I was a very young girl at school y ropered forme. 1 was always maltreated by him rom the earliest peried of our marriage. I parted from him in 1833, an@in 1835 as my family can witness, for violence such as is brought before police Mr. Norton | courts ; and I returned to bim on bis own passionate be entresty that I would not him,” and that he * orus ‘went on b * but “ forgive knees to me for yy all parties to disa- | | | | | pardon.,’ 1 was safe out of his power,and my repu- q tion unsullied, when he made this prayer; I re- turned, and months after this letter we wer again and defiuitively parted. That parting was f lowed by the atrempt publicly to disgrace me. ter that public disgrace, he did, a8 he admits, ask me to return to him. But that ia not, as he would have the world believe, his only ‘‘ vaccillating ” attempt at reconciliation. have loved me so tenderly, aod thrown me off so completely, did neither one nor the other. He m treated me while with him, and he bas been t mort constant correspondence with me, and occa sionally a visiter at my house, down to the winterof the year 1860. Would avy o ieve that, two years ter ‘our reunion was rendered impossible,” he #r: Ketter after letter, endeavoring to arrange for our oe together ayain, and speaks of “ shieldin in a husband’s arms;” that, at the time he to, he ig to resist my yetition to th Chance sion of my children; that he then gave his s¢ houor tw Mr. Hardwick, a brother m had not been raising a cand, inst me; tha never ventured to Chancellor; that in his with “your Geordie of former J d happier years?” tat not only then, but in all the years since, 1 ean pro duce lett r lees dly atlectionate fi banking me for serving him 2 3 full of phrases ; many beginuiog “Dear Car v5 3 com J how aa bavedig aroun pally, (for I weary oves these ja My husband, who pretends to | begen in their childhood, and which their manhood fluds woreconciled. My son is pot yet England, nor was he ja Englavd at the time Mr. Norton states | be had those communicetions with him. I utterly | torgh loveleter, mdecd, it ie bigh tie ast [ abowid | “Yours ever’ in letter begs 1 will em- brace the “for absent meas well as for Lat lms cmcaie asia a mm; either he disbelieves these cal ‘ which, nevertheless, he reiterates to my injury whea it suite him, or, ig me to be a bad woman, he withes me to return home? It is, indeed, difficult to choore which alternative shall save his honor ! The admissions he makes respecting the late pro- ceedings in the county court are as ex! as his assertions. No one can read the evidence and not conclude that Mr. Norton broke faith with I broke some stipulation made with from Lerd Melbourne. I was cross examined on this point in amanner impossible to endare, by Mr. Norton’s counsel, who put the question to me five times with little variation; and when, for the fifth time, I had answered, on my oath, that there was no such stipulation, said, sneeringly, “Well, I am bound to take your answer.” Now read Mr. Nor- ton’s admission in his letter to the Times:— She was quite correct in court when she swore that her Ton-rec-ption of theannuity from Lord Melbourne formed 20 part of the conditions uj which that agreement . Inever said it did © * * Itia true, therefore, that the agreement of 1848, to allow £500 s year was Dot conditional upon the relinquisbment of an allowance from Lord Melbourne’s otete. It is not true that I ever said or si d the contrary. * * * The confurion that previ t the trial rendered it impossi ble for me to explain th atter to my counsel and hence arcse that part of cross-exemination which implied that a pledge had been given vefore ths signing of the memorandum. Mr Norton is Maer Ue his choice of legal assist- ance. When I said tt my copyrights had been claimed—the “ benefit of which,” ne says, ‘* she has always allowed me to ona he threw the blame on his solicitor, who had subpoonaed the publishers; and when [ complain of being all but accused of perjury, he says it was the mistake of his counsel, to whom could not explain tHe matter, though he sat by his side, and suggested in an undertone almost every question that was asked me in court. Nevertheless it is certain Mr. Norton did make this assertion, which he now says he did not make. Here is the printed report, as given in the papers:— Mr Norton—The arnuity of £500 eas given by me only on this basis. I would not have given this sum, or one fartnirg, if she bad not given me the most solemn as sursnce that she would not receive one shilling from Lord Melbourne. Mss. Norton—I stand here oa my oath, and I say that ‘that fs tale. The reports may be, and are, in many respects, verbally iuaccurate; but that Mr. Norton le the assertion in court which he now denies having made; that the whole cross examination turned upon it; that all public comment and opinion have turned upon it; that tt stood as his excuse for breaking his cove- nant; that it was at once his answer and his accusa- tion, in reply to any claim upon him, is incontroverti- ble; and I so clearly understood it (as every one else has understood it) to be his answer to the charge of breaking the agreement, that as soon as [ had read over the evidence next morning, I sent a letter to the Times, proving that as Lord Melbourne was not dead at the time the agreement was made, the stipulation could not have existed. Mr. Norton now says he never “‘said or suggested the contrary.” [ was cruel- Jy and ineultingly cross-examined upon it, but that was only on account of counsel knowing nothing of the matter! Now read Mr. Norton’s own account of the drawing up of this dirputed agreement. He ad- mits that, being desirous of borrowing the trust funds cettled on me and my sons in case of my wid- owhood, he found— Tkat the trustees could not lend the trust money with- out the permission of Mrs Norton and myself in wri- ting; avd further, that she would net give her permission vplese I conzent give her an addit.on of £100 to her allowance muking i: £600 iastesd of £4100 I was driven {ato s corner by unexpected discovery, and I had to rubmit to the addition. . What addition? if, as he affirms in the next breath, he knew the agreement ‘‘ was not ee ie and that he could break it at pleasure? And if it could be broken at pleasure, and bound no one, why did we sign it? He himselfestablishesthe reason why; and proves, by his own statement, just given, that, instead of its being an agreement based on the stipulation that I should have no other resources, it was a matter of bargain for his own interest; and so great did he consider the advantage to himself, taat he was wil- ling to give for it (or to seem to give for it) an extra £100 a year for life! In making this app:rent con- cession, however, he says he knew even at the time that it was only apparent. He says that I certainly wished to make it * a binding document, by findiag trustees, but failed to do so, as not one of her rela- tions or friends would become her surety.” 1 beg, on behalf of relatious and friends, to contra- dict this. I signed without sureties, because I re- ceived from Sir F. Themger. (who, at earnest re- quest, consented to see Mr. Norton at bis chambers on this busisess,) a letter dated the 8th of August, 1848, 1m which he stated that Mr. Norton would give me a deed without nie | guarantees. Nor had [ previously named,or thonght of naming, any bat ono member of my family, whom I had not even consult- ed as to his willingness to be mixed up with Mr. Nor. ton’s affairs. Having covenant, breaking it:. I learnt that Mrs. Norton had been left £500 per annum by ber mother, from whom I was not avare that she had aby expectations. I then proposed to ber a reduction of her allowance, which she wouid not accede to, and after the had received her mother’s legaey, and for some tine enjoyed it, 1dia reduceit. * *' * * Tdi, in 1851, upon Mis Norton’s income being increased by £5008 year uvon her mother’s death, while mine was from various causes diminished, propose to reduce it. By bis own admission, then, no stipnlation respec- ting Lord Melbourne was made, and no mention of him was made in Mr. Norton’s letter to me, which letter distinctly states that, my brother’s solicitor hav: ing informed him had my mother’s legacy there- fore he will break the agreement. He does not say, * You bave had money eyes you by Lord Mel bourne’s family, therefore {| stop your allowance.” He says, ‘ You have got a legacy from your mother; share it with me, or | will force you to share it by non-pay ment of what I owe you ;” nor was it “after I hod enjoyed it some time,” but on the contrary, at the exact date of receipt of my mother’s property, that Mr. Norton fultilled his threat ; and as he ex- vresély says he never knew till he saw my baaker’s ook tua: had Lord Melbourne’s bequest, he ad- mite that my mother's ac"wity was his only reason. Now this agreement, about wu.c! 90 much has been said, was based on the single stipuiction. not that I should be richer, but that he should be poorer —poorer by £1,000 a year, being the value of the office to which he was named by Lord Melbourne. My being richer certainly did not make him poorer ; <n the contrary, at ny mother's ceath, the small por- tion 1 derived from my father went to him, and not tome. He gives his own account of my previous conduct in money matters, mo:t plausibly and most falsely— the exact and witnessed truth being, that during the two years 1836 and 1537 1 had not one single farthing from Mr. Norton; that he then employed Sir John Bayley, who had bebn his counsel, t arbitrate as to my allowance and all other matters ; that he wouli not abide by the arbitration ; made what allowance be pleased; and advertised me (to guard hiaself from further liability) in the public papers; being, I believe, the only person of his own tank ia life who éver edopted such a measure. I copy two sentences from a declaration with whith Sir John Bayley has lately furnished me, in contradiction at oace of the whole fabrication respecting my conduct in these matters ;— * 1 was appoleted arbiter ‘iven his account of the making of the ir, Norton thus gives his account of the ‘ator on Mr. Norton’s touelf in the year 137, havirg been counsel for hiea, aad :hus be- came intioatly acquainted with tbe eicsumscances of these dipuies, Mr. Norton pave me et tba’ tims a writ ten prowise to abice by my decision, He broke bis prime, and refuted to bold hunvel? bonad by the pledges given, * * & * Teno-ider Me Norton's corduct to his wife, so fer as it has coma vuder my kovw- ledge and cognizance, to have oven marked with the gross- eat crnelty, injuntice, and iavonsisteacy. It js with oain that T approach that portion of Mr. Noiton’s letter in which be has chosen to make re- ference to our son. I think my sons’ names should have been held sacred in this dveary quarrel, which eeny that I ever made him the channel of 4 false- hood to his father; and I deny that! ever said orim- plied that it was “an insult’ to be supposed to be | aided by Lord Melbourne's famity. 1d'd say (and perhaps others will ree with me) that it was the coarsest of insults when Mr. Norton talked these affairs to my son; that I re d disenss them | with bim; that I denied Mr. » nt to ques- tion me; he having bound himse tly,” in s terfere in rs from the date of the agreement; and Mr. has a Jetter from me, written at that time, thet I consent to Mr. Norton’s proposals— | @ it is intolerable t) me to have my | « over aatters from his futher.” Mr. Norton protested afterwards, either re- gab est from Lord Melbourne, or my mo there's legacy, only proves the trath of my warning to Mr. Leman, t it were pos Mr. Nortou | to find an exeuse for bresking word he would brevk i), a3 be had done to Sir John Bayloy, With respect to Lord Melbourne, three years after | the date Mr. Norton himself assigns to the auectote 8 thonght to pabliat, he writes ¢ who afterwards Veit bir i who bad fnvited him 1 pete Der a civil evense which was enewered by a tho rasotion to a remarh: id for old Dy suffering this port SY ama a igi 8, 1884. 1| The of that letter is Ai do not know if Mr. Norton will jst that it is the remark of a husband. January and io separatia) Mr. Nortn speaks ofthe unparalled Siren eres cman ment of a friend.” I will not. entér into the fabalox maligne are dead, and cannot answer him. Lord Melbourne is no longer here to give his word of | honor that the man he served when firing has stated that which is untrue of his memory; but I can ver: clearly contradict Mr. Norton as to one statement, and I do so to show what credence may be given to others. Becoming apparently uneasy a3 to any re- marks which may be made on the affectation of Took: ing with abhorrence on my acceptance of aid, while he himself receives £1,000 a year from Lord Mel- bourne’s appointment, Mr. Norton asserts as fol- lows : Lord Melbourne promised me the appointment of police magistrate before he visited at rye or before, I dalleve. he even knew Mrs. Norton, And he gives this very plausible reason:— Lor@Eldcn had appointed me Commissioner of Bank- rupts in 1827, and when such appointment was abo'i-hed the construction of the Bankruptcy Oourt, io 1830 or 1831, I considered that I had some claim on the dome Secretary, having received no compensation for the loss of my situation. Both these sentences are directly contrary to the Teal facta. By Mr. Norton’s express wish and desire, I wrote at that time, not only.to Lord Melbourne, but to all those friends I thought might serve us. I wrote to Lord Holland, Lord jowne, the Duke of Devon: abire, and o' , to make interest with Lord Brougham (then Lord Chancellor) to get Mr. Nor- ton a legal appointment. This not appearing pro- bable, we asked for a Commissionership of Excise or Customs. We did not succeed in this second reqnest any more than the first, but when Mr. Wyatt, a po- lice magistrate, died, Lord Melbourne wrote to me to offer the vacant magistracy. On the 18th o April, 1831, Lord Melbourne wrote me word that the Ghancellor had cent his secretary to inquire respecting this matter; and had intimated that he should expect Mr. Norton to resign his Commission- erehip of Bankropts; Lord Melbourne added, ‘This is not so egreeable. but still was to be expectei, and is, perbaps. not unfair in these reforming times, aad I mention it that you may not be surprised when you re. ceive the intelligence, Mr. Norton was disappointed, and demurred; he desired to bold both appointments; [ wrote again to Lord Melbourne to state this, and received in reply the following note:— Hover or Lorps, quartor- past 5. Take my advice and mske Norton write a lice immedi- ately to the Lora Chancellor, giving up nis eocamis-iouer- ebip. What you cannot keep it is always best to give up wish a geod grace. Youre, feithfully, MELBOURNE The statement, therefore, made by Mr. Norton, is entirely fictitious; and if I notice it, it is to ask what reliance can be placed on all the other misstate ents in whic blind wrath, imperfect memory, and utter irresolution have involved him? Mr. Norton calls his published letter a ‘‘vindi ation;” a man of keener moral perceptions would have felt, when he wrote it, a he was not writing his defence, but his confes- ion. From beginning to end it is a tissue of degrading admissions or incorrect assertions, of which the contradiction, I am thankful to say, does not rest on my helpless denial, but on the clearest disprooi. Mr. Norton admits that we did not part on Lord Melbourne’s account in 1836, but that he took then, as he takes now, avy slander he could tind to ia- volve me in undeserved shame and disgrace. He admits that he solicited my return after the trial, in a familiar, ing, and caressing correspondence, even while he repeats as true the gross slanders of seventeen years ago. He admits that be had no stipulation whatever with me about Lord Melbourne on this disputed agreement, and he denies that he ever “said or suggested” that he had any such stipulation, Such are his admissions; I tura to his assertions. Mr. Norton's ene was not given or pro- mised by Lord Melbourne before he Kaew me or visited at our house but, on the contrary, after cor- Trespondence and intimacy; and it was not given as compensation for the loss of his commissionership of bankruptcy; on the eontrary, the Cuancellor in- sisted on controlling his own patronage, and gave notice that Mr. Norton should not be permitted to hold both appointments together. 1 did not put my husbaud to needless torment and expense, by extravagance and actions from my Wadeepaonies on the contrary, he broke his soleao written pledge with his referee, Sir John Bayley, aud advertised me in the newspapers, as Sir John Bayley can prove. Sir W. Follett did not advice the trial, or the mea- sures taken by Mr. Norton; on the contrary, ue pubd- Mely disavowed him 28 soon as the trial wa: over, as the letter of Messrs. Currie and Woodgate is extant to prove. Mr. Norton has not proved by his letter that he has been ‘‘justin his private affairs,” bat, on the contrary, he has proved himsel¢ as cruelly unjust a3 aby man ever was, by meeting a trae claim witha pevien. of libellous a tions, raked up from the past, to slander the living and the dead. Tam content that those accusations snouia ve wabcu at their worth; Mr. Norton’s word has been too recklessly pledged on matters easy of disproof to be trusted where evidence is wanting, and nothing pos- sible bat denial. I say ia t henceforth and forever I rest my justifi n on this published con- feseion of Mr. Norton’s; on ita glaring contradictions in all matters to which it refers; on its strange ad- missions as regards his conduct towards me. Even on the showing of that confused letter, our story stands thus,—that, after bringing a divorce trial, in which he himself so little believed, that be wooee me home ae the next year, he revive: the slander which an Eogiish jury, tne pledged word of the deceased, and hia own recall nad refated, with the bitterest expressions and false accusations, both against his wi'e and his dead patron; that he has done this in the course of defence toa common ac- tion for debt; the simple question being whetber he was or was not bound to Bjovide and set apars fora of tradesmen the sun of £687, the security for such sum being an agreement deawn out ‘ormaliy by a solicitor, at his own urgen’ request, to procare aa arrangement he desired, signed by his own hand, and witnessed 4 two other persons; that he can- not agsert that ho had any stipalation whatever with me respecting Lord Melbourne, my expecta- tions from my mother, or my literary resources, (all three of which he gave as his excuse); neither can he deny that, as the agree ment embraced the contingensy of his becom- ing Lord Grantley, it was intended to be peraa- nent. I complain that the original simple question bas been cunningly lost and covered by the over- whelming scandal of Mr. Norton's false ‘defence. I resent, not his treachery about the broken agree- ment, but bis attempt to raise the lad ghost of a dead slander iG ttiame me. I resisted it with pas- sionate despair, becauee, let a woman struggle as she will, fair fame is blotted and fair name Jost, not by the fact, but the accusation ; and I feel it more ; now even than in 1836, becanse then my children were infants, and it could not grieve them. Those who have commented on the exasperation with which I answered in court would do well to remein- ber that I stood there answering questions on oath which had no possible bearing on the case; well | knowing those questions to be put with the expres view and purpose of defaming me; koowiag th charges implied by those questions to be | knowing (the most despairing knowledge that Mr, Norton knew they were false. put them ; and that, instead of boing prove the debt and agreement, j was c more | being insulted with the echo of the trial of 183%, | with as little just cause for the jisu! It is said, why all this scandal ter of a few hundred pounds? better any than such a struegle. Very true; bu pretty stroggle was underwiken no haman being could have toreseen the falsehood with vbick ft wa to be met, and ont of which this scandal was to grow. Others, judging where none can judge who 00 not know our history, wonder I did not quietly take what Mr. Norton asserts he offered. For that I can only appeal to Sir John Bayley, and to the evi- | dence of Mr. Norton's present conduct. If Mr. Nor- ton would not be bound by his written pledge, given to Sir Jobn Bayley in 1837, nor by the formal doca- ment drawn up by Mr. Leman in Is4s, is it credi- ble that he could be bound by a mere assertion that he would or would not pay such and such sums? Ihave done, There will always be those to whom a slander %s precious, and who van bear to have it refuted. There are also those in whose eyes the accusation of a woman is her condemnation, aud who care little whether the story be false or trae, 0 long as there is or wasa story against her. Bat minds, who will pause and review the ciren Mr. Norton bimself has pubiishe: st the fate of that woman a hard one whom neither the verdict of a jury, nor the solemn denial of a voice fiow the dead, nor toe petition of b reconciliation and oblivion of the pa from a charge always and utterly untrae, I did not deserve the scandal of 1836, and I do not deserve che scandal of 1863. Lord Melbonrae did not tempt me then to break my wedded faith, and his name has net now been the ground of a broken stipula- | tion. On Mr. Norton’s own letter Iam content that | people shonld judge us both. Many friends have wished mo to pass over that letter ia disdainful silence, as refuting itself; and, perhaps, i’ I were happy h to be obscure ai would be my course, But [ haye a position separate nm my worwau’s destiny; Lam known as th will not permit that Mr S non rton’s | the Jonrnats of « Reitatn “i 1 record of my actona, { will,asfaraa I am able, Agicnd 4 mame Whick might paye been oly fayor- ably known, bat which my husband has rendered notorious. ‘The jittle wend of my chance readers moy ony of me, after I am dead and gone, and my struggle over and forgotten—‘ The woman who wrote this book had an unhappy history;”. but the: shall not s9y— The woman who wrote this book ‘was @ profligate and mercenary hypocrite.” Since my one gift of writing gives me friends among strangers, Tappan to opinion of strangers as +e as that i —s come in bade? bounded narrow ® degree, ® chance tha; I be remembered after death, I will not have tay whole life misrepresented. those women who have the true woman’s lot, of being unknown out of the circle of their homes, thank God for that bless- ing; it is a blessing; but for me publicity is no longer @ matter of choice. Defence is possible to me; not silence. And I must remind those who think the right of a husband so indefeasible that a wife ought ratherto submit to the martyrdom of her re- Sag than to be justified at his expense, that I ave refrained. All I state now I might have stated at any time during the past unha, py years; and I never did pub- licly state it till now—now, when I find Mr Norton slandering the mother of his sons by coarse anecdotes, sigued with his name and published by his eee a endeavoring thus to overwhelm me with infamy, for no offence but that of having rashly asserted a claim upon him which was found not to be valid in law, but only binding on him “as a man of honor.” CaroLing Norton. P. 8.—In consequence of a portion of my cross examination, of which the poe was the expense of the education of the giri Jane Boaks, confided to my charge after correspondence with the Rev. J. baslow, of Duke street Chapel, Westminster, aud the Rev. PG. Crofta, of South Malling, Sussex, { append Mr. Croft’s letter, with no other comment than that Mr. Norton was parity aware of all the cir- cumstances, and saw the on one of her journeys to I ndon, at my uncle’s residence in Bolton street, where he came to visit me. ON. MauG HOUSE. NEAR Lewea Aug 23. My Dear MapamM-Io whe distressiug exa ainations which hove lately taken place relstive to your fam'ly Affairs, [have sei! my own n-me mentioned in connec tion with o transaction which I well remember to have taken place jardin consequence of the remarks made vpon it, I feel it But due to youreeifto state vhst I know coucernizg the rad ace dent which deprived Jane Boak (taen an infant of a few te, most kindly offered to take g her up ine mancer befitting her This girl ary seventeen, ard having seen her vut yesterday with ber tiscer, to yours older (whem she came down to visit, as woll a» ber avdmother), I can vouch for your having fuldlled your ind intentions towards her. I will close this letter by ‘nacribing the following lines, taken from a murel tablet in Malling eburch,end remain,dear madam, youroh-dieut, humble servant, P. G, CROF fs, This tablet is placed here by subscription to record an awful instance of the necertainty.of human life. Oo the worving of the 27:h of December, 1836, tae poorhouse of this parish wan destroyed by a mana of an0¥ falling from toe bill above; and the following eight individuals were buried beneath the ruins:—William Geer aged 82; Phoebe Barnden, 45; Mary Ta: 42, Susan Heywood 34; ‘A. Bridgeman, 48; Jane Boak, 25; Joseph Wood, 15; Mary Bridgemen, 11. ‘Theic remains are {aterred on the north side of this church. Fatract from the register of baptiems in the parish of South Malling, inthe county of Sussex :— Baptized January 15h, 1837, Jane, daughter of Hoary and Jane Boaks, of the parish of Firle, iabourer. By P.@ CROFTS, Officiating Minister. ‘The above is # true extract. H. Warurys, P. Curate, American and Russian Diplomacy—President Piece une Euperor aichuvias, and Mr. Buchanan, ¥ «m the London Adverticer, Ang 27} Lord Jeffrey being once asked by an A nerican what the people of England thought of their manner of conducting the war, replied—* The people of Hag- land are ignorant of the fact that we are at war.” ‘Dhings buve greatly altered since 1812. Then, if we threw off an invading expedition more or \ess across the Atlantic, it was a matter of utter indiffe- rence; now a sensation is produced in London by the mere arrival of an American diplomatist. The United States citizens, on their side, seem to be fully. aware of the impress'ou they produce, ayd careful to behave in a manner belittiog their Mew station. They have selected from out the twenty-four mil- lions one individual as the man of all the Union tit- ted for the post of its representative in London, and we refer to the fact as a remarkable instance of the accuracy of public instinct. Who would have sus- pected that the go-ahead, money-making republi- cans should have so completely hit off the characted of England. as to assign as the chief reason for the selection of Mr. Buchana: p post of Minister to Queen Victoria his being well acqaainted with the de- cided and strongly marked characteristics of the Em- peror Nicholas?” It might almost be mppoeed that they were recommending a substitute for Lord Aber- deen, The Hon. James Buchanan is commended for his experience in foreign affairs, as a practical diplo matist formed during his mission to Russia, and of being peculianl Ged. for the management Of thore new and. delicate relations into which the United States are about to enter, by his “ ripe expe- rience in the great questions that agitate foreign nations, ” and his familiarity “ with all the men wno have any ministerial eminence in Europe.” If this be the case—and we doubt it not—then may the United States really congratulate themselves’ upon his nomination ; for the Hon. James Buchanan will thus be able neither to do avy mischief ia London nor in Washington. In ar lon paste will only be une Ression the re; but it ma; someLWug at vio that theie Blvuld bo one Russian the jess. If the United States are to take a new line, they must have new men ; if they are to adopt a policy of their own, they must have men of their own. They want not experience in evil things, but superiority —— peculiarities of his character and had instivuted himself the head Possousing the English tongue, wicks in a certain archaic form, the effect: ES leaders vanished feeling and an im rectly using the Atlantic no longer ase barrier, but a8 @ medium, and of seeking honor of in- duigivg the foto, of Rone and ie im e furtherance of cherished ciples terfe ence in the affairs of Europe. by -. If the eloquence of Kossuth awa‘ened the feelings his reason and engerience suggested the Whatever may be the failings of that remirkable man, in this respect he has made the world ly his debtor. By his speeches, and the lor ven to them, he has uttered to the ear, or presented the eye, of almost every adult in Europe and America two propositions startlingly in contradiction with every received opinion: the first, that the fall of Hungary is not to be attributed to the arms of Aus- triaor Folia, ne ha the ac ot England and “pepe the second, Mavagement of diplomacy sesret means is fatal to the interests of the smaller States, and fatal to ‘the character and liberties of the greater empires— Russia excepted. On tho seed so planted, and the directioa s0 given, the re- cent transactions in the East have fallen like A showers, and thus suddenly a crop has covered with verdure a barren land. The baseness of the great States has been revealed; the contempt of the ree publicans tor kingly goveramente and cae bals in heen ae ther eee Sppeal ed to e exhibition of another A which the Ottoman E apire is to be conepisney be- fore the ferment bad cooled, without the wish having, ad t:me to frame for iteelf a channel to isgue into ace ion, the United States has found itself by theeffair at Smyrna involved practically upon the Hungarian basis, and, in defence of Turkey against the Aus- ‘taian empire, and ipso facto, against the Fy at the same time the gravest question of interna: tional law is raised between them. It ie indeed a remarkable circumstance that thé naturalization of a single Hoogarian should unite, upon the same line, the United States, Hungary and Turkey; but the result was only possible beoause of the utter prostration and prostitution of right in Bu rope, for was there ever such a case as this, that at the moment that Au-tria had committed at. Smyrna an act, we will not say of war but of piracy, quite as flagrant as that of Russia, in the Prath, the powers of Kurope should have associated with Austria in mediating between Russia and Turkey, and made her their mouth piece ¢ This, however, is not all. Austria, by a step of tha most inconceivable infatuation, instead of wagner oa the matter, and knowing the responsibility upon subordinate officers, drags it iuto ail the courts of Ec« rope, commpromiileg. the United States into the necessity of maintaining their act on every 8e] ite field, and encouraging thera to ing policy coramenced under such ‘avorable auspices, alike by the argumer tive weakness of her case, and the revealed powerlessness of her government. We were under a moment’s apprehension lest thé. cabinet of the United States shuuld shrink from ace cepting and adopting the act of her representative at Constaniinople and her naval commander. That act has been adopted by the goveroment; it has been re- ceived with universal enthusia-m by people, aak thus Kossuth, in 1853, has realized the attempt of Russia in 1819 to involve the Union in the affairs of Europe. Can we suppose that Russia has been all the while indifferent to what was going on across the Atlantic? It-we did, the articles in the Times would be suf ficient to satisfy us to the coutrary. Must we not trace the attacks upon the American people, and ea pecially upon Mr. Pierce, to the same source a3 tha denunciations against Denmark, tae menaces le« yelled against its constitution now destroyed, the ef- forts to sow dissensions with France, and to excita France agaiost England, and its whole course in re- ference to Turkey? Those articlee upon the United States are enough to show that Russia was alarmed, at something going on at Washiugton. But if bas here an organ, she has there a representative. We warn the people of the United States that their government is actually in da Let them scruti- nize every word, weig hevery jwan’'s character ; the tempter is on * e ous will be employed as well as fail: vell os arguments. Let them be perie ssuved that they have no man fit to cope with I! -ja’s agent whocver that agent may be, and whoey © they mvy employ. It is repo by Tacitus, thot when Sejuuus wished to entertain Tiberius privately upon some matter, that emperot replied, “ What you have to say put in writing, that thers may see as well us I.” We now announce beforeand, and with the most entire and perfect convictiou, that the issue of this course will be unfortunate for the world and the United States, unless measnses be at once taken ta stop all chamberings in matters of diplomacy—un- lesy, in & word, all communications from the Russian Miukter Ve rejected except those in writing, and that the writings be communicated to some body of men beyoyd those immediately charged with execu- tive functions. Let them be aware that the presen’ disgraceful character belonging to the governments of Europe, bas resulted trom the occalt influence of a cabinet whose plans and whore immorality were alike above and beneath their conception. Ir it be for Russia a vital question to pervert the action of the United States, so m there here also foc them a vital question: for toe one is at stake the prcievt of univer. al dominion; for the otver internal iberty. The means that will be employed by Russia being secret and perfidious, if successful, el im fact and essence the constitution of the Union, sub- stituting secresy and perfidy for publicity and re- sponsibility. Let them not be too confident either im to them; not the habits, but the ignorance of evil practice ; the sense of right, not of diplomacy. M. de Tocqueville, in adariog attemps to ostra- cise the old races and empires of the earth, whether of Europe or of Asia, has delivered the future fates of the universe to two young giants, who, according to lum, are first to grow over their respective hemis- pheres, and then to enter into flerce contest for the palm. Theseare the United States and Russia. ‘This was a far reaching into futurity, and a stepping over of intermediary wars, convulsions, generations, and centuries. Would it not be strange if this strug- gle were realized in another fashion, and in our day; and if the United States, belying the atrocious libel of the French doctrinaire’ should stand forward for the protection of those States and empires sey ar- ally to be swallowed up, according to this hypothesis, by themselves and by their antagonist, even before the struggle could commence? It would, indeed, be strange; but it does not appear improbable, for it resents attractions to the American character which it is ever difficult for it to resist, and, at the same time, an epportunity for retrieving its own self- respect, cenly wounded by the imputations cast upon its public honor by various circumstances of very dubious political int carity. whether in relation to international or to pecuniary traasactions. What we see at present is not an accidental oc- corrence, or a capricious resolye—it isa step in a progress which had a beginning, and which nas an object. The matter has already its history. We are arrived at a point of very great importance in itsel/, and the commencement of a new phase; it is there- fore e-sential to review the mast ia order to be able to anticipate the chances of the future. It was the maxim of the great republiean leaders that the Union should isolate itself trom the Old World, and use the atlantic a3 a protecting ditch; a consequence of this maxim was the endeavor to ex ¢ Burcpean influence from the contineat of Ame- riea—a sentiment expressed ina then familiar ex- pression, “* We mast root out monarchy and masonry trem the New World.” The Spanie/ power in the colonies of the south was verging t) its deciine, din the north Canada was expected to fall to «rn by contract.” Russia was, however, no more idle ia this region than it any other, and the conflict going on in the American nies was then taken advantage of to call into i being, simutaneously in both hemispheres, matic actin, While she urged (in 1819) vance and to eflorts for the reconquest of the colonies, and proposed the scheme which will be fuon? published inthe British ‘State papers” of _ that year for the establishment of Bourbon dyaasties in those Transatlantic States; she was suggesting at Washington the adoption of a general pretectorate of American republicanism, with a view to which were undertaken the conferences of Tacubaya—ia fuct she prepared a European cun ederacy for the reconquest-of the colonies, and a trans-atla con- federavy for their p jon—of both of which she ring, and of both of which she would have ‘The project, however, was . who detected her parpose, the independence of these her means @ at that sprung np between the cabinets of St. Peters- burg and Wash lance publicly re- vealed and gloried t ident, in his mes- eae following on the deat he peror Alex- an We pass over intermod States were ovcnpicdin ¢ tplyiog their peopl ships and cities, truftliciog aud mokiag | wealth, which they w d to enjoy, pr to reine, turned their ti feelings to the older nat ghouls as tourists to spr from Naples to Lapla phorus. Still, it was » ciated themselves with ment was stil! id bronght shem in clves over E Cadiz. to the vale that the pe, Sos. 30 | triumphantly from the treatre. their acuteness or in their remoteness. erate seen what has befallen an aucient and a lofty mo- narchy, a great anda powerful republic. Distance is no protection against an invasion of the spirit and. an infection of the mind; nor can tne United States escape the fate of a avd of France, except by Fates against the now revealed secret of their ecline. Foreign Theatricats. The Spanish dancer, Pepita di Oliva, is creating % furore in Vienna almost equal to that which wag Taised by Ellsler, when it wus the custom to taka out the horses of her carringe, and drag her homa b It does not appear that this favorite so greatly excels in her ar but the is represented to be'a must beautiful woman, perfect in figure and face, and 1s so lavish of fascina- tivg action and abandonne in the Spanish dances that she foirly takes the sensitive hearts of the Vienna public by storm. The Vienna Court opera receives the yearly su: of £20,000 from the governmevt; with cs wane it is net wonderful that a good national oj is maintained in this capital. It is said that in musical Germany there is not one theatre self-supporting. The attempt to put down the claque in the French theatres bas been abandoned— the performers being unable to do without applause, and the public being unwilling, because unaccustomed, to ae it. The King of Bavaria has presented the drama\ writer, Grillparez, of Vienna, with the order knighshood, a regal manner of rewardiog the merit of this clever writer. Thalberg, not dispirited with the little suoces{ which attended his frat opera, is composing two, which are to be brought out in Paris and early next year. The direction of the Grand Concerts of the Ge- wandhans, at Leipzic, presided over by Mendelssohiz up to the time of his death, has been offered ta Mr. Sterndale Benzett. These concerts are consid- ered the most famous in Germany. Mr. G. Melville, the talented tragedian of the Bristol corps dvamatique, bas nrg his ex- traordinary feat of reciting the whole tragedy of “Hamlet” from memory, at the Broad, omg Srnrovs AccipENT IN BostToN—OnE MAN I~ stantLy KitLep AND Two Bapiy Ixsorep.—Thia morning a serious accident occurred at the cornet ot Milk and Liberty streets, the site of the old Wash« ington Coffee House, where the foundations ot a new building are being laid. As workmen were eocaged in hoisting a heavy granite stone, the iron riog ta which the rope holding up the derrick was atta: suddenly broke. The boom of the derrick fell the back of Mr. Dexter Peabody, a stone masvn, at work drilling a stone, breaking it in several places, end kiling him almost nstantly. He lived at tha corner of Suffolk and Chapman streets, was about forty-five years of age, ana leaves a wifeand twa children.” Two Irishmen were Slso Lo etic hort, one so badly that he was taken to the hospital, but he will probably recover. Coroner Sav%orn wad called to hold an inquest on the body of the does, ed. The derrisk had been used but a rhort time and the accident probably resulted from a flaw ia the iron.— Boston Traveller, Sept. 1s 7 Domestic Miscellany, On the 14th inst at Troy the tro trusses which had been put up at tbe Union Railroad depot, wendous cra h, while the men were at work upon them, and carried down two of the workmen with them. Henry Meulen was #0 ceriovsly injured that he survived but aboutan hour. L. P Prince was also hars #0 bedly that hie recovery it cov sidered doudtful. Aman by the vame of J, M. Marks, a stonsentter, wor billed at Memphis on the Oth at house of ifame, by Meredith Yates, Yates surrendered himself. Three negro men, convicted a short time sinos by tha chanty court of Sne-ex, Va, of the murder of Mr Hsnry lf ‘ ds0ng’A £00, executed at the oo eo atiowps to murder Me, 3. were » house of that couaty on the 0.h instant. The millers engaged in the floaring mifll at Greentela Wille M4., ere ¢ e biguer wages. Che 1 ala employ Kir g ft appearenoey them, wed tt net wT the vist to their shoes a6 wa Cale bad & supplied, via make Wag, by | a