The Brecon Reporter and South Wales General Advertiser

PAKLIAMETfTAM JOTTINGS. j of the great events of the closing Session the opposition in the House of Lords to the Catholic Oaths Bill. The second reading 0 aa brought forward by the Earl of Devon, and le whole House was crowded, the Episcopal | Riches were filled, and many lay peers who mate an appearance were also present, e orders to the Strangers' Gallery were pro- llsed long before the day, and on the evening in 1J.estion not a seat was to be obtained. The s j^se of this sensation was the notification Earl Derby was to make a speech 0 %>n the subject. The public love good ? '^tory, even though they may be of a con- opiiron to the speaker, and in the House Lords the leader of the Opposition is accorded c, pal ai in this art. His lordship moved that the in r*be read a second time that day three months Ú Wto epitomise his speech, said, "it was neither e ii,)r expedient to subvert one of the leading f Reifies of the Reman Catholic Emancipation ek> Wiich had been accepted as a full and satis- ^torr arrangement of all difficulties. He con- 0 ^erel the present moment to have been inju- y ^iotely chosen for raising the question, as the id h?n^y on the eve of a general election. he asked, were the petitions in favour of eS 5i]j an(j who were they who complained of v 'Pprssion and desired to be set free? Where el'Ethe Roundells, the Howards, the Stourtons, ÍJI )he lalbots, the Petres, the Cliffords, and others frho in times gone by, had made sacrifices for religious opinions ? Not one of them was 9j. Parliament now, and the reason was that "*<5 were content with the present position of tit no substantial grievance to complain off 1f. That portion of the oath which declared that ?Ji ^person taking it did so without equivocation )i> toaental reservation, and that also which related a! re settlement of property, he had no objection <fi reeP awaJ > f°r a man who was prepared to take w wathwitih a mental reservation would be equally J*iy to break it however he might be fenced round c, jjb additional oaths. He maintained that the 'I1 was a real protection to the Church, Ile its repeal would be a serious blow 'te Church, by leading to the impression that Miament was no longer ia favour of maintaining j.' In the course of the discussion in the Lower s, an M.P. said that the object of the bill was lfl i ^muzzle the senators," But to H unmuzzle" 61 tru. for what P Clearly that they might do the 1,4 |j y thing which it was desired to prevent them. v them because they were harmless ? No, v because they waited to bite (laughter). The I V fact that they ware asked to repeal this oath it a ground showed the necessity of retaining k readers know the result, viz., that the bill ■* Vac, ^rown out by a majority of twenty-one. It | that if the Opposition refused this bill, it foak lna^e them much more unpopular with the jjw~division than they were formerly,but I have <\&° hard words uttered since Lord Derby's 3 •. It has been thought that his lordship was kis tone than formerly; he made no per- t attack such as he occasionally indulges in, lp i toke with a sincerity that led persons to be- QeJ!M that he was uttering the sentiments of his Tli JT have been some very sharp debates upon 'ie iJQeds scandal case,- but I shall only notice 3e speech made by Mr. Longfield, an Irish bar- Nter, and one who has creditably distinguished lttlllgelf in the Irish Encumbered Estates Court. \^as stated that Mr. Longfield managed find into the committee-room, when the inves- was going on in Lord Westbury's case, tore l'd the evidence brought forward. There- to i^hen the report was laid upon the table of .^otise, be was enabled to epitomise the con- ftia r atl<^ ma^e out a very flagrant ease against Lord Chancellor, whose conduct he stigma- a remarkable manner. His speech was 6 a very skilful piece of special pleading, and severe were his remarks; all the points of kj^dvergary were pitilessly laid bare, and all ia his favour skilfully concealed. In his v^Ber of addressing the House Mr. Longfield St!? said to be an imitator of his countryman, X Whiteside; but he wants the lightning force 1L d sledge-hammer power of the ex-Irish Attorney- ^al, and his decided provincial accent gives i^tness rather than eleganee to his elocution. however, a gentleman of considerable and never speaks without commanding Mention of the House. Nevertheless there It u. eculiarity in his bringing this question be- ON the House so prematurely, because the report t d for the first time on the table would, in a I hours, be printed and put in the hands of ^,ry*iaember of Parliament, when-each would be iWi6 judge of the condiict of the Lord Chan- |i. 0¥fpora ^st evidence that could be afforded *he Attorney-Q-eneral took this view of the v e> and his usually quiet and even tone of voice Raised to a higher pitch than I ever heard him jo He complained that no notice had been K of this intended attack, and said that it was ^ir to bring accusations against any man, more the Lord Chancellor, before the House of the evidence which WOHM e It to judge of their truth. The speech of W ,J|ongfie^' 8a^' was like that of a barrister aiftiug at the bar or oif an Old Bailey lawyer." "oh, oh's followed this expression, but the generally cheered. Of late years the cases L e -been very few when Lord Palmerston has j<wj excited during a ^debate; he generally; i,3ly banters his opponents, and, with, a soothing 8-n<3. manner, lessens his opponents' views and 'tg his own. I remember, however, some years I I,D G .ftt tbe time when he was ejected from. effice ;'a:J "ie Conspiracy to Murder Bill, that with loud '.kjrto °fty words he hurled, as it were, defiance at v ersaries. The attack upon the Lord Chaa- 0Ji Tuesday appeared to rouse all the old and he was as gallantly and as fiercely fant against Mr. Longfield as he had ever against those who questioned him about his j^eMing -under to French menaces. This time Spirit of the House went with him, for, after members of the British Parliament like fair and it was not the spirit of fair play to forward an accusation before anyone was ared with the means of defence. Thus the thought, and when the noble lord resumed "ee,t loud cheers greeted him on all sides. J .!£ tny readers have not read the report alluded kf. the Edmunds' scandal case, they should do gj'I think there would be few who, after fully jesting these letters of the Lord Chancellor in tjj 6re;ttce to the conduct his son, particularly in which he expresses su.eh mental agony, > a desire to do his duty, would not exclaim that lordship has been sinned against though sin- i I1g. IJ Palmerston spoke again the same evening lie, scandal case was introduced, and although I but few words they were weighty. He tile 2U:nced that the House would be dissolved on r1 °f July. At this there was a general burst of 4e\}G v11?. Like schoolboys the members appeared j 3- ted at the prospect of a holiday. There was "rush to the door, the 'House became ^y degrees, and beautifully less," until in of two minutes only four members re- ~~one of them being the Premier and Mio ^r* Sheridan, the member for Dudley, # SnpQi^3 bis legs—but the attention of the Vai being called to the empty benches, the "less was suspended at an early hour. It would be tedious to go through, the lengthened debate on Monday, when what may be termed a vote of censure was passed in the House of Com- mons against the Lord (Chancellor. Lord Palmer- ston, fearing such an event, wished to adjourn the debate, but Mr. Disraeli and the Opposition pressed the division. Sir George Grey tried to back his chief in the matter of the adjournment, but he was met with a fearful monotone expres- sive of disapproval; and the debate ended, as my readers are aware, with a majority of fourteen against the Government. The subject of my next communication will be the closing scene of the Session of 1865, and the ceremony of the dissolution. During the elections I intend to give you some of the squibs which are circulated so freely in London at the present moment. Some are witty, others are personal, but none are coarse or vulgar as was formerly the case. The following, issued against the Conser- vatives by a supposed West-end club, is amusing. It is set forward as a prospectus of a Joint Stock Company, to be called— "The British Government" (Limited); incorpo- rated pursuant to "Magna Charta," "the Catholic Emancipation Act," and "the last Reform Bill." Capital, £ 500,000,000 in Y,25,000,000 shares of 420 each, none of which are yet applied for. It names the directors, Derby, Disraeli, Malmesbury, Walpole, and Pakington. The company is formed for the purpose of purchasing the valuable business of Mr. John Ball, merchant. The directors believe that Messrs. Ball and Co. are dissatisfied with their present managers— Palmerston, Russell, and Gladstone-and tha.t Mr. Ball, sen., has made such arrangements as will enable him to hand over his business to this company in November next, and it is considered that the whole of the valuable machinery can be in good working order by the following i ebruary." 0

A HUSBAND'S LIABILITIES. Another Phase in the Chetwynd Divorce Case. In the Comrt of Queen's Bench, before Lord Chief Justice Cockburn and a special jury, the case of Morgan and another v. Chetwynd was introduced. Mr. Karslake, Q.C., and Mr. Oppenheim were counsel for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Edward James, Q.C., and Mr. Griffits for the defendant. The plaintiffs were habit makers at Ryde, in the Isle of Wight, and the defendant was a gentleman of for- tune, who lived at Longdon-hall, in Staffordshire. The plaintiffs brought this action to recover X24 13s. lid., for goods which had been supplied to Mrs. Chetwynd previous to the proceedings which had taken place in the Divorce Goart, and which had resulted in Mr. and Mrs. Chetwynd feeing divorced. The parties had been married in 1854, and they resided together as man and wife until after these goods were supplied. It would appear that in .1862 Mi's. Chetwynd was on a visit to the Rev. Mr. and Mrs. Knight, of the Grammar School, at LicheSeld, but then being at Ryde some of the goods were supplied while Airs. Chetwynd was at Ryde, and others were seat to her at Longdon-hall. The plaintiffs had brought out an article which the ladies had taken a fancy to, namely a serge riding habit, and Mrs. Chetwynd had been pleased with it, and had one. About Christmas, 1863, Mrs. Chetwynd left her husband, and the plaintiffs sent in their account to the defendant, who recommended them to apply to Mr. Nicholson, who was an attorney in Spring-gardens, and added that they were not again to give credit to Mrs. Chetwynd, as he would not be answerable for her debts. The plaintiffs, in conse- quence, made an application to Mr. Nicholson, but they did not obtain any reply to their letter. They wrote on the 4th of March to the defendant, requesting a remittance by return of post. As, however, no answer wAs given to that letter, the plaintiffs put the matter into the hands of Messrs. Simpson and Co-, their attorneys. The defendant was then formally applied to by Messrs. Simpson, and they were re- ferredto Mrs. Chetwynd. The defendant wrote to them on the 24th March, saying he must reply to them as he had to others, that he was unable to pay Mrs. Chetwynd's extravagant debts, and that arrangements were in progress for the liquidation of all proper debts. He complained of tradesmen giving credit to married ladies who resided at a distance without the knowledge of their husbands. He did not himself owe X5, and it was galling tÐ have to pay his wife's debts. The defendant subsequently said if legal proceedings were delayed the amount should be paid. As the money, however, was not paid the present action was brought, and the defendant pleaded that he was never indebted. Proof was given to the supply of the articles. Mrs. Chetwynd was called. She said: I was married to the defendant in 1854. We lived at Longdown Hall. I had horses for riding, and I constantly rode and drove. I saw one of these serge gowns at Mrs. Knight's in 1862, and I asked her to order some for me, and they were sent to Mrs. Knight's for me, and sent by her to me. Mr. Chetwynd opened the parcel on its arrival. The plaintiffs' address was on a label in the parcel. The defendant admired the material, and said I was going to be very smart that winter. In July, 1863,1 accompanied Mr. and Mrs. Knight to Ryde. My maid ordered a riding suit of the plaintiffs for me which was supplied, and the other articles were forwarded to me at Longdon-hall. They were received by the defendant while I was at Brighton with the children. About the commencement of 1864 I left my husband's house, and went to Mr. Nichol- son's, who is an attorney living in Spring-gardens, and who is well-known to the defendant. I have never returned to my husband, and our marriage has been dissolved in consequence of the improper conduct of the defendant. I Gross-examined: Mr. Nicholson had been consulted by me before these goods were supplied. From the time of my marriage I had a separate banking ac- oount. My pass-book was kept by the defendant. I used to draw upon my bankers up to the year 1862. I had the interest of Xo,000, which had been left me by my mother. I am not aware that X6,000 was settled on me on my marriage. I received £ 3,000. I gave < £ 500 of it to Mr. Chetwynd on the day of our marriage—to pay off a bond. My cheques were honoured without the signature of the defendant. I spent the remainder before 1864. el,500, part of the other £ 3,000, was invested in land which was occupied; by the .defendant, and for which he did not ay any rent, and he made me give the interest he re- maining 41.,500 for the purpose of draining and im- i proving the land. I cannot state the amount of my debts, but I have a copy of them. They do not amount; to so much ;as the defendant stated in the Divorce' Court. I do not owe < £ 3,000. Two prior actions have! been brought, but lvrag not a witness, and it is very unpleasant for me to say anything against the de- fendant. I may have had three other habits from other tradesmen in July, 1864. I had ordered some things of Mr. Balwer, hosier, for another person, whose ¡name I decline to mention. A seal-skin, charged 38, was not for me, and I never had it in my posses- *ony -Mr. Chetwynd has possession of all my clothes, and I can hardly .remember what they are. I decline to say for whom these things were ordered, for I am not bound to bring ether persons' names into court on disagreeable matters, and .because it would please ] others. Some of the goods now sued for are still at I,ongaon-hall. J. believe Mr. Dimsdale's account for .X loo to be incorreot. There is a bill due to Madame La Jeuve, but J. nave reason to doubt this being a copy of it. I am obliged to be particular because false lists and accounts have been handed to me. I don't think Madame Le Jeuve would falsify anything. I had a winter riding habit m October, 1862; nine guineas are oharged. for it. Dr. Kenealy can tell better than I what clothes I left behind, because he saw them after I left Longdown-hall. The defendant has blamed me for extravagance, and shortly before I left him I paid some of the bills; they were made out in my name. The defendant had requested that the bills should be made out in my name, because he was annoyed on opening parcels which were not for him. I cannot tell the amount of the plaintiff s claim. I am afraid I do not keep very accurate accounts. Ee-examined: Some of the things were for the ohil- dren. My habits were frequently torn. I gave orders for more than one habit at a time because I seldom came to town. The defendant appropriated horses for my use. I bought some with my own money. The defendant knew of it.. By the Lord Chief Justice: Did you or your husband pay for the horses you purch,,el ?-Witness: I did on one or two occasions. I have been anxious to pre- vent disagreeables, but the one list I have seen is a false one. The defendant was angry when my parcels came addressed to him. The defendant occasionally gpt out 0£ temper. It was my desire to have matters settled amicably, bat without anooesa. The defendant saw me wear the dresses. The defendant has not made me any allowance, although I have asked him, as I had none of my own. I have had no private in- come since 1862. I sold my horses for £100 when I left defendant. I did not take my wardrobe with me, because I expected to return. Mrs. Knight cannot attend, as she is ill. My husband did not often give me money, and did not pay any in to my banking account. The defendant did not exoress displeasure on the receipt of plaintiff's goods. It ^vas submitted that there was no evidence of the wife's agency; authority was not given to pledge his creait. The Lord Chief Justice said he would give leave to move upon that point. Mr. Jame;" in addressing the jury for thetdo Fenda-it, said t ey had nothing to do with any notoriety the defendant had framed in another place. The question wa.s, whether Mrs. Chetwynd had authority to pledge her husband's credit to any extent she pleased. She had incurred "liabilities to the extent of £ 3.000. She was a lady of expensive habits. The defendant was justified in expecting that his wife was only ordering things on her own account; he had expostulated with her on her extravagance, It was a wife's duty not to run into debt. Mr. W. H. Chetwynd was examined: My income is under £1,200 a year. I always paid the expenses of our married establishment. I did not make my wife an allowance, because she had a private income. Her debts were the cause of out quarrels. In 1860 I found my wife was getting into debt, and I told her I could not be accountable for her debts, and I threatened to advertise her in the newspapers. A great manv claims were made upon me after she left me. I don't know that I ever saw my wife in a serge dress. Naver said she was going to be very smart. I knew nothing of the plain- tiff's claim. Ou one occasion I had £ 500 from my wife for a particular purpose. I have given her money as she required it. Shd had plenty of dresses when she went to Ryde. I have net repaid her the £ 500. she has not asked for it. Cross-examined: I gave notice in the newspapers that I would not be answerable for my wife's debts in May, 1864. I had no idea of the divorce proceedings until I was served with notice. By Mr. Karslake: In 1864, did you take back a female servant who had previously lived with you? Witness What has that to do with this case ? The Chief Justice did not think it referred to this case. I visited the best society in Staffordshire. Loagdon- hall belongs to me for life. I don't recollect stating in the Divorce Court that my income was only X500 a year. Evidence was given to show that other tradesmen were supplying Mrs. Chetwynd with goods at the time she was having goods of the plaintiff. The Lord Chief Justice, in summing u.p, observed that it was for the jury to consider whether the articles, and prices charged for them, were fit for a lady living at Longdon-hall, maintaining an appearaace of opulence, going hunting- and mixing in the bast society in Staffordshire, and the wife of the defen- dant. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs for the full amount claimed.

THE GREAT HANDEL FESTIVAL. It is not easy to clothe with expression the fresh ideas and tumultuous emotions awakened by the stu- pendous musical events which have so recently oc- curred. So rapidly has triumph followed triumph, and success followed success, that at the Crystal Palace the worshippers of the "father of music" have been intoxicated with raptare and carried away by enthusiasm. Surprise of a. most vivid kind has been a prevailing sentiment throughout the last week. English people generally pride themselves upon an in. timate acquaintance with the werks of their favourite composer. How genera!, then, must have been the feeling of consternation, no less than of humiliation, called forth by the porformauces of which we are now writing. The Handel Festival of 1865, by presenting to as cur much-prized oratorios under an entirely new aspect, has indeed made us aware of our ignorance, and has shown us how much we have still to learn of him whose na.meand whose works are very household words among us. The task of the critic becomes, under these conditions, unusually difficult. So'much has already been said and written of Handel, that the catalogue of laudatory phrases is quite exhausted. Handel's music may be compared not inaptly to a noble gem,which, though cut a.nd polished, is still valued solely for its inmate worth, greatlyenhanced though its beauty may be by the skill of a clever workman. Unlike the composers of a later period, Handel produces all his astounding effects by the employment of the most ordinary harmonies. He at times takes pleasure in writing what is called 'descriptive" music, one of the best known examples of which style is, perhaps, the orchestral accompaniment to the air from Israel "Their land brought forth frogs." Another example of a different nature, bat infinitely more beautiful, is to be found in the deliciously undulating symphonies of the sweet song from "Jephtha," "Waft her angels." But it is in gigantic conception and massive simplicity that the composer's peculiar excellence is exhibited. It is high time, however, to quit gene- ralities and to proceed with the matter immediately before us. Monday, the first day of the festival, was devoted totheperforIDance of Handel's greatest work, The Messiah, than which surely no more fitting commencement could be found for so imposing a cere- monial. It is but right that the grandest musical demonstration the world has ever witnessed should be prefaced by the, grandest and most sablime music ever written. But what can be said anew of his noble work, every bar of which has been com- mented and re-commented upon by musicians of every degree since its first production, nearly 120 years ago ? To again call attention to the innumerable beauties of the Messiah would be to waste both time and space. To criticise afresh music which has been the idol of all true lovers of their art for nearly a century and a quarter is simply impertinence. Of Monday's performance and performers something, however, may be written. From beginning to end of the conceit a marked improvement upon the public rehearsal wa3 discernible. The huge body of tone was more per- fectly blended, the fugues more distinct, and the tringed instruments more sonorous than on the previous occasion. MdUe. Adelina Patti achieved a great success in the lovely air "Rejoice greatly," the florid she sang with the perfect fluency, the fexact precision, and the faultless intona- tion by which she -is distinguished. Had she taken the tempo -with a.little mora deliberation, her rendering of theair would have been absolutely faultless. An equal triumph was achieved by her in her only remaining song, "I know that my Redeemer liveth," which has seldom been so charmingly interpreted. It would not be possible for the most talented preacher to express by words so quiet and calm a, confidence of salvation as Handel has infused into this simple song; nor can any who weremot present on Monday picture to them- selves the combination of child-like simplicity and religious fervour with which it was rendered by Mdlle. Patti. The singing of the two airs, "He shall feed his flock," and" Come unto me," by Mesdames Sher- rington and Sainton-Dolby, must not be allowed to pass unnoticed. Mr. Sims Reeves also delivered the famous "Thou shalt break them," with all his wonted energy. Mr. Santley's singing of the furious bass song, Why do the nations," was superb; and his majestic reading of the solemn air, "The trumpet sound," was impressive in the extreme. The choruses were more than usually effective, the jubilant "For unto us a child is born"—at the commencement of which Mr. Costa substituted for his customary pianissimo the mezzo-forte written, 'and therefore intended, by the composer -being honoured with the only encore of the day. The noble "RaHelujah," and the concluding chorus, "Worthy is the Lamb"—the latter so seldom listened to by a London audience—were also splendidly performed. The number of visitors on the first day amounted to upwards of 13.000. The second day's performance commenced on Wed- nesday, with a selection from the too little known oratorio Saul. The opening chorus, How excellent thy name, 0 Lord," was magnificently given and much applauded. Solos for Madame Parepa and Mr. Santley were also introduced, as was the semi-chorus, Wel- eorae, weleome, mighty King," to the quaint accom- pamment of which, by string pizzierito and carillon, alluBion has been made. The principal feature of the selection from the oratorio was. however, undoubtedly, the intensely dramatic chorus,. Envy, eldest born of i Hell, in which several voice parts, after separately denouncing the vice in passages of immense; power, at length unite in one general commination, almost .appalling from its force and vigour. This chorus was instantly re-demanded, as was the succeeding l^ead March," which must ever remain nn-rf- vailed for simple solemnity. Prom Samson Mr. bantley gave the touching air, How willing my paternal love," a delicious song, charmingly j3, ttfollowed with the song ot the day, Let the bright Seraphim," in which, with the co-operation of Mr. Harper, she created an abso- lute furore. Many, accustomed to school themselves against emotion of any nature whatever, must have a thrili of enthsiasm rush through them. The song was naturally encored with enthusiasm, and at Mr-?osfc\wisely hurrying on to the immediately succeeding chorus, "Let their celestial eoi.cer„s all unite, ere the applause could burst forth a second time. To the Samson selection succeeded tZ° 8?ag.3 from Acts and Galatea, Love in her eyes sits Playing, dahciously gang by Mr. Sims Reeves, and the blustering recitative, "I rage, I burn with its pendant^ "gigantic" love song, "Oh ruddier than the cherry, the conclusion of whieh was a signal for such an uproar of applause as had not been heard throughout the festival. Mr. Santley at once repeated the song, concluding, as before with a magnificent high G, and the tumult was Sop- peased. The performance of this day was brought to an end by a selection from Judas. Trivial and unin- teresting as are the songs generally in this oratorio, we were somewhat surprised to see no fewer than three among the pieces chosen to represent the work j on this occasion. One of these, the warlike Sound an alarm," which is so thoroughly identified with Mr. Sims Reeves, could not, of course, have been omitted. For the remaining two, however, Pious orgies and "From mighty kings," charmingly snng though the latter was by Mademoiselle Patti, we think the fine chorus, Fall n is the foe," or the surpassingly-grand choral prayer "Hear us, O Lord," might have been substituted with advantage. We must not omit to mention ttat the Judas selection was preceded by the delicious Nightingale Chorus from Solomon, May no rash intruder." This exquisite composition, intro- duced most probably for the purpose of sho ving how thorough and complete a pianissimo Mr. Costa could command from his four thousand, was even better per- formed than in 1862, and was immediately re-de- manded. The noble anthem, "Zadok the Priest." composed for the coronation of King George II., was now for the first time given upon so colossal a scale. At the resolution from triple into common time of the second movement, on the words God save the Kiag,, the effect produced upon the hearers was irresistible, A large portion of the audience instantly rose, and re- maiaed standing until the conclusion of the anthem. Nothing finer or grander in its utter simplicity has been heard throughout the festival. The concert con- cluded with the splendid We laeyer will bow down," and the popula.r See the conquering hero," of which surely nothing need bs said anew. The audience on this day numbered 15,000. Friday, the third and last day, was devoted to Israel in Egypt. By many this oratorio is preferred to the Messiah, on account of the immensity of its choral music, the numerous choruses being unsur- passed for sublimity of conception and warmth of colouring. The first chorus, "Now there arose a new king," was remarkably well rendered. Despite a slight hesitation at its commencement the famons Hailstone chorus was rapturously received, and, a| ii.was repeated. The mysterious effect of the following ehorua, Ha sent a thick darkness," was greatly enhanced by the deep gloom which unex- pectedly overspread the sky, producisg a feeling akin f(°»e the huge assembly. The majestic chorus, Moses and the children of Israel," with its accom- panying brilliant fugue, "I will siag unto the Lord," were very well sung. A special charm was given to «TI.T foi" Mesdames Sherrington and Radersdorf, The Lord is my. strength," by the organ accom- paniment maintained throughout. The bass duet for Mr. Santley and Dr. Sehmid, The Lordis a man of war," was, as indeed, it always is, encored. By his singing on Friday Dr. Sehmid confirmed the impression we formed at the general rehearsal last week, that his style of singing is not adapted for oratorio, and that his voice is not sufficiently sonorous for a building so large as the Crystal Palace. Let us hope that before he again appears on so important an occasion he will have improved. The only remaining encores of the day were, "Thou didst blow," for Mdlle. Patti, and The enemy said," for Mr. Sims Reeves. So ended the grandest musical feast the world has probably ever witnessed. Of the pecuniary results we are as yet unable to speak with certainty—it is said they are about .26,000, but we understand that those in office are beginning to consider whether the profit, larg3 though it may appear, is worthy the enormous labour msurred in organising these festivals.

ATTEMPTED MURDER AND SUICIDE. On Wednesday, shortly before ten o'clock, a de- t or rained attempt at murder, followed by the saioide of the assassin, took place in the Trodegar-road, leading from the Old Ford station of the Great Eastern Rail- way to the Fairfield-road. Thomas Robinson, a rigger, about thirty-eight veara of age, accosted a man named Charles Lewis, a Thames waterman, who was at the time walking with his (Robinson a) wife, who, it appears, had been separated some time from her husband. Robinson went up to his wife and asked her to return to him and his two children at their home. She replied that she would not live with him any more, that he had threatened to murder her, and that she did not feel safe in his company, adding that he had not the children now. He continued to urge upon the woman to go home with him, and the altercation became more and more violent. Near St. Stephen's Church the woman called out that Robinson had a pistol in his hand, and her companion instantly closed with him, and with the assistance of a man named oovin, who was passing1, the pistol was, after some struggling, taken from him. Robinson then put his hand into his coat-pocket, and pulling out a second pistol discharged it at Lewis's head, who staggered to the bank by the aide of the road, blood flowing freely from his face, Robinson then drew a razor from his pocket, and looked for his wife, who had run away. He approached a lady who was passing, and greatly alarmed her by his looks and the weapon in his hand, but finding she was not his wife he did her no harm. He then rushed along the road, and on proceeding some fifty yards stopped and cut his throat in a. complete and dreadful manner, expiring almost immediately. Mr. Garman, divisional surgeon, was soon in attendance, and found that Robinson was dead, and that Lewis, who had been removed to a neighbouring surgery, had received the contents of the pistol in his right eye, the whole of the face being scorched and bleeding.. He was removed by the police to the London Hospital, where he now remains in a bad condition. From inquiries made by the police it would appear that Mrs. Robinson had been cohabiting with Lewis for the last two years, and that the deceased had con- templated the murder of both and his own destruction for some time. The body of the deceased was removed and placed in the dead-house of the district, and in- formation has been forwarded to Mr. Humphreys, the coroner. £ The Inquest. Mr. Richards, deputy-coroner for Middlesex, has held an inquiry at the Three Cups_ Tavern, Bow, re- specting the death of Thomas Robinson, thirty-eight who committed suicide, under very shocking circum- stances, after attempting to murder the paramour of his wife. Inspector Kerressey had the management of the case for the,police authorities. The widow of the rWn^Arl was in court, and appeared to be quite overwhelmed at the truly painful nature of her position. Inspector Kerressey handed in the following certifi- cate relating to the state Oi Charles Lewis, the man whom the deceased shot:— • T lS t0Jef? ^i^arlos Lewis was admitted into this hospital, June 28, with a gunshot wound in the eyeball and eyelid, and that he is not in a fit state for removal. T OA „ TR GEORGE W. MACKENZIE, June ou. House Surgeon, London Hospital. The inspector said that it would be impossible for Lewis to appear to give evidence for a fortnight at least. Frances Robinson, the widow of the deceased, de- posed: I live at No. 7, Alpha-place, Roman-road, and I am the widow of the deceased. I do not know where he lived. He was not living at 9, Bermuda-street, when I lived with him. but at 14, Rutland-street. I was married to him about fourteen years ago, and we bad thras children, two of whom are living. I left him fcarteen months ago. The Coroner: Why did you leave him ? Witness: Because of his ill treatment. I had left him = i three years before. He turned me out of doors. I don't i know whv. There was a quarrel. I don't know what about. When I went home one day I found he had another woman there with him. He would not allow me to stay in the house. He struck me and pushed me out of the house. I went to live with a remade friend at Woolwich for six months. My husband did not make me any allowance. I had not then seen Lewis. The affair with my hus- band was made up. I returned to him, and he treated me worse than ever. I left him then, fourteen months a??" •ii_ T .no*: quarrel about Lewis. I never went t i bad several quarrels about Lewis. 1 lett him to go and live with a Mrs. Brown, and I got my living by needlework. I have lived with Lewis ten months. He is a waterman on the Thames, and is forty years of age. My husband was a rigger. I only saw my husband twice during that time. He came to my house three weeks age. One of the chil- dren is at school, the other is at sea. When my hus- band called he threatened my life. He took a razor out aad said he would cut my throat. He attempted to take my life. The landlady same and calmed him. He then wanted me to leturn and live with him, but I refused. He then went away. The second time I saw him was Wednesday night, at ten o'clock, at the Old Ford Station. I was walking with Lewis. Inspector Kerressey said that deceased called when his wife was in the house during the day, but she would not see him. The witness continued: Deceased said, I have caught you at last." He took a pistol out of hia pocket and attempted to shoot Lewis, A gentleman passing wrested the pistol from him. I Deceased then ran after Lewis and took another pistol. I ran away. He shot Lewis. He then ran up the road after me, but missed me, for he ran the wrong way. I had the first pistol with me. I had helped with the gentleman to wrest it oat of my husband's hand. I cannot identify the pocket pistol produced as that pistol. Lewis is a married man; his wife is living. My children are aged respectively twelve and fourteen. I have a child by Lawis two-and-a-half years old. A j uror said that the witness's evidence about Lewis at least was contradictory. The witness said that her husband knew that she had the child by Lewis. He saw that child when he called upon her three weeks ago. Henry Colvin, 101, Armagh-road, said that on the night of Wednesday he saw the last witness and two men near the Old Ford Station talking excitedly. One of the men said, I want my wife to comelJack to rae." Lewis said that she might go, but the lady said she would not go. Lewis walked away, but the deceased called out, "Do not go away; lam not done with you yet." The lady called out, Oh, my God, he has got a pistol! H,-Ip i Witness and Lewis closed in upon him as he was about to fire, and got the pistol from him. Lewis put the pistol in his pocket and walked away. Mrs. Robinson said that she took the pistol out of Lewis's hand, and ran with it to the surgeon's. The witness said that deceased followed Lewis and shot him with another pistol. Witness ran and sup- ported Lewis, who said, "I can't stand; don't put me down." The deceased ran up the rsad, and stand- ing in the middle of it cut his throat with a razor. He fell, and crawled on one side. The police, who had heard the report of the pistol, came running up by that time. Mr. Garmau was called, and said that deceased was quite dead. The deceased was put on a stretcher and carried to the deadhouse. Alfred Barnes, a la"1, ga,ve evidence similar to the last witness, and added that when L,-wi-a got the first pistol he tried to discharge it downwards, but it would not go off. The deceased took out another pistol, put a cap on it, and, running after Lewis, shot him. He then ran to find his wife, and coming to a young woman pre- sented the pistol at her. He seemed to see she was the wrong woman, and he threw the pistol down. He palled out a razor and went down the road. He then jumped about a bit, as if glad, and then cut his throat. Wi saess ran for the police. This happened in the Tredegar-road. Miss Lucv Hutchinson, Globe-road, Mile-end, said tllat sh wa.s on the evening in question going towards F&iraeld-road when she hoard a pistol shot. A man came towards her as if running after some one. He came in front of her and looked at her. His eyes were half out of his head and he had the appearance of a madman. He had something in his hand. She believed it was a piatol. He seemed to think that he was mistaken, and he went away. Joseph Nioholls, 450 K, said that he was called into the deceased, and found him in the Tredegar-road with his throat cut. Witness got a handkerchief from a gentleman and tried to staunch the blood. He died almost immediately.^ Witness found on him a silver watch and 17s. lOd. in money. Joaeph Goodson, 227 K, said that he found a re- cently discharged pistol in the Tredegar-road about fifty yards from where the deceased lay. There was a spent cap on the pistol. The shot in the loaded pistol wa.s duck shot. Mr. Cornelius E. Garmau, Fairfield-road, Bow, said that he was called by the police to see the deceased in Tredegar-road. He was quite dead; his throat was fearfully cut, all the great vessels being divided. His death must have been nearly instantaneous. The wound had been inflicted with a razor. A juror asked whether the deceased wag sober at the time that the dreadful occurrence took place. Susannah Holmes, 9, Bermuda-street, Mile End- street, deceased's landlady, said that deceased lived as a bachelor in her house. He lived with no woman. He was a very sober, quiet man. For the last month he seemed to be out of his mind. He said on Wednes- day afternoon he could not bear to see his wife with another man, and that he could not stand it any longer. After tea he said, "Now I must have a glass for the last time, for I will do it." Witness took no notice, for he had often said he would kill Lewis if he could not get his wife. He was quite sober at the time. He used tg fret like a child. The Coroner having summed up, The jury returned a verdict, "That deceased com- mitted suicide in the public road while in a state of mental derangement."

A PEER'S SMOKING PRIVILEGES. The Earl of Winchilsea and Nottingham, of St. George's Hotel, Albemarle-street, was summoned last week bv Mr. T. Bent, on behalf of the London and South-Western Railway Company, for unlawfully smoking a cigar in the Vauxhall Railway Station. Mr. Crombie, the company's law clerk, attended at Wands- worth Police-court on Saturday in support of the summons, which was made returnable at eleven o'clock, but the noble earl did not appear. He (Mr. Crombie) said he was afraid that the earl would not attend from a letter that he had addressed to the company. He then read the following letter :No. 32, Albeni irxe-street, Juue 28th, 1865.—Sir,—I demand the instant dismissal of the station-master, named Atter, at your Vauxhall station, who has had the ettiontery to apply for a summons, involving a oreach Oi privilege, against me at the Wandsworth 'ench, for what he has the impudence to term smoking con- trary to your bye-laws. I beg you to observe that the piece of impudence involves a breach of the privilege of the House of Lords, and that you, the chairman of the company, shall be held responsible for it.-Wiiz- CHILSEA AND NOTTINGHAM." Mr. Crombie should have thought that the earl, as a legislator, would have known what the powers of the magistrate were. Mr. Dayman: He don't state what the breach of privilege is. Mr. Crombie He is habie to be summoned as any other individual of the realm. After waiting till nearly twelve o clock, the magis- trate thought the time had expired, for it is not pro- bable that the earl wjuld attend after the letter. Mr. Crombie applied for a second summons, and for it to be marked peremptory. Ultimately a second summons was granted, and Mr. Crombie said it would be better for the secretary of the company to write to the earl as he had addressed the chairman.