nothing of interest has occurred here. The attempt to assassinate the Emperor of Russia has created a great sensation all over Europe, but its immediate effect has been so far to change the current of popular sentiment at Paris as to turn what seemed at first a very doubtful experiment into a great success. In order to show the feeling that prevails in this country in consequence of the accounts of the brilliant display in France, I have the honor to transmit a copy of the London Times, of yesterday morning, containing a leading article on the position taken by the Queen, which I have reason to believe fairly represents the views of the governing classes. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. [From the London Times, June 11, 1867.] The Emperors of Russia and Austria are about to be invested with the Order of the Garter, and missions will be sent to Vienna and St. Petersburg for that purpose. The same honor is to be conferred upon the Sultan, who will come here to receive it in person. Whether her Majesty will grace the ceremony by her own presence we are not in a position to announce, though we should gladly hear that such was her intention. While Paris is dazzled by a galaxy of crowned heads, and the London season is at its height, the "Court Circular" daily records her kindly occupations and simple amusements at Balmoral. Philosophers may smile at these formal chronicles of royal excursions to hilltops and waterfalls, neighbourly visits, and gracious acts of condescension; yet the "Court Circular" is read by thousands who read no other column of a newspaper. The domestic life of the Queen and her family is a living romance to vast numbers of her female subjects, and the interest which their joys and troubles continue to inspire in all but the most cynical coteries is a standing protest against the allegation that loyalty is no longer a reality. Difficult as it is to analyze the sentiment, and impossible as it might be to reproduce it in these days were it once extinguished, it is still an active influence not only in English society, but even in English politics. The mechanism of constitutional government would be nearly complete without a sovereign, and a Siéyès might probably succeed in making the necessary adaptations within a very few hours. Yet who is not conscious that without a personal monarch the spirit of our constitution would be gone, and that no abstraction could ever fill the void in the heart of the nation? The church catechism teaches every child to honor and obey the Queen and all that are put in authority under her, and the political creed of the child is not easily unlearnt by the mass of grown-up persons. They know, if they know anything of the laws under which they live, that an English sovereign is not absolute-that he could not, for instance, order any one to be hanged or beheaded without form of trial. They do not believe, with the Jamaica negroes, that her Majesty is mistress of their destinies, and could, if she pleased, make them full owners of the lands which they now till for hire. Yet they regard her personal will as the hidden mainspring of government, and attribute to her a power, in the last resort, far beyond that of the greatest prime minister. Nor are they wholly mistaken. Parliament can make or unmake prime ministers, but it cannot make a sovereign. A revolution may place a new dynasty on the throne, but the early history of our present dynasty shows that generations were needed in a less democratic age to develop a popular faith in its legitimacy. Such a faith, once rooted, gives the sovereign a moral and almost religious ascendency over the country, which the highest ability and the most signal public services fail to command. George IV was, perhaps, the worst of our modern kings, and the Duke of Wellington the most eminent of his subjects; but the Duke of Wellington's importance in the state, though unique, was not equal, on the whole, to that of George IV. There is a just instinct at the bottom of the ignorant belief that her Majesty reigns, or at least might reign, over England as Queen Elizabeth actually reigned over it. There is, however, one function of royalty upon the due performance of which both the real and the imaginary influences of the Crown depend for their permanence. The sovereign must appear frequently in public, must exercise a splendid hospitality, must be the visible head of English society. The policy of some oriental despots has been to seclude themselves from the eyes of their subjects, les: familiarity should dissipate the impression of superhuman attributes. The policy of English kings has been exactly the reverse, and Englishmen have come to regard the social duties of sovereignty as very real and serious duties. The Stuarts, with all their faults, understood this part of kingcraft thoroughly; William III, though much against the grain, did his best to cultivate it; for want of it the first two Georges utterly failed to redeem the disadvantage of German extraction and manners; by virtue of it George III recovered the popularity which he had lost by his apparent subservience to his mother and Lord Bute. He never forgot the lesson. Though he cordially hated pageantry, he was always to be seen, and charmed by his entire freedom from royal airs the bitterest opponents of his political bigotry. The retirement of George IV, little as he was beloved, was borne with great impatience; the affable and sailor-like manners of William IV won him golden opinions; and the accession of a young queen, who made it evident that she loved to meet her subjects, elicited an outburst of loyalty which most of us can still remember. It was not dimmed by twenty-four years of unbroken sunshine, and it has not been quenched by more than five years that have elapsed since the prince consort's death. At the same time, we have never concealed, and have more than once respectfully expressed, our conviction of the injurious effect which so protracted an eclipse of her Majesty's social prerogative must needs produce. There cannot be a greater mistake than to suppose that signing papers and transacting with punctuality the indispensable business of state is the one thing incumbent on a sovereign, all else being optional. It would be hardly too much to say that the reverse is nearer the truth. It has already been found possible to relieve the Queen of much manual labor in signing commissions, and there is probably room for still further economy of her time and trouble in matters of routine. What can only be done effectually by herself, and cannot properly be delegated to others, is this very function which some may call merely ornamental. The reception of foreign princes and foreign ministers, the holding of drawing-rooms and levees, occasional appearances on public occasions, and all the nameless courtesies and hospitalities of a court-these are just the acts which the English natiou expects of its sovereigns, and which, therefore, it is impolitic for an English sovereign to neglect. They cannot be neglected without risk of consequences which all would deplore. English society will have leaders, and if the sovereign abandons the leadership, others will inevitably usurp the place, to the injury, perhaps, of that purer morality which the example of the Queen has done so much to establish. But we have also obligations to perform, and even debts to repay, to foreign nations. At this moment the sovereigns of Russia and Prussia, with other princes of minor rank, are the guests of the Emperor Napoleon, within ten or twelve hours of Buckingham palace and Windsor castle. The Czar, in particular, who entertained the Prince of Wales last winter so magnificently, and who seldom comes so far west. ought surely to visit our capital. He cannot, however, visit it in her Majesty's absence, and our national character for hospitality is compromised by a contretemps for which the nation is not responsible. Parliament would doubtless, if it were necessary, be ready to vote any reasonable sum' for his entertainment, as the common council has already voted money towards the reception of the Sultan and the Belgian volunteers; but it cannot vote her Majesty back from Scotland, nor can the want of a hearty welcome be supplied even by the Order of the Garter. Her In reverting to so delicate a subject, we do not forget either the sacred rights of private sorrow, or the truly royal compassion which the Queen has so often manifested for the sorrows of others. Her devotion to the memory of a good husband, and her unfailing sympathy with all who are desolate or oppressed, come home to millions who know nothing of royalty in its political or social aspects, and will ever be associated with her name. letters to Mrs. Lincoln and Mr. Peabody have touched the hearts of the American people; her appeal to the King of Prussia is believed to have had its share in averting an European war; and her prompt expressions of womanly condolence, even more than her generous deeds of charity, have brought consolation to many a widowed home. Were it possible in these stirring days for a queen to withdraw from public life without losing her own constitutional position and weakening that of her successors, Queen Victoria might well claim that privilege. But this is not possible, and there is no true loyalty in disguising the inev itable results of such an experiment if carried on too long. It would not be safe to allow another generation to grow up rarely, if ever, seeing the face of their sovereign, and only knowing by report that she had once been the centre of a brilliant court, and moved freely among her people. It is not the aristocracy and its parasites, as is sometimes hinted, that would suffer by a social abdication. The aristocracy knows how to take care of itself, and royal invitations are not the passports to "good society." It is in the interest of the monarchy itself, and the country at large, that we venture once more to express the hope that her Majesty will soon resume the place which not even the heir apparent can hold for her. Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. No. 1386.] LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, SIR: I have the honor to transmit a copy of the London Times of Wednesday, the 12th, containing a report of a speech made by the chancellor of the exche quer at the dinner of the Merchant Tailors' Company on the evening before. It is regarded by the press as in the nature of an official justification of the ministerial policy on the enfranchisement question, addressed to members of their own party, and hence more important than the generality of such addresses. I was myself present as an invited guest at that dinner, and when I found the gentleman rather going out of his way to make an ambiguous allusion to the United States, I was in great doubt whether it was possible for me to avoid noticing it when called up in my turn, according to the usual custom. Having very short time for reflection, I ultimately decided upon putting in a caveat against any presumption of acquiescence in his conclusions. Without wounding the pride of the Englishmen around me, I advanced a claim of traditions common to both countries, in behalf of all efforts for the application of the principles of liberty to the political advancement of the human race. Disclaiming all desire to approximate the differing institutions of the two countries, I yet trusted both might work in their respective positions with equal fidelity to this same end. The few remarks I made were not unfavorably received, so that I infer that though not absolutely palatable they gave no offence. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. [From the London Times, June 12, 1867.] The next toast was that of the House of Lords, which was appropriately responded to by the Marquis of Salisbury. The master, in proposing the health of her Majesty's ministers, said that it was a toast which unfortunately they had not been enabled to give on late occasions in that hall with entire satisfaction, (cheers;) but he was delighted to find, from the way in which the slightest reference to the toast was received, that they were prepared to do honor to the toast of "her Majesty's ministers." (Hear, hear.) They were honored by the presence of the leading minister of the Crown-at least, he might say, the leading minister in the House of Commons (cheers,) who had shown such consummate knowledge, tact, and ability in his management of the business before the House of Commons, as he believed no other member of that body could have displayed. (Loud cheers.) The result was, that by his extraordinary ability, tact, and adroitness, a measure which had baffled the exertions of his opponents during many years had been brought within half a session to a conclusion which he hoped and believed would be satisfactory to the country. (Loud cheers.) He begged to propose the health of her Majesty's ministers coupled with the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer." The toast was drunk with all the honors. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in rising to return thanks, was loudly cheered. The right honorable gentleman said: I beg, on the part of her Majesty's ministers," to acknowledge with feelings of gratification and gratitude the honor you have done them on this occasion. Next to the favor of their sovereign, they most prize the approbation of their fellow-citizens. (Cheers.) And that approbation can never be offered to them under circumstances more agreeable than in a hall memorable as this is for its political and parliamentary history, (cheers;) in connection with which the fortunes of that party with which I have the honor to act are inseparably united, and which are now represented by the ministers of the Crown. You, sir, have originated what I should not have volunteered. I should have been most unwilling to notice anything which could lead to political controversy, but you have referred to a most important political measure with which, from my position in the House of Commons, I am in some degree connected. (Cheers.) Sir, I can say this on that subject, that it is one which has now for a number of years perplexed and interested the country, and hitherto no attempt at the solution of the difficulties connected with it has recommended itself to public approbation. Hitherto it has been considered that, by raising a certain section of the working classes in a manner, we think, was scarcely consistent with national dignity, by declaring a limited portion of them skilled mechanics, and loading them with epithets from which good taste sometimes recoiled, an effort was made to establish a body which should have the command of the constituents of the country. I think that is a policy the most dangerous and the most disastrous, and to which we have offered an undeviating opposition. Called upon ourselves to deal with the question, we have endeavored to take a larger view of it. We have endeavored to consider it as one in the management of which we must not merely look at the means of discounte nancing the influence of a rival party, but rather of establishing some system which might conduce to the permanent contentment and greatness of the nation. (Cheers.) We have sometimes been asked why we, who oppose a measure that was brought forward last year, that in some respects was limited in its character, can now conscientiously introduce and uphold a measure much wider in its consequences and in its arrangements. Sir, it appears to me that the answer to that is extremely easy, and one which is perfectly consistent, not only with our sense of duty, but with the nature of the circumstances that surround us. We looked upon the measure of last year as one which, if carried, would have seriously injured, if not destroyed, the conservative party, and which at the same time would not have satisfied the requirements of the state. We believe that the measure we have brought forward is one which will not injure the conservative party, but will satisfy the requirements of the state. (Loud cheers.) We have endeavored to found our measure upon a broad and deep foundation, and in our opinion we must err in our estimate of the character of the English people if the consequences of the measure we have proposed are such as some think, based upon too limited and contracted a view of the institutions of this country. What, I should like to ask, are the institutions that will be endangered by it? Is it the monarchy of England? Can we believe that the great body of the people of this country are hostile to the monarchy of England? I believe that from those days of splendor when large bodies of her Majesty's subjects, covered with stars and ribands, assembled around her Majesty, she has not been surrounded by subjects more devoted than those she will find among the toiling millions of this country at the present moment. (Cheers.) Is it then the Parliament of England that is endangered? Why, what is all this agitation about but a desire on the part of a great portion of the people to become more intimately acquainted with one of the houses of Parliament, the House of Commons? For let me remind you, and it is important at the present day, although the House of Commons is about to undergo a great change, that change is not occasioned by any feeling of discontent with the constitution of the House of Commons, but, on the contrary, it arises from a certain degree of estimation, even of admiration of that institution and its effects. (Cheers.) So far as the other house of Parliament is concerned he must indeed have mistaken the character of the English people who supposes that an assembly, consisting of the greatest champions of freedom, connected with the great lineage and influenced so much by the traditions of England, would be injuriously affected by this measure. (Cheers.) Why, the only criticism I ever heard with reference to the House of Lords is, that they are not more forward to take part in public affairs. (Cheers.) Is it, then, the church of England that is in danger in consequence of the change we have introduced? It is not for me to criticize the conduct of the House of Commons, but I hope there is no member of that House who will be found to express a belief that in consequence of the measures we have introduced the church of England will be in more danger than it is at present. (Cheers.) Am I told in this hall, in the centre of the great commercial metropolis of England, that great damage will arise from the new constituency with reference to the system of taxation, and that an attempt will be made to throw the burden of taxation on property which will end in recurrence to the old protective system? Why, these two objects destroy each other. (Cheers.) It would be quite impossible to re-enact the old protective system, and at the same time to throw the whole burden of taxation on property. So far from having these results, the measure we have proposed will, according to the unanimous opinions of my colleagues, add to the strength and spirit of the community. (Cheers.) There is one point on which I would venture to touch before I sit down. It has sometimes been said that the conservative party is always to do nothing. That appears to me a great mistake. I have always protested against that opinion. I believe that in this great country there must be two great bodies in the state, conscientiously performing their duties, and I am quite sure that if the conservative party act upon the dogma to which I have referred, it will end in the gradual decline and decrepitude of that party. These were not the opinions of the tory party in better days; these were not the opinions of Mr. Pitt. He was not content to be in the dragchain of a party. He felt it his duty to originate those great opinions and advise those great measures which never were followed without adding to the strength, the glory and the greatness of the country. (Cheers.) Those were not the opinions of the great statesmen of the reign of Queen Anne, on which Mr. Pitt modelled his commercial and political opinions. (Cheers.) True we are on the eve of a great change. Believe me that the elements of democracy do not exist in England. England is a country of classes, and the change that is impending in this country will only make these classes more united, more complete, and more cordial. (Cheers.) I am warned by the example of America, but there is no similarity be tween the United States and the United Kingdom. The United states are still colonies, because colonies do not cease to be colonies because they become independent. They have all the elements of democracy, they have the unbounded possession of land and no tradition: we have a very limited possession of land and a vast and enormous artificial and complicated system entirely consistent with and sustained by traditionary influences. Therefore, I believe that the nation, after a long period pondering on its state, and feeling that there should be some great change in its political system, has resolved and determined upon the course that ought to be pursued, and, although I hope I am as sensible to the feeling of patriotism as any man of this country, I own I am proud and happy that the conduct of this great change, which I believe will add to the greatness and glory of our country, has fallen to the tory party. (Cheers.) The House of Commons was briefly responded to by Sir Stafford Northcote. The chairman next proposed “the Bench of Bishops." The Lord Bishop of Ripon. In behalf of my right reverend brethren and for myself I return our hearty thanks for the honor you have done us in drinking our healths. The bishops of the church of England are not insensible to the value and importance of public opinion; for while it is our high responsibility to go forward in the fulfilment of our duties regardless of human smile or frown, yet we are well aware that the efficiency of the church materially depends, under Divine Providence, on the cordial co-operation of all classes of her members. That co-operation could not exist without a spirit of confidence among the lay members of the church in those who are called to be rulers in that church. Therefore it is that the bishops set a high value on the expression of public confidence and esteem. It is not to be expected that the bishops of the church should all be of one mind. The national church itself is constructed on a comprehensive basis. It was intended to include many varieties of thought and feeling and opinion. But one point is to my mind unmistakably clear, and that is the distinctively Protestant character of the church of England. That church has no locus standi in this country except as the church of the Reformation. I trust the bishops of the church will never be wanting to maintain the Protestant principles of the church, and then I am confident they will never lack the confidence of the church and the country. The chairman next proposed "the Merchant Tailors' School." The Rev. Dr. Hessey, in acknowledging the compliment, said that for one whose duty it was to encourage others it was a most gratifying and consoling thing to be encouraged himself. He alluded, in most feeling terms, to the munificient mark of confidence which had recently been conferred upon him by the Merchant Tailors' Company, to the terms of eulogy in which he had been spoken of by his old college friend, Sir Stafford Northcote, and by the president of St. John's, and hoped that the Merchant Tailors' School would ever maintain its position among the public institutions of the country. The other toasts were "the Minister of the United States," which his excellency Mr. Adams very briefly acknowledged; "The health of the master of the company," "The governor and deputy governor of the Bank of England," and "The visitors; which having been briefly acknowledged, the company broke up. No. 2005.] Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, June 20, 1867. SIR: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your despatch of the 4th instant, No. 1379, in which you inform me that the legal advisers of John McCafferty, not satisfied with the commutation of the death sentence pronounced upon him in Ireland, are desirous of prosecuting an appeal from the decision of the court, with a view to the liberation of the prisoner, and that you decline to assume any responsibility for expenses incurred thereby until you shall have received instructions from this department. In reply, you are requested to cause the appeal to be taken. You will draw upon Messrs. Baring Brothers & Company for the necessary funds to pay the expenses consequent thereupon. I am, sir, your obedient servant, CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS, Esq., &c., &c., &c. WILLIAM H. SEWARD. Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. No. 1392.] LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, SIR: In connection with the case of John McClure, referred to in despatch No. 1996, of the 4th of June, I have to report that the extreme penalty to which he was condemned has been commuted to imprisonment for life. He is now in prison undergoing that sentence. But inasmuch as he pleaded guilty |