Virginians have not the right to claim him nority, shows the power of principles over as their representative man. I am not sure the strongest interests and majorities; all that they also though slowly, as a people those compromisers who seemed so great at must- -are not similarly emerging under the first have passed away with the little mops touch of a purpose to which they have con- with which they would keep out the Atlansecrated themselves; and, though they can- tic tide. Cabinets crumble under the tread not see the object for which they are brave- of John Brown as he marches on to hurl the ly struggling realized in the form they wish, pine against the palm. The old Union believe that they shall yet see their State is shattered, and all the President's horses prosperous and powerful, worthy to be again and all his men cannot mend it; it is yet to called the Mother of States and of States- be decided whether New England ideas shall men. At least that Virginian fighting there prevail to the Gulf of Mexico or be pure stands for a reality, an idea, as the mere and strong to the Potomac, stopping there. vulgar Unionist does not. There is no real- In either case the new order will be based ity nor idea confronting him, short of the on truth, which the old was not. In any abolitionist of the far North, with whom he case we must believe that mighty forms are grapples as Strafford with Pym. Neither following the dreadful ploughshare, and sowof these will have the Union as it was; each ing the seeds of a nobler future for that fair of these, representing just now a small mi-heritage of humanity beyond the sea. RELICS OF JOHN WESLEY. —A few evenings since, I was spending an hour in the mansion of Mr. M- at Edgewater, N.J., when he brought from its "closet a rosewood casket, and opening it displayed three volumes - the entire contents, excepting a roll of manuscript. The first book examined was the original Wesley Hymn book in manuscript, from the pen of John Wesley. It contained all the hymns of the two brothers, John and Charles, with a complete index, in small, neat chirography, and with a free use of abbreviations. The next volume was the same, printed with music on each page. The title page settled the question whether the founder of Methodism favored the use of instrumental music in public worship. On it, it is stated that the book is designed for vocal praise not only, but for the music of "the harpsichord," and other instruments. This copy John Wesley carried with him on his preaching tours. amusing and just. — P. C. H. in the Congregationalist. TRACTABILITY OF GLASS. Glass-blowing, in its simpler adaptations, is very easy of acquirement, and capable of affording much recreation at a small expense; while, if the experimenter be of a philosophical turn, he may turn his skill to very good account. Even cold glass may be worked with a facility known to few. It may be drilled in holes very easily, the only implement needed being a common watchmakers' drill-stock. A diamond point is not at all necessary, as itinerant operators often assert; a steel drill of good quality, well hardened, will do the business perfectly; and even if the edge of the tool should give way before the hole is pierced through, a little emerypowder and oil will remove every difficulty; or with the help of these the hole may be bored with a copper drill. Not only so- glass may even be turned in a lathe. Strange as it seems, this is literally true. No special tools even are needed; any amateur turner who has operated on either of the metals may chuck a piece of glass in his lathe, and turn it with the same tools, and in the same way, as he would a piece of steel, only taking care to keep the chips from his eyes. This strange discovery was made, almost accidentally, in the early part of 1860, by one of our most celebratThe preface to the Hymn Book has a most ed mechanical engineers, and might have beeu spirited and self-complaisant pargaraph on the patented, but the inventor contented himself alteration of hymns. Mr. Wesley says, he with simply putting it on record, and generously should have mentioned the subject before, had he presented it to the nation. The consequence not been "unwilling to stir up a hornet's nest.' was, that no one cared or thought about it, and He begs those who want to use his and his the idea has been suffered to lie nearly barren, brother's hymns, not to mutilate them by their though capable of being turned to great account. untasteful alterations-affirming that they "can- Let any amateur mechanic make the experi not be improved either in sentiment or versi-ment, and he will be surprised at the case with fication." The burst of indignation against the which this seemingly intractable material may modern tendency to change the text of an be cut and fashioned according to his will.— author's lines in compiling books for worship, is Chambers's Journal. The third volume of these relics was a common English edition of the hymns, bearing on the fly leaf, "John Wesley." They were brought to this country by a relative of Mr. M., to whom they were given by Mr. Wesley's publisher, in part payment of debt. The MS. was a very remarkable covenant between that relative and the Lord- an extended and impressive consecration of himself to the holy Trinity, which was not broken, I learn, in a life of nearly fourscore years. TO MY GRANDCHILDREN. My blessing on you, little babes, little babes, Oh! bless you, bless you, Oh! bless your little helpless ways, Your curious crows and screeches, From which my deaf old ears can shape The sagest pretty speeches. Oh! bless, and bless, and dearly bless Oh! bless, and bless, and dearly bless LET US MAKE THE BEST OF IT. LIFE is but a fleeting dream, Let us make the best of it! If your friend has got a heart, There is something fine in him Cast away his darker part, Cling to what's divine in him. Friendship is our best relief, Make no heartless jest of it, From Fraser's Magazine. THE LAW OF HONOUR. "I HATE to hear women and clergymen declaim against duelling when not called upon for their opinion. It is a mighty proof of fortitude to defy temptations to which we can never be exposed." "I have never seen amongst the numberless sermons, essays, &c., on the subject, any one which is not absolutely frivolous except Mandeville's, which I think is, so far as it goes, correct. Almost all set themselves to prove that a duel is a bad thing, and therefore the law of honour must be bad which sanctions it. They might as well conclude that the law of the land is bad because it sanctions hanging. That a duel is a bad thing is not only doubted, but is the very doctrine assumed by the law of honour; since the necessity of fighting a duel, or else of being excluded from a certain class of society, is the very penalty employed by the law of hon our. These sentences are copied from the late Archbishop Whately's Commonplace Book; and we propose to pursue the train of reasoning suggested by them. Can modern society dispense with the law of honour? Can the law of honour be maintained without a penalty? Can the penalty of duelling be efficiently and advantageously replaced? These are the first questions to be answered or problems to be solved; and as an indispensable preliminary to the discussion we must come to a clear understanding of what the law of honour is. It was described not long since by the Earl of Malmesbury in the House of Lords as a kind of supplement to Christianity—a useful guide in situations or circumstances where the light of revealed religion fails. Paley pronounces it to be a system of rules constructed by people of fashion, and calculated to facilitate their intercourse with one another, and for no other purpose. Hence this law only prescribes and regulates the duties betwixt equals, omitting such as relate to the Supreme Being, as well as those which we owe to our inferiors." In this point of view it must be regarded as opposed to Christianity, which is not denied by Mandeville, who contends that the principle of honour has been of more use to society than virtue, and has been encouraged by statesmen on that account. "For as soon as it was found out that many vicious, quarrelsome, and undaunted men, that feared neither God nor the Devil, weer yet often curbed and visibly withheld by the fear of shame; and likewise though this THIRD SERIES. fear of shame might be greatly increased by an artificial education, and be made superior even to that of death, they had made a discovery of a real tie that would serve "# noble purposes." many The most exalted estimate is that of Kenelm Digby, who maintains, in the Broadstone of Honour, that the spirit of chivalry is the essence and incarnation of all that is best and noblest in humanity; that the sentiment of honour is the finest product of religion, reason, and morality; and that the decline of valour, virtue, piety, and patriotism, may be clearly traced to its decay. He expatiates enthusiastically on the holy and generous frame of mind in which the knights of his golden age engaged in single combat for the most fanciful of causes. We cannot say that we agree either with Kenelm Digby, Mandeville, or Paley; and we are under the painful necessity of differing altogether from Lord Malmesbury. If the precepts of Christianity were universally and conscientiously observed, the law of honour might be safely abrogated, and so also might the law of the land. We should require no penalties for the prevention of offences against either, or for the enforcement of duties, great or small. But we have to deal with society as we find it; and, as things stand, we cannot afford to part with any effective safeguards against transgressors, nor with any laws, rules, or customs which really tend to refine our manners and elevate our minds. The persons by and for whom the law of honour has been framed are invidiously described by Paley as "people of fashion:" they comprise all or nearly all by whom the arts and sciences are cultivated, the national taste developed, the domain of thought extended, or the standard of excellence advanced; and it would be easy to demonstrate that without them, or a corresponding class, social progress would be a material and moral impossibility. It is one of the conditions of their existence that they should have rules of conduct exacting a more studied propriety of language and demeanour than is expected from the bulk of the people, who rarely object to conventional privileges, except when the possessor or claimant lays aside what ought to be the distinctive habit of self-restraint. The spirit of honour, or the fear of shame, as Mandeville would call it, weakened as it may have been, remains to this moment of inestimable utility in inculcating truth, in compelling courtesy, especially towards women, and in mitigating the evils of war. Usefulness of Christianity in War. * An Inquiry into the Origin of Honour and the LIVING AGE. VOL. XXIX. 1324. Assuming, therefore, that the law of honour must be upheld, and that it cannot be upheld without a penalty, we have next to consider whether the unaided influence of public opinion will suffice. The experiment has been fairly tried in this country, and we have already ample, although far from satisfactory, evidence of the results. About twenty years since duelling was prohibited in the army and navy; and during the last five or six years it has been gradually discontinued by all classes. The old school shook their heads. They saw (what is forcibly urged by Mandeville) that the military spirit was enhanced by the point of honour, and that in an army so peculiarly constituted as ours, it was of the last importance that the superior breeding of the officers should be felt and recognised by the men. At the same time there was good ground for supposing that they ran less risk of deterioration from the change than any other class of English gentlemen, having a ready-made court of honour in the mess-table, and being liable at any moment to be called to a rigid account by the authorities. Yet these counteracting causes have apparently ceased to operate, for military habits and modes of thought are rapidly undergoing a change which justifies the gravest apprehensions for society. Passing over the many minor scandals of which we occasionally catch glimpses, we are content to rest the argument on the admitted facts of a case tried before Mr. Baron Martin on the 14th of December last, and reported in the Times of the 15th. They are not revived with the view of inviting tardy censure; for we regard the principal actor as the creature of a system, and deem it unjust to hold him individually responsible for what he did under the advice and with the approval of his military friends. The scene is a shooting-ground. The party comprises D. (an officer in the Blues), two other officers of the Blues, and E. They had all dined together the day before, when some trials of strength took place between E. and D., in which D. proved the strongest. The lack of game led to an altercation, in which D. insinuated that E. had been bankrupt, and E retorted by an imputation of swindling through the medium of bubble bets, &c. On some talk of a resort to blows, D. fired off his gun and offered "to fight it out" with fists on the spot. E., declaring himself no pugilist, declined this arbitrament, and threatened, if D. struck him, to blow out D.'s brains. A great deal of coarse language is exchanged, and two hours elapse, during which the par ties partake of refreshment D. then demands a withdrawal of the word "swindler" and an apology, offering to withdraw all offensive words on his part. E. refuses to apologize, conceiving that he had got as good as he brought; and D. holds a consultation with his brother officers as to what more can be done. They tell him he must "resent the insult," and, waiting till E. has discharged or laid aside his gun, he proceeds to execute their decree with foot and fist. The jury in an action for the assault gave £150 damages, and the judge expressed himself thus: The counsel for the defendant had said that the days of duelling were past, and it was to be hoped they never would be restored; but he was afraid if people were compelled to submit to such an outrage as the plaintiff's case detailed without adequate compensation, the custom would be revived in some shape or another. and underwent a severe cross-examination. The plaintiff gave evidence in person, He was substantially confirmed by two persons of respectability, present at the affray, and a surgeon. No witnesses were called on the behalf of the defendant, although he and his friends (as they subsequently complained) were ready and anxious to appear in the witness-box. They consequently addressed their statements, without being subjected to cross-examination, to the Times; and it is precisely this correspondence which has given a public bearing and social importance to the case. It will be observed that this is not an in stance where a man impulsively retorts an insulting expression by a blow; nor does it much signify, except to the assailed, whether the licking and kicking were in excess. Yet these three officers seem to think that their common exculpation is complete, when the provocation and disproved the alleged they have appealed to the gross nature of brutality of the assault. The sustained interchange of coarse language, the offer to fight with fists, and the advised mode of resenting the refusal of an apology, are thought to need no palliation. D. writes (Times, Dec. 17th): Feeling then, as I do now, that however much I may regret my loss of temper on the occasion, I did only that which, under the same amount of provocation, any gentleman in my position would have done; feeling as I do that I could not again have met my brother officers, and that I esty's commission had I allowed so gross, and, should have been unworthy to retain her Majas I venture to assert, so unprovoked an insult to have passed without notice, &c. In conclusion, I may observe that, while admitting my proficiency in manly exercises, it is only fair to call attention to the fact of my adversary being a young man, standing six feet two inches, and my. superior in weight. Four days later (Times, Dec. 21), one of the two advisers writes: If Mr. (D.) had committed the brutal assault laid to his charge, he would have been unMr.fit to remain our associate. (E.) positively refused to give any apology, or to withdraw the word swindler; and after again conferring with Mr.(the third officer), we both felt that we must leave matters to take their course, and that we had no alternative but to intimate to Mr.—(D.) that he was, in our opinion, bound to resent the affront. late that soon after he joined his regiment at Malta, a quarrel broke out at the messtable, in the course of which one officer struck another. A duel ensued, but they were both summoned before the commandant and told: "You, sir, who have done your best to convert the mess-room into a boxing-ring, will leave the regiment; and you, sir (to the other), had you returned the blow should have done the same." Baron Martin expressed an apprehension that the custom of duelling would be revived if people were exposed to the outThese may lead rages of physical force. would rather be tried for his life than subto something worse, for many a man of spirit mit to a blow. A small pistol in the sideThese letters are dated from the regiment-pocket will be an indispensable precaution al head quarters, and are understood to be after a difference with an adversary of in accordance with the deliberate conclu-thews and sinews who takes counsel with the sions of the colonel and the mess. Military Blues; and we may be driven eventually to men in general seem disposed to make light life-preservers, revolvers, and bowie-knives. of the matter, if not to maintain distinctly that the proper course had been pursued. In the first place, then, will the advocates of this amended code of honour tell us in what solitary respect the quarrel in question differs from one between two "navvies" or coalheavers? What could they do more than slang each other for a given period, and at length resort to kicks or fisticuffs? Where is the distinctive bearing of the "officer and gentleman," which is to reconcile the private soldier, corporal, or sergeant, to the lifelong inferiority of his grade? Or, if physical prowess commands their respect, what follows from the want of it? In the second place, is there to be one law of honour for the weak and another for the strong? If D. had been a little man or unskilled in pugilism, and consequently incapable of resenting the insult, his honour, according to his own and his adviser's estimate, would have been clearly forfeited. We consult a friend whether we ought to demand an apology, and he inquires, Can you thrash the man who has insulted you?" We ask whether we ought to make one, and he inquires," Can he thrash you?” The plot of Caleb Williams turns on the maddening effect of personal violence on a sensitive temperament. Falkland is knocked down and kicked by Tyrrell in a ball-room— The slightest breath of dishonour would have To Falkland disgrace was worse than death. stung him to the very soul. What must it have been with this complication of ignominy, base, humiliating, and public! Could Tyrrell have understood the evil he had inflicted, even he, under all his circumstances of provocation, could scarcely have perpetrated it. Falkland's mind was full of uproar, like the war of contending elements, and of such suffering as casts contempt on the refinements of inventive cruelty. nal oblivion. Horror, detestation, revenge, inHe wished for annihilation, to lie down in eterexpressible longings to shake off the evil, and a persuasion that in this case all effort was powerless, filled his soul even to bursting. One other event closed the transactions of this memorable evening. Falkland was baffled of the vengeance that yet remained to him. Tyrrell was found dead by some of the companydead in the street, having been murdered at the distance of a few yards from the assembly-room. In a case like the one before us, many a man would not have been deterred by the Uncertainty upon this material point may threat of being shot. He would have closed lead to awkward complication. Thus D. with his adversary and endeavoured to takes credit to himself for the height and wrest the gun from him, when fatal conseweight of his adversary, from which we col-quences might have ensued. Again, if the lect that he had not altogether surrendered ultima ratio of the fist is to succeed that of the hope of a fair stand up fight; and the the pistol or the sword, might not some of person who undertakes to resent an affront the old preliminaries be retained? Should by a blow is always in this dilemma. He not each party have time and opportunity to either attacks one who can make no resist-name a friend or bottle-holder? and should ance, or he knowingly provokes a boxing- not the friends or bottle-holders of both dematch. The late Professor John Austin, cide in conference what sort of satisfaction who was originally in the army, used to re- is required? It strikes us that both D. and |