but looking only to its admirable adaptation as a whole to promote such a revision of the Book of Common Prayer, as shall tend to an enlarged comprehension, within the Established Church, of those who hold the fundamental doctrines of our Protestant faith, &c." On these grounds, it seems, all the Clergy of England are to have the article sent to them, while, at the same time, they are modestly asked for contributions towards the printing and postage. Now, in the first place, it appears pretty clear that if the Keswick Reformers are philanthropic, they can scarcely be thought very able. The most that they can do for oppressed humanity is to print and circulate an article with parts of which they by no means agree, but which they think, as a whole, may be useful. Could not one of these kind gentlemen have composed something on the subject which his coadjutors might have entirely approved of, and which might have proved beneficial to the benighted Church, not only as a whole, but in all its parts also? It seems, however, that this was beyond the mark of the Keswick coterie. They wish to instruct and enlighten, but they have no better means of doing this than by a composition which they themselves partially condemn. Indeed, it is hard to imagine in what strange state of confusion their united brains must have been when they made up their minds to spend their money and expose the weakness of their cause by printing such a weak tirade as the article in question. As they have been so good as to send us a copy, we cannot, we think, return the favour better than by pointing out to them the very meagre and unsatisfactory nature of the performance, and seriously urging it upon them not to waste any more of the funds of the Society for Church Expansion in circulating such extremely poor stuff. We are told by the writer of the article that the famous blue and yellow publication made a solemn prophecy fifty years ago, and that prophecy was, that if "the Establishment" did not adopt the principles of the Edinburgh Review, it would not last half a century. It is candid, certainly, to bring forward an instance of such an entire failure in prediction, and it somehow encourages us to hope that the second prophecy, now made, that if the Church in the next half century does not mend her ways, she must be overturned, may also be a mistake. It has been well said, "You cannot argue with a prophet, but you may disbelieve him;" and we most entirely disbelieve the somewhat discredited vaticinations in question. We are told that the Church has hitherto survived by assuming more of the popular character; if so, the Edinburgh reviewer may very safely leave her alone, for this, we suppose, is the very object of the Review, and if the Church is popularizing herself, all is well.

But to leave the Church to her own legitimate and healthy growth, to assist her in her great work of educating the people up to her standard, to make way for her energies to display themselves, and her real power to be proved this is, we fear, the very last object of the Reviewer. He would make her yield and bend; give up her time-honoured creeds, pare down her liturgies, sacrifice her catholic tone, in a word, abandon what she believes to be the truth-and all for what?-To meet " the complaints and representations of Dissenters." Not, indeed, as he hastens to add, Not, indeed, as he hastens to add, that "those complaints are always just, or those representations always true!" Church-expanders of Keswick, could not ye find a more cunning scribe than this? Here is an argument for revision and comprehension with a vengeance. One would think that before so vital a change was demanded, the advocates of it should at least have made up their minds as to the truth of the representations on which it was demanded. But no-all is foggy and muddy in the brain of this Scotch dialectician. Somebody (we don't know who) says that something (we don't know what) is wrong, (we don't know why). Therefore, let us change everything, and sacrifice all the old landmarks to comprehend our perplexed and benighted wanderers. But while all this is to be done for the sake of the undefined and sufficiently vague dissenter, or the few restless spirits among the clergy, who are always clamouring for some change or other, what account is taken of the great body

of true and faithful Churchmen who do not want change; who would rather not have revision, and who think comprehension anything but a desirable object? The writer in the Edinburgh will indeed scarce condescend to notice such creatures, who, of course, have no right to claim to have an opinion in the matter. But for their sakes we desire to put on record a few remarks on this much-abused subject of comprehension.

In our view, then, Church expansion or comprehension is fundamentally and necessarily mischievous-a device which never has succeeded-and which, from the nature of the case, can never succeed. The notion of comprehension is to sacrifice something which you think useful or true, while another, on his part, sacrifices something which he thinks useful and true; the object of both sacrifices being that you and he may meet on common ground and act together. Now, in both cases, the sacrifice of true and useful things is confessedly an evil: will then this evil be overpowered by a greater good? We leave out of the question the point as to the rightness of doing evil that good may come. We ask, does good come? and we answer, it does not come, and cannot come. The compromise that has been made strikes at the very heart of the religion of those who have made it. It weakens their faith, it throws discredit on their creeds, it destroys their zeal. How shall a man contend earnestly for that which he holds in a maimed and imperfect form? What will he care for the success of a religion that is only half his own? The best thing that can happen to him is the ordinary result in such cases-that he should begin to quarrel with his newly-comprehended friends, and that they should mutually return to the status in quo ante.

In the year 1691 the Presbyterians and Independents agreed to hash up their theology into a common hotchpotch, and to join in a comprehension scheme. They had been pretty good friends before, but now they began at once to quarrel, and in a few years wisely arranged a separation. They could not have continued united and at peace without toning down their religion into a mere conventional morality. Yet, in the face of all that history teaches, in the face of so many comprehension schemes weakly advocated and happily defeated, there is still a set of men among us who call for Church comprehension, and seriously argue that a man should be admitted to minister in the Church without declaring his assent and consent to the formularies he is going to use-that is, in plain words, that a man should be allowed to minister and teach that which he does not believe to be true. We trust that the kind project of the Keswick associates for converting the clergy and laity of England to this doctrine will not prove successful. We are sure it will not if men will only take a plain commonsense view of the matter, and ask themselves how much a man would care about his estate if he had to sacrifice his own tastes to those of his neighbour in laying it out; or how the farmer or manufacturer would prosper if they were bound not to be guided by their own judgment, but by those of others. Why then, in the sacred concerns of religion, are we to give up what we believe to be the truth for the sake of those who desire "larger Christian liberty of thought;" to sacrifice the Baptismal Service to please the Anabaptist, and the Eucharist to humour the Quaker; to give up forms of prayer to satisfy the Plymouth Brethren, and to shelve the Bible out of a tender regard for the scruples of the Mormonites ?

SUMMARY OF EVENTS.

EXICO.-August 28.-Two thousand five hundred French troops land at Vera Cruz. The French communication between the coast and the interior repeatedly interrupted. Fifteen to twenty persons dying daily in Vera Cruz. AMERICA.-September 14.-Commencement of the

battles in Maryland which end in the evacuation of that State by the Confederates.

The Federal Colonel Miles, with 6,000 men, surrenders at Harper's Ferry to General Jackson. The Federals paroled.

September 15.-Battle near Sharpsburg between General M'Clellan and the Confederates under General Lee.

September 17.-Another battle, when General Lee was reinforced by General Stonewall Jackson, who had recrossed the Potomac into Maryland. General M'Clellan also received reinforcements.

September 18.-The Confederates evacuate Harper's Ferry after destroying all the Government stores and the pontoon bridge, and partly destroying the bridge of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad.

September 20.-The Confederates recross the Potomac into Virginia.

September 22.-President Lincoln issues a proclamation to the effect that in January, 1863, all slaves within any State or part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the Federal Government, shall be then thenceforward and for ever free.

September 23.-The Republican journals approve President Lincoln's proclamation, but say that it will have no effect.

September 24.-The Governor of New York State issues an order for a draft of 40,000 men on Oct. 10.

September 25.-President Lincoln suspends the writ of habeas corpus, and declares marshal law throughout the United States, with respect to all persons arrested for aiding the rebellion, or hindering the draft.

General White placed under arrest, pending an investigation of the circumstances attending the surrender of Harper's Ferry.

The Governors of sixteen Union States meet in Washington, where they present an address to President Lincoln, expressing their determination to support his constitutional authority, approving the emancipation proclamation, and suggesting the expediency of raising a reserved force of 100,000 men. The Governor of Maryland objects to sign the address approving the emancipation proclamation.

W. Roupell, late M.P. for Lambeth, tried for forgery and sentenced to penal servitude for life.

September 30.-The Gazette contains the official amalgamation of the Indian army with that of the Queen, the Royal cavalry being continued from the 18th Hussars, and the infantry of the line from the 100th foot.

AMERICA.-October 3.-General M'Clellan issues a congratulatory general order to the troops for their conduct in the battles of South Mountain and Antietam. He states that the Federal triumph is evidenced by the capture of fourteen guns, 15,000 stand of arms, and 6,000 prisoners.

October 8.-A battle is fought at Perrysville, in Kentucky, between the Federals under General Buell, and the Confederates under General Bragg. General Buell officially reports that it lasted from 10 a.m. till dark, and adds: "The enemy was repulsed, but not without some momentary advantage on the left. The main body of the enemy fell back in the direction of Harrodsburg. Our loss is probably pretty heavy, including valuable officers." October 9.-The Confederates under General Stuart again cross the Potomac, at Hancock, into Maryland.

October 10.-The Confederates occupy Mercersburg, and Chambersburg, in Pennsylvania. Their force is estimated at 3,000 men, their advance consisting of 1,000 cavalry and six pieces of artillery. Chambersburg surrendered on the condition that private property should be respected, but that public property would be removed or destroyed. The Confederates move in the direction of Gettsburg, to destroy the bridge at that point, and prevent the approach of General M'Clellan's troops.

HOLLAND. October 5. The law for the abolition of slavery in the Dutch West Indies, passes the States-General by a majority of 45 to 7. The abolition to commence on the 1st July, 1863, and the owners to receive a compensation of 120 dollars for each slave.

The King of Italy signs a decree granting an amnesty

to all persons concerned in the acts and attempts which took place lately in the Southern provinces, with the exception of those who deserted from the Royal army.

October 13.-Coup d'état in Prussia. The Chambers closed by the King.

FRANCE.-October 18.-M. Drouyn de Lhuys, having succeeded M. Thouvenel as Minister of Foreign Affairs, issues a circular on the Roman question to the representatives of France abroad.

From the London Gazette, Tuesday, October 21.Whitehall, Oct. 20. The following telegraphic despatch has been received from Earl Granville, dated Brussels, Saturday, Oct. 18, 3.10 p.m.

"Her Majesty the Queen left Coburg yesterday at 3 p.m., and arrived at the Lacken station at 9 a.m. this day.

The Queen has been pleased to order a congé d'élire to pass the Great Seal of the United Kingdom, of Great Britain and Ireland, empowering the Dean and Chapter of the Metropolitical Church of Canterbury to elect an Archbishop of that see, the same being void by the death of Dr. John Bird Sumner, late Archbishop thereof; and Her Majesty has also been pleased to recommend to the said Dean and Chapter the Most Rev. Father in God Dr. Charles Thomas Longley, now Archbishop of York, to be by them elected Archbishop of the said See of Canterbury.

ment.

REVIEW S.

A Review of the Baptismal
Controversy.

HIS is a disappointing book. We are not speaking of it in respect to the general issue of the argument-this is much as we had anticipated -but in respect to the conduct of the arguWe had expected, as we thought we had reason to expect, a forcible logic. This is just what we do not find. We did not bear in mind that, where there is unsoundness in the Faith, the intellect is never truly and vigorously exercised upon points of the Faith, however acute and subtle and powerful it may still be upon points which belong only to this life.

A book of this character cannot be reviewed except in a treatise much of the same length with its own contents. We are not going to attempt anything of the kind. We propose to deal with a few of the "fundamentals" of the book only-with a few of the leading positions and conclusions upon which the book is built. We find these to be unsound; and, as this is so, all the known ability and learning of the author does not make his book a trustworthy book.

First, Mr. Mozley discards the Vincentian rule-quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus-as being "defective in ground of reason," when applied as a "test of an article of the faith." (P. 3.) He does this by a curious process. First, he extends the rule to things to which it does not apply, and then shows that, when so extended, it fails. Of course it does. Now, the Vincentian rule is, that that is an article of the Faith which has been received, AS SUCH, semper, ubique, et ab omnibus. But Mr. Mozley says, as his account why the rule is defective,

"No reason can be given why some things not necessary to the faith may not yet, from an early date, have been in matter of fact believed."

Very probably; but "an early date" is not semper-and what has become here of ubique, et ab omnibus? And, even if Mr. Mozley had made his counter-statement

A Review of the Baptismal Controversy. By J. B. Mozley, B.D., Vicar of Old Shoreham, late Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford. London: Rivingtons, Waterloo Place. 1862.

exact, still, if the plain intention of the rule is confined to "articles of the faith," how is it shown to be "defective in ground of reason" by forcing it into connection with points which are not "articles of the faith?

Mr. Mozley passes on to the "negative test" of Article VI:"Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation."

Upon it, he says, three points are to be observed, (p. 7):

"First, that by Scripture proving a doctrine is meant more than Scripture admitting of being interpreted in consistency with it; secondly, that there is implied in the proof from Scripture an ultimate appeal to our reason as the judge of it; thirdly, that we are concerned in the Canon with the fact of the presence or absence of such proof, as distinguished from any explanations of this fact."

Some things are assumed here which are of the essence of the question between those who agree with Mr. Mozley and those who do not. And, as the Canon is the common property of both, we protest in limine against a process which affirms, quasi ex concesso, that the Canon means exactly what we hold it does not mean.

Mr. Mozley proceeds to discuss the Canon. But he discusses it loosely, for he does not keep to its exact language, “read therein, nor may be proved thereby "From" is not "by;" "in" is not "from." The Canon is careful to distinguish. Mr. Mozley labours to confound. If his reasoning have any force-which it is plain to us it has not-the Canon should have stopped at "read therein," as covering everything that is intended by "may be proved thereby."

Again:

"There is implied in this proof from Scripture an ultimate appeal to our reason as the judge of it.”

Mr. Mozley has overlooked two things here- one in . rerum natura, the other in the Canon itself.

Does he mean by our reason" the reason of every man, woman, and child who can read the Scriptures? If not-and we may conclude he will say he does notwhere is he going to draw the line? Will he tell us where independent judgment ends and authority begins?

But the Canon answers the question. The Canon says, "is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of the Faith," &c. "Required"-by whom? By himself? This is absurd. By whom then? The use of the word "required" shows at once that the Canon has reference to an authority imponens, and not to the reason of "any man." Mr. Mozley says "the Canon omits to say who is the judge of proof." Certainly, it does not say it in terms. But two things are plain-first, that the Canon refers to an authority imponens; second, that that authority imponens is not "our reason."

Doubtless, it suited Mr. Mozley to get rid of all notion of an authority imponens; because, for members of the Church of England, the voice of that authority, speaking in "the ministration of public Baptism of Infants to be used in the Church," is very inconvenient for the purposes of his argument. But if a man of great ability, and high repute as a reasoner, will get rid of inconvenient things τῷ σοφιστικῷ λογῷ, he cannot be surprised that those who see the mischief of his procedure should do what they can to expose it. It is, indeed, to be observed of the whole treatise that, though it refers occasionally to the question of Church authority, it is only to minimise it, or to acquiesce in it sub modo negandi. In reality it discards it altogether. It goes with Mr. Mozley for just nothing at all that the Church Catholic has, from the first, held and taught that all infants are regenerate in and by their baptism, as an article of the Faith. It is not "proved from Scripture," he says. Well, the Church says that it is— but the Church is nothing to the Vicar of Shoreham.

Mr. Mozley would, it appears, "acquiesce in an absence of positive doctrine upon the subject." (P. 28.) He would leave it wholly uncertain whether any baptized person, infant or adult, is regenerate in and by their baptism.

He appears-so far as we understand him-to hold that the gift of regeneration is in all cases conditional upon ful filment of conditions present or subsequent-what he calls "worthiness"-discarding thus all that is objective in the doctrine of the Sacrament. Now, as it is impossible to fix and ascertain this "worthiness" without direct and special revelation, so that of which it is the condition must be matter of uncertainty from birth to death.

But S. Paul says, "Therefore, leaving the principles of the doctrine of CHRIST, let us go on unto perfection, not laying again the foundation." What is his foundation? "Repentance from dead works-faith towards GOD-the doctrine of baptisms, of laying on of hands, of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment."

"The doctrine of baptisms" was part of S. Paul's foundation did he build-does he call us to build-upon an "absence of positive doctrine?" Is it thus that the Holy Spirit guides into all truth?" Why will learned men, in their craving after something new and satisfying to the intellectual power, be wiser than GOD?

One more instance of Mr. Mozley's logic and we have done. In pages 216-17 of his book he deals with "the dogmatic statement appended to the Service for the Public Baptism of Infants."

"It is certain by GoD's Word, that children which are baptized, dying before they commit actual sin, are undoubtedly saved."

Now, one would have thought that, if it were possible for any form of words to set a question at rest, it had been done here. Mr. Mozley is, no doubt, very much pressed with this "dogmatic statement," but he dismisses it in a few words. His mind is clearly of that class which runs riot in its intellectual power, and will have nothing to be a hindrance to its own conclusions. This pride of reason is the great snare and pit-fall of our time; and, as we have an old and very sincere regard for Mr. Mozley, we are very sorry that he has not" overcome" the temptation.

Well, then, Mr. Mozley, after enumerating certain non-natural ways in which various religionists may, "with perfect honesty, accept and subscribe" this "dogmatic statement" of the Church of England, though they have little or nothing in common with the Church of England, and know all the time that they "accept and subscribe" not in the sense in which it was conceived and (p. 217) is imposed, proceeds to say—

"This statement speaks of a certain class of baptized infants, viz. those who die before they commit actual sin, and what it asserts is limited to them: it does not speak of all infants."

Really, this passes-it is a little too bad. Mr. Mozley knows very well that it is precisely because the Church is "certain by GOD's Word" that all infants are regenerate in and by their baptism, that she is able to give the comforting assurance that "children which are baptized, dying before they commit actual sin, are undoubtedly saved." That the statement is thus, in its first and simple intention, exactly that universal affirmative proposition which he denies it to be.

We need not pursue our ungrateful task. We have said enough to make out our case, that this book is not trustworthy, even when considered apart from the general issue of its argument. It is very sad to see-but it is a merciful warning-how the finest mind is warped and distorted when it relies upon itself in matters of religion, and puts" private interpretation" of Scripture in the place of the Catholic Faith.

hook into a frog, do it tenderly as though we loved him. This amount of care and respect our author demands, and this we willingly accord to him, merely regarded as an artist of amazing fertility of fancy, marvellous industry, and in neatness as a painter almost unrivalled. If popularity, too, be taken as a test of skill, the success of Sir Edward, as a mere writer of romances, is beyond all dispute, His books have probably sold on both sides of the Atlantic readily enough to satisfy the very hungriest of publishers, and in some measure to appease the author's own thirst for literary fame. Whether the delighted thousands who have bought and read these romances have gathered from them the broad and healthy lessons which such books should teach, which to some degree the author professes to offer them, or whether they have not too often spent their toil " on that which is not bread," is another and very different question, which we propose to try in some measure to solve.

The first thing which strikes us, on glancing over this goodly row of volumes, is that, on the whole, in some most important points, the later stories are superior to their predecessors. It cannot be said of their author, as it has been said of more than one able writer of fiction, that "he went up like a rocket, and came down like the stick." As a mere piece of workmanship The Caxtons excels Ernest Maltravers by some miles of evident superiority, both in point of execution and of moral tone. And this is only what we should expect of a man who has won his laurels as a statesman, an orator, and a writer of romance. To add fresh leaves to the laurel of that crown has been his highest ambition, and his most unwearied study. He has done his very best; and of this the reader is ever conscious. He feels that he is reading the careful writing of a most careful artist who is never slovenly, never thoughtless; who never puts a single touch of colour on the most finished picture without a specific meaning; it may be for mere effect, to please the reader, to annoy him, to distract his attention, or to confuse him, but in any case for a clear, definite purpose, legitimate or illegitimate. This is one sign of true art; but it is only one; and not the highest. Ars est celare artem. This incessant care, continual polish, and unbroken smoothness, instead of concealing the art reveal it. The effect on the reader is to make him think of varnish, japan; landscapes of papier mâché, men and women on painted enamel, boys on painted enamel, boys and girls, saints and sinners, ladies and gentlemen, rogues and philosophers, got up to perfection, and ready at a moment's notice to step out in front of the footlights, and begin the play. There is no vulgar smell of gas, or oranges, rosin, or tobacco; the very fiddles are in tune; every fiddler is a Paganini in embryo, and has a white mouchoir in his breast-pocket. The ruffian who murders his uncle in the second act is amiable and refined, much given to the study of philosophy, a linguist, a musician, a diplomatist in his way,-but, unfortunately for society, he has a hankering after other people's guineas. His classical knowledge has not taught him the exact difference between meum and tuum, and so it is haplessly left to Mr. J. Ketch to finish his education.

Provided the reader likes tragical comedy, and has "a taste for genteel breeding," nothing can be better of its kind than this. It is, probably, as good as Art can make it; but, when we ask what Nature has had to do with the picture, we must alter our tone. If these were merely stories meant to be acted on the stage, so far as stageeffects go-to all those who delight in "sensation" scenes, people, and things-nothing could be better. But the misfortune is that they are meant to be pictures of everyday life, that life which is about us in the world, the men and women who eat and drink, sleep and waken, live and die, sin and suffer, rise and fall, as we do-of the same flesh and blood with ourselves; and this, as we read, we feel they are not. If we take up a volume of SHAKESPEARE, the men and women-soldiers, statesmen, saints, heroines, and sinners, clowns, and philosophers-of every age and every land-all strike us as essentially human, and not belonging to the stage at all. There are the people we

know, and feel to be our own kith and kin. But, in the characters now before us, the first thing that springs from the picture is the thought how well they would look on the stage. All is arranged so neatly and so aptly; the gravity, the humour, the poetry, the sentiment, the vulgarity (which is always of the most gentlemanly kind), come in so exactly at the right place, that the skill of the artist is apparent, and is felt. We are sure that every scene would tell, and the audience would be carried away in a furore of excitement and gratified admiration.

Let us open a volume, and see how its contents answer for themselves. The story is too long and too well-known to need an entire analysis. We must take the scenes which first come to hand. Thus it opens:

Ernest Maltravers, the hero, loses his way at midnight near a wide and desolate common, in England, and at last knocks at the door of a hovel, and asks for shelter and guidance. The inmates of the cottage are two; one a man of fifty, a hardened ruffian, with the gallows stamped on his face; the other a girl of fifteen-Alice-with noble blue eyes, the fairest cheek, and most dainty of blushes. The ruffian persuades the stranger to rest there all night, that he may rob and murder him. Alice, after secretly pleading in vain with her father, gives the handsome tráveller timely notice of his danger, and helps him to escape. He does escape; and, within an hour, so does Alice, from the brutal parent who only cursed and ill-used her. She flies for her life, and, within another hour or two, again meets the young traveller, who pities her, listens to her sad story, makes an appointment for a second meeting, and having as all such heroes ought to have-plenty of time and money at command, keeps his appointment in the dusk of the evening, in a country lane. His heart beats at her approach, though he had formed no plan of conduct, and meant no harm. His first words to her are -"Sweet girl, how well this light becomes you! How shall I thank you for not forgetting me?

She surrenders her hand without a struggle; tells all her sad story, of her own peril, and his escape from the ruffian; and, in answer to his questions, says that she can neither read nor write, and has never learned her Catechism, never said her prayers, and is ignorant of the meaning of the word God. Of course, she has never been to church-where, she thinks, "one man talks nonsense, and the other folk listen to him ;" and is altogether in a very unhappy and miserable state of being. The hero is at a loss what to do with the hapless maiden, but at last compels her to say what she would like herself. Her unsophisticated answer is," I should like to live with you, sir." To this, after a word or two of explanation, and a caution of, of," Alice, we must not fall in love with each other," he agrees. He is "a spoiled child, with no law but his own fancy;" and at once hires a cottage, with lawns, conservatories, and rose-clad verandahs, and an old woman to cook and do the work. There the two are to live, as master and disciple; he studying German metaphysics, Plato, Shakespeare, Schiller, music, and a meerschaum; she her letters, A, B, C, as well as pot-hooks and hangers. He hires a writing-master for her-old and ugly, but skilful in caligraphy. She gradually improves; in a week learns to sing, to dress better, to kiss his hand in_gratitude, and to improve in grammar and in accent; he, all the while, "being already up to his ears in the moon-lit abyss of Plato, and had filled a dozen common-place books with criticisms on Kant."

Within a very short period he is hopelessly in love with her, and confesses his passion, which is rapturously returned. They are one for ever. Their cottage at once breathes "the poetry of home." She has now not only mastered her letters, but can talk with him of Eros and Psyche, and "the Greeks who made love a god. Were they wicked for it?"

There is no need, nor have we space, to complete the outline of this picture; because this fragment is more than sufficient for our purpose. One sentence must tell the The death of his father separates the two lovers ; she is carried off by her father, the ruffian, who comes to

rest.