From the Morning Chronicle, 27th and 28th June. JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL. [Present the Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer, the Judge of the Admiralty Court, the Right Hon. Thomas Pemberton Leigh, and the Right Hon. Sir Edward Ryan.] Dr. Addams and Mr. Roundell Palmer appeared for the appellant, and Dr. Bayford and Dr. Philli more for the respondent. Augusta This was an appeal from the rejection of an allegation in a cause of restitution of conjugal rights, promoted by the respondent, the Rev. Pierce Connelly, clerk, against his wife, Cornelia Connelly, the appellant. The libel pleaded by the husband stated that the parties were married on the 1st of December, 1831, at Philadelphia, in America, at the house of Lewis Duval, Esq., according to the rites and ceremonies of the Protestant Episcopal Church, the same being identical with the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England, by the Bishop of Pennsylvania, who was duly consecrated by the Archbishop of Canterbury. After the marriage, the husband, being a priest in holy orders of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States, was appointed rector of the church at Natchez, in the State of Mississippi, and they lived and resided at that place until the year 1835, when they went to Rome, where they lived as man and wife until the year 1846, having had five children, three of whom were alive. That in the 1843, the respondent returned to Philadelphia, near which city the convent was situated, and in July, 1843, they proceeded to Rome, where they arrived on the 7th of December following, and where they lived in a state of chastity, the object of their visit being to obtain a formal decree tantamount to, or in effect being, a sentence of separation from each other, which was necessary in order that he might take orders in the Roman Catholic Church, and that she might become a nun. They accordingly presented a petition embodying the requisite statements to Pope Gregory XVI., which was referred by him to the Cardinal Vicar-general and Judge of Rome, who, after duly examining the facts of the case, pronounced in effect a sentence of separation, which was as follows : Ordinary In the name of God, amen. His Holiness our Sovereign Lord, Pope Gregory the Sixteenth, having been pleased to assent to and approve of the application made by the married parties, Peter Connelly, son of the late Henry and of the living Mrs. Elizabeth Pierce, a native of Philadelphia, who has entered the bosom of the holy Catholic Church, after having abjured the errors of the heretical Episcopalians in the year 1836, here in Rome, as well as that made by the same writing on behalf of his wife, Cornelia Pico, daughter of the late Raphael and of the late Maria Suopp, also of Philadelphia, the which married parties have determined to live in perfect chastity, after mature deliberation, and in pursuance of the counsels of most respectable ecclesiastics, and are now steadfast month of September, 1846, they came over to Eng- in their intention of carrying their resolution into land, where they have resided ever since. But effect that is to say, the former, Mr. Peter Connelly, then, in September, 1847, the appellant, not having to enter into the Institute of the Society of Jesus, the fear of God before her eyes, and being unmindful of the conjugal vow, without any lawful reason, withdrew herself from bed, board, and mutual cohabitation with her husband, and that she refused to return and cohabit with him, and to render him conjugal rights. To this libel, put in by Mr. Connelly, his wife, the appellant, set forth an allegation in answer thereto, which contained twenty-one ar having been already accepted by the Very Rev. Father the Superior-general of the society, and to devote himself wholly to the ecclesiastical state, and to be promoted to holy orders, and the latter, Mrs. Cornelia, to embrace the Institute of the Ladies of the Sacred Heart, having been already accepted by the community of the Holy Trinity of Monti, in order to live in constant and perpetual chastity, having provided for the future education and subsistence of three chil ticles, and which stated that in the month of Octo- dren, Mercer, Adelina Maria, and Peter Francis, his ber, 1835, she and her husband had been disposed Holiness himself in the audience of the 16th of March to become Roman Catholics, and that he being last committed all the necessary and suitable faculties desirous of considering the points in controversy to his Eminence the Most Reverend Cardinal Constan between the two churches, with such aids and assistance as they could procure at Rome, they went to New Orleans to embark for Europe, at which place she, the appellant, with the consent of her husband, abjured the Protestant faith; they then proceeded to Rome, where they arrived in December, and Palm Sunday, in the year 1835, the respondent was likewise received into the on Church of Rome. In January, 1838, they returned to America, and settled at Grand Coteau, in the State of Louisiana, where they resided till 1842. That in October, 1810, whilst resident at Grand Coteau, the respondent proposed to his wife that thenceforth they should live in constant and perfect chastity, abstaining from sexual intercourse, in order to the more fully devoting themselves mutually to the service of God, and with a special view to the respondent's declared wish and intention to tino Patrizi, his Vicar-general, to the intent that, on observing the required formalities, the wishes of both petitioners may be complied with. His most reverend eminence therefore, by virtue of the aforesaid apostolical faculties, being desirous that the pious wish of the two said married parties may be accomplished, has, by a special act, registered in the archives of the Secretariate of the Vicariate, on the 1st day of April, deputed me, the undersigned, promoter fiscal of the said tribunal, for the purpose of receiving from the aforesaid married parties, Peter Connelly and Cornelia Pico, the necessary and proper mutual consent, in conformity with the sacred canons, by which they may freely consent, each for his or her part, to allow of the fulfilment of the abovementioned determination to live perpetually in a state of perfect chastity. Mr. Peter Connelly and Mrs. Cornelia Pico having therefore appeared before me at their present residence, situated in the Via di Ripetta, at the civic number 115, on the first steadfast and constant in the determination expressed take orders in the holy Roman Catholic Church- floor, I interrogated them as to whether they are now Connelly, freely to give her consent to her husband, and which she governed by rules which had been Mr. Peter, and to permit him to enter the Institute of submitted to, and sanctioned by competent ecclesithe society, to live perpetually in perfect chastity, and astical authority before she quitted Rome. The to be promoted to holy orders as far as to the priest- community had since removed from Derby to Hasthood; whereupon she gave her full consent thereto. ings. On the 21st day of December, 1847, the Mr. Peter Connelly, the husband of Mrs. Cornelia appellant took the necessary vows of poverty and enter the Institute of the Ladies of the Sacred Heart, obedience, at the same time renewing her former that she agreed to the proposition, and in pursuance of such verbal agreement they had steadfastly maintained the same ever since; and in further ance of their object, the respondent placed the appellant, in May, 1842, in the Convent of the Sacred Heart, at Grand Coteau, and then left America for Rome, in order to make arrangements which were requisite to be made prior to his being admitted as an ecclesiastic in the Church of Rome. In July, and humbly represented to the Holy Father, and they having replied in the affirmative, I further interrogated them as to whether they were or are induced by any worldly respect to carry out the aforesaid determi nation, to which they replied that no worldly consideration had induced or does induce them thereto, but solely the Divine inspiration and the desire of greater perfection. These protestations premised, I called upon Mrs. Cornelia Pico, the wife of Mr. Peter Pico, being thereupon called upon to permit her to vow of perpetual chastity; the Roman Catholic Ordinary being present. The vow of poverty and obedience was as follows: to live perpetually in perfect chastity, he likewise gave his full consent thereto. Their mutual consent having been pronounced as above to be ratified within the term of one year, or even sooner, with the requisite special apostolical faculties, both the married parties were called upon to sign the present act, together with two witnesses who are present, namely, the Reverend Don Giuseppe Boccacani, priest of the diocese of Narni, son of Mr. Constantino and of Mrs. Maria Ventura, domiciled in the incumbency of St. Roque, at Rome, and of Mr. Robert Berkeley, of Spetchley, in Worcestershire, in England, son of Mr. Robert and Mrs. Henrietta Benfield, domiciled in the same parish-An act done as above, this 1st day of April, 1844. I, Peter Connelly, give consent as above; I, Cornelia Connelly, give consent as above; I, Giuseppe Boccacani was witness to the said consent; I, Robert Berkeley, was witness to the said consent; district, as Ordinary for the time being of this house Almighty and everlasting God, I, Cornelia Connelly, being most unworthy of thy Divine regard, but confiding nevertheless in thy infinite pity and mercy, and moved by the desire of serving thee, vow in the presence of the most blessed Virgin Mary, and of all the heavenly court, to thy Divine Majesty, poverty and obedience (renewing also my vow of chastity formerly made) in the Congregation of the Holy Child Jesus; and I promise to enter it, to live and die in it, intending to do all things according to the constitutions of this congregation. And this vow I make in the presence and under the sanction of the Right Rev. N. Wiseman, bishop of Melipotamus, coadjutor of the Right Reverend the Vicar Apostolic of the central Francesco Anivitti, Canon Promoter Fiscal, delegated and community. as aforesaid. This decree having been pronounced, the respondent placed his wife in the convent of the Sacred Heart, Trinita dei Monti, at Rome, on the 8th of April, 1844; on the 9th he entered himself in the Colleges di Nobili, and the next day he received the first clerical tonsure, and assumed the ecclesiastical dress. In June, 1845, the respondent being about to take orders in the Roman Catholic Church, it was necessary that the appellant should bind himself by a solemn vow of perpetual chastity, and although she warned him of the difficulties and trials of the state into which he was about to enter, and offered to release him from all such difficulties and trials by returning to their previous mode of life, the respondent persisted in his intention, and accordingly the appellant signed a written vow of perpetual chastity, which was likewise signed by the respondent, and was as follows: Almighty and eternal God, I, Cornelia, the lawful wife of Peter Connelly, trusting in thine infinite goodness and mercy, and animated with a desire of serving thee more perfectly, with the consent of my husband, who intends shortly to take holy orders, do make to thy Divine Majesty a vow of perpetual chastity, at the hands of the Rev. Father Jean Louis Rozaven, of the Society of Jesus, delegated for that purpose by his eminence the Cardinal Vicar of his Holiness for the city of Rome, supplicating thy Divine goodness, by the precious blood of Jesus Christ, to be pleased to accept this offering of thy unworthy creature, as a sweet-smelling savor, and that as thou hast given me the desire and the power to make this offering unto thee, so thou wouldst also grant me abundant grace to fulfil the same. -Rome, at the Sacred Heart of Jesus of the Trinity of the Mount, 18th June, 1845. This vow having been taken, the respondent received sub-deacon's orders on the 22d of June, deacon's orders on the 29th, and on the 16th of July was made a priest. In May, 1846, the respondent left Rome for England, where he became private chaplain to the Earl of Shrewsbury; and in April, in the same year, the appellant proceeded to Paris, and from thence to Derby, in England, where she founded a community of religious women, under the title of "The Congregation of the Holy Child Jesus," of which she is now the Superioress, CORNELIA CONNELLY, Dec. 21, Feast of St. Thomas, 1847. The respondent having, in the month of April, 1847, been anxious that his wife (the appellant) should take the vows of poverty and obedience without delay, later in the year dissented from her doing so, on the ground that he was responsible for her debts, and drew up a protest, which was sent to Dr. Asperti, the spiritual director of the community where the appellant was; but subsequently, having discussed the matter with the doctor, he withdrew his protest. In January, 1848, the respondent went to Rome, but returned in the month of May, and in the beginning of June presented himself at the convent at Derby, and desired to have an interview with his wife. She had removed to Hastings, but no preventive to an interview was interposed save by the appellant herself, who declined to see him, and communicated her wishes through the medium of Dr. Asperti; and subsequently the respondent wrote to Dr. Asperti the following letter: Alton Towers, June 5, 1848. VERY DEAR DON SAMUELE, -I thank you from my heart for your kind note and its affectionate sympathy. I humbly beg your pardon for the scandal I must have given you in a moment of weakness, at a blow falling on me I never had expected, and was wholly unprepared for. I shall be obliged to you to thank the reverend mother for the letter she was good enough to send me from my little boy, the first I have seen for more than five months. I return it to her, in case she should wish to keep it. Ever, dearest Don Samuele, in the bonds of our Lord, your faithful and affectionate PIERCE CONNELLY. Don Samuele Asperti, D. D. The allegation then stated that notwithstanding the premises, the appellant was served at Hastings on the 25th of January, 1849, with a decree, by letters of request in a suit for restitution of conjugal rights at the promotion of the respondent, and then alleged that the following were the rules of the Roman Catholic Church applicable to the question at issue between the parties in this cause, derived from and regulated by written laws or canons in that behalf, and of which the principal are to be stance. It would be a case of atrocious cruelty to found in the Decretals, liber 3, titulus 32, De Conversione Conjugatorum, to wit : First, that a husband and wife, post matrimonium consummatum, may lawfully separate by mutual consent, in order that they may enter into religion severally, to wit, by the husband taking holy orders, and the wife making a vow of perpetual chastity, and entering a religious house, or there being professed and taking the veil. Second, that a separation founded on such mutual consent, and for such purpose as aforesaid, ever after such orders have been taken and such vow or profession made, though not annulling such matrimonium consummatum, debars the parties " in perpetuum ab omni usu ejusdem," and from that time forth "alter alterum repetere non potest." Third, that a separation of husband and wife by mutual consent for such views and objects as aforesaid, must be approved of and allowed by the Pope, upon compel this lady to return and cohabit with her husband after she had solemnly entered into sacred vows of chastity, not only as her own wish, but with the perfect concurrence and sanction of her husband. Mr. Roundell Palmer, on the same side, contended that this case involved the most important principles that could be brought before a court. With respect to the foreign law, the judge had gone upon a dictum of Lord Stowell, in the case of Sinclair v. Sinclair, 1 Haggard's Consistory Reports, 297. Lord Stowell there said: "Something has been said on the doctrine of law regarding foreign judgments; and, undoubtedly, a sentence of separation, in a proper court, for adultery, would be entitled to credit and attention in this court; but I think the conclusion is carried too far, when it is said that a the petition of the parties, and his rescript of such sentence of nullity of marriage is necessarily and approval and allowance upon the religious profession universally binding on other countries. Adultery of the husband and wife severally, or the ordination and its proofs are nearly the same in all countries. of the husband, and the vow or religious profession The validity of marriage, however, must depend in of the wife as aforesaid, has all the force of a judicial sentence, such rescript being deemed a conditional sentence from the time of its issue, but having its full force and vigor from the moment that the conditions mentioned or referred to in the rescript have been fulfilled. And so much was and is well known to the judges and advocates presiding or practising in Roman Catholic Ecclesiastical Courts, and others of reputation for their skill and knowledge of the law as there administered, and is also laid down by divers authors of eminence and authority on that subject. This allegation having been brought in, was opposed by the respondent, and after argument before the learned judge of the Court of Arches, it was rejected by him, he being of opinion that the circumstances pleaded in the allegation would not be a bar to the sentence prayed, even if they were established in evidence. Against this decision Mrs. Connelly appealed to the Privy Council. The arguments of counsel were not concluded when the court adjourned. 28th June. The arguments in this case were resumed to-day. Dr. Addams appeared for the appellant, Mrs. Connelly, to resist the enforcement of the prayer of Mr. Connelly for the restoration of conjugal rights. The allegation of the wife would, if proved in evidence, be answer to this suit, such as their lordships would think sufficient. The question in this cause was, whether the facts set forth in the allegation constituted a good defence and a legal bar to the suit? The separation between the appellant and respondent was good and valid, and pronounced by competent authority, and as such should be respected and regarded in all countries. The rescript of the Pope was not actually in the form of a decree of separation in the courts of this country, but it was equivalent to it, and it was to all intents a sentence of separation, and not a mere dispensation of the necessity of obtaining letters dismissory from the Bishop of Philadelphia, as had been alleged in the court below. At the time the rescript was made, the former making it had quite as much right to decide on the matter as the Court of Arches had at the time when this suit was instituted. The vow of chastity and the taking of the orders of priesthood were in conformity with the rescript, and rendered it complete. The judge of the court below said, in his judgment, that if there had been a sentence of separation at Rome, it would a great degree on the local regulations of the country where it is celebrated. A sentence of nullity of marriage, therefore, in the country where it was solemnized, would carry with it a great authority in this country; but I am not prepared to say that a judgment of a third country on the validity of a marriage not within its territories nor had between subjects of that country, would be universally binding." And he then rejected the allegation of the appellant on his own construction of the foreign law. It was proposed to prove the rules and laws of the Roman Catholic Church, which had a bearing on the point in issue, by means of judges and advocates presiding and practising in the Roman ecclesiastical courts. He contended that was the proper mode of proving them. The separation in Rome was granted on condition that a vow of chastity should be taken, which was done, and as the parties were residing in Rome at the time, the separation was equivalent to a divorce a mensû et thoro. But the matrimonial status was left as it was be fore-Mrs. Connelly, however, having the power to refuse to cohabit. There is a great difference between a divorce and a separation. A separation affects the mere claim to a personal right, while the former went to the very framework of society, and might affect the legitimacy of children, as well as be the cause of many other very disastrous results. As to the law of domicile-what was the domicile of Mr. and Mrs. Connelly? Her husband was born in Pennsylvania, in the United States. There were many states in America, and the domicile might be in either, and the law of marriage and divorce varied in each. Then he became domiciled at Natchez, in Mississippi, and afterwards in Rome, where he remained more than two years, and was subject to its laws when this separation was made. The foreign law only could decide whether the husband had the right to the restitution of his conjugal rights, and this would be so if they referred to the American domicile. It was with the husband's knowledge, and even at his request, that his wife took the vow of chastity, which is set out in these proceedings; and it would not be right that this court should, by its decision, aid him in compelling his wife to violate her conscience and break her vow. If they grant him restitution of conjugal rights, they do so, for that restitution signifies more than the mere returning to live under the same roof what the law was at the place of domicile. A good deal had been said about the violation of vows which had been made by the wife; but he contended that a court here, in a question concerning marriage, would take no notice of such private vows or agreements. The sentence of the Ecclesiastical court, however, did not necessarily involve the breaking of those vows. The court here will not take cognizance of the rules of the Roman Catholic Church. In cases where a deed of separation had been entered into, there was nothing to prevent the court from bringing the parties together again, and the separation in the present instance was nothing more. If, however, their lordships admitted these allegations, he trusted that they would order them to be reformed to a very considerable extent. be entitled to great respect here, and he contended with him. The court will not aid him in his petithat there was such a sentence in the present in- tion at the expense of his wife's conscience. Dr. Bayford, who appeared for the respondent, the deed of separation. I apprehend that that and in support of the suit, contended that the gen- instrument does not affect the question of domicile eral law of the country being that married persons at all. The husband and wife cannot, by any should live together, and that nothing but adultery agreement between themselves, vary the law as to and cruelty justified their separation by the court, domicile. It is a legal consequence of the marriage it would be something very extraordinary to cause tie. And, after all, what is the separation? My the court to travel out of that general law. So noble and learned friend very correctly, according long as the marriage subsisted, the domicile of the to my view of the subject, stated that, as far as husband was that of the wife also; and in the alle- relates to the separation between the parties, it gation sought to be put in, there was not one word is nothing more than a mere permission to Lady to show where the domicile of the husband was at | Warrender to live separate; it has no binding any one time of his life, except in America. Then operation. The only things binding in this deed there should be something in the allegation to show are those clauses which relate to pecuniary engagethis case was only the beginning of a series which | wheel is heavier than the whole cart ought to be, and would arise from the present disturbed state of in almost all cases the empty cart is as heavy as our religion. The next step would be to call on the cart loaded. And only imagine cart-wheels alone Dr. R. Phillimore, on the same side, said the domicile of the parties, at the time they were married, was in America. Much had been said about conscience in this case, and of the vow taken before Heaven; but it should be remembered that this lady and gentleman had been married according to the solemn service of the Church of England, and in the words of that service had pledged themselves never to depart from each other during their lives. That vow was broken without violation to conscience, and they could hardly talk now of conscience in the way they did. There was nothing to show that they ever had been domiciled in Rome, for they only went there for a temporary and particular purpose. The sentence which was here set up was not the sentence of a court; it depended upon rules that might be varied at any moment, and did not amount therefore to a sentence. The Pope had the power of dispensing with it, and it is therefore not a good and valid sentence of a court, and was one which this country will not recognize. Story, on the Conflict of Laws, p. 162, says, "The rule of Hubeeus is correct, that no nation is under any obligation to give effect to the laws of any other nation which are prejudicial to itself or to its own citizens; that in all cases every nation must judge for itself what foreign laws are so prejudicial or not; and that, in cases not so prejudicial, a spirit of comity and a sense of mutual utility ought to induce every nation to allow full force and effect to the laws of every other nation." The learned counsel also referred to pages 171, 172, 281, and 282. In Evans v. Evans, 1 Consistory Reports, 35, Lord Stowell said " The humanity of the court has been loudly and repeatedly invoked. Humanity is the second virtue of courts, but undoubtedly the first is justice. The law has said that married persons shall not be legally separated upon the mere disinclination of one or the other to cohabit together." Why should not this rule have force in the present case? In Warrender v. Warrender, 9 Bligh's Reports, new series, 144, Lord Lyndhurst said-" But reliance is placed on ments. She may sue him, or he may sue her, notwithstanding the agreement, for a restitution of conjugal rights. A pledge not to institute such a suit is no legal bar to the right to institute it, and an agreement such as this is nothing more than a permission to the wife to reside where she may think proper; but this does not alter her legal domicile, though her actual residence be changed; her legal domicile remains precisely as it was." So again it is said by Lord Stowell, in the case of Sinclair v. Sinclair, (1 Consistory Reports, 279,) "Adultery and its proofs are nearly the same in all countries. The validity of marriage, however, must depend in a great degree on the local regulations of the country where it is celebrated. A sentence of nullity of marriage, therefore, in the country where it was solemnized, would carry with it great authority in this country. But I am not prepared to say that a judgment of a third country on the validity of a marriage not within its territories, nor had between subjects of that country, would be universally binding. For instance, the marriage alleged by the husband is a French marriage. A French judgment upon it would have been of considerable weight; but it does not follow that the judgment of a court at Brussels on a marriage in France would have the same authority, much less on a marriage celebrated here in England." It was pleaded that this was only a sentence of separation, and not one of divorce. If that were so, the denial of the conjugal rights by this court would make it to all intents and purposes a sentence of divorce. Before the Reformation, the law was, that if the wife had taken vows of chastity she could not marry afterwards, for it would be a null marriage. Suppose she had in the present case gone to Rome before her marriage and taken vows, would this marriage have been void! The sentence was, therefore, nothing more than a mere registered agreement between the parties. This plea is contrary to public policy, and as such is not admissible, as appears from the passage in Story's Conflict of Laws, 162. There was much bearing on this point also in pages 214, 256, 787, 788. There was also a decision to the same effect in the Year Books of Henry VI., vol. vii. The tenor of the Emancipation Act, of the 3d and 4th Wm. IV., 7th and 8th Vic. c. 101, and 9th and 10th Vic. c. 59, were only to give the Roman Catholics the same privileges as other Protestant dissenters. He, therefore, submitted that their lordships must reject the allegation, and say that this rescript is no sufficient sentence of a competent court, but only a voluntary agreement. He also submitted that they must decide that the parties were not domiciled at Rome. If this plea was admitted, it would be to admit it as a bar to the suit, at variance to the law and policy of the country. He concluded by warning their lordships that courts to interfere where only one of the parties had taken vows-or why should not administration be asked for the next of kin to one civilly dead? He trusted, therefore, their lordships would take their stand on the international law of this country, and say, we grant you the jus gentium, but nothing more. At the conclusion of the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent, their lordships ordered the court to be cleared, and on counsel being reädmitted, the Judge of the Admiralty Court said that their lordships were of opinion that leave should be given to Mrs. Connelly to amend her allegation, for the purpose of obtaining other information, more particularly on two points:-1st. As to what the law of Pennsylvania would have directed had the cause been brought in the courts of that country; and, 2dly, where the domicile of the parties was at the time of the transactions which took place at Rome. Their lordships intimated no opinion whatever on the merits of the case, but on the allegation being amended on the two points mentioned, it would be admitted, and the cause be remitted to the Arches Court. costing nine or ten pounds! These of course are extra articles, but they show to what extremes of cost matters of this sort are carried here. The practical portion of the English agriculturists feel these things, and complain of them, and complain of the so-called improvements that are every year presented, being only an additional cost in purchase, and difficulty in understanding and working them. The English farm-laborer is an illustration of that general taste for heavy elaborate articles. Look at his shoes; they weigh-I know not how much, but certainly they have wrought iron nails enough in them to almost make a set of shoes for a horse. See their frocks also; what superfluous stitching and sewing enough thread and labor expended to buy, out and out, a more becoming garment. Look at their slow and awkward movements; they lift their feet as though a fifty-pound weight were attached to each. This is all owing to wearing such heavy apparel, and using such ponderous implements. There are differences between the climates, and other circumstances, of England and America, that render the same implements, in many cases, unsuitable, but this I will not trouble you with now. AN AMERICAN. AMERICAN IMPLEMENTS. To the Editor of the Times: SIR, I have noticed in your paper from time to time several unfavorable allusions to the American agricultural implements in the Great Exhibition. Their lightness and simplicity of construction seem to be taken as primâ facie evidence of entire worthlessness. Now, sir, in America-I mean the United MEXICO. It is known that Mexico is perishing of poverty. She has been robbed in every way by her rulers, who have alienated her property, and made away with her resources, and covered her-buried her alive as it were-under a mountain of public debt, of which she possesses no means of paying the interest, not even, perhaps, the tithe of the interest. Her income, it is now clear enough, is insufficient to meet even the ordinary expenses of government; States the great object aimed at in agricultural and universal destitution pervades every department mechanism of all sorts is lightness and simplicity, as of official employment, from the highest down to far as may be compatible with the requisite strength the lowest servant of the state. Congress was called attract more attention than other articles; and I upon to consider this lamentable state of things must admit that to persons accustomed to ponderous -to remedy the evil-to avert the danger-to save and reasonable durability. The plough seems to iron ploughs, fourteen or fifteen feet long, our light, short, wooden ones, such as a man could almost carry in his hand, seem more of a toy or a curiosity than an actual, thorough plough. But appearances are not always to be relied upon. Good ploughing is done with our ploughs-as good in all respects as by any in the world. We have in America not a few of the best English and Scotch farmers. They have brought out their favorite instruments, believing the light American ploughs to be unfit for good work, but a very short experience opens their eyes, and they soon abandon their heavy ploughs. There can be no doubt whatever but that with our best ploughs, either common or subsoil, two horses can do as much work as three or four of equal strength with the English. I have seen at no great distance from London four horses at tandem attached to a plough, and doing two horses' work at the slowest pace I have ever seen field labor performed. No man could at this day sustain himself at farming in such a manner in any part of the world. the republic which, notwithstanding the crisis of Congress, however, troubled itself with neither plan. Dismissing the consideration of all disagreeable matters of finance, government, bankruptcy, and beggary, the national distress, the coming ruin and threatened dissolution of the republic, it contented itself with rejecting the Tehuantepec treaty and annulling the grant under which American citizens have commenced a great enterprise therewhereby it has invited trouble with the U. States; and having performed this great feat, and voted down the several schemes for raising money, it suddenly adjourned, the 23d ult.. ult., l leaving the government to shift for itself to expire, quietly in upon Our carts, wagons, cultivators (horse-hoes), our pleasure carriages, are all light, and the more we can combine lightness with other requisite properties the better. Our implements are cheap, too. The cost of a set of English farm implements would buy a farm, and a good one, in America. The thousands of poor immigrants who go there from this country find a obedience to law, or to save itself and the state, if great advantage in cheap and simple implements, and it choose to do, or is able to do so, by violent so we all do. There are two or three good models of means, contrary to law. Did ever republican legfarm carts in the Exhibition, but generally a single | islators, the rulers and guardians of a state, more |