to please the party in power-either the party which placed them on the bench, or that from which they expect promotion. We have seen far too much of this species of law and justice in European countries not to take into account its total absence-so far as we have seen-in this country. Another contrast which has contributed to restrain us from taking part in the fitful denunciations of our judiciary, to which we have alluded, is that between American judges and those of Great Britain and Ireland, in regard to sectarian and local prejudices. Before the supreme court, the superior court, and the court of common pleas, in the city of New York, protestant and catholic, orangeman and ribbonman, are all alike. What is perhaps still more worthy of consideration is, that before the same courts the German and the Frenchman, the Englishman and the Irishman, the Swiss and the Pole, the Spaniard and the Italian, are all alike, and whether they be naturalized citizens or still aliens, differ in nothing as to their chances of a fair trial from the Americans whose ancestors for generations have resided not half a mile off.

To this we can bear positive testimony from actual observation. But who can give the European judges credit for similar cosmopolitan liberality? Without any disposition to misrepresent them, or do them injustice, we certainly cannot. We confess we do not know any European judge more liberal in this respect than the one who, of all our New York judges, is most blamed; namely, Judge Barnard, of the supreme court; nor have we ever known a European judge to dispose of so large a number of motions in chambers in two or three hours as the same gentleman. Much has been said and · written of the sallies of wit by which some of the most distinguished European jurists have enlivened the proceedings of their courts; but if there be any who doubt that an American judge can be witty, and use his wit with excellent effect, generally pleasing everybody except the constitutional grumbler, without in the least violating the decorum which should characterize the bench, but which, it should be remembered, is different from that of the pulpit or the communion tablethey must go to see Judge Barnard.

Judge Jones, of the superior court, is different from Judge Barnard; as much so as Judge Ingraham, the colleague of the latter. Jones and Ingraham compare favorably with the most dignified and thoughtful of the English judges of the present day; and we feel convinced that they are as conscientious and honest. Nor should it be forgotten that Judge Daly, of the common pleas, Judge Spencer, of the superior court, and Judge Cardozo, of the supreme court, have each peculiar merits as jurists, which entitle them to rank with the judges of any other city or country.

The general impression in Europe is, that it is by no means essential that the judges, even of our highest triunals, should know anything about law, or possess more than ordinary general intelligence; and there are many Europeans who visit this country for the purpose of enlightening their countrymen in regard to our institutions, who do not take the trouble to undeceive themselves or their readers on those points. Now, we can inform European readers that the facts are very different. This we can sufficiently illustrate by mentioning two of our judges. Thus, if Judge Jones were off the bench to-morrow, he could earn much more as an advocate than his salary as a judge; we believe he earned more by his private practice as a lawyer before he became judge; nor had he commenced to study law until he had duly graduated at one of our best colleges.

This, it will be admitted, is in accordance with the most aristocratic rules of the English bar; but it is not all, for Judge Jones' father had also been a lawyer, a judge and chancellor of the state of New York. Judge Barnard likewise belongs to a family of lawyers; several of his brothers have been brought up to the bar; at least one brother of his is a judge; and all, including himself, have received a thorough cellegiate education. Finally, the judge of the superior court is the brother-in-law of the judge of the supreme court. Now, we ask our European censors, is this "upstart vulgarity and ignorance on the bench ?"

What we ask our own people, is to compare our bench and bar to our state legislature. Can it be said that those who

make our laws are in general more intelligent, more honest, or more honorable than those charged with the interpretation and administration of those laws? Nay, supposing we extend the comparison to congress-will not the judges and advocates, in general, of our higher courts bear a comparison in education, talent, and integrity with the members of either house? If a professional gambler, a professional pugilist, or a professional manufacturer of quack medicines has ever occupied a seat on the bench of any of the three New York courts we have mentioned, it is one of the facts upon which we are not informed.

There are many in other cities, and not a few in our own, who express their regret that it is so easy to become a judge in New York. But it seems to us it is much easier to become a United States senator in other parts of the republic-at least it seems to require intellectual qualifications of a much more slender character. If we are mistaken in this, then Senator Revels, and some white senators of nearly equal calibre and culture might, if citizens of New York, aspire to occupy a seat on our superior or supreme bench. Again, it is universally admitted by those who find most fault with our judiciary that we had no such excellent president of the United States since the time of Washington as Mr. Lincoln, who, as all acknowledge, was but a fourth-rate lawyer. Some give as much credit to secretary Stanton as to Mr. Lincoln for the successful prosecution of the war against the rebels. Indeed, we know those who give the former more credit; yet he, too, was a lawyer of but very humble rank.

But the true secret of our troubles is this. At the present day it is those who think least and know least that are most esteemed., Intellectual discipline and knowledge are not merely useless to those who desire to please the large majority of the public; they are rather injurious to their prospects. The great people of our time are those supposed to be the best fighters, and the most successful gamblers; those who, in a given time, could slaughter the greatest number of their fellow-creatures-including women and children—and those who are equally accomplished in robbing their fellow

creatures. When such are the ruling powers, what better than demoralization could be expected? Nor is it inconsistent with such a state of things, that American citizens should be struck down and murdered as such in open day, in the most insignificant foreign states, without prompting our government to make any earnest, manly, demand, for satisfaction.

Thus a fearful epidemic prevails, arising from the various causes we have named; its ravages are greater in New York than in other cities, because it is more populous than any other American city, and because a large class of its heterogeneous inhabitants are more predisposed than others; and because the physicians do not put as many to death as possible in order to cure the remainder of those affected, it follows that they must be ignorant and corrupt!

NOTICES AND CRITICISMS.

EDUCATION AND HISTORY.

Prospectuses and Catalogues of the Loretto Abbey, Toronto, C. W.; the Loretto Convent, Niagara Falls, Ontario, C. W.; Academy of the Sisters of Mercy, Mount St. Mary's, Manchester, N. H.; and the Academy of the Visitation, Georgetown, D. C. 1869.

THERE are many of our most conscientious and honest people who are not a little alarmed at the progress made by the catholic church in this country within the last decade; although the number is diminishing from year to year in proportion as intelligence becomes more and more diffused. It will be admitted that we have occasionally taken some pains to reassure the timid; for, far from being frightened at the "popish invasion" in the shape in which it has appeared thus far, we confess that, upon the whole, we are rather pleased with it. As long as the pope sends no worse army to subdue us than an army of teachers, we think the danger to our institutions is not great; nay, the more battalions, armed with such weapons as Latin and Greek grammars, Delphine classics, the fine arts, etc., etc., his holiness sends, the less shall we be disposed to deny his infallibility, even should it be not unanimously recognized by the Ecumenical Council.

Troops of even Jesuit teachers are to be feared only when they are not qualified for the good work; when they are qualified they should

be welcome every where, and men who are capable of appreciating the difference between mind and matter do welcome them, and have welcomed them amid all vicissitudes, from the time of Bacon to that of Bismarck. This is not merely a practice which we preach to others; it is one which we have always practised. While we have sought to do ample justice to competent jesuit educators, we have not failed to expose the opposite class to the derision which we think should always be the reward of those who-let them belong to what church or order they may-arrogantly pretend to teach others what they are ignorant of themselves. We are not the less willing to acknowledge, on this account, that the worst of our jesuit colleges have done more good than harm; nay, more, we will take the liberty to say-because it is to the interest of the cause of education that the fact should be known-that the worst of our jesuit colleges have done, and are doing, more good than the best of our Franciscan colleges, if, indeed, there are any of the latter that are worthy of the name. Thus the jesuits ought to remember that if we sometimes criticise one or two of their inferior colleges we have never denied the superiority of their higher institutions in general, as compared to those of any other order occupied in teaching at the present day, with the sole exception of that of the Christian Brothers, who have two or three colleges, well known to our readers, that are surpassed by none in. this country. Instead of losing their temper because the latter are ranked with the best of their own, and, consequently, far above their inferior institutions, they ought to acknowledge the fact honestly and gracefully, study more, and work harder.

As for the allegation made by some of our friends of the presbyterian and methodist persuasions, that if the Jesuits had the power they would shackle both literature and science, it is but justice to that body to admit that any one who will study their history, not as written by themselves, but as developed in that of modern civilization, will readily acquit them of the charge. Many illustrious protestants bear grateful testimony to this fact; but we need only mention the great Kepler. Though the Legislator of the Heavens lived and died a protestant at an epoch when sectarianism produced some of its worst fruits, he declared that for most of his life he was dependent on jesuit influence for the means of living. The first pension he obtained as a means of enabling him to prosecute his astronomical studies, was given him by the Duke Ferdinand of Styria, at the recommendation of his jesuit prime minister.* Writing to his friend Mästlin relative to this generous liberality, the great astronomer says: “My salary is paid to me more out of pity than for any good that is expected from me. Should I have any chance of a situation if I went to Tübingen?"+ (the Luthern university.)

* See Breetschwert's Life and Labors of Kepler,' (Leben und Werken.) (p. 120, et seq + Ibid.