262 given, where it was given, at what kind of entertainment, the persons present there, the ages, sex, and social position of the persons, and their respective seats at the table. That was astounding; but convincing? Not to me. I believed then, and I believe still, that, in point of fact, the gentleman from whom the card was received told the clairvoyante all that was necessary for her to tell him-told it, by leading questions, by anxious expressions, by intonations, by the hundred suggestions of voice and manner. He would not accept this explanation, and declared he had been wholly passive. I resolved to try a crucial instance. I resolved to test the clairvoyante when she knew nothing, when her operator knew nothing, when no other human being but myself knew what the real case was. I she succeeded in that, my doubts would end. Accordingly, I wrote a letter, requesting to be told what I had done on the Sunday when that letter was written. To render even a proximate answer more difficult, I signed the letter S. Lawrence. The magnetizer, in transmitting her reply, remarks: "The selection of your friend for an experiment in clairvoyance is not advantageous. It does not bear upon any particular thing upon which one could direct the attention of the somnambule to rest. It generalizes too much. Had he set about doing some particular thing at a given hour, and required that the clairvoyante should see what it was, I think there would have been better chance. I think it probable, that had Mr. Lawrence done any thing remarkable in the course of the day the voyante would have seen it; but all that she has said he did is, as you will see, the general quiet Sunday routine of most men; and supposing that all she has said should be right, people would say it was guess-work. I am anxious to know how far she has been right." He was told that she had not been right. let me give the clairvoyante's reply. her magnetizer who writes: But It is "I placed the mirror in V.'s hands, willing her to see Mr. Lawrence.' "As usual in looking into it, she went to sleep in a few minutes, and at the end of about twenty or twenty-five minutes she said she saw Mr. Lawrence, and described him as follows:- He has the face of a young man about thirty years of age. He is standing before me, looking at me. looks serious, that is to say, he does not He laugh nor even smile. I see him in the mirror, but in the distance, as when one looks through the wrong end of an operaglass. He is rather tall; his face rather long, and his eyes are gray; he has dark complexion and hair; a nose rather long and thin-when I say thin, I mean not large-and an ordinary mouth. It seems that he has a dark-colored pantaloon, and nothing particular in his general dress.' "Thus far with the mirror. I then put Mr. Lawrence's letter into V.'s hands, willing her to see what Mr. Lawrence did on Sunday, 22d inst. Her answers follow:— 'He went out in the morning after ten o'clock, and in the morning also he went to church. Besides the letter, he wrote other things. He went to visit some one, a lady, at her own house. A man went also to see him and found him at home. He (Mr. Lawrence) had been also doing something which he was looking at very intently, but I do not know what it was. He has read a good deal. He dined in company with two other persons; he went out in the evening, and was in bed before eleven o'clock.' "Here she said she could see no more, and consequently I awoke her." Those who know me will judge of the portrait. As to the details of what I did, they are almost all incorrect. I had no visitor. I did not go to church. Instead of dining with two persons, I dined with ten; and when I add that Déjazet was one of the party, I say enough to indicate that the dinner was not one of "ordinary Sunday routine." Finally, I did not go out in the evening, nor did I go to bed before eleven. Although this experiment failed, I was willing to make every allowance to the ob jection raised by the magnetizer, as to my not having fixed an hour; moreover, I felt that the use of a false signature might have misled the clairvoyante, and certainly might be used as an argument to stultify the experiment. I therefore wrote a letter in my own name, and fixed the day and hour, asking what I did between the hours of half-past twelve and one; what kind of rooms I was in; and what persons, if any, were in those rooms. At last a crucial instance was obtained. The hour was fixed, no one was informed of what I had done, and I awaited the result with curiosity, for the series of things done by me at the hour named were such as defied all guessing-at least, in the order of their performance. This was the reply: "MY DEAR FRIEND,-I write you here V.'s answers to the questions of your friend Mr. Lewes, which I thus put to her last night whilst in the magnetic sleep:-What has Mr. Lewes been doing in London on Friday last, March 5th, between the hours of halfpast twelve and one o'clock of the noon? what sort of room he was in, what he did there, and whom did he see in it, if any body?' "Answer. "Mr. Lewes, he does himself magnetize, and he was, in fact, at that time, viz., between the hours of half-past twelve and one o'clock of the noon, magnetizing somebody-a man, whom he did not put to sleep. The room in which he was magnetizing is large; it has two windows, and one door; there is not much furniture in it; it was not furnished like a drawing-room, and there were quantities of written papers (beaucoup de papiers) lying about. There was nobody in the room besides Mr. Lewes himself and the person he was magnetizing.' Here she said she saw nothing else." I will first remark on the perfect good faith of the gentleman in question, and his readiness to have the experiment fairly tried. Had he had the slightest misgiving of the truth of clairvoance, he might easily have evaded my test; but he met it in the frankest spirit of truth-seeking, such as inclines me to believe that there must be something in the facts which a man like this believes. I say so after the entire failure of both my experiments. The reply just quoted is, in no one particular, correct. But although these have failed, I am open to conviction yet. Let me place the conditions, and I will abide the result. In conclusion, let me say that the fallacy of clairvoyance is, I take it, the interpretation of a dreaming power as a seeing power. The clairvoyante (when not a charlatan) sees the objects of her dreams, and describes them; what those objects are depend mainly upon the suggestion of external stimulus, in the shape of words, tones, hesitations, &c. If she sees that a man's hair is black, and you tell her "no," she corrects herself, and will, in course of time, correct herself till she calls it red, if you make her. Once, when I" travelled" with a clairvoyante, i. e., when she accompanied me in thought all over my house, I found that by simple assent to what was wrong, and by feigning an anxious surprise, I could make her say just whatever I anticipated she would say. If she were not duping every one, she was dreaming, and her dreams were swayed by what I said. DEATH OF DANIEL WEBSTER.-We little thought, when we spoke a month ago of Daniel Webster, in connection with the Presidency, that we should so soon be called upon to record his death. But such is our unpleasant duty. The great statesman is no more. The voice of his counsel is hushed. The treasures of his great and patriotic mind are now lost to his country for ever. We can only look to the past, and derive profit from his foot-prints. Daniel Webster was the last great statesman of America. He came down to us side by side with Henry Clay, from a time when the channel of politics was purer than now, and side by side the two great spirits have stood as trusty sentinels in a corrupt era, over the blessed institutions of their native land: WEBSTER, with his giant mind, the expounder and the diplomatist; CLAY, with his thrilling eloquence calming the waves of domestic faction, and imparting dignity to the councils of the nation. We shall not now write an eulogy of the last great dead; the daily press, without party distinction, has teemed with eulogies of his character, from the moment that his fatal illness was first announced-ay, even those most coarsely his detractors during life are now his eulogists; affording another comment on the dangerous tendencies of party rancor, and admonishing us that the time to do justice to the good is while they are amongst us. The history of our great statesmen of the present day affords little encouragement to statesmen for the future, as few men will consent to be reviled during their whole life merely for the sake of being honorably gazetted after death. Now that Daniel Webster is gone, we scarcely know where the country can look for a fitting successor in the present condition of our foreign relations. The Hon. John J. Crittenden appears to us the nearest adapted to the emergency, and we think it most probable that he will be called to fill the vacant chair of State. The effect of Mr. Webster's death upon the pending election must be very important. The organization of his friends on an inde pendent nomination is prostrated by this sudden and unexpected stroke; and there are thousands of Whigs who would have voted for Daniel Webster were he living, yet who, now that there is no competitor of their party in the field, will vote for General Scott, thus in a great degree enhancing his chances of success. STATE EDUCATION.-The continued hostility of the heads of the Political Church to the wise provisions made by our general and local governments to enlighten the minds of those who are to be the future defenders of republicanism, and yet who, if left in ignorance, may suffer it to decay, calls for a few remarks at this time. Not long ago the Pontifical head issued a mandate forbidding the education of Roman Catholic children in our public schools; at least we are told so by his organ in this city, from which we clip the following paragraph on the subject: "The Pope, to whose voice pastors and people alike are bound to listen, has called on all bishops to see to it that Catholic youth are educated in schools where all, and in all things, are Catholic; that is, in schools under Catholic teachers of approved faith and morals, where the instruction given in secular science shall be in conformity with and accompanied by the religious teaching of the they shall not be exposed to the company of chilChurch, and where, during the years of their study, dren who are heretics or infidels." In conformity with this mandate, at a recent session in Baltimore, some six archbishops and twenty-six bishops of the Roman Church expressed their "deliberate opinions" on the subject, which are briefly thus given: "Our own experience of the result of a system of mixed education, separated from religious influ ences, convinces us that it fosters a latitudinarian spirit, and leaves youth exposed to the violence of their passions, without moral restraint. The children of Catholic parents, who frequent the public schools of this country in which this system prewho, in affecting to avoid distinctive doctrines, sap vails, insensibly imbibe the errors of their teachers, the foundations of faith, and dispose their pupils to indulge religious indifference. .. To this sys to ascribe the loss of faith and morals on the part tem of promiscuous education we do not hesitate of thousands in this country, who, if religiously trained, might have been the consolation of their parents and the ornaments of the [Papal] Church." Next in order comes the clergy. The most Reverend Dr. Cullen directs the clergy under his charge not to "omit to instruct the parents, that it is a duty on their parts, which admits of no compromise whatsoever-no palliation or excuse-to save their children from any schools or institutions where their faith [in Romanism] or morals may be grievously endangered. "And if this obligation presses with indispensable rigor on the destitute and famishing, assuredly it can admit of no relaxation on the consciences of the rich and the prosperous, who have no such temptation to encounter, no such plea to offer, but whose conduct would be aggravated by the additional circumstance of scandal." The anxiety of prelates lest they lose power through the enlightenment of man causing a withdrawal of patronage is most beautifully expressed in the following quotation from Dr. Cullen: "The awful and heart-rending consequences with which Divine justice so frequently punishes the worldly-minded parent for betraying the eternal interests of his child on account of some precarious temporal advantage, are of too notorious occurrence to require commentary or observation." After the clergy speaks the press. The Freeman's Journal, so called, leads off in this wise: "Infidelity now reigns supreme in the State education of this country. What we Catholics must do, and must do now, is first to get our own children out of this devouring fire. At any cost, at any sacrifice, we must deliver the children over whom we have control from those pits of destruction which lie inviting in their way under the name of Public or District Schools. We must, wherever there are enough of Catholics together to render it possible, organize Catholic parish schools. Where this is impossible, let parents withdraw their children from these places, where they are certain to learn evil, and probably very little but evil, and, if they cannot have them taught elsewhere, let them be set at honest labor, or kept from the ways of the destroyer under their parents' eyes. This withdrawal of Catholic children every where from the Godless schools should be the first step-it is lamentable that it has not long ago been taken. "Next we must set to work, patiently, calmly, resolutely, perseveringly, to break off from our necks the yoke of State despotism, put upon them by Jacobins, in the shape of the school system in this and other States." The amount of all this is, that the enlightenment imparted to the minds of Catholic children through the public schools enables them to see through the hypocritical cloak which held their ignorant parents in slavery, and that therefore these children must not be allowed the benefit of a free education. We are glad to know that a great many Catholic parents have become already too "wide awake" to listen to the despotic order of a foreign potentate, and still send their children to the Public Schools. THE NATURALIZATION LAWS.-We find the following brief, but comprehensive, summary of the history of the Naturalization Laws of the United States, in the columns of the American Banner, of Philadelphia: "The first Naturalization Law passed by an American Congress was in 1790, by which law any person residing in the United States two years was entitled to citizenship. This act met the approval of the foreigners, for under its provisions they expected in a few years to have the control of the government, and of course, then they would have such laws enacted as suited them. At this time, however, they could not control the action of the parties as they do now, and Congress, seeing the bad effects of this law, altered it in 1795, so as to require all foreigners applying for citizenship to be residents of the United States for five years, and renounce all allegiance to foreign powers. But this act was also found to be inefficient, and Jefferson and some others, in 1798, commenced a war against it, and succeeded in having further amendments passed. It was at this time that Jefferson made use of the following sentiment: I hope we may find some means in future of shielding ourselves from foreign influence, political, commercial, or in whatever form attempted. I can scarcely withhold myself from joining in the wish of Silas Deane, "that there were an ocean of fire between this and the old world."' "Jefferson succeeded, in 1798, in having the naturalization laws so altered as to require a residence of fourteen years. This act also imposed many other wholesome restrictions, which, had they been retained, would have prevented the necessity of the formation of the American party at this day, and the evils resulting from indiscriminate emigration been obviated. But the benefits arising from this act were of short duration, for in 1802 Congress repealed the law of '98, and again reduced the term to five years; requiring every alien, however, to make a registry in a court of record of the time of his arrival; requiring a declaration of in tention three years before naturalization. This was also repealed in 1804, but again re-enacted in 1816, and continued in force until 1828, when (on account of the Presidential election in that year) votes were in great demand, and citizens required to be manufactured on the most liberal terms; to accomplish which the laws requiring the certificates of registry and declaration of intention were repealed. "Thus have political demagogues tampered with the Naturalization Laws for their own advancement, until our country is overrun with a class of foreigners tainted with the most unbounded licentiousness, which will be transmitted not only to their children, but to their children's children, rendering our population a heterogeneous, incoherent and distracted mass. We find them even now meddling in politics to such an extent as to control our local elections both here and elsewhere. "To show the character of the emigration, now and for years past, we refer the reader to the following extract of a letter from one of our consuls to Liverpool: "It has been the practice with many parishes, for some years past, to send abroad such of their superannuated population as would consent to go, and although there never was a restriction as to place, they invariably preferred the United States. Regular contracts are made by the different parishes with the passenger brokers at this place to ship them.' 66 Daily cargoes of this precious freight, or 'better citizens,' are arriving, and in a short time will become (as many of them are now) noisy politicians in the Democratic or Whig parties; for it must be remembered that every one of these new additions the vicious and disorderly, the pauper and felon may become a citizen, a voter, a law-maker, by merely procuring two witnesses to swear that he has been in the country five years, and who is there amongst us that does not know that this is not a difficult matter, as men (?) can always be found who, for a small consideration, are willing to swear to this or any thing else, to advance the interests of party! A MECHANIC." On this subject the editor of the Banner justly remarks, that "The many attempts to reform what was at that time considered an evil, by the Democratic party-when emigration was short of 8,000 per annum-contrasts strangely with their present reckless concessions to foreigners. Could the old apostle of Democracy [Thomas Jefferson] once more visit earth, he would stand alone on the landmarks of principles he planted in the full tide of party success-deserted, forsaken." THE FIFTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT of this city is in a furor regarding the nomination of an independent, or people's candidate, against both the regular nominees-Joseph C. Morton, Esq., being the independent nominee. The cause of this movement is chargeable to the unblushing corruption and utter disregard of the wishes and rights of the voters at large, as evinced by the disorderly wire-pullers at the late primary elections in the district. It appears that the citizens of the district came to the conclusion that they had been bought and sold often enough by political tricksters, and determined to be heard at the primary elections in the formation of nominating committees. Accordingly they appeared at the voting places, but all to no purpose; the wirepullers had their work cut and dried beforehand; the bullies and fighting men were there, the voters were refused a hearing, and the whole thing turned out, as usual, a complete farce. At one of the districts in Williams burg, the poll was kept open but four minutes. Finding the independent voters coming in too rapidly for their schemes, the fancy politicians moved to close the poll, and although the vote in the negative was almost unanimous, it was declared carried; the ballot boxes were hidden, and the meeting broke up. It was on the strength of such outrages that the voters of the Fifth Congressional District determined to make a ticket of their own, and support it independent of the so-called party nominations. They have placed in nomination a gentleman of education, talent, and unimpeachable moral character; and if we may judge from the determined spirit in which his disaffection in the district, we may confidently nomination is sustained, and the wide-spread assert that he will be elected. POLITICS AND RELIGION.-We cut the following article from the Philadelphia Banner, which, although it speaks for the American Party, is equally applicable to our own position on the subject of which it treats: "POLITICS AND RELIGION. "We are so frequently charged with dragging religion into the polítical field, and making the Roman Catholic Church a target for our malice,' that we have thought it necessary to refute the charge, through our columns, time and again. The truth is, no party more earnestly opposes connecting the affairs of Church and State, in any manner, than the American party; and it is because we will tolerate no influence which any religious body is disposed to bring to bear upon the politics of the day-because we promptly and frequently rebuke such intolerant and impertinent interference-that this charge is frequently iterated and re-iterated against us. Our occasional readers may ask, who are the parties that countenance a politico-religious movement? We would only say, in reply, are you Whigs? If so, read the papers that advocate the principles to which you are attached. They are now busy, in some sections, refuting the charge that Gen. Scott is a Catholic; in others advocating him for his partiality to that creed, and accusing Gen. Pierce of hypocrisy in his opposition to the constitutional provision in New-Hampshire which excludes Catholics from office. Are you a Democrat? If you are, look at the earnestness with which your party papers endeavor to clear the pealing a constitutional provision, which the Demskirts of Gen. Pierce of having voted against reocrats of New-Hampshire, by overwhelming majorities, have adjudged to be just and right. Can the reader discern nothing in this that smacks of the abhorred union of Church and State? Are the ever-recurring, incessant appeals made by Whigs and Locofocos to the religious feelings and prejudices of Catholics no evidence of their willingne-s to climb into office upon the shoulders of ecclesiastical power? Has the American party ever sought to bring the weight of sectarianism into the |