isted.

Some of these Tracts went farther than people were, as yet, able to
follow, they were "strong meat for babes," and the publication of Tract
XC., by Newman, on the Thirty-nine Articles, brought things to a climax,
and on 15 March, the Vice-Chancellor and the Heads of Houses met to
censure the publication; they came to the resolution: "That modes of
interpretation, such as are suggested in the said Tract, evading rather
than explaining the sense of the Thirty-nine Articles, and reconciling
subscription to them, with the adoption of errors which they were
designed to counteract, defeat the object, and are inconsistent with the
due observance of the Statutes of the University." They only expressed
their opinion which was all they could do, but Newman avowed the
authorship of the Tract, and whilst he was still unconvinced of his
error, he wrote, "I am sincerely sorry for the trouble and anxiety I have
given to the members of the Board, and I beg to return my thanks to them,
for an act which, even though founded on misapprehension, may be made as
profitable to myself, as it is religiously and charitably intended."

At this time, neither the writers of the Tracts, nor their readers, had
any intention of severing themselves from the Church of England, their
sole endeavours were to wake it from the torpor into which it had fallen;
and, had there been any tolerance on the other side, such men as Newman,
Manning, and others, would have been kept to the Church, for they merely
enunciated doctrine and practices which are now almost universal.

The old flint-lock Brown Bess was still in use in the Army, although
percussion arms were introduced in 1840; but we read (13 Ap.) that "the
exchange of flint for percussion cap guns to the Army, will cost, this
year, 130,000 pounds."

That amiable gentleman, the Earl of Cardigan, was still making himself
notorious. This time it was flogging a soldier on Easter Sunday, after
Church; and the very first question asked in the House of Commons, when
it met after the Easter recess, was by Mr. Hume, relating to it. Mr.
Macauly replied that: "Whatever other imputations there might be cast on
Lord Cardigan, a disposition for the infliction of corporal punishment
was not one which could justly be thrown on him. From inquiries which he
had made, he had found that, since 1839, up to the recent case, there was
not an instance of the infliction of corporal punishment in this
regiment. The c