The Sun. — London, England, 1862-04-18 00:00:00

-D EI s iN 47 liK AND GERMANY. Theijgis a translation of a despatch from Count Be, iastorff to M. de Milan, Prussian Minister at Coperlhagen, dated Berlin, Feb. 8, 1862 : " Ye du are already acquainted with the despatch wine' a Minister Hall addressed on the 26th Decem ber last to M. Anade. As an answer to the inquiry Nv" a had made for the purpose of obtaining a sure r koundation for judging the Danish proposals, this reply had been looked forward to in the hope that an open and unrese,•rved declaration of its intentions on the part of tlya Danish Government would greatly promote the bringing about of an understanding. `" This exrjectation has not been realised. " The Danish Cabinet wants to limit the negotia tions to regulating provisionally the position of Hol stein, As an answer to our inquiry the despatch of Dec. 26 refers to the past, and gives, at the same tirae, an account of the course events have hitherto taken, with the object of bringing an accusation against the Germanic Confederation of having ren dered impossible the establishment of a common constitution for the whole Danish monarchy. Minis ter Hall declines every explanation concerning the affairs of the Duchy of Schleswig and avoids any definitive declaration as to the sense in which the Danish Government understands the negotiations and transactions of 1851-52. "It is plain that the present negotiations are thereby deprived of their only sure foundation. Led by the wish of coming to an understanding, we will, nevertheless, once more try to replace the ne gotiations on that foundation. In order to do so it is, however, absolutely necessary to keep distinctly in mind the character and object of the present ne grtiations. For when the Danish Minister grants the nego tiations to be directed towards a provisional solu tion of the question, in what manner the Federal .resolution of March 8, 1860, can be carried out,' this neither responds to the clear and simple meaning of that resolution, nor to the relation in which the two German Powers stand to it. The resolution of March 8, 1860—in which the Federal Diet for the first time, and in consequence of a communication made by the Royal Ducal Government in reference to certain provisional measures that had been adopted, took into consideration the question of a provisional state of things—established the condi tions under which such a provisorium could be al lowed to the Royal Ducal Government. The reso lution insisted at the same time anew, however, on steps being speedily taken for the bringing about of the definitive regulation prescribed by the reso lution of Feb. 11, 1858. Means were thus offered the Royal Ducal Government for staying the carry :4lg out of the Federal measures which had already been initiated. How, then, can these conditions be now made the subject of the present negotia tions ? These conditions are simple ;to comply with them is in the power of the Danish Govern ment, and no new negotiations are necessary for that - purpose. We need not, therefore, concern ourselves further with the remark made in the Danish despatch, that the present negotiations must be terminated with a fixed period.' We should otherwise be obliged to retort to this remark, that if, on the expiration of the period indicated by Mi nister Hall, the Danish Government should take upon itself to transgress the beforesaid conditions, - and interfere with the present provisional state of things, the Confederation would, of course, be placed in the position of letting those Federal proceedings take their course which were initiated for the pur pose of carrying out the resolution of Feb. 11, 1858. " If the Danish Government, instead of simply complying with the conditions of the aforesaid Fe deral resolution, would negotiate on the subject of another provlsorium, it would thereby call in ques tion the premises on which that resolution was based. To those premises belonged, as Minister Hall in another part of his despatch remarks, the maintenance of the Reichsrath. The Federal Diet could, in anticipation of a speedy definitive regula tion, and under certain conditions, allow the Reichs rath to exist ; but as legally existing the Diet could not acknowledge it, being in contradiction with the agreements of 1851-52, which stipulated a uniform connection of all the different parts of the monarchy and the avoidance of any steps tending to an incorporation of Schleswig. If the Danish Government had, in its propositions of October 26, 1861, placed as co-ordinate with the Holstein Es tates, instead of the Reichsrath, the separate repre sentations of the other parts of the monarchy— that is to say, the Parliament of the kingdom and the Estates of Schleswig—and endowed them with the same attributes as those which have been con ceded to the Estates of Holstein, the two im portant and integral parts of the agreements of . 1851 and 1852 would, at any rate, have been carried out, and there would have been a pos sibility of negociating on the subject of the pro posals submitted for a provisional organisation cal culated to last for a longer period, and leaving to future developments the bringing about of an un derstanding as to the definitive organisation of the union of the different parts of the monarchy. "Should the Danish Government however not be able to make up his mind to do so, the German Powers would the more imperatively be bound to endeavour to bring about an understanding as to a definite regulation of the constitution question in all its bearings and on its international basis, The German Powers having already declared themselves ready to do so, an d h av i ng openly explained their position in reference to that basis, the next step re quired is a decided declaration of the Danish Go vernment as to its own intentions in this respect, and as to its , own position to the aforesaid basis from the years 1851-52. The German Powers, un fortunately, cannot conceal from themselves that to insist on this requirement, which had already been set forth in their first reply, has now, in view of the contents of the despatch of Dec. 26, become even a still more imperative and unavoidable duty on their part. " At this point must be specially noticed the his torical retrospect of the course of events, in which, according to a remark of Minister Hall, we are to find the explanation to our inquiry. To submit in its details this retrospect to criticism, or to defend the Confederation against the imputation con tained in it, that the Confederation had ren dered a definitive re-establishment of a common constitution impossible, would not comport with the dignity of the two German Powers. It is notorious from what quarter the separation of Holstein from the bonds of a common union is pressed. But the German Powers must protest against the moderation and patience with which the Confederation has acted being perverted into an accusation against it. We must remind the Copen hagen Cabinet that as early as June, 1856—that is to say, shortly after the promulgation of the com moil constitution,—the Cabinets of Berlin and Vienna did not fail in the friendliest manner to call the attention of the Danish Government to the cir cumstance that this common constitution did not, either in f orm or execution, conform to the princi pies established in 1851.52. They expressed at the time the hope that the Danish Government would in the constitution itself find the means of correct ing,te its faults by a q u iet hi deve , lopment of the provi sions it contained; while v,e on the other hand, did not conceal from the Danish Government that if this were not done the German Confederation would be placed in the necessity of insisting on the accomplishment of the i engagements that had been contracted. Now tis brought as an a ccusa ti on against the Confederation that it ha s Postponed so long making those demands, that it h as had the pA tience to wait for years in the hope of EP • - eing the Copenhagen Cabinet acting upon the friendly advi ce given it. " But wo will not follow the example of th e Danish despatch by entering into recriminationK and a .fruitless polemic on the f.4ubject of the past. We will riot, for that reason, recur to what w 3 e rz-Inirked in our first communica.tiun on the c,,pndfiet of offjoi - d! :4 in the Duchy of Schleswig. Minister Hall Vi ill be able to tell himself, that statements made on facts that are notorious and accredited by public documents cannot be controverted by a merely general appeal to impartial justness and mildness of rule. We will not at present, by any further reference to this gaping wound, increase the difficulties of the negotiations. We will rather at vnce declare what we at present must expect from the Danish Government in order to be able to maintain that foundation for the negotiations which the despatch of December 26 ha 3 placed in question. The despatch of December 26 admits in a mea sure that the (on the Danish side) ontemplated separate position of the Duchy of Ho'. tein, which is to be made the foundation of ulterior developments, would not accord with the basis of 1851-52. This fact is not disputed, it is only attempted to be ea• plained ; nor is it denied that the transactions of 1851.52 essentially turned upon the Duchy of Schleswig, and particularly on the position of that duchy in the collective Danish Monarchy as well as on the relation of the nationalities comprised with in the country. Nevertheless, the despatch declines all discussion as to Schleswig in the present nego tiations, and declares the introduction of this sub ject in the discussion to be something new and un justifiable. Tha despatch further eludes the decla ration by us as to how the definitive regulation should be brought into unison with the basis of 1852. It avoids reference to the negotiations of 1851-52, and where these are mentioned it refers to a correspondence which took place in 1860, which in truth bore very closely upon the gist of the pend ing differences, and consequently, also, on the nego tiations having for object the solution of those differences. " On our part we did not intend to refer to that correspondence, because we did not wish to treat views expressed on an incidental question as em bodying the well reflected and decisive opinion of the Danish Government. Besides, the assertion of the Copenhagen Cabinet had encountered at once a decided protest on the part of both German Powers, and we might hope that our detailed and thorough refutation of those assertions would not have been without effect. We could not, therefore, believe that the Copenhagen Cabinet would again renew assertions having for object to deny the existence of any binding engagement whatever concerning the Duchy of Schleswig. It might for a moment have been overlooked at Copenhagen that not only the evacuation of Holstein and full resto ration of the authority of the Sovereign in that duchy, but also the participation of the German Powers in European transactions on which the Danish Government laid a great weight, were made to depend on the binding form of a ' decla ration made by order of hie Majesty the King of Denmark,' as stated in the despatch of the Aus trian Cabinet, dated December 26, 1851 ; and that the Danish Minister at the time, in his reply of January 29, 1852, stated that he communicated by authority of his Majesty the declaration, which both generally as also specially, in so far as the non incorporation of Schleswig into the kingdom was concerned, agreed with the views of the German Powers.' " When now, however, the Danish Minister refers to these assertions they certainly acquire an in creased importance, and, when taken in connection with the whole of the contents of the despatch of December 26, they place the German Powers under the necessity of addressing in the first place to the Danish Government the question whether it really has expressed in the cited correspondence of 1860 its final opinion, and intends to adhere to it; or, whether it still recognises the binding character of the promises made in 1851-2, and also in respect to the Duchy of Schleswig, and will make such a recognition the basis of ulterior negotiations with the German Powers. " In addressing to the Danish Government this question both the German Powers are conscious that they thereby restore the question to its true and simple stand point. Only by the reciprocal recog nition of existing obligations can a sure foundation for an understanding be laid. " You will please bring this communication to the knowledge of Minister Hall, and give him a copy of the same." The following is a translation of a despatch from the Prussian Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Prussian Minister at Copenhagen, dated Berlin, Feb. 14, 1862 : " The projects of law submitted by the Govern ment of his Majesty the King of Denmark to the Reichsrath, which met on the 25th of last month, have been made public by the journal of the Reich srath, and We Lavo thub I-mt.:mutt acquainted with them. " These projects of law, which concerned a change in several paragraphs of the constitution law of October 2, 1855, in respect to the Reichsrath, could not escape our attention. " Far from wishing to interfere in the internal affairs of the Danish monarchy, or to judge of the acts of the Government, in so far as these alone bore upon internal affairs, we have here to take into consideration, in the first place, that through these projects of law, and also in consequence of the com position of the Reichsrath being limited to only one part of the monarchy, the relations of the Duchy of Schleswig to the kingdom are essentially affected. " Secondly, that the relations of the Duchy of Schleswig to the Kingdom of Denmark were fixed in 1851-2 by an international transaction between Prussia and Austria, acting on behalf of the Ger manic Confederation on the one side, and Denmark on the other, and which transaction was sanctioned by the Confederation. " These facts place us under the obligation of re minding that one-sided legislative acts, in whatever form they may take place, cannot, in a legal man ner, alter stipulations that rest on agreements hav ing an international nature. ,‘ We deem it expedient in this place to cite verbally those points of the aforesaid agreements which come principally under consideration. " By the communication of the 29th January, 1852, the Copenhagen Cabinet acknowledged as binding on the Government of his Majesty the King of Den mark the five points contained in the appen dix to the despatch of the Vienna Cabinet of the 26th of December, 1851. " In this appendix it is said as to point 1,-- "' As sincerely as his Majesty the Emperor de sires to see soon firmly established the order and welfare of the Danish State by means of a definitive organisation corresponding to its wants, as confi thntly does his Majesty entertain the hope that the Danish Government, in its endeavours to accomplish this end, will not give the institutions which in the last years have been conferred on the Kingdom of Denmark proper an exclusive preference, but that it will keop in view, as the only sure aim to be fol lowed, the permanent relations of the whole Mon archy and the object of strengthening the bonds uniting it as a whole. , Once assured of this his Majesty will not delay to take part with other friendly Powers in securing those bonds by the international guaranty of a common succession for all parts of the Monarchy. "In regard to point 2 the same document ex pressly stipulates,— "In the declaration of his Majesty the King of Denmark, that neither an incorporation of the Duchy of Schleswig into the kingdom, nor any steps tending to such a result will be taken, the Imperial Court sees with satisfaction a renewed confirmation of that promise which the late King Christian VIII. gave to his subjects, and which the now reigning Sovereign, immediately on the con clusion of the peace of July 2, 1850, repeated in the manifest of the 11th of that month, and which also, in conformity with the 4th Article of the said treaty of peace, was communicated to the Germanic Con federation as a resolution adopted by the King with a view to the pacification of the country.' " In view of the state of the present pending ne gotiation we may regard ourselves as dispensed from the necessity of examining in detail the bear ing of the projects cf law mentioned in the begin ning, the provisional or definitive character with Which the Danish Government may invest them, and the relation in which they stand to the agree u"".nta we have ealled'attention tn. re " we cannot abstain from declaring already, w that we cannot recognise the legality of the legislative 131. constitutive acts that conflict with the re" ions of t )'e Duchy of Schleswig to the Kingdom of Denmark, end to the other parts of the monarchy as established by th e agreements of 1851-2. We protest, on the other hand, expressly against all in ferences which might be drawnj from such acts, and reserve to Prussia and the n —ertimnic Confederation all rights founded on the aforesaid agreements. You" are requested to read this communication THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, APRIL 18, 1862. to the Danish Minister of Foreign Affairs, and to leave him a copy." The following is a translation of a despatch from the Danish Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Danish Missions at Berlin and Vienna, dated Co penhagen, March 12, 1862 : "In the despatch of the Bth of last month, with which you are already acquainted, the Prussian Mi nister of Foreign Affairs (Austrian Minister) dwells upon the uselessness of recriminations and fruitless polemics. I fully share his opinion in this respect, and will prove that I do so by the present com munication. I will therefore try at once to bring the negotiation back to what was its origin and primary object. _ _ " The negotiation had its origin in the two Federal resolutions of March 8, 1860, and Feb. 7, 1861. Its object is to bring about an understanding as to the meaning and realisation of the provisional state of things prescribed for Holstein by the said Federal resolutions. In connexion with this, these two re solutions refer to another Federal resolution of Feb. 11, 1858, stipulating in regard to a definitive ar rangement :--` That a state of things should be brought about in the Duchies of Holstein and Lau enburg which conformed to the Federal legislation and the promises that had been made, especially securing the independence of the separate constitu tions and administrations, and the enjoyment of equality of rights.' " If therefore the present negotiation should fulfil the general wish of preparing the way for a com plete, settlement of this long-pending dispute, it would also have to embrace this other question, and it would be the more desirable that it should do so, inasmuch as we have hitherto been unsuccessful in obtaining from the Confederation any definite ex planation as to what it understands by the inde pendence and equality of rights of the Duchies of Holstein and Lauenburg. " Such is, according to our view, the double object of the negotiation which was opened last summer, under the sanction of the Confederation, with the two German Powers, but the actual commencement of which we still await. " We believe that we have made, in our despatch of October 26, a practical proposition, and which ought to have been satisfactory, at least, to the Confederation. For we offered to join in an agree ment, by which the Holstein Estates would have been endowed with a deliberative authority and a right of voting the subsidies, such as the Diet had claimed for the Estates, coupled alone with those conditions which were indispensable if the exist ence of the Danish Monarchy should not be com promised, or the rights of the other territorial parts of the Monarchy be trenched upon. On the other hand, any change in that proposed state of things would have been made dependent on the free consent of the Estates, A common constitution, embracing the German Duchies, and which his Ma jesty's Government still continues to hold out to those Duchies, could not, therefore, be promulgated without the assent of the Estates. Whether such an arrangement be designated as provisional or de finitive is quite immaterial, for a constitutional order of things would in this manner at any rate have been brought about, and one that was not limited to any defined period, nor susceptible of being altered otherwise than with the consent of the Estates themselves. The Estates of Holstein would consequently have obtained so completely the position claimed for them that the Confederation could withdraw from all farther interference in the matter, with the conviction of having secured to the fullest extent for the two Federal territories all it had in view, as the definitive object of the resolu. tion of February 11, and even more than it had had any right to claim. " Instead, however, of submitting to a detailed examination the proposals made in our despatch of October 26, the Prussian Minister of Foreign Af fairs has preferred to set aside all consideration of these proposals for the question, 'whether his Majes ty's Government regarded itself as still bound by the declarations it had made in the negotiations of 1852 ? " Though this question 11,1 s certainly surprised us it is, nevertheless, some satisfaction to find that the Prussian Government, on its side, adheres to that agreement, and the considerations on which it was founded; for we must confess that it had often ap peared to us quite impossible to reconcile the de mands of the Germanic Confederation with that agreement. As for us, we do not hesitate to declare that his Majesty's Government will, of course, con scientiously fulfil every engagement it has con tracted. The rule obtains, however, here, as well as in every other international transaction, that neither of the contracting parties can claim the right of ascribing to any of the expressions contained in the previous correspondence the same validity that belongs to the stipulations of the final agreement, which both parties had acknowledged, and that in case of a difference of opinion, neither of the con tracting parties can claim an exclusive right of interpretation as to the meaning and purport of that compact, Only in so far as the question con cerns the internal affairs of the German Federal territories is it to be referred to the forum of the Germanic Confederation, and then only in so far as it comes within the limits of the Federal law. Beyond these limits, and especially in regard to the constitutional relations of those territories to the collective Danish Monarchy, the question bears an international chartccr, and can only be settled by negotiations and agreements, in respect to which an appeal to the last resort—that of force, in order to compel a one-sided interpretation cannot assume the character of a Federal execution. " When we chiefly refer to general international rules, which in point of principle cannot be disputed, the reason for so doing is simply this—that the question addressed to us has been put in such gene ral terms that it excludes all discussion of what was the real purport of the agreement come to in 1852. If such a discussion should be desired, we would be authorised to expect that at least an attempt should be made to point out' what are the obligations we are supposed not to have fulfilled. We may take it for granted that the Prussian Government does not intend to make us responsible for those Federal resolutions that have encouraged the Holstein Estates in their determinate resistance to all and every com mon representation, and this in the most direct con tradiction with the agreement of 1852 ; for Federal resolutions, which we have done our best to combat, and to which we have finally only submitted under the menace of a Federal execution, which we did not deem it in the interest of the country to subject it to. " If this appeal to the transactions of 1852 should have been occasioned by a wish to extend the present negotiation to the affairs of the Duchy of Schleswig, his Majesty's Government cannot accede to such a wish. For the present negotiation regards alone a dispute with the Confederation as to a German Federal territory, while the affairs of the Duchy of Schleswig in no wise concern the Confederation. When the Prussian Minister, nevertheless, now maintains that it would be only possible in that manner to substitute a definitive arrangement for a merely provisional one, I refer him to his own des patch, in which the demands made by the F e d era l resolution of February 11, 1858, are d escr ib ed as stipulations for a definitive arrangement,' though no mention is made either in the said resolution, or indeed in any other Federal resolution of the affairs of Schleswig. "If we cannot consent to give to the present nego tion another and a different direction from t hat which properly belongs to it, we certainly cannot, on the other hand,' prevent the Prussian Government from bringing up the question it desires to have dis. cussed in some other way. The Minister knows what are our views on the subject from the corre spondence exchange in 1860, and the views thus expressed by us we certainly continue to hold in all essential points, nor have we any reason for desir- Ing to avoid It renewed discussion of the subject. An expression in the despatch of Feb. 8 obliges me, however, at once to state that it is a complete mis take when the Prussian Minister believes to have discovered in our despatch of Dec. 26 an admission on our part that the question as to the treatment of the two nationalities existing in the country had i n any manner whatever been the subject of nego tiations in 1851-52. " It remains to notice the despatch of Feb. 14, which was handed me at the same time as that of Feb. 8, and to decline admitting the protest therein set forth. "It cannot have escaped the attention of the Minister with how much solicitude his Majesty's Government has proceeded in order to avoid any steps that might in any way affect prejudicially the pending negotiation concerning the constitutional position of the Duchies of Holstein and Lauenburg. If the Minister will continue to devote his attention to the proceedings of the Government and Rigs raad, he will be convinced of the pains taken to maintain intact the basis laid down by the Procla mation of Jan. 28,1852, in so far as the interference of the Confederation has not rendered that impos sible. He will also notice that the wish expressed on various sides that the special constitution of the Duchy of Schleswig should be abrogated and an in corporation take place, by extending to the duchy the constitution of the kingdom, has met with no encouragement either on the part of the Govern ment or of the: Rigsraad. The fears of the Minister are therefore ground'_ess. As ' the Prussian Government can,' of course, lay claim to no right of interfering in the internal affairs of the Danish Monarchy, or to pronounce judg ment on the acts of the Government in such re spects,' I may, in conclusion, confine myself to the remark that a recognition on the part of the Con federation of the Rigsraad, which represents only those territories that do not belong to the Confede ration, neither has nor could be demanded, for the Risgraad does not at all stand in need of such a re cognition. "Having thus, as I believe, sufficiently answered the question that has been put to his Majesty's Go vernment, I trust that the Prussian Minister of Foreign Affairs will no longer find any reason for delaying to inform us of his views as to the propo sition made in the despatch of October 26 last year, and that he will especially, clearly and distinctly, explain in what manner that proposition does not satisfy the claims of independence and equality of rights made on behalf of Holstein, and, if so, what then is the exact position which the Confederation claims for that territory. "You will be good enough to bring this despatch to the knowledge of the Minister of Foreign Af fairs, and leave with him a copy of the same.—l have the honour, &c., " HALL." LAW INTELLIGENCE.-April 17. COURT OF CHANCERY. (Before the Lord Chancellor.) HILLS V. THE LIVERPOOL UNITED GAS LIGHT COMPANY. The arguments in this part-heard appeal from an order of the Vice-Chancellor Wood, relating to an alleged infringement of the plaintiff's patent for purifying gas, were this morning resumed. The order complained of directed an issue at law to ascertain whether the material used by the defend ants in the first instance for purifying gas was a precipitated oxide, and also granted an injunction restraining the defendants from making use of the plaintiff's invention in renovating the materials used by them for the purifying of gas, whether the same be a precipitated or other hydrated oxide of iron, so that they may be used over and over again to purify the gas. It appeared that the material used by the defendants for purifying the gas was " bog iron ore," an oxide of iron, the use of which, the plaintiff contended, was an infringement of his patent. The defendants, on the other hand, insisted that the material was a native or natural oxide, and that the letters patent of the plaintiff only embraced the use of artificial oxides. The question mainly depended upon the meaning of the scientific terms employed by the plaintiff in his specification as com pared with their universal or general sense. Sir H. Cairns and Mr. Druce appeared for the appellants (the defendants) ; Mr. Rolt, Mr. Grove (of the common law bar), and Mr. Marten supported the order of the Court below. The Lord Chancellor, anterior to the reply, said that the injunction in its present form could not stand, as it was founded upon a misapprehension of the plaintiff's patent,but whether another injunction having the same effect ought to be substituted was a question for grave consideration. He had no hesitation, therefore, in dissolving the injunction, and would suggest to counsel in his reply to direet his arguments to what was the meaning intended by the plaintiff in the phraseology of his specifica tion, and also whether it was within human power and within the scope of human testimony to predi cate of the material used by the defendants, that ic was a " precipitated oxide" within the meaning of the plaintiff's patent. A third point also arose, whether, by the revivyfying . process used by the defendants, a " hydrated oxide" was not formed within the meaning of that term as described in the specification of the plaintiff, and therefore amounted to an infringement of his letters patent. Sir H. Cairns replied, and The Lord Chancellor reserved his judgment on the other part of the motion, and dissolved the in junction. COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. Sittings in Banco. (Before Lord Chief Justice Cockburn and Justices Crompton, Blackburn, and Mellor.) BOOTE V. PORTER-MAINTENANCE OF A WIFE. Mr. Sergeant Ballantine said this was an action tried recently at Maidstone before the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, when the jury re turned a verdict for the plaintiff, the amount of damages to be considered, and settled by the learned judge. There was no leave reserved to move the Court, but execution was stayed. He (the learned sergeant) now moved for a rule nisi for a new trial, on the ground that the verdict was against the evidence. The action was brought by the plaintiff to recover for necessaries supplied to the defendant's wife. The plea was never indebted, and the defence was that the wife had committed adultery with a Major Ross, a married man. The lady herself and Major Ross were both examined on the trial. Both of them denied the adultery, but they admitted cer tain facts in connection with their conduct. The lady had left her husband's house on two or three occasions in complicity with Major Ross, and had gone to lodgings unknown to her husband, where she was visited by Major Ross in a false name, and who represented himself to be her at torney. Major Ross, it was proved, was in the habit of constantly seeing the husband while the I wife was absent, and he (Major Ross) was visiting her at her lodging. The husband was extremely anxious about hi s w if e . H e consu lt e d M a j or R oss with reference to her conduct, on which occasion the latter professed to know nothing about her and. expressed great concern for the husband, yet it ap peared he was constantly visiting her at her lodg ing. The learned judge in summing up to the jury put the denial of these facts in an unfavourable light, and told them that it ought not to have any effect on their minds, and pointed out evi dence on the other side of a conclusive character that ought to be taken into their consideration. The summing up, he might say, was in favour of the defendant, and from what he (the learned counsel) could gather from it he had no doubt this application would meet with the Lord Chief Justice's sanction, The defendant's answer to the case was extremely strong. There was no doubt that his affection for his wife was genuine, and he induced her to again live with him. She was labouring at this time under a disease for which it was necessary she should undergo an operation, and a nurse from one of the hospitals, unknown to all parties, was called in. The house in which they were lodging was occupied by an elderly lady and two not very young maiden ladies, and in consequence of the husband coming to live with them a great deal of gossip went on, it being the same lodging where the lady had been visited by Major Ross; and the three ladies gave such a detailed account of what had gone on between the lady and Major Ross that, if true, it would lead to the belief in the wife's adultery. The defendant i was unable to account for the non-delivery of cer. I tain letters which he expected, and on speaking about it, the little girl said " Oh, mamma gets let ters every day." 'The husband then spoke to the nurse, and it then came out that the wife was re ceiving letters from Major Ross through one of the women, and the nurse further said to him that she thought he had better not take a house in the coun try, as his establishment would soon be broken up. He next spoke to one of the young ladies, and she admitted that she was in the habit of receiving letters under cover for the lady, which she handed over to her. Her husband then determined to pos sess himself of the next letter that came, and accord ingly one morning he waited for the postman's arri val and got possession of a letter addressed by Maj or Ross to his wife. The learned counsel read the letter. It was the same impassioned epistle that was read on the tri a l, an d re f er r e d t o th e anno yance it gave him to find that the brute her husband had accompanied her to the volunteer review at Wim bledon. The sam e n i g ht th a t th e h us b an d o bt a ined possession of the letter the lady left her house, and passed a greater p or ti on o f th e n i g ht w ith Major Ross in walking about the streets. Afterwards the husband received a letter from his wife imploring him to take pity on her—to see her if for the last time, and to let her hear her fate from his own lips. She also stated she was very ill and prayed him to grant her that last f avour . ; The Lord Chief Justice said the court would com municate with the l earne d i u d ge w ho tried the ease . before deciding whether or not they would grant a rule.—Judgment deferred. WELLS V. WEBBER.-LIBEL. This was an action for libel tried at the last Westminster after term sittings before the Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, when the jury returned al verdict for the plaintiff, damages £3OO. The plain tiff is an eminent practitioner, residing at the West end, and the defendant is a retired practitioner, re siding at Tunbridge Wells. The action was for libel, contained in a letter written by the defendant and published in the Medical Circular. The libel had reference to a printed lecture, delivered by the plaintiff at one of the London hospitals, relative to fistula and ifs treatment, a copy of which he gave to the boots of the hotel at Buxton, in Derbyshire, with a request that he would take it to the defen dant's bedroom and give it to him. The boots, how ever, neglected to do so, and the consequence was that it was left about on the letter shelf. The prin cipal objection to the exposure of the pamphlet was that it contained engravings regugnant to decency, and unfit for females and young persons' eyes. Mr. Webber appeared in person, and moved for a new trial, on the ground that the plaintiff's state ments on the trial were adverse to the facts of the case. The Lord Chief Justice said that could not be, because no evidence was called for the defence. Mr. Webber bitterly complained that his counsel acted on the trial contrary to his (Mr. Webber's) express directions. He tried all he could to induce his counsel to call him, but he declined. Mr. Webber then moved for a new trial on affidavits and misdirection relative to no witnesses being called for the defence. The Lord Chief Justice said the letter was the most malignant one man could pen of another. In summing up the case to the jury he (the learned judge) commented on the fact of the defendant's absence from the witness-box to give any explana tions how the pamphlet got exposed to general view, and the probable inference to be drawn therefrom. Mr. Webber then proceeded at considerable length to vindicate his conduct with reference to the writ ing and the publication of the letter complained of. He had a duty to discharge both to society and the profession in calling attention to the circumstances connected with the publication of the pamphlet at Buxton. He had witnesses in court at the time of the trial—clergymen, members of the legal profes sion, and the servants of the hotel, who if called would have completely altered the complexion of the case. He had no fear of going into the witness <box and urged it with great interest, but his coun sel refused to call him or any of his witnesses, and he (Mr. Webber) complained that he had not been fairly treated by his counsel. The Lord Chief Justice said the defendant was asking the court to do what it had never done be fore; that was, when a learned counsel had chosen to go to the jury without calling witnesses and the verdict was adverse to him, for the court to grant a new trial. The defendant in effect now said that his counsel had betrayed his trust, and he therefore asked for a new trial in order to open up the whole of the question. That could not be done. Mr. Webber said it was hard that he should suf fer for the acts of his counsel, especially when he had acted contrary to express instructions. He also complained that the learned judge's observa tions to the jury had the effect of inducing them to give heavier damages than they otherwise would done. The observation that he had not gone into the box and explained his conduct he thought un called for under the circumstances. It was evident that the plaintiff's desire was more to clutch coin than vindicate his character, for almost im mediately after the trial execution was issued, and the sheriff's men came to his (Mr. Webber's) house to seize for the amount. He offered to refer the matter to professional men, and abide by their decision ; but Mr. Wells declined. Mr Webber then proceeded to make a lengthened statement with re ference to the plaintiff's connection with the Medi cal Journal and other extraneous matters. The Lord Chief Justice said that the defendant was then showing by his address that the defen dant's counsel had exercised a wise discretion in not putting him into the box, considering that his conduct in the box would go to swell and aggravate the damages. Mr. Webber then handed in several affidavits, which were read. They denied the plaintiff's state ment with reference to the publication of the pam phlet at Buxton. After hearing the defendant at considerable length, The Court refused to grant a rule. Rule refused. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. Sittings in Banco.—(Before Lord Chief Justice Erie , and Justices Willes, Byles, and Keating ) VAN TOLL V. THE SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.- LOSS OF JEWELLERY. The plaintiff in this case had recovered a verdict for £2O for jewellery lost out of a bag deposited at the cloak-room, London-bridge ; and the question was whether a verdict should be entered for the de fendants upon the ground that they were protected from liability by a condition printed upon the back of the ticket handed to the plaintiff, and which said that they would not be liable for parcels worth more than £lO unless the nature of such parcels was declared. The matter was argued yesterday, and the court now gave judgment. The Lord Chief Justice said in addition to the notice being printed upon the back of the ticket, a large printed copy was stuck up in the office. The plaintiff said that she did not see the large one, and no one asked whether she had read that upon the ticket. Looking however at all the circumstances and at the reasonable nature of the condition, he thought that it must be taken that the plaintiff had notice of it. The main contention on the part of the plaintiff was that the companl- had received the goods as common carriers, and that as they had not complied with the conditions in the 7th section of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act in reference to the " receiving, forwarding, and delivering" goods, they were absolutely liable. The court however was of opinion that they did not receive the parcel in their character of common carriers, and that they were entitled to make special terms in reference to their liability. _ _ _ Rule absolute to enter a verdict for the defen. dants. MASON V. HEATH.-PHOTOGRAPHIC LIKENESS OF THE LATE PRINCE CONSORT. The plaintiff in this case was a publisher of pho tographic likenesses in Paternoster-row, and the defendant, a photographic artist, was a member of the firm of Murray and Heath, in Piccadilly. The action was to recover two negative portraits of his late Royal Highness, and at the trial be fore the Lord Chief Justice, at Guildhall, there was contradictory evidence as to whether the plaintiff was to have one or two negatives, and there was also a difference as to what the plain tiff should pay, he offering five guineas for two negatives, and the defendant demanding fifteen guineas for one. The jury found that there was no contract that the plaintiff should have two nega tives, but they said that they thought he should have one of them upon payment of five guineas. In answer to his lordship, the jury added that they thought that there was a contract that one negative should be delivered to the plaintiff, and leave was therefore reserved to him to move to amend the record and to enter a verdict for himself. Mr. M. Smith now moved pursuant to this leave. The Lord Chief Justice, in granting the rule, suggested that some arrangement should be come to to carry out the suggestion made by the jury. Rule granted. WILLIAMSON V. THE LONDON AND BRIGHTON RAIL WAY COMPANY.-THE CLAYTON TUNNEL ACCI DENT. The plaintiff claimed damages for injuries sus tained by the Clayton Tunnel accident, and the com pany haying paid £4OO into court, the jury found a verdict in their favour, thinking this amount suffi cient compensation. Mr. Sergeant Shee now moved for a rule for a new trial. The Lord Chief Justice, however, stopped him, that he knew all about the case , h e hav by saying ing been informed of the circumstances, believing that the action was in the Court of Queen's Bench; for he should not have talked over the matter if he had known that he should have to deal with it Mr. Sergeant Shee said he was glad that his lord ship knew the circumstances, for he believed that was for the interest of both parties. The Lord Chief Justice communicated with his learned brothers, and afterwards said that as there was some personal matter involved they would grant a rule without having the circumstances fur ther stated. Mr. Sergeant Shee said he was not aware of any personal matter except a misunderstanding between him and a learned friend as to:a statement of fact. The Lord Chi e f Ju s tice said that the granting of a rule would probably lead to a settlement. Rule granted. STAGG V. ELLIOTT.-ALLEGED FORGERY. This was an action to recover the amount of a bill of exchange purporting to be accepted for th e defendant b y hi s son , George Elliott; and the ques tion at the trial was whether George Elliott had accepted the bill, or whether the acceptance was forged by a person named Bradley. The evidence was of a very conflicting character, but ultimately the jury f oun d for the plaintiff. Mr. Sergeant Shee now moved for a rule for a new trial, upon the ground that the verdict was weight_ of evidence, against the and he also sub mitted this question of law. George Elliott, it was admitted, had authority to accept bills for his father in the course of trade, but the bill in question, according to the statement of Bradley, was not accepted in the way of trade, but for the accommo dation of George Elliott. Tt was contended that authority to accept trade bills gave no authority to accept accommodation bills. Rule granted upon the question of law, but not in reference to the evidence. . _ The court was occupied during the remainder of the day hearing arguments in cases of new trial which were of no public interest; and at the con clusion of the business Mr. Horncastle, the senior usher, adjourned the court until Wednesday next, the intermediate time being devoted to the Easter holidays. Sittings at Nisi , Prius in Middlesex.--(Before Mr. Justice Williams and a Common Jury.) SUTTON V. PAIN AND ANOTHER-COMMISSION. The plaintiff in this case, a lady, was described as an agent, and she sued the defendants, who are so licitors, to recover £5O commission, for introducing to them Mr. Healey, who became a partner in the firm. Mr. Best and Mr. Grifiths appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Day for the defendants. The plaintiff's case was that she saw Mr. Harri son, one of the defendants, who said that Mr. Pain being about to retire, he (Harrison) wanted a suit able partner, and afterwards it was arranged that if the plaintiff should procure him a partner, she should receive £5 per cent. upon the amount paid by the incoming partner. She thereupon went to Mr. Pullen, where she heard of Mr. Healey, who through her communication to Mr. Pullen was in troduced to the defendants, and became a partner, paying £l,OOO. The defendants case was that there was no truth in the statement that it was arranged that the plaintiff was to have commission, and some letters were put in with the view of showing that the plaintiff had expected to share Pullen's commission instead of making a charge herself. Mr. Pullen had been paid his commission, £5O, by Mr. Mealy. The jury, after considering the matter for a short time, found a verdict for the plaintiff for £5O. COURT OF EXCHEQUER. Sittings in Banco in Easter Term.—(Before the Lord Chief Baron and Barons Bramwell, Martin, and Wilde.) STUKELEY V. BAILEY. This was an action for a breach of contract with respect to a yacht called the Czarina, which the plaintiff, Sir George Stukeley, a gentleman living in Devonshire, purchased from the defendant, Mr. Bailey, who resides near Tunbridge, for the sum of £3,375. It was tried before Mr, Justice Byles at the last Hants Assizes, when a verdict was given for the plaintiff on.pne count, and for the defendant on the other. Mr. Karslake, on behalf of the defendant, moved to enter a verdict for the defendant on the first count, on the ground of misdirection. The plain tiff had warranted the yacht sound and taut, and the alleged breach was that the masts were rotten. The Court granted a rule. FLEMING V, FLEMING-CONSTRUCTION OF A WILL. This was an action of ejectment tried at Exeter before Mr. Justice Byles, in which the facts were found for the defendant, but the verdict entered by the learned judge for the plaintiff. Mr. Collier now moved, by leave of the learned judge, for a rule to enter a verdict for defendant. It was an action of ejectment, and depended entirely upon the construction of a will, the question being whether parole evidence could be given to explain the purpose of the testator. Robert Fleming, of Barnstaple, bequeathed to his son, Edward Flem ing, a dwelling-house d in the occupation of John Fleming, during his life, and at his death it was to descend to his grandson, Henry Fleming, and his heirs for ever. The learned counsel said he proved there were two grandsons of the testator named Henry Fleming, one being the plaintiff and the other the defendant in this action. The learned judge decided that evidence as to the state of the circumstances of the family and the expressions of the testator were inadmissible, but he admitted it de bene ease, and the jury found that the testator intended to leave the property to the defendant. The Lord Chief Baron—Why did Mr. Justice Byles decide in favour of one grandson rather than the other? Mr. Collier said he did not know, except that he might have done so partly on the word " descend," and partly on the fact that the plaintiff was the son of Edward Fleming, the tenant for life. The Court granted a rule. EXTENSIVE .FORGERY ON COUTTS'S BANK. Mary Aylmer, alias Gibson, a well-dressed woman of about 30, was placed at the bar of Bow-street Police-court, charged with being concerned with others in forging and uttering a cheque for £445 on the bank of Messrs. Coutts and Co., Strand. Mr. Muliens, solicitor to the Bankers' Association, prosecuted ; and Mr. Lewis, jun., appeared for the prisoner. Mr. E. W. Stanley examined—l am one of the cashiers at the bank of Messrs. Coutts and Co., Strand. Mr. E. R. Butler, of Furnival's-inn, Hol born, keeps an account with us. On Dec. 4 last a cheque for £445, purporting to, be signed by Mr. Butler, was presented at the bank by a female. Not suspecting her, or the cheque, I paid the amount across the counter—the sum of £335 in bank-notes and the remainder in gold. The notes included one of £5O, dated August 9, 1861 ; one of £2O, dated April 8, 1861 ; ten of £lO each, dated August, 1861 ; and a £5 note, dated August 3, 1861. The £5 note now produced is the same as the latter. From circumstances which have since come to my knowledge, I have reason to believe that the cheque was a forgery. The prisoner at the bar is not the woman who presented the checive. Maurice Sewell, assistant to Messrs. Knight and Co., of 217, Regent-street, drapers, deposed that in December last the prisoner came to the shop and selected several articles of drapery, amounting to £1 3s. 10d., in payment of which she presented the £5 note now produced. Witness looked at the note and hesitated to change it, in consequence of inti mation which had been received from the police authorities that a large number of notes had been obtained from Coutts's on a forged name. He in quired if she had not cash for the amount, and she said " No." Ho then asked her to give her name and address, and she did so, witness writing it down on the back of the note as "Mary Aylmer, 15, Danely-road, Gravesend." In the meantime witness caused a police-officer to be sent for, after ascertaining that the note was one of those in question. Police-constable Tyler, 164 C, stated that he was called into the shop of Mr. Knight, and found the prisoner there. She gave him the same name and address as those given to the last witness. Matthew Haydon, the City officer, deposed that he had been engaged since December last in the endea vour to trace cut the persons connected with this for gery. On being sent for to see the prisoner he asked her if she had given her right name and address. After some hesitation, she replied that she had not. Witness then asked her if she would object to give her right name and addres. She replied, "I refuse to give any addresses." Mr. E. R. Butler, solicitor, of Furnival's-inn, said —I have kept an account with Callas and Co. for many years. On looking at the cheque produced, and also at the order for a blank cheque-book, both purporting to have been written by me, I am en abled to say that both the documents are forgeries. I never signed either, and never authorised any one else to sign them. I knew a man named Gibson, a client of mine about a year ago, and I have paid him cheques several times, and once or twice sent him cheques by post. The cheque produced for £lO, written on plain paper, and not upon the asual form, was made out for Gibson, I being out of blank cheques at that time. I remember, on the same day, writing an order for a cheque book, while Gibson was in the office, and he may have seen that order. Cross-examined—l cannot be certain that Gibson saw the order, of course. I have sent cheques to many other persons besides Gibson, but I cannot say that any other clients were in the office when I wrote the order for the checiise-beok. I remember Gibson being there, because I discovered I was out of forms when I was about -to write the theque for him. I know nothing of the prisoner. William Allen, a clerk in Coutts ' s bank, produced the order for a cheque -book, which the last wit ness pronounced to be a forgery, and said it was presented on the 4th of December last. A book containing 45 blank cheques was handed to the bearer of the order, and it was proved that the forged cheque in question was written upon one of these forms. Mrs. Mary Fergusson, of Euston-road, the wife of a pianoforte manufacturer, proved that the pri soner had been lodging in her house since Septem ber last, with a man named Gibson, who passed as her husband. Th e y lived there until the 9th inst., when the prisoner did not return home (having been apprehended on the present charge), and the next morning, the 10th, Mr. Gibson packed up all his things and left the house, and she had never seen him since. He left only a small trunk behind. By Mr. Lewis — They Were always very upright and honourable while in nay house,'and owed nothing but the current rent, which was not yet due. Ann Stephens, n, Tabernacle-road, Finsbury square, deposed that, in the beginning of January in the service of Mr. Pitts, linen draper,s of 4, Q ueen ' s- b u i ld i ngs, K n i g ht s b r id ge. last, l e was About the first week i n the mont h th e note pro dnced r £5) Was tendered by a young woman believ e d t o b e th e prisoner, in payment f*othrogmooB lle. goods purchased. Witness asked her to give her name, and witness wrote it on the back as it now appeared. (This note, as well as the last, was 1 found to be one of those given in exchange for the forged cheque.) By Mr. Lewis—Witness could only eta to her belief that it was the prisoner. She wone'd not swear it, as the woman kept her face par,tly covered us if suffering from face-ache. Lawrence Foster Sisely, foreman tt.l rest Mr. Cosier, grocer and post - office keeper , 42, 1,11 ernoad, Hove, Brighton, proved that he made out a post office ora'er for £7 on the instructions ,of a person who gave the name of B. Tooke in favour of a per son Dania\ Mary White, of Highgate, receiving from the pa yee the £lO note produced, on tile back of which be wroteTooke." (This was found to be another of the notes given in exchange for the forged cheque.) Joseph Allred Kelly, of the Highgate Post-office, proved that he paid this order to a woman whom he believed to b e the prisoner. He selected the pri soner out of 30 women at the House of Detention. c ress . exem i e e , d—l scarcely saw her face, owing to her having we )rn a deep thick fall. I judge lid, I was on duty at the police molrnespfreocintorhserilvfoerre: and figure. station, at Marlbork. 'ugh-mews, on the 9th inst.., b when the prisoner - tek. 'llrought in on the present . charge. I asked her ev.'l at she was, and she at first declined to say. I told he r she was there on a very serious matter, having bee.o found in poseessf.on of a £5 note, proved to be ono of several whjeh had been obtained from Coutts's bank by mean..' of a. forged cheque. She then st ated that the note was given her by a gentleman in Oxford-street. I asked her, " Are you au unfortunate girl, then ?" She replied, " Yes. 1_ met the gentleman in ox.- ford-street last night, .area went with him into Hyde Park, and when we returned to Oxford-street, he gave me the note." I said," What sort of man was he ?" She replied, el, tall, dark man; and I was to meet him again in Oxford-street the next or a remand, stating night." Mr. Mullens now applied 1 that he had much more evident :0 to offer at a future stage. Mr. Lewis, jun., urged that tht're no growl& whetever for detaining the prisoner k en this charge. Th ere c o i eld be but two forms of proseoution against her, either that she forged this cheque, or that she uttered it. Now it was not pretended for a single momeht that she did either, but on the contrary, it , ho presented the cheque at was shown by thei evidence of Mr. Stanley that she was not the woman v, in her possession the bank. The fact of h'er having some of the notes obtained by the forged cheque, even if proved, would go for Dothing, there being no such crime in law. This had been settled by the decision of one of the judges. Then what else cotted she be charged with ? Mr. Mullens—We charge her with being acces sory to the forgery ; conspiring, in 'UM, with an other not yet in custody to dispose of nott.le obtained by means of forgery. Mr. Hall—l think the evidence of Miss Stephens, who made her statement very creditably, and that of Mr. Knighes assistant, are sufficient to justify me in granting this remand; besides which, there are the circumstances of her having refused to state her address, after .k9ret giving a false one, and en deavouring apparen:ly to conceal her face from observation while deaLing with these notes. Mr. Lewis—She held her handkerchief to her face, as the witness stated, to allay the anguish of an aching tooth. (A laugh.) Miss Stephens—l said as if suffering pain. (Laughter.) Mr. Lewis—Of course, if your workehip thinks proper to remand the prisoner, we are prepared fully to meet the charge, whatever it may be, against her; although, at present, I contenki, there is no evidence whatever to support the proseoution. The prisoner was then remanded for a week. CO UNI .R JYA RE L 1 15. -2,\PRIL 17. N BIRMINGHA7 There was a short supply of Et:,gh'sh wheat, which, as well as barley, was is per qr higher. ,kll kinds of foreign wheat nominally unaltered. Oats, bet.'ns, Indiian corn, and peas held for the currency of this day week. —Arun , 16. wheat and barley at market ;e prices were about realised, r rates. Barley, grinding 29s to 318 Oats, old, .. oos to 354 New do ~ 23s to 27s 8ean5...... 45s to 470 Beans, /lOW, • 44s to--s 1 483 to 54g. NEWARK• There was a fair amount of to-day; business dull, and lab although farmers asked higher White wheat new, 60s to 63s Red do, sss to 51s Old white 6os to 63s Red do. 46s to 56s I3arley, malting.... 328 to 395, Peas, .... MANCHESTER—ArBIL 17. We have had a languid market. The best sampl ad es of English wheat held for is more money, while fo,rei vanced 2d per cent. For barrel flour the demand was slow at an advance; sacks without alteration. Englis,ll beans and Indian corn rather higher. Oats and oatmeal were at late rates. PLYMOUTH—APRIL 15. The market was poorly attended, with t.. 1 retail demand. for wheat and flour at about the last week's rates. Whisa wheat, 62s to 66s ; red, 63s to 64s per qr ; French do., 60s; to 62s ; American,[sBs";to 63s ; Spanish, 74s to 76 s ; Rus sian 60s to 625. Barley at previous rates -345 to 38s per qr for malting ; grinding, 28s to 30s ; oats, 22s .to 28s ; and beans, —s to —s ; flour, 43s to 44s 6d. EDINBURGII GRAIN—Arnm 16. Wheat on the top is Gd up ...average is 33 up. Barley on the top is Od up. average Os, 9d up. Oats on the top is Gd down average Os 2d up. Beans on the top 3s Od up. ..average 2s Id up., _ Total Supply and Sales. Wheat 849 qrs.., ....Sold 779 qrs 8ar1ey........1096 qr 5........ Sold 613 qrs Oats 1509 qrs Sold 933 qrs Beans ll9 qrs Sold 117 qrs CORK—Arita 16. The following were the quotations this morning :--Red wheat, 22s 9d to 24s 6d ; white, 26s 6d to —s Od; barley 200 Od to —s Od ; oats, lOs Od to 16s Od. 16. dy of fat beasts to-day, and DERBY SMITH. There was a moderate sup_ _ a brisk demand. Beet 6d to Cid Veal to6o Mutton .. 7ld to Sid Pork Lamb Od to Od Rough fat, 4s 3d per stone. Hides, 3d to 4id ; calf skins, 5d to 6d. FOREIGN MAIL PACKET LIST. MAILS DUE. Aus'aalia and Mauritius, via Southampton April 18. via Marseilles Apr .4l '-' rirazil and Cape Verds, by British packet. May 4.- Cape of Good Hope, Ascension, and St. Helena May 3. China, Penang, .and Singapore, via Southampton April 18W. via Marseilles April 12.- Falkland Islands May 4. Gibraltar, via Southampton India (Calcutta), and Ceylon, via Southampton April 18. via Marseilles April ---• India (Bombay), via Southampton via Marseilles April 20, Lisbon April 21. Malta, Egypt, and Aden, via Southampton April 18. via Marseilles Aprril il . Newfoundland .. AP 16. Oporto and Vigo U. S. and British N. America, by Brit. packet April 16. by U.S. packet y Canadian W.C. of Africa, Madeira, and b Tenerife M a y 10. packet April —... Bahamas, via New York , ....May 8 . Mexico All parts of West Indies, including Chili, Peru, } April 28. California, and British Columbia. [ADVERTISEMENT.] —Holloway's Pills and Ointment. -- Constant Changes.—The present sudden variation of tem perature are most trying to the skin, lungs, and nervous system. Hence the prevalence of pimples, blotches, boila, erysipelas, sore throat, bronchitis, and other chest cow.- plaints. Holloway's excellent remedies are fortunately formed to cope successfully with each and all of these ma... ladies. His medicines gradually insinuate themselves throughout the body, whence they silently expel all imply rities and where they stop all irregularities. They root out all that is wrong, and strengthen what is right, whereby the whole constitution is invigorated. Scorbutic eruption* scrofula, diseased glands, old wounds, and bad legs soort assume a healthy appearance when treated with TlollowaY' medicaments, than which nothing can he more innocent or more effective. BIRTHS. DEASY.—On the 16th inet., at 27, Merrion-square, Dub lin, the wife of the Hon. Baron Deasy, of a son. EDWAILDS.—On the 17th inst., at Denmark-hill, the Wife of Win. Edwards, Esq., of a daughter. Lis. —O n the 16th inst., at No. 24, Kensington-gardens square, tho wife of Lie..it.-Colonel G. M. Lys, C. 8., of a daughter. MARRIAGES. BARLOW—ALLEN.—On the 16th inst., at St, James'ib - Milton, Henry G. Barlow, Esq., Paymaster R.N., to Elizabeth, the youngest daughter of George Allen, Esq.' R.N. PARKS —BRADSHAW.— On the 16th inst., at St. Alphege, Greenwich, A. J. A. Parks, R.N., to Ann Eleanor, only child of Manse!' Bradshaw, Esq., R.N., of Greenwich Hospital. DEATHS. BousFIELD. 7 On the 16th inst., at Canonbury, Mr. Henry B. Bousfield. , BURROWS.—On the 16th inst., at 13, Cavendish-square , Hobert H. Burrows, Derny of Mag. Col., Oxford, secon d son of G. Burrows, M.D., aged 21. ELMSLIE.—On the 16th inst, at 24, York-street, Portman" square, Wm. Elmslie, Esq. HOPE.—At 37, Upper Seymour-street, the Rev. F. W. Hepe, aged 65. TuLLocyr.—On the 13th inst., at N ottin g -hill, Lieut. - G en. John Tulloch, C. 8., Indian Amy, aged 72. John whyte, Esq., late of Mi nc i ng -larva, WHYTE.—On the 23d March , at Barton Lo dge, Hamil ton, Canada West, aged 78. mac i Published by JOHN CHAPLI I%I, Printer, at TILE SUN Office, No. 11 ' 2 ; April 18, 1862. , cinct of the Savoy, in the CountY L ° Nos / - t i D rNda o ano N id. i ne P zil: ri_ s u t ree!indrdar,; slla Pan thai ailvo loca A trol the estii of tl , A trol l URI case deli The S I .1. 0 City allot le ss C on vehe . T ban Just