The Sun. — London, England, 1862-07-29 00:00:00

GERMANY AND THE SCHLESWIG-ROL. STEIN QUESTION. TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN. 45, Hyde-park-street, Glasgow, July 24, Dear Sir,—l submit the following very interest ing letter from a well known German patriot, and would impress on your readers' attention the diffe rent points so ably elucidated by him, regarding our danger from the northern despotisms, and our shameful neglect of the free Germans—our kindred by one common origin, commercial interests, and religious and political sympathies. —Respectfully yours, JOHN MADAM. 23, Townshend-road, St. John's-wood, London, N.W., July 22 , 1862. • bear Sir,—The friendly spirit you have evinced towards the cause of down-trodden Schleswig- Holstein, and the warm-hearted sympathy with which you have interested yourself in the German popular movement at large, emboldens me to ad dress some remarks to you on the state and the pro spects of our struggle for freedom and union. The present moment is one eminently calculated to draw the attention of Englishmen to German affairs. Russia and France are stated to have en tered into a mutual compact which may become a danger to the security of all Europe, and force this country to assume .a position of great watchfulness. Under these circumstances, the importance of Ger many, as the great intermediate wedge that divides the conspiring autocrats of the West and East, be comes at once apparent. The power that England wields at sea, the 47 millions of Germans can com mand on land—provided their forces are rendered efficient, and available for the right purpose, by a political union reposing on the principle of self government—therefore it is that the popular move ment which is now once more springing up in my native country has a European significance apart from the object it pursues of national regeneration. The despots of Russia and France may desire a divided Germany. They may strive to perpetuate political weakness in the centre of Europe, er to Promote the plan of a " First partition" by urging Prussia into a path where she would be at the mercy of her western and eastern neighbours. But Englishmen, looking at the question in a large minded manner, will keep to a different policy. England must know that the possession of the German Rhinelands by their rightful owner, serv ing as it does as a protection to the independence of the Low Countries, forms a bulwark to the British shores themselves. In the same way, Eng land ought ever to recollect that on the day when the designs are realised which Russia entertains on the German Duchies, North of the Elbe, Muscovite power will be established in rather too close a proximity to her own coasts. Rightly, therefore, have you, sir, pointed to the necessity of a powerful, free, united Germany, as one of the great mainstays of European security and human progress. There are those I know, who, in the plenitude of their ignorance, doubt the very existence of a German nation. They speak of " Prussia," " Austria," and what they call the " German States," as though they had to deal with empires and nationalities utterly strange to each other. They forget that, from the Alps to the German Ocean and the Baltic, from the Rhine to the Memel and March, we are a homogeneous race —.with but a few scattered fragments of foreign speaking population on the outskirts of our eastern and southern frontier, such, in fact, as is to be found in every other country. They forget that, Italy excepted, we are in race and language more united than any other European people. They forget that, eves now, the German Confederacy, including upwards of 40 millions of inhabitants, forms a political bond, weak and unsatisfactory, n o doubt, but still a bond for a population which, during nearly a thousand years, was gathered in the folds of an Empire. They forget that the German nation, which produced the great maritime and trading league, the Hansa, and the influential confederations of free cities in the south, made powerful strides during the epoch of the Reforma tion towards political regeneration, and that its present division is mainly owing to the miseries entailed upon it during a thirty years' war, in which our country, sacrificing itself for the con quest of the right of free thought, was con verted into a battle-ground for the ambition of her neighbours. They forgot that, like a hurri cane that had slept for a while, we indignantly rose against the First Napoleon to recover a national independence our worthless princes had lost. They forget that, since the days of that struggle, the idea of union and freedom has fired the imagination of our youth, and occupied the mind and the energies of our manhood ; that perse cutions the most frightful—the chain, the torture chamber, and the decrees of proscription—have not been able to annihilate the " demagogic " propa ganda of national deliverance; that in 1830, and the years immediately following, the patriotic spark burst forth into a bright flame ; and that in 1848-9 revolution at Berlin and at Vienna, at Frankfort, Dresden, and in the blood-soaked fields of Baden, raised on high the banner of a free, united Ger many, which it cost the most frantic efforts of per jured princes to drag down to the ground. Inveterate doubters abound in all parts of the world—men who never believe except in what has been already accomplished. You, Sir, who advo cated the cause of Italy at a time when it had to struggle both against oppression and public scep ticism—you are not of those that judge of aspira tions from the mere retrospective point of view of success. You look to the righteousness of prin eiples, and to the zeal of those that work far them. Being satisfied on these points, you give your sym pathy and your active support, content to wait for the success that follows in due course. I, there fore, confidently address you as one who hopes and belleyes in the cause for which millions of German hearts are beating—a cause to avenge which, I trust, a forest of strong arms will be lifted at no very distant time, bringing the doom to the usurp ing Macbeths who have made away with our liberties. But I have been asked to treat to-day specially of the question of the Duchies under Danish sway. Let me here say at general once that that question is part of the only a question of German natio n nationality and deliverance. will be free when our Schleswig-Holstein at el:lgavedha as risen.l Schleswig-Holstein will rem a i n. as the pettifogging Cabinet eAre wont to combat the demandsl tyrants is in rogue. This extraordi nary mayptiz ofthirty ong to those who of the Duchies by pointing to the alle ge d am bition of the Prussian Court. It has been often a sserted, indeed, both by Danish withers and by such English writers as drew their information from merely Danish sources, that the Court of Berlin w as at the bottom of the whole affair. But surely,. no allegation could be falser than this. Schleswig-Holstein independence was first esta blished at a time when the kingdom of Prussia did not even exist. Schleswig-Holstein's rights date back to a period when the Republican Hanse Con federation ruled in the German Ocean and the Baltic, and when the Duchies were considered as one of the bulwarks of that League. So far from the Hohenzollern dynasty having revived; in our days, the agitation for the independence of the Duchies, this movement arose spontaneously among the population themselves. In 1848, when the Schteswig-Holsteiners drove out the Danes, it re quired nothing less than a popular revolution at Berlin to compel King Frederick William IV. to send some succour to the struggling German bre thren. A n d no sooner had he reluctantly done so than he played false to their cause. This a diple maticnote in existence, sent by the Prussian Court through Mr. von Wildenbruch, to the Copenhagen Government, in which King Frederick William declared, in s o . many words, that he had only sent his troops to mterf ereinthestruggle in order to " co unteract the republican elements h., and , preserve the Duch ies to their legitimate A re these facts n ot remarkabl e when put side to side with the " interest" the Prussian Government are so frequently su pp osed to have in the Schleswig- Holstein affair ? B ut monarchs often e ntertain adif ferent conception f their interests to what other mortals might conceive them to be. Witness the course the present King of Prussia pursues i n his - -" • THE ''SUN, 1.011)011, TUESDAY, EVE NING, JULY 29, .1862. policy at home. It is the special characteristic of German princes that they dread, above everything, the tendencies to unity and freedom. To combat these tendencies, the Prussian court did not scruple to betray the Duchies, to send the flower of German youth, as it rere, to the shambles, c conclude a treacherous armistice with Denmark in opposition to the will of the German nation, and lastly, to force the Sc hleswig-Holsteiners by means of an army of intervention to which the House of Hapsburg also sent its contingent, to lay down their arms, and have the Danish yoke reimposed on their necks ! This cessation of the Schleswig-Holstein war of independence through the intervention of the Prus sian and Austrian dynasties must not be forgotten in order to understand the present state of things. It was in return for that despicable sbirri service which Frederick William and Francis Joseph per formed, that Denmark pledged herself in 1851-52 to respect to a certain degree some of the constitu tional privileges of Holstein ; to refrain from the formal incorporation of Schleswig; to allow equa lity to Schleswig with the other parts of the mo• narchy in matters political ; and to grant equal rights to the German and Danish nationalities with regard to language. Yet even these paltry engagements with the Court of Copenhagen, according to Earl Russell's saying, is " in honour bound" to fulfil, have been disgracefully broken through. Attempts have been repeatedly made to incorporate, first, Schleswig and Holstein together, and when this failed, Schles wig alone, with the Danish monarchy proper. To effect this end the press has been gagged; the right of meeting abolished, a network of espionage spread over the country; an unbearable tyranny exercised in matters of language in school and church ; the youth of the country drafted into foreign regiments, and Danish garrisons sent into Schleswig-Holstein; the banners and emblems of the Duchies prohibited ; the very name of the country declared a treasonable application ; people arbitrarily deprived of their franchise; men im prisoned wholesale for no other offence than having handed about the documents emanating from their own parliaments; diets of the Duchies dissolved whenever they wanted to make a statement of grievances; the country inundated with tools of tyranny than whom none could be found lower in morality; in short a mode of government esta blished which English ambassadors and con sular agents abroad have justly stigmatised as a system of terrorism" and intimida tion—as an unbearable tyranny" "quite at variance e"--as an odious oppr ess i on with the spirit of the age" —as calculated to render the country " the scene of agi tation, perhaps of tumult and revolt." (See Blue book, correspondence respecting the Affairs of the Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein, 1860-61. Letter of Mr. Consul-General Ward to Lord John Russell, p. 29. Letter of Mr. Howard to Lord J. Russell, p. 91. Lord John Russell's despatch to Mr. Howard, p. 99.) Do I lay stress on these facts with any desire to see German Governments, as at present constituted, again interferingby means of arms in the Schleswig- Holstein affair ? Far be it from me to do so. We German democrats know too well that our monarchs are not the proper agents to work out freedom and independence anywhere. We have no faith in their sincerity ; we are perfectly convinced that they only take the question of the Duchies occasionally in hand in order to occupy the public mind, and to prevent the spontaneous popular movement get ting the start of their own dynastic statecraft. But ought Englishmen to conclude that the demands of the Schleswig-Holstein people are unjustifiable because the conduct and the motives of the Court of Prussia, or of the Frankfort conclave of princely delegates, are utterly worthless ? The cause of the Duchies is virtually the same as that of Venice, and, a short time since, of Lom bardy also ; or it may be compared, if any one chooses to prefer constitutional ground, to that of Hungary, in its resistance against the despotic, centralising efforts of the Court of Vienna. In race, in language, in manners, and in political ten dencies,the people of Schleswig-Holstein are mainly German. In point of ancient law, such as laid down in their charters, they have an established right to insist on their country remaining " united and indivisible," , with a distinct existence, apart from the Danish monarchy proper. It was under this condition alone that, many centuries ago, the Duchies consented to be ruled over by the same dynasty with Denmark ; and even as it would have been a gross injustice had an attempt been made, at the time England and Hanover were under the same dynasty, to render Hanover English or England Hanoverian ; even as it was a violation of solemn pledges in the House of Haps burg to attempt rendering Hungary a mere " pro vince of the " Austrian Empire"—so also is it a perjurious proceeding in the Court of Copenhagen to try a forcible fusion of its Danish and German dominions by means of successive coups d'etat. I state these things not as a believer in the ex clusive virtue of ancient charters. I believe in the natural right of man to attain the highest state of freedom in spite of all vested privileges; bat I think also that even the insufficient liberties that are recorded on the parchment of bygone ages are preferable, at any rate, to the bon plaieir rule of unbridled despotism. I am, moreover, of opinion that such antique records are frequently an indica tion of a series of popular aspirations. It is so, surely, in the case of the Duchies. The Schleswig Holsteiners have shown, by long and courageous resistance, both on constitutional ground and on the field of battle, that they will not tamely sub mit to a policy of encroachment which is an attack on their liberties, an insult to Germany, and a danger, prospectively, to Europe in general, and to this country in particular. Let me, sir, bring to recollection here that Ring Christian VIII., in 1846, by his arbitrary Letter Patent, declared the Danish law of succession to henceforth apply equally to Schleswig-Holstein. Thus the Duchies were threatened, from the want of direct issue in the Royal family, with becoming, at no distant time, the inheritance of the Russian Czar ! Russia, in this contingency, would, as it were, transplant her frontiers to the gates of Ham burg, and join the dominion of the Baltic to a strong position at the German Ocean, facing the English shores ! Is this a consummation to be wished for by British statesmen ? And is it to be wondered at that already, in 1846, the Schleswigers called out, in their Parliament, for the reception of their en dangered country into the German Confederacy ? One of the first results of the establishment of Schleswig-Holstein independence would be, that the Eider Canal, so long neglected by the Danish Government for unworthy political motives, would I be made an e as y, s h or t, sa f e , an d cheap thorough fare for large ships from the German Ocean into the Baltic. •, • This is a matter speci a lly i n t eres ti ng \ to En gland. On the other hand, so long as Den mark i 5 allowed to pursue herpolicy of • tion a n d d e , • rationalisation, she will, with fatal ne cessity, bed pl / in en t - to injure both the commercial and Eid er rests of this country ; for the neglect of the the maintenance of the C s u c a o h li p e a e m u l' h e, and the collusion be tween Russian successiotoif the Courts oppression and Paris, are the eobssion of the Duchies. 1 the dwellers that . the 1 inevitable results of the It will be seen from these their fact, I r zhave to in that people of Schleswig_ -Holstei c ....„ Anglo-Saxon land from which the „.„_ li, , , sprun g a s — w w e e l r l e , as so 0,,,n n the a battle g i. ea t of degre e England carrying on ttieir war of independence fro _ h m 184n8 to 1851. How soon that struggle will b e r esumed depends on the development of affairs in Germany at large. This much, however, is sure, that the infatuation of German princes, and particularly of that monarch (in whom simple-minded men had so erroneously placed hopes for the regeneration of the whole country), is driving matters to a point from whence there will be no issue, except by an appeal to those natural rights of man, before which the crowns that have been " taken from the table of the Lord" are as nothing. Already we have, so to say, returned to the years just previous to 1848. The eonsequences will follow in due time. In the meanwhile, allow me to ex- ' press to you, sir, the thanks of many political friends for the sympathy you have shown to our efforts under trying circumstances, and for the , --- readiness you have exhibited in defending a cause which ignorance and incessantly labour to abuse.—l remain, dear sir, yours most respectfully, KARL BLIND. John M'Adam, Esq. PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES. ST. THOMAS'S HOSPITAL. The committee on this bill, the object of which is to authorise the governors of St. Thomas's Hos pital to convey the site of the present hospital to the Charing-cross Railway Company, to acquire a new site for the hospital, and for other purposes, met yesterday; Mr. J. W. Buller in the chair. The other members of the committee were Mr. Benyon, Mr. George, and Mr. Brown. Mr. Phinn, Q C., and Mr. Johnson appeared on behalf of the promoters of the bill ; Mr. Drew, soli citor, for the parish of Bermondsey; and Mr. Stur my for the parish of St. Saviour, Southwark. Mr. Phinn, in opening the case, said this was the last bill of the session, and one of the most interest ing. The preamble, after reciting certain ancient charters, recited the Charing-cross Railway Act of 1859, authorising the construction of a railway from London-bridge to Hungerford amarket, and the taking of a portion of St. Thomas's Hospital, the reference of arbitration, and the award of £296,000 to the hospital. It then recited the existence of certain doubts as to whether the governors could make a good title ; the desirability of authorising them to purchase a new site and erect buildings thereon ; the order of the Court of Chancery ap proving of the bill as introduced into the House of Lords, and the fact of due notice having been given to the Attorney-General. The learned gentleman then proceeded to direct the attention of the com mittee to the history of, the hospital and the pro visions contained in its various charters. The site of the hospital was originally the Priory of Ber mondsey. In the year 1215, it was remodelled by the then Bishop of Winchester, who turned it into a foundation for canons regular. In 1538 there was a valuation of all religious houses for the purpose of the then King. The valuation was fixed at £266 17s. 6d., and the institution was then surren dered to Henry VIII. It was then purchased by the citizens of London and repaired for old and diseased persons. In August, 1551, a charter was granted by Edward VI., by which the hos pital was not devoted for mere local benefit, but for the benefit of the whole of the poor, whether belonging to the metropolis or resorting to the metropolis. Two years afterwards there was an indenture of covenants between King Edward VI. and the corporation of London, by which the corpo ration covenanted " that they shall not only content and pay all such debts and duties as are now due by the said hospital, but also at their proper costs and charges shall at their discretion, in some convenient part of the said manor-house and place of Bridewell, or in any other of the hospitals now erected in London or in the borough of Southwark, or in one of them, prepare sufficient lodging from time to time for the comfort, aid, and relief of poor wayfaring men and strangers ; and the same shall lodge, harbour, and intreat, and entertain from time to time, in such good manner and form as the same wayfaring men and strangers have been accustomed to be lodged, harboured, and intreated within the said late hospital of the Savoy." That and other passages in the charter and the indenture showed that the objects contemplated were not local, but general. In 1553, under a further char ter a vast quantity of land was granted to the cor poration of London to be applied to charitable pur poses. These charters contained grants and declarations of the uses to which they were to be applied in consideration of the concessions made by the Crown, also the designation of the mode in which they were to be governed and the funds to be applied. Having stated that he believed the hospitals of the City of London might challenge comparison with any hospitals in the world, the learned gentleman called the attention of the committee to the mode in which the govern ing body was constituted. It consisted of the Lord Mayor and the Court of Aldermen, 12 common councilmen, and 167 gentlemen elected from all classes in the City and suburbs. From that body 30 gentlemen were periodically elected, and they, together with a president and treasurer, consti tuted the grand committee of the hospital. That committee met once a month, and the general body once a quarter, and all important matters were left to the decision of the general body. The site of the hospital consisted of 18,672 square yards, of which 8,936 were granted under the old char ters, and 9,736 were more recent acquisitions. The revenues of the hospital from all sources in 1861 were (including a balance of £3,167 lls. 6d. in the hands of the treasurer) £37,108 18s. 6d., and the expenditure £32,756 7s. 9d., leaving a balance of £4,352 10s. 9d. The hospital was capable of accommodating 440 patients, and in the course of last year the number of in-patients was 3,948, and the number of out-patients 41,814. The revenues of the hospital were fixed and permanent, the dona tions and benefactions last year not exceeding £214 18s. 11d. The hospital being in that thriving con dition, the railway bill was introduced, and not withstanding the opposition made by the governors it became law. The Charing -cross company then gave notice of their intention to take such portion of the hospital as suited their purpose, including a portion of the underground building. Proceedings were eventually instituted in Chancery, and Vice- Chancellor Page Wood decided that if the company took part of the property they must take the whole, but he stated, although the 92d section of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act gave them power to convey, he doubted whether it gave them power to convey more than was absolutely necessary for the construction of the railway. Unless this point were settled by Parliament enormous inconvenience and delay might be experienced, for the £296,000 which had been awarded, and which was now in the Court of Chancery, could not be paid over until the title was made good. The governors were bound to give up possession on the 26th July, and accord ing to their agreement possession was given on Saturday last, and all the patients had been re moved. By the first clause of the bill it was pro posed to obviate the difficulty pointed out by the Vice-Chancellor, and to give the governors the power to convey the buildings to the company. The seoond clause empowered them to purchase by agree ment any lands which might be approved of by the Court of Chancery on a summary application at the chambers of one of the judges of that court, of which application the Attorney-General should have notice, fot a new site for the said hospital, &c., not exceed ing 50 acres. The other clauses provided for the making of temporary arrangements for carrying on the hospital, for the borrowing of £50,000, for a residence for the minister of St. Thomas's Church, and other minor matters. As the bill was originally introduced the new site for the hospital was limited to the counties of Surrey and Kent; but Lord Redes dale considered it unwise to fetter the discretion of the governors and the Court of Chancery, believing that if such limit was fixed an immense rise in the value of all the available sites would immediately take place. A proposition was also made to limit the site to the south side of the Thames, but such limitation was quite unnecessary, as the governors had no intention of going from the south side of the river. With respect to the temporary arrangements which had been made, the learned gentleman stated that accommodation had been provided at Guy's Hospital for 100 patients. The temporary arrange- naents at the Surrey Gardens would afford accommo- Wasttheir nar necessary.dodesaitrion, dation for 250 in-patients and all the out-door patients, for the museum, the operating rooms and for the servants whose residence on the spot etre : Ike trusted the committee would consider that the governors had exercised a think soundona discretion in providing this temporary ac and would consider it an earnest of e proper arrangements for a new site for the hospital. Mr. Georg e I • tal had been v you said that the old hospi tal Mr. i n actual Phpossessioninn—Yee, .and t he railway company are Richard Baggedly, the treasurer of the hos- Mr. Ric was examined in proof of the facts stated by *tal / . phinn, and stated that the agreement for the Mr. Surrey Gardena was for two years and a half, to be r , extended, if necessary, for six or twe .ve months more. Mr. Tile, ALP,, one of the governors of the hos pital, was next examined. He said—l believe this bill is necessary for the purpose of putting an end to the doubts which exist as to the power of con veying the property. I think it would be most un desirable to limit the discretion of the governors in the selection of a new site, because any such limit would point out to those who have land to sell that we are going to them, and they would instantly raise the price. I do not know a more able, or more discreet, or more benevolent body than the board, who are guided by a sound discretion and a desire to do what is right. Nothing can be done without the sanction of the whole body of the governors. Every £1,00') additional per acre would shut out two patients for ever. I see no reason why we should not have a hospital capable of containing 1,000 patients, with all the appliances of modern science. I think we ought to have 30 acres of ground at least. Mr. H. A. Hunt, surveyor of public works and buildings, concurred with Mr. Tite in thinking that a limit ought not to he fixed_ Mr. Drew submitted, on behalf of his clients, that if the benefit of the hospital was not originally in- tended to be local, the inhabitants of_ the district had acquired a prescripti ve r i g ht, which having existed 300 years ought not to be taken away, and proposed the insertion of the words in the pre amble of the bill limiting the area of selection to within a mile and a half of the Elephant and Castle. Mr_ Sturrny supported the limitation. The committee, however, decided against the in sertion of the words, and declared the preamble to have been proved. The clauses were then agreed to, and the pro ceedings terminated. COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES. HOUSE OF LORDS, JULY 28. Their lordships sat to-day as a committee for privileges ; Lord Redesdale in the chair. THE DUNDONALD PEERAGE. The further hearing of this claim was resumed this morning. _ _ _ Mr. Fleming and Mr. Kay were counsel for the petitioner ; Mr. Archbold represented Captain the Hon. A. L. P. Cochrane; the Attorney-General watched the case on behalf of the Crown. On the last occasion the Countess Dowager of Dundona'd gave evidence in support of the peti tioner's claim, and its further consideration was adjourned for the production of additional evidence of a witness who was too ill to attend at the bar. Mr. Macqueen, Q.C., was appointed a commissioner for the purpose, and their lordships directed that the examination should be zeturned to the house on Friday, in order that the claim should be further considered on Monday next. CULLEN V. THOMSON AND OTHERS.-JUDGMENT. Their lordship; - atting judicially, the Lord ChancellJr, Lord Wensleydale, and Viscount Dun gannon, gave judgment in this case, which was an appeal from the Court of Session in Scotland, in an action brought by the appellant against Sir Wil liam Johnstone, Mr. Thompson, and Mr. Kerr, the former being one of the directors and the two lat ter being respectively the manager and secretary of the Edinburgh and Glasgow Bank. The Court below—the judgment of which was appealed against—had pronounced certain interlocutors which dismissed Thomson and Kerr from the suit. The Lord Chancellor, in delivering judgment, said that the decision of the Court below was based on the assumption that the manager and the secre tary were servants of the company, and acted under their control, and that the fraudulent misrepresen tation in the reports was made by the directors, and not by the manager or secretary. He thought that both those positions were unfounded, and therefore he would advise that the interlocutors should be reversed and the cause remitted. In that opinion Lord. Cranworth, who had heard the argu ment, had requested him to state that he agreed. Lord Wensleydale concurred. Judgment accordingly. second time where the fire was, and he then said that it was a stack that was on fire, and that he had set fire to it with a lucifer match. He then took the prisoner into custody, and as they IN era going to the police station he inquired of the prisoner what he did it for, and he said that was his business. The prisoner was searched and nothing was found on him but two pieces of paper. The charge was en tered against him at the police-station, and, after he had been cautioned, he was again asked how he came to do it, and he then said he had done it through want The prisoner afterwards said that when he set fire to the stack he did not think it would have blazed so, and he asked Mr. Martin, superintendent of police, whether he thought he should he transported for what he had done. Th e prisoner, when called upon for his defence, replied that he had nothing to say. The learned Judge having summed up, the Jury returned a verdict of guilty. The prisoner was then tried upon the charge of wilful murder. Mr. Biron, in opening the case, said this charge arose from the fact of an unhappy person being sleeping in a barn adjoining the stack at the time it was set fire to by the prisoner, and he explained that the law held that every p erson comm i tt i ng a wrongful and felonious act was responsible for all the consequences ; and, although the prisoner, when he set fire to the stack, was probably entirely ignorant that any person was inside the barn adjacent; still, as he had com mitted a felony by setting fire to the stack, and the death or the unfortunate man was the consequence, be was in law guilty of the crime of wilful murder, if the evidence established the facts to which he had referred. The police-constable was then again examined, and he repeated the evidence he had given in the former case, as to meeting the pi isener. He added that, upon going to the farm of the prosecutor he found a stack of straw, two sheds, and a barn in flames, and heard some one shouting for assistance from one of the sheds, and this turned out to be the deceased. His clothes were all in flames, and he screamed for help, but it was impossible to render him any, and he was burned to death. The pri soner was present, and he wanted to go to the as sistance of the deceased, but the witness told him he could do no good, and refused to allow him. The prisoner, when called upon to answer the charge, said that on the night in question he went to lay down to sleep outside the stack, and being very cold he set fire to a small quantity of straw to warm himself, and it spread to the stack and set it on fire. He declared that he had no intention of causing the mischief that had taken place. Mr. Baron Bramwell, in summing up, said that the law had been very correctly laid down by the learned counsel for the prosecution, but he would add this to the observations he had made, that in his opinion there should be proof that the person who lost his life was in the building at the time the felonious act of setting fire to it was committed, and that if he had merely gone into it from curi osity, or with a view to assist in extinguishing the fire after it had broken out, in that ease the prisoner would not be responsible for his death. The jury, after a short deliberation, returned a verdict of Not Guilty. The learned judge deferred passing sentence upon the conviction for arson. Walter Naylor and Jacob Hales were charged with feloniously throwing a stone upon the South- Eastern Railway, at Sittingbourne, with intent to cause injury to the carriages and passengers travel ling upon the line. Mr. Round and Mr. Kaye conducted the prose cution ; Mr. Ribton was counsel for the defence. It appeared that on the day named in the indict ment, as a train was passing under one of the bridges near Sittingbourne, a stone was dropped upon it, which remained on the top of one of the carriages. The prisoners were seen near the spot, and there was very little doubt that one or other of them had dropped the stone u;. on the train ; but there was no evidence to show under what circum stances the act was committed. His Lordship, upon these facts, expressed his opinion that there was not sufficient evidence to support either of the felonious intents imputed to the prisoners by the present indictment ; and the jury therefore, under his direction, returned a ver dict of not guilty. The prisoners were then tried upon another in dictment for misdemeanour, in having unlawfully done an act that was calculated to endanger the safety of passengers travelling upon the railway. The evidence in this case was the same as in the former. Mr. Ribton made an ingenious address to the jury on behalf of the defendants, and he contended that not only was there wss no conclusive evidence that either of them was that person who threw the stone upon the railway, but that even if this fact had been established, there was nothing to show that the occurrence was not the result of accident. The jury, after some deliberation, again returned a verdict of not guilty. The learned Judge told the defendants to be cau tious in future. The offence with which they had been charged was a most serious one, and if they had been convicted of the felony they might have been sentenced to a long period of penal servitude. ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE. HOME CIRCUIT.—MAIDSTONE, July 28. (Before Mr. Baron Bramwell.) THE ROYDEN HALL MURDER. The public will remember that a barbarous mur der was committed on the night of the 22d of January last at Royden Hall, the residence of Major Cook, one of his keepers, named James Grey, having been deliberately shot dead by one of a gang of poachers, eight er nine in number, and two prisoners, named Alfred Burr Luck and Stephen Eversfield, stand committed to take their trial for the murder at the present assizes. It appears that although it was known at the time that there were at least seven or eight, if not more, persons concerned in the outrage, the whole of them contrived to keep out of the way, but in consequence of information that was received on Tuesday evening by Superintendent Hulse, a very active and useful officer belonging to the Kent constabulary stationed at Mailing, about six miles from Royden Hall, he started at a late hour, accom panied by some of his constables, for the purpose of apprehending several men, who there seems to be very little doubt were part of the gang of poachers by whom the murder was committed, and all of whom have the character of being notorious poachers. After one of the prisoners, who goes by the name of " Happy Jack," had been secured, the officer told him that the charge he had to make against him was that of being concerned in the Royden Hall affair. The reply he made was that he was not surprised at it, and had expected that the police would have been after him before. He then voluntarily made a statement to the effect that the gang of poachers consisted of nine persons, but that they were not all provided with guns. He said that after they had been in the wood some time they were met by the keeper, Grey, who was shot, and seven or eight other men, and a scuffle immediately took place, and he saw him shot and fall to the ground. He then gave further infor mation upon the subject of the murder, but de clared that Eversfield, one of the men now under charge, was not with the party. The other pri soners who had been taken were confronted with this man, and he repeated the statement he had previously made in their presence, and it appears that several of them admitted they were there, but denied that either had fired the gun. In consequence of this important discovery it was expected that the trial of the two prisoners who are in custody would not take place at the pre sent assizes, and that one, if not more, of tne prisoner s , who have since been apprehended, will be admitted as witnesses for the Crown. In the course of the day Mr. F. Russell, who was instructed to conduct the prosecution, made an application to the Court to postpone the trial of the two prisoners now under charge in the gaol to the next assizes, and he did so upon an affidavit which emb o di e d the above facts. He also applied that the recognisances of all the witnesses might be respited, and that no bill should be preferred before the grand jury at the present assizes, as he said that the interests of justice were much more likely to be carried out by all the parties being tried together, when the whole of the facts would be laid before the jury. The learned counsel added, that from certain fresh facts that had come to the knowledge of the prosecution, he should not object to ore of the prisoners (Eversfield) being admitted to bail. Mr. Ribton and Mr. Francis, who were instructed to defend the prisoners, opposed the application, and said they Were most anxious to take their trial. They added that it would be a great injustice to keep them for several months with such a serious charge hanging over them. Mr. Baron Bramwell said he fully felt the force of the argument used by the learned counsel, and he should be most unwilling to detain the prisoners in custody, if elicit a course could be taken without detriment to the interests of justice. He would, however, coneult Mr. Baron Martin on the subject. His lordship accordingly left the court for that purpose, end on his return he said that his learned brother was of ophtion that, under the circum stances, he had no alternative but to grant the ap plication that had been made by Mr. Russell, and postpone the trial of the two prisoners who were already committed. He added that if the counsel. for the prosecution, from his knowledge of the facts, consented to Eversfield being admitted to bail, the Court would not object to sanction the proceeding, although, tndoubtedly, in cases of murder bail was very rarely taken. ARSON AND MURDER. John Horsley, 18, a miserable looking led, was charged wit h wilfully and feloniously setting fire to a stack of straw, the property of John Kingworth. He was ale° charged upon another indictment with the wilful murder of a man or boy, whose name was unknown. Mr. &roe conducted the prosecution. It appeared from the evidence of a police constable named Hills, that on the night of the 3d of July he was on duty, when he observed the appearance of a fire in the direction of a farm occupied by the prose cutor, called Plane Farm, near Folkestone. As he was going towards the fire he met the prisoner, and asked him if he knew where the fire was, and he made no answer, but stepped on one side and ap peared desirous to avoid him. He asked him a CIVIL SIDE. (Before Mr. Baron Martin and Common Juries.) EASTMAN AND WIFE V. ATTWOOD. This was an action to recover damages for a tres pass and false imprisonment. The defendant ad mitted the trespass contained in the first count of the declaration, and paid Lo into court as satis faction for the injury the plaintiffs had sustained. Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., and Mr. Ribton were for the plaintiffs, and Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., and Mr. Prentice for the defendant. The plaintiffs in this action, it appeared, had formerly kept the Bell public-house at Minster, but they let it three or four years ago, and have since kept the Masons' Arms, another public-house, at Dover. It appeared that some time in last year Mrs. Eastman happened by chance to be at Minster upon business, and went to look at the " old house," for which she said she always had a great liking. She had some refreshment, and in the course of conversaticn she introduced herself to the defendant, who was then the landlord of the Bell, os having been the former landlady, and he invited her into the bar-parlour, and she went over the se ; and the parties appeared t o h ave parte d very good friends. Soon after she had left it seemed that the defendant missed a mode rator lamp, and from some extraordinary cause or other he appeared to have suspected that Mrs. Eastman had taken it away with her; and, acting upon this supposition he went before a magistrate at Dover. and swore to an information by which he alleged that he had reason to believe that a lamp, his property, had been feloniously stolen, and that it was secreted at the Masons' Arms, the public house of the plaintiff. Upon this informa tion a search warrant was granted, and the defen dant and two policemen went to the plaintiffs' house, and ransacked all the drawers and boxes, but without finding any trace of the lamp; and it subsequently turned out that the defendant or his wife had sent the lamp to a tradesman to be re paired, or to have something done to it; and, as was now represented on their behalf, that they had forgotten the circumstance. The plaintiffs, it ap peared, had expressed their willingness to accept Of an apology from the defendant, but as this could not be obtained they were compelled to bring the present action. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs, with £2O damages. GRIMES V. NORMAN. This was an action of slander. The declaration alleged that the plaintiff was a plasterer and one of the church war d ens of the parish of St. James the Apostle, Dover, and that the de fendant, who was also a tradesman at the same place, and a churchwarden, had spoken certain slander ous words of him in his capacity as a churchwar den, and also in his trade. Mr. Hawkins, Q C., and Mr. Garth were for the plaintiff, and Mr. Lash, Q. 0., and Mr. Biron, for the defendant. It appeared that the parties in this action both resided in the town of Dover, and that in January last some dispute took place between them, and a good deal of angry feeling was exhibited by the defendant towards the plaintiff. The circum stances that led to the present action were these. Some boxes had been placed in one of the churches at Dover for the recep tion of subscriptions from the inhabi tants for the poor, and also towards the build ing of a new church, and these boxes, there was no doubt, had been forced open, and their con tents abstracted. A good deal of excitement was created in the parish by the proceeding, and it ap peared that upon one occasion, while some of the parish officers were conversing together in reference to it, the defendant made a statement to the effect that the plaintiff had robbed the boxes, and that he had also defrauded the parish upon another occasion when he was f?ngagec to do some repairs to one of the churches ; and this was the slander that was now complained of. The only answer that was at tempted to be set up to the plaintiff's case was that the defendant did net make use of the precise words imputed to him, and he was examined and swore that he did not do so ; but he at th e same t i me admitted th a t h e h a d mae use of an observation to the effect that a man who would do one thing was likely to do another, and it also appeared that at another interview, when the plaintiff wished for some explanation or apology, the defendant was very violent and excited, and said if be had done Wrong he w a s a bl e t o pay for it. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff— 'Damages, £lOO. POLICE INTELLIGENCE.-July 28. LAMBETH.— DARING BURGLARY. - Thomas Edward Briggs, James Breti, and Edward Lester, four young men well known to the police, were placed at the bar, charged with breaking and entering the dweiling-house of Mr. Thos. Andrews, boot and shoemaker, carrying on business at 22, Charlotte-row,Walworth-road, and stealing therein four coats, two pairs of trousers, three waistcoats, and other property. The prosecutor proved that, having secured his premises, he teat home on Sund ay morning last at 8 o'clock, but nobody remained in charge. On h;s return home, shortly after 12 o'clock, he found his house in the possession of the police, in consequence of the discovery by them that the premises had been entered by breaking a pane of glass in the back bedroom window, which was approached by the flat leads of the adjoining premises from a wall at the corner of Princes-street. On examining the rooms the prosecutor found everything in confusion, the boxes broken open, and the property mentioned abstracted. The evidence of a youth named Ingram went to show that he had seen the four prisoners emerge from the house and cross the wall already men tioned, the prisoner Briggs carrying a large bundle. The lad gave information to the police, and Ser geant Hull and police constables Langham, Mat thews, and Green, of the P division, set to work and secured the whole of the prisoners, and disco vered a portion of the stolen property concealed amongst a heap of sawdust in a shed used for the curing of fish, at which trade the two first-named prisoners were employed. The prisoners were remanded to enable the police to trace the remainder of the stolen property, and to make further inquiries as to their antecedents. SOUTHWARK.—SINGULAR CHARGE OF AT TEMPTED SUICIDE.—Mary Atley, alias Griffith, a decent-looking woman, poorly clad, was brought before Mr. Burcham, charged with attempting to commit suicide at London-bridge. Police -constable Reed, 235 M, said that about two o'clock on Sunday morning he was on duty in Wellington-street, London-bridge, when he re ceived information that a woman had run down the steps of London-bridge towards the river. Wit ness instantly went in that direction, and fortu nately caught hold of the prisoner just as she was in the act of throwing herself into the river, and he then took her into custody. Mr. Burcham asked if he knew anything about her. Witness replied that he did. About one o'clock the same morning he was called to a poor lodging house in Queen -street, Mint, where the prisoner and her three young children resided, and was then told that she bad attempted to murder her youngest child. The prisoner had left t the house, but the child was shown to him, and he distinctly saw marks of fingers on its neck. He believed that the prisoner ran from the house, and meditated suicide, thinking that she had actually murdered her child. After she was locked up he understood that she was a widow, and had not the means of supporting her family. Mr. Townson, one of the relieving officers of St. George's parish, who happened to be in court spe cially at the request of Mr. Collinson, the chairman of the guardians, here informed his worship that he knew the prisoner as receiving relief from their parish. He had, however, to deny that she was a widow, and although the children were illegiti mate, he had not only granted them extra relief, but had offered to take them all into the work house, which latter course she refused to adopt. Witness relieved her twice in the early and the middle parts of the week, and on Saturday she would have received a further supply for herself and family had she applied to the relieving officer. She was completely destitute of friends or the means of earning her livelihood, therefore the guar dians considered it better for her to enter the work house until something better could be done for her. The prisoner here said that she was extremely sorry for what she had done. She would never attempt such a rash act again. She was driven to it through distress. Mr. Burcham told her he could not believe that after tha statement made by Mr. Townson. He and his brother magistrate were well aware of the kindness and humanity of that officer to wards the poor who came under his notice, and it must have been her fault if she allowed herself and children to be in extreme want. Why did she attempt to injure her infant. She replied that she did not do anything of the kind, but she was in great distress of mind. Mr. Burcham asked her if she was willing to enter the workhouse with her children ? She replied that she was, and would thank his worship for his kindness. Mr. 'Townson at once gave her an order for the immediate reception of herself and family, and informed his worship that he would see that they were all taken proper care of. The prisoner was then liberated, and left the court with one of the officers. 2HE ATT.BMPTED FRATRICIDE IN LEEDS. On Saturday, at the Leeds Town Hall, James Emmitt, medical student, of Saddleworth, was charged with attempting to murder his brother, by shooting him with a pistol. Prosecutor, whose name is George Emmitt, of Nile-street, Leeds, is in a somewhat critical posi tion, and is attended by two medical men, who have extracted several shots from the wound, but who are afraid that some of the shot-corns may still be in the neck. Consequently, Mr. Tennant, magis trate, went to the prosecutor's residence, for the purpose of taking his deposition, which we subjoin. George Emmitt said—Prisoner is my brother, by the same father, and has lately been living at Saddleworth. Last Wednesday prisoner and his father and mother came over to Leeds to see me. On Thursday prisoner accompanied me to the rail way station in Marsh-lane, where I am engaged. He subsequently went with me to the Wellington Station, where I had business, and we then had re freshment at various places, not separating until ten o'clock at night. On Friday morning we met again, and had dinner and tea together, for which I paid. In the evening I again went down to Marsh lane station, the prisoner being with me. As I was writing in the cooking-office prisoner stood near to me. He was in the waiting-room, from which the booking-office is boxed off Suddenly I heard the report of a pistol. I felt myself wounded on the side of the neck on which the prisoner was standing. I cried our, "Oh, dear, who has done that ?" and priscner then ran out of the office, and in a direction as if he was leaving the station ; and I thought I saw him putting away a pistol. There was no angry dispute or words between me and the prisoner. I ran out on to the platform, and somebody then assisted me into the superinten dent's room, where a medical man attended me. I cannot account for the pistol being discharged at me. We had met several times during the day, and were apparently on the best of terms. Prisoner owes me money. _ _ _ Mrs. Mary Atack, fruit dealer, of Colton, near Templenewsam, said she was at the station at 20 minutes to six o'clock, waiting for a train home. In the waiting-room adjoining the office she saw the prisoner, and the prosecutor was in the office. There is a door from one room to the other, and this was open at the time, and there is also a window, at which people obtain their tickets. She saw the prisoner with a pistol in his hand. He was then standing by the side of the prosecutor, and he suddenly extended his hand in the direction of the prosecutor. She heard the piste' explode, but did not see the prosecutor bleeding from his wound. She followed prosecutor on to the plat form, and told a man to assist him to a seat, as she was of opinion that he (prosecutor) was about to fall. Prisoner walked quickly down the steps, in a direction as if he was leaving the station. The magistrates, at this stage, of the inquiry, re manded the prisoner for a week. THE ASH7ON-UNDER LYNE MURDER. ASHTON-UNDER-LYNE, MONDAY. This morning, at the Town-hall, Ashton, John Ward, Michael Burke, Frederick Hepwell, Thomas Barlow, John Toole, John Ryan, and John Clay Johnson were brought up on remand, on the charge of having murdered Police-constable Jump on the 28th June ; the last-named prisoner was charged with being an accessory after the fact. A good deal of evidence of a very desultory cha racter was gone into. Ryan and Toole were dis charged as far as regarded the murder of Jump- At the close of the examination the magistrates said they had decided with regard to the prisoners to commit Burke, Ward, and Barlow for trial on the charge of having wilfully murdered Police-con stable Jump; also Burke, Ward, Barlow and Hep well, for attacking Harrop with the intent ; and Johnson with being an accessory after the fact. Burke—l have to say that I had neither hand nor foot in the killing of the man at all. The other prisoners made no reply, and all were removed. The 31st of this month has been appointed for the trial of Mr. Bishop,in the Neapolit an A ss i ze C ourt, for treasonable practices as a Bourbonic agent. Mr. Bishop has been in confinement in the prisons of Santa Maria since the sth of April, during which time he has frequently manifested his impatience for a trial ; but now that the per iod is actually fixed, he has applied through the British C o nsul for a delay, urging that he wishes his brother, an officer in the army, now in garrison at Malta, to be present at the legal proceedings, BREACHES OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE. BROOK V. CARTER (AT YORK). —Mr. Bliss, in stating the case, said the plaintiff, Betsy Brook, was the daughter of the late Mr. John Brook, who was a woollen manufacturer and a person of consi derable property at Upperthong, near Holmfirth. He had a family of five sons and four daughters, all of whom were respectably married, except the plain tiff. The defendant, Ralph Carter, resides in the same place, and for many years lived with his mother, who was a woman of considerable property. He was himself a woollen manufacturer, and his family and that of the plaintiff, living near each other, were well acquainted. The defendant and the plaintiff grew up as friends together from child hood; as children they were playmates, and, as the jury could well understand, when the plaintiff arrived at the age of about eighteen their attach ment ripened into strong affection, and the defendant cantinued to court her for years. The learned counsel said he wished he had not to add—and this was one a the causes, no doubt, of the reluctance with which the plaintiff had resorted to this means of redress—thal, when about thirty years of age, the defendant so far overpowered and took advan tage of her affection that she became by him the mother of a child. The child was acknowledged by the defendant, and was treated kindly by him and also by the members of his family. The infant died when it was nineteen months old, and the defen dant and other members of the family attended the funeral. The plaintiff's father was very angry at the birth of the child, and the defendant not being . received in the house as he had previously been, dis continued his visits, but subsequently continued to meet the plaintiff at the houses of her sister and sister-in-law. This continued for a great number of years, and, with the single exception that had been mentioned, their intercourse was characterised with propriety and purity. Matters went on in this manner for some time, and many years ago the plaintiffs mother died, and, her sisters being mar ried, she was left to keep house for her father. She always expected that the defendant would fulfil his promise, and at this time an engagement was made between them that they should be married upon her father's death. This occurred in 1857, but shortly before his death he met with some pecuniary mis fortunes. After her father's death, when the de fendant knew he would be called on to fulfil his promise, he forebore to go to the house, and after hoping and waiting day after day, month after month, and year by year, at last, when the plaintiff's patience was exhausted, and love almost desperate, the defendant was called upon by a professional man to fulfil his premise, and he refused. Some cor respondence took place, and the defendant denied that he had made any promise, and he now pleaded this as his defence ; and contended further that if a promise was made it was abandoned by both parties, and that the defendant had been absolved, exoner ated and discharged from his promise by the plain tiff. It was true (the learned counsel said) that both these parties were advanced in life, the defendant being about 63 years of age and the plaintiff about 61. (Laughter.) The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. Damages £5OO. On the application of the defendant's counsel the judge consented to stay execution, as it was thought the damages were excessive. BILLS V. NELSON (NOTTINGHAM).—The plaintiff is the daughter of a farmer in respectable circum stances, residing at Bawtry, North Notts, and the defendant, a surgeon practising in the same town, and a widower of 40 years of age. The plaintiff, who is a young woman of very attractive appear ance, engaged herself last year as housekeeper to the defendant. According to the defendant him self the case was one of love at first sight. After keeping the defendant's house till the close of the year, the plaintiff had a child by the defendant, who, as was alleged, promised to marry the young lady before and after the event occurred. He did not do so, and now denied that any promise was ever made. The child was not affiliated in conse quence of the defendant's promise of marriage. The jury found for the plaintiff, damages £l5O. COUN2ItY MAR.EI 1 AS. ..,- - v. COLCHESTER-JULY 26. -- To-day there was a small supply of wheat at market, and there was a very limited business doing, with little change in the prices of last week. A sample or two of new white and hog peas were sold. Wheat, white. s6s 62s Beans,Mazagan..3sB 38s red 54s 60s middle & small.3Bs 42s Barley —s —s Peas, white 38s 42s Oats —s gray 38s 42s GLOUCESTER-JULY 26. A small supply of wheat from the farmers to-day, but in excess of last week, ano sold readily at fully last week's prices. Foreign wheat in fair retail demand. Oats 6d per qr higher. Barley rather dearer. Beans firm. ,D-Jury 25. limited, and prices rose about appear eager to seii,..and great he Approaching crops. A slow )70.40e:rates, but a moderate ,VettgVartridge: 37s 41s 39s 42s Boiling .. 41s 44s I)un 36s 40s Ditto new —s —s Beans, Tick, old 34s 39s new 34s 39s Harrow Ticks 36s 42s new 36s 41s Mazagan 32s 40s CHELMSFO: The supplit,,of wheat,was hiper qr.. Faiimers did not complaints-Vle nude as to C trade: -Spiiiv..corri also la Wtieftttold.'whitp 4 #tt new"' ..44s : - Ots old red....44s 49s new 49a b7s Barley Chevalier 3os 42s Grinding 24s 32s Malt. Chevalier . ..... , 64s 69s Oats 22s 29s KIRKCALDY GRAIN—JULY 26. We had small supplies to day of barley and oats, but fair of wheat. Oats and barley sold is to 2s per p advance. Wheat is dearer. Wheat. Barley. Oats. First....sos Od I 32s Od I 26s Od Second ..55s Od 33s Od 28s Od Third....6ls Od —s Od 31s Od COAL 1i (Mots of Coal per Ton a a. d. Grey's West Hartley..l4 3 Eden Main .. ..16 6 Carway and Daffryn Malting 23 0 ARKET. t the close of the market Walls End. s. d. Framwellgate 16 9 Trimdon Thornley 15 9 Stewart's 17 5 Hetton .. lB Do. - Anthracite..2l 0 Tanfield Moor l3 0 Tanfield Moor Butes., 13 0 Walker Primrose 12 3 Tunstall Hartlepool.. l7 6 Whitworth l5 6 South Whitworth 15 6 Kelloe Russel's Hetton 17 6 Caradoc South Kelloe. l7 0 ;t, 49 ; sold, 40. Walla End. BrrAdyll'a Hetton 17 6 Heugh Hall 16 9 Thorpe . . ..16 0 Ships at market FOREIGN MAIL PACKET LIST. MAILS DUE. Aur,ralia and Mauritius, via Southampton. July 19. via Marseilles Aug. 12. &sail and Cape Verds, by British packet. A ug . 4. Cape of Good Hope, Ascension, and St. Helena.. Aug. 1. China, Penang, and Singapore, via Southampton. July 19. via Marseilles July 27. Falkland Islands Aug. 4. Gibraltar, via Southampton India (Calcutta), and Ceylon, v i a S out h ampton July 19. via Marseilles July 27. India (Bombay), via Southampton July 30, via Marseilles July 24. Lisbon Aug. 4. Malta, Egypt, and Aden, via Southampton July 19. via Marseilles July 24. Newfoundland .. July 23. Oporto and Vigo • Aug. 4. U. S. and British N. A mer i ca , b y B r i t . pac k et July 23. by U.S. packet by Canadian packet. July . W.C. of Africa, Madeira, and Teneriffe Aug 10. Bahamas, via New York ....July 31. Mexico.. __July 29. All parts of West Indies, including Chili, Peru,) July 29. California, and British Columbia.. BIRTHS. BATEMAN.—On the 26th inst., at 37, Lower Brook. street, the Lady Bateman, of a son. DAVIES —On the 27th inst., at Pentre, Pembrokeshire, the wife of Lieut.-Colonel Saunders Davies, of a son and heir. MOUNT EDGCUMBE.—On the 27th inst., at Tunbridge wells, the Countess of Mount Edgeumbe, of a daughter. MOSTVN.—On the 27th inst., at 93, Eaton-square, the Hon. Mrs. Mostyn, of a daughter. MARRIAGES. ruCKRIDGE—COSTER. —On the 24th inst., at St. John's, Hackney, Alfred Francis, only son of Mr. B. Puckridge, of 52, Strand, to Harriot, daughter of the late J. Webb Coster, Esq., of Ringsland. TAYLOR---GAGE—On the 22d bast., at St. Martin's Church, Henry Cavendi s h Taylor, Esq., of Chyknell, Shrol” shire, to Selina Elizabeth, daughter of the Hon. Henri' Gage. DEATHS. DENNANT.—On the 25th inst., Mr. David Dennant, of South-street, Greenwich, aged 66. DOUGLAS. —On the 25th inst., at Douglas-park, Lanark shire, Mrs. Douglas, of Orbiston, aged 91. HELPS. —On the 26th inst., at the residenc e o f his father; Clapham-comm on , Frederick Thadeus Helps, Esq., aged HARLING.—On the 27th inst., at 9, Upper Seymour-street , Portmua-squar e' William Harling, Esq., formerly " Chester, age d 76 . P ATTISON.—On the 28th inst:, Mr. Henry Pattison, job master, Marylebone-lane, aged 65. PARSER.—On the 24th inst., at Hagar Royal Naval l°" pital, Lieut. William Parker, R.N., aged 83, senior lieu tenant of that establishthent anti also of the Royal Nev . He was one of the few surviving officers of the battle " the Nile. LONDON: Printed and Published by JOHNCHAFLIN? of N 0.112, Strand, Printer, at THE SUN Office No. 11 2; Strand, in th e P rec i nc t of the Savoy, in the Conn t Y ° Miggleseze-aucuday, July 29, 1862. I