The Sun. — London, England, 1862-11-21 00:00:00

COUR7 OF COMMON COUNCIL. A Court of Common Council was holden yester day in the Council-chamber, Guildhall, The Right Hon. the Lord Mayor (Alderman Rose) presided for the first time since his appointment to the office, and his lordship, upon entering the Court, was re ceived with loud cheers. As is 'usual on such an occasion, the Lord 'Mayor a n d Sh er iff s went in state from the Mansion -house to Guildhall. The LORD MAYOR, before the commencement of business, addressed a few observations to the Court in reference to his taking his seat for the first time as its president. His lordship asked the Court to give him its kind support and assistance in presiding over their deliberations, and said it should ever be his anxious desire to act with the strictest impartiality, and to afford every member the fullest opportunity of expressing his sentiments upon any subject that might be brought before the Court. He added that he should himself do all in his power to preserve the reputation of the Court, and the character of its deliberations, and he hoped that, with their assistance, he should succeed in handing down the office of chief magistrate of the City of London to his successor with the same amount of public credit that he had received it from the hands of his predecessor. (Hear, hear.) THE LATE LORD MAYOR. Mr. Deputy UNWIN then proposed a resolution of thanks, in similar terms to the one agreed to on Tuesday in the Court of Aldermen, to the late Lord Mayor, for the 'very able and efficient manner in which he had performed the duties of the office during a period of two years. He said that he had been for a great many years connected with the Corporation, but he did not recollect any gentleman 'who had filled the office of chief magistrate of the City of London with greater satisfaction to his fellow citizens and the public at large than the late Lord Mayor. (Hear.) Mr. S. SYMONS, in seconding the resolution, said he was certain that every gentleman who had been acquainted with the late Lord Mayor, and who had observed the manner in which he performed the duties of his office, could not fail to feel the greatest possible esteem and regard for him. (Hear.) He was 'very glad to find that his health was rapidly improving, and he was sure he was only speaking the feeling of every member of the Court when he stated his hope that this might induce him to re consider his decision of resigning his office, and that he would consent still to continue a member of the Corporation. (Rear, hear.) The resolution was then put and carried unani mously, as Was also a motion that the resolution should bc, ornamentally transcribed and emblazoned signed by the town clerk, and presented to Mr. Alderman Cubitt, and that it should also be adver tised in the usual morning and evening papers. Upon the motion of Deputy UNWIN it was re solved that a sum of 50 guineas should be presented to the Rev. Michael Gibbs, the chaplain of the late Lord Mayor, by way of a compliment for the ser mon preached by himm, before the Corporation on Michaelmas Day, and also that he should be re quested to print th e same. TP.E DISTRESS IN LANCASHIRE. Mr. IdAWLEY gave notice that he should move at the next Court that a further sum of £l,OOO should be given by the Corporation in aid of the distress at present existing in Lancashire. (Hear, hear.) THE OFFICE OF CITY SOLICITOR. Mr. S. H. WATERLOW, the chairman of the Offi cers and Clerks' Committee, brought up a report from the committee having reference to the office of City Solicitor, but in accordance with the unani mous feeling of the Court, he consented that the re port should be printed, and that the consideration of it should be postponed to a future day. THE TRAFFIC IN THE CITY. Deputy LOTT, the deputy-chairman of the Police Committee, moved the consideration of the bill that had been already laid before the ;Court, the object of which is to regulate the traffic of public and other conveyances in the city of London, with a view to remedy the inconveniences that at present exist through the overcrowding of the principal city thoroughfares. He said that the evils complained of were increasing instead of diminishing, and it 'was absolutely nooesaary that something should be done. He said that he believed this bill, it carried out, would be attended with very good effect, and he was ready to give all the information in his power with reference to the provisions contained in it. Mr. SNELLING wished to know whether the bill gave a power to interfere and direct the routes of private vehicles, and vehicles used for business. Deputy LOTT said that the bill did give a power to interfere in these respects, and also gave general powers to do what might be considered necessary to remedy the great i nconven i ence that at present existed, both with regard to business traffic and public and private conveyances. Alderman COPELAND expressed his opinion that the present law was quite sufficient to effect all that was required—(hear)—and they had no right to interfere with the requirements of commerce, or to throw any impediment in the way of carrying on tho nn,_rnnerce of this great cqy. He did not believe that t 14, r 5 LuL•us Luc II eau powers they sought to obtain by this bill, and, therefore, he trusted the Court would not proceed any further with the matter. (Hear.) Mr. H. L. TAYLOR said he was very glad to hear the observations that had just been made by such practical man as Alderman Copeland. (Hear.) He believed that if they did persevere with this bill the Whole trading community of the city of London would be up in arms against it. What right had the Corporation to give directions as to the mode in which a man was to carry on his business P (Hear.) For his own part he was pleased to see the extent of the traffic-Lit was an honour and a credit to the city of London, and the Corporation would be greatly exceeding their powers if they endeavoured to interfere with it. He was anxious to put the extinguisher upon the subject at once, and he should therefore move as an amendment that the re commendation of the Police Committee be not agreed to. (Hear.) Mr. SNELLING seconded the amendment. Alderman LAWRENCE said that in his opinion many of the clauses of the proposed bill were most objectionable, and he should therefore cordially support the amendment.' Deputy JONES said he was sorry to differ from his worthy alderman ; but there could be no doubt that a crying evil existed, and it appeared to him that it was absolutely necessary something should be done in order to remedy that evil. (Hear.) Mr- S. J. GIBBONS supported the amendment, on t he ground th a t it was an improper interference with the trade of the city of London. Deputy ELLIOTT said he was sorry to find that the trading interest was not willing to give up a small portion of public generally,its privileges for the benefit of the reference to thesl and he would only observe with statementsufficient that the law as it at pre sent stood Was were so it W as a eient to meet the case, that if it great t pity that it was not acted upon to remedy iesenetrrible state of inconvenience that existed at pre sent . (Hear, hear.) After some further ors'ibrserpvations by Mr. Saunders, Deputy Bower, a n d the bill, and from D c y clier, in opposition to sput and Mr. Rewe, in its favour, the first mentaiodynviedert:olf these gentlemen suggested it would be back for further consideration to refer the bill and not to at once.reject it Deputy LoTT replied, and he urged that it was clear the only opponents of the bill were the g reat w h o lesale houses, who did not choose to bave their contended that the Court conven ience interfered with, and was imperatively ca ll e d upon to do some thing to effect an alteration of the present sy s t em. If they did not, be could tell them that the evil wag and before long they would increasing every da y , come to a dcod block, and would he compelled t o take some steps in the matter. (Hear, hear.) The motion was the n p ut, when the amendm en t was declared to he carried. A division was called for, when there a ppeared — For the amendment .............. 65 Against it Majority against the bi 11.... -7-16 The whole of the aldermen present voted in the major ity. DPptity FRY then proposed, as another amend Went, that the bill should be referred back to the Police Committee for further consideratio , with a view to its provisions being altered and trade more in accordance with the feeling of the Court. This amendment was supported by _Deputy Pew tress and Mr. Lawley, and opposed t)y Mr. H. L. Taylor and Deputy Harrison. Deputy LOTT expressed his readiness to agree to the suggestion of Deputy Fry ; and with reference to some observations that had been made by Deputy Harrison, he said he wished it to be understood that the aldermen had no power at present to make any regulations for the traffic of the City of London. The amendment of Deputy Fry was then put and carried. PETITIONS. Alderman ABBIss presented a petition from the Committee of the Sea-side Convalescent Hospital at Seaford, near Newhaven, as king for a grant of money. A motion was made that the petition should be referred to the Coal, Corn, and Finance Committee ; but it was negatived, on the ground that the insti tution was only established in the year 1860, and that there had not been sufficient time to judge of its usefulness or its claims upon the Corporation of London for assistance. The next business before the Court was a report of the Improvement Committee, brought up by the chairman, Deputy Fry, upon the subject of widen ing and improving Lower Thames-street ; bat as the Court had already been sitting for a very long time, and the debate upon the subject was likely to be a protracted one, it was arranged that the matter should be postponed, and the Court shortly after wards adjourned. THE SUSPECTED POISONING CASE IN WILTSHIRE. HINDON, THURSDAY. The magisterial inquiry into the circumstances under which Mrs. Trowbridge was taken into cus tody, charged with the murder of Mrs. Kiddie, by the administration of poison, was continued last night up to a very late hour. At the conclusion of the evidence of Dr. Herapath, already reported, Inspector Dunn, of the Wiltshire County Con stabulary, was called, and said that on the 11th of November he took from Mrs. Kiddie's room four pieces of paper, one from the bedroom, one from the occasional bedroom, one from the kitchen, and one from the parlour. He labelled them, and they were sent to Dr. Herapath. Police-sergeant Beaumont deposed that he got two parcels (produced) containing bottles, from the back room of the prisoner's house. They were labelled " Poison," and Dr. Shettle sealed them in the presence of witness. In cross-examination witness said the bottles were not hidden away. The bottles were opened by direction of the Bench. One was labelled "Laudanum," and the other was labelled "Zinc." Elizabeth Batty deposed that her husband was a glover living at Milborne Port. The deceased was her sister. Witness had been staying a month at Ludwell. When she went there her sister was alone, excepting her husband. The prisoner was the first person who came, and it was in the evening of the day witness got there. The deceased sent for the prisoner more than once. She (the prisoner) was in attendance the last few days before Mrs. Kiddie's death. Mrs. Jones prepared the beef-tea. Deceased took a little barley and a ♦ery little piece of calvesfoot. She had two puddings. Miss Lush made one, and Mrs. Trowbridge made the other. Neither of the puddings were made in the house. Witness did not particularly notice whether deceased was sick every time after taking food. Deceased sometimes preferred brandy and water. She was not sick after partaking of the pud ding sent by Miss Lush. Witness gave it to her, but not all of it. It lasted two or three days. The one Mrs. Trowbridge sent was also partly eaten by deceased, who could not keep it down. She said she did not like it. Witness thought it was egg pudding, and ate part of it herself. It made her ill and gave a burning feeling in the throat, but did not make her sick. She asked Mrs. Trowbridge to give her something. She was ill nearly a week. Mrs. Trowbridge gave her (witness) something which drove the burning further down, and she (prisoner) said it was cream of tartar, ginger, and salt. The afternoon Mrs. Trowbridge came witness took up the tea and the calvesfoot, and left it. The cooking was done by her (witness), but she was not in the room when deceased ate the food. She went up afterwards, and Mrs. Kiddie complained of sick ness, and said she thought it was the calvesfoot she had eaten. The residue of the calvesfoot was thrown away. She (witness) never ate any of the calvesfoot. She thought a week elapsed between the time when deceased ate the padding made by Mrs. Trowbridge and her (witness) eating the remainder of which she spoke. _ Cross-examined by Mr. Chitty Witness had known Mrs. Trowbridge some time, who had been very friendly with the deceased. They generally attended the Tabernacle together. Mr. Kiddie, the husband of deceased, had great confidence in the 4%. •I 1. - paid deceased very great attention, and appeared most anxious for her recovery, and did everything for her up to the last. She was in the room when deceased died, and closed her eyes. The pudding which made deceased sick came from the prisoner's house, but witness did not know who made it, or who brought it. The prisoner was not pre sent when deceased partook of the pudding. The prisoner generally came to Mrs. Kiddie before or after school hours. Deceased only took two or three monthsful of the pudding, and said imme diately, " Elizabeth, I cannot eat any more of this." In a minute or two the pudding was rejected. She (witness) ate halt of it a minute or two after, but did not feel very sick until after tea. Witness did not go to any doctor, nor did she throw the pudding off her stomach. The remainder of the pudding was given to a little boy, who did not com plain. The medicine she received from Mrs. Trow bridge relieved the sickness. She assisted Mrs. Trowbridge in making the jelly, and took it up to deceased, who said it was too rich. Mrs. Trowbridge carried a portion of it away home, the remainder was kept for some time and then th rown away as not being fit for use , having been kept too long. Th e deceased was nearly always sick before Mrs. Trow bridge attended her. The milk ordered by Dr. Shettle did not make her sick. John Kiddie, the husband of the deceased, said that his wife's sickness commenced about 3 months before her death. It came on first generally at meals, A cup of tea would bring it on. After that she went to Mrs. Trowbridge's house, she being She went almost every day. Within a week after her going to Mrs. Trowbridge 's the sickness re turned. She (Mrs, Trowbridge) was not able, for a few days after witness's wife returned, to come to the house. While she was there deceased was very ill, and suffered much from sickness. Prisoner continued visiting deceased, and on the Friday Dr. Shettle said she was better. On the Saturday wit ness went to Shaftesbury market, and on returning he went upstairs, and found his wife sitting in a chair. Mrs. Trowbridge was present, and deceased said she thought she was better, having taken a little caivesfoot for tea. The same night and the following day deceased was worse, which was caused by the return of the sickness. About a week after Mrs. Batty came the prisoner said to witness, " Don't you eat anything after your wife, as Dr. Shettle says that she is suffering from an ulcerated cancer in the stomach." No one else was present on that occasion. The deceased got gradually worse. Mrs. Trowbridge was in constant attendance, and deceased was particularly fond of her. She was sometimes sick when prisoner did not come to see her. Cross-examined by Mr. Chit ty—Tiad known the prisoner 12 or 13 years, and she was repeatedly called in when anybody in the village was ill. She always showed the readiest disposition to assist anybody. The prisoner, witness , and d e c e a se d (hi s wife) were in the habit of attendin g re li gious wor , ship togeth er , and f requently receiv e d the sacra ment. Deceased was a Sunday school teacher be fore her marriage. During the time of deceased's illness Mrs. Trowbridge was on good terms With them both. Miss Annie Kiddie deposed that she went to keep THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING,, NOVgIVIBgIi 21, 1502. school for the prisoner while she went to nurse the deceased. In the course of conversation she told witness to tell her brother (the last witness) about not taking anything after the deceased. There was something said as to a consultation, and prisoner did not object to it. Mr. Shettle did not give any one to understand that deceased was suffering from ulcerous cancer. John Kiddie recalled—The prisoner gave him some medicine several times during his wife's illness. Dr. Shettle recalled—Magnesia was an antidote for poison. Mr. Chitty for the prisoner then proposed to call Dr. Roberts, to show that the deceased did not die from the effects of the administration of poison. The magistrates retired for some time, and on their return into the justice-room, The Chairman said that they had decided that it would not be advisable to call Dr. Roberts, as in the event of the bench ultimately deciding on commit ting the prisoner for trial on the charge alleged, it would be casting a slur on Dr. Roberts' professional judgment, which the bench might unwittingly do. inspector Dunn then said that he had no further evidence to offer on the part of the prosecution. The magistrates further consulted, and The Chairman said—We think that the evidence is not sufficient to justify us in detaining the pri soner in custody, and therefore we propose to re mand her until the two bottles found in her house have been examined. We shall only therefore re-' quire her to enter into her own recognisances to appear on a future day. After some further observations from Mr. Chitty, the prisoner was formally bound over to appear again at the next petty sessions. SUPPOSED SUICIDE OF A TRADESMAN. Yesterday morning an inquest was held at the Rodney Tavern, Old-street, St. Luke's, respecting the death of Mr. Wm. York Green, aged 47, a bookseller. Mrs. Elizabeth Green said that deceased was her husband, and he was a bookseller for several years, but fell into ill-health about a year ago, and the business declined. They owed £2O for a half-year's rent, and all their property, furniture, &c., worth at least £2OO, was seized and condemned for £l9 19s. 6d. Their ruin and his bad health, which rendered him incapable of obtaining employment, preyed acutely upon his mind. On Tuesday even ing witness noticed that he appeared peculiarly heavy, and next morning she found him dead, lying in the back room. His life was insured. A broken bottle was produced. It was labelled " Yates, chemist—poison." It smelled, apparently, of essential oil of almonds. Dr. J. Rogers said that he found in the stomach of the deceased a quantity of red fluid, apparently poison. The membranes of the brain were inflamed, probably from poison, but he could not say posi tively without a chemical analysis of the contents of the stomach. The Coroner adjourned the inquiry for further evidence. 2HE LATE EXPLOSION AND LOSS OF LIFE ON THE GREAT WES lERN RAIL WAY. ADJOURNED INQUEST ON THE SUFFERERS. Yesterday, Dr. Lankester, the Central Middle sex coroner, resumed the inquiry at the Royal Saxon Hotel, Alfred-road, Paddington, on the bodies of Charles Thompson, James Eldriege, and James Wilson, the three unfortunate men killed by explosion of the locomotive engine Perseus on the Great Western Railway on the morning of Satur day, the Bth inst. Captain Tyler, of the Railway Department of the Board of Trade, attended to watch the proceedings on the part of the Government, and Mr. Armstrong, as solicitor for the relatives of some of the deceased persons. Mr. Daniel Go6ch, locomotive superinten dent, and other officials of the railway company, were also present. John Thompson was first examined, and said he was the driver of the Perseus engine, which had exploded. He had driven her on the previous day with the mail train from Swindon, with a pressure of 1151bs. to the square inch of steam upon her boiler. He always believed her capable of bearing a pressure of 1151bs. to the square inch. The boiler was washed out in the course of the day, after she was brought in from Swindon, and she was to have taken the 10.15 train down to Swindon on the morning of the explosion. Mr. Lancelot Young said he resided at Swindon, and was a boiler-maker. He knew the Perseus, and had had her under repair. She was first put on the road in Jane, 1851. He first had the Per seus under repair about seven years z go, and twice since—the last time in June, 1861. He then put some rivets into the boiler. At that time he did not suppose that her plates were bad, because the interior of the boiler was examined, and, with the exception of some slight corrosion about the skin there was nothing remarkable. They also repaired the tubes. A boiler was in no danger of bursting from bad tubes. The Perseus _ -3—mt. 175.000 miles . That was not at all an extraordinary course for an engine iv were many engines that had run doable that num ber of miles which had sound boilers. There was no system and no fixed time adopted for examining locomotive boilers. When anything went wrong, and they were taken into shed for repairs, then it was usual to examine them. Had examined this engine since the accident, and was convinced that the explosiOn took place through one of the under plates having worn thin by corrosion, and that it was therefore unable to bear the pressure of steam upon it. By the Coroner—That explosion might have taken place at any time. Mr. W. Gooch said he was the chief engineer of the locomotive department of the Great Western Railway. It was the duty of the driver of every engine to make any complaint, in books provided for that purpose, if he found his engine in any way out of order. There was no complaint of any im portance made about the Perseus prior to this ex plosion. They had some engines on the railway 25 years old, so that could not be called an old engine. At that part of the plate where the explosion had taken place the metal was from a tenth to an eighth of an inch thick, the average thickness being three eighths. In his opinion the way in which the thin ness had been effected was in the first place by chemical action starting the mechanical action on the metal. Much depended upon the metal of which these boilers were constructed. If the metal was of inferior quality it would be subject to chemical action and consequent corrosion earlier than good sound metal. It was not usual to examine boilers unless they were in shed for other repairs, and un. less there was any suspicion of them. They had engines that had run many more miles than the milest e a e Perseus with out any exam i nat i on—one that h a d run 281,716 examina tion. He attributed the accident to weakness of one of the p dby caonryroisniotenr.nal By Captain Tyler—Considered the practice of subjecting those • engmes to a periodical test of hydraulic pressure of 1801bs. to the square inch would be more dangerous than not testing them at all. His opinion W as ,that although the Perseus might have been subjected to such a test and have passed it, in two days after she might have exploded with a pressure of 1151bs. Captain Tyler was then sworn, and read a report he had made upon the subject, which described the state in which he found the engine on the • mornin g of Monday, the 10th inst., and gave it as his opinion that the accident had arisen from the under-plate being too weak from internal corrosion to bear the pressure of steam upon it. It had frequently been urged upon railway companies that they should test their boilers by an hydraulic pressure of 1801bs. to the square inch ; but the engineers had rejected that test as a most dangerous one. His own opinion was that there should be that or some other test every three years, and that to run any engine 175,000 miles without it was exceedingly dangerous. After some further discussion the coroner summed up and the room was cleared, and after a an hour the jury returned a verdict—" That the de ceased persons were killed by the explosion of a certain engine on the Great Western Railway acci dentally, and that the jury were of opinion that rail Way authorities should require that there should be a periodical e/amination of all boilers of loco motive engines within a period of three years at the outside." LAW INTELLIGENCE, Nov, 20. JUDGES' CHAMBERS. (Before Mr. Justice Blackburn.) THE QUEEN V.WHITEHURST. Mr. G. of Lewis and Lewis, Ely place, solicitor, appeared before Mr. Justice Black burn, to apply for a writ of certorari to remove any indictments that might be preferred against Mr. Whitehurst, and on which true bills might be found, at the next sessions of the Central Criminal Court, to the Court of Queen's Bench for trial there. He moved, on the affidavit of Mr. Whitehurst, which set forth that Mr. Whitehurst had been a solicitor in the Court of Queen's Bench for 13 years, practis ing in London ; that he was anxious to have the case tried before a special jury, which he could not have at the Central Criminal Court. That grave questions of law would arise for the direction of the:Court on the charge made against him, inas much as the magistrate discharged him from the alleged offence of writing letters with intent to com mit en unnatural offence. The affidavit went on to say that various questions of law were urged on the attention of the magistrate upon the part of the prosecution, and it was contended that the writing of such letters constituted a misdemeanour, though there was no intention of committing the crime suggested, and it was further argued that the let ters were capable of supporting another charge, viz., that of an obscene libel. The affidavit pro ceeded to state that, after much discussion, the ma gistrate said he had looked through all the autho rities and could not find any case in which the law was laid down Dr decided, but under the circum stances, and in order that the matter might be fully argued and decided, he should commit him (Mr. Whitehurst) to take his trial. The affidavit con tains a strong assertion of his innocence of any criminal intention. _ . Mr. Justice Blackburn, having read the affidavit, said he considered that, under all the circumstances, it would be far better that a case in which such questions of law would have to be decided should be removed for trial to the Queen's Bench. The writ of certiorari was therefore granted. Mr. Lewis requested his lordship to fix the amount of bail, and his lordship ordered the defen dant to enter into his own recognisances for £2OO, and give two sureties in £lOO each. Mr. Lewis said he was prepared with sureties, and the recognisances were duly entered into, and the writ granted. The result will be that, if the grand jury grant true bills, the case cannot be tried until about the month of March, and then only before a special jury and the Lord Chief Justice of England. COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. THE QUEEN V. RUSTON. This is the case of the person who stands charged with the crime of setting fire to a ship on the high seas, of which he was owner, with intent to defraud the insurers. Mr. Sleigh, just at the rising of the Court, begged them to allow a motion which he said was of very great importance and would be very short. It was an application under the Act (passed to meet Pal mer's case) allowing the removal of prisoners to take their trial in London in cases where there would be danger of their not having a fair trial in the county where they were committed. Under that Act he moved that the indictment which had been preferred against the prisoner might be removed to the Cen tral Criminal Court, in order that he might be tried thore. He moved on affidavits of the prisoner Rux ton and his attorneys ; and which showed, he said, that the prisoner could not be tried at Liverpool at the ensuing assizes there without imminent risk of prejudice, by reason of the publication of inflamma tory articles in certain of the local papers ; one, in particular, the Porcupine (a laugh)—a paper of a satirical character—a sort of weak imitation of Punch. Moreover, there had been placards posted about the town of ! Liverpool, offering a reward of £2OO for information which might lead to the con viction of persons suspected of such offences : Extract from the Liverpool Daily Post of the 13th August, 1862 : " £2OO Reward.—Free Pardon.—Wilful Destruc tion of Ships.—Whereas it has become known that divers ships have of late been unlawfully and mali ciously cast away and destroyed by fire and other ' wise, with intent to defraud underwriters and others, at the instance of fraudulent shipowners and their accomplices : now, a reward of £2OO will be paid to any person or persons who shall give such information and evidence as shall lead to the detection and conviction of the offenders, and her Majesty will graciously grant a free pardon and the said reward of £2OO to any master of a ship, or mate, or other person or persons, whether prince pals in such felonies, and having actually committed such offences, or accessories thereto, who shall give such information and evidence as shall lead to the detection and conviction of any other person or persona either as principals or accessories to the commission of the said offences, or any of them, Apply to Major Oreig, head-constable; or to Supe rintendent Kehoe, police-court, Liverpool." Mr. Justice Mellor asked it the prisoner had been admitted to bail. Mr. Sleigh said he had not. Bail in the first in stance had been accepted, but on a subsequent occa sion -the magistrate stated that in consequence of something which had come to his ears he should decline to accept the bail which had been offered, and the affidavits stated that this was on account of the publication alluded to. In the Porcupine of the 15th of September was an article headed " The which was a pre iSnhip on Fire, from of Fine picture, Arts," in Liverpool Society t S ic o e ci o et t y a the pencil of Mr. Ruxton, a local artist, who has suddenly sprung into remarkable distinction of late. Observe the striking figure of the captain engaged in setting fire to the brandy; a portrait, we under steno, --tl no doubt an amazing likeness. We have heard that the Hanging c-naraitt ee deeply re gret that they cannot deal as they would desire with this most promising artist." (A laugh.) The Lord Chief Justice—Do you really think that this would have the effect of preventing the prisoner from having a fair trial? Mr. Sleigh—Not that alone, perhaps; but there are others of the same kind, and it is impossible to say what effect they may not have had. Mr. Justice Wightman—They must be very weak minded persons indeed who could be influenced by such publications. Mr. Justice Mellor observed that he had sat twice as Judge of Assize at Liverpool, and had never heard of the Porcupine. (A laugh.) Mr. Sleigh said there were similar articles in other papers. The Lord Chief Justice, after consulting with his colleagues, said, although no doubt it would have been better to abstain from such publications, the court did not think that they would be likely to have the effect of preventing the prisoner from hav ing a fair trial by producing prejudice against him among the jurors. But, at the same time, since the affidavits stated that the matter had been made for some time the subject of general discussion, and the legal advisers of the prisoner deposed to their belief that a fair trial would not be had, it would, per haps, be better to have the matter discussed. It might be twit these allegations would be disptoved, in which etse the rule would be discharged, and the mere opinion of the prisoner's legal advisers would have little weight unless sustained by mat ters of fact. There might, therefore, be a rule nut, to be argued next Tuesday, the last day of term. COURT FOR DIVORCE AND MATRIMO NIAL CAUSES. (Before Sir C. Cresswell.) MACCAN V. MACCAN. The hearing of this part-heard cause was re sumed. Dr. Spinks said that hin olient, the respondent in this case, was absent, and he did not feel him self justified in offering further opposition,although he considered that he could show some discrepancy in the evidence. Sir C. Cresswell intimated a wish that some evi dence in addition to that produced yesterday (Wed nesday), should be called in support of the petition. The Queen's Advocate, with whom was Dr. Swaby, for the petitioner, then called the follow ing witnesses Brown stated that he now lived at Hull, but had previously resided at Spalding, which was his native place. He was there in 1861, and at tended a sale which took place at the respondent's place of business. Mrs. Maccan was sitting with her niece in the room when her husband came in, and on seeing her he said she must leave the room. He then went up to her and dragged her out of the room. The sale had not then commenced. He thought the respondent was treating his wife very roughly, and he said to him " Don't hurt her." The respon dent rained his arm as if he was about to strike the witness, and asked him why he interfered. In cross-examination he sa id h e did not h e ar the re spondent accuse hi s w if e of hav i ng i nterrup ted him in his business th e d ay oppositi on w h en s h e was being ejected f rom the room. previous, and she offered no A woman named Barnet, who resided at Spald ing, said s h e h a d b een acquainted with t h e p ar ti es in this suit for 24 years. The respon d en t w as ad diei ed to intem perance, and very pass i ona t e i n hi s temper , He Was in the habit of turning his wife out of doors, and s h e, with her nurse , used to come to her house for sh e lt er; and some time before the separation she heard him tell his wife that he Would not live with her any more. She asked him if he really meant what he said, and he replied in the affirmative. The Queen's Advocate submitted that the peti tioner had proved her case, but if necessary he would be able to call further evidence to establish the cruelty alleged against the respondent, Sir C. Cresswell considered it was unnecessary to produce any other evidence. Dr. Spinks said that his client had attended when he expected the CESO to be heard, and he was willing to make a proper provision for his wife. Sir C. Cresswell said he would attend to that matter when there was an application on the sub. jest of alimony, and he would make the decree for judicial separation. HORS - CALL v. HORSFALL. This was a suit the wife for dissolution of marriage on the gr b ou y nd of her husband's cruelty and adultery, and there was no defence. Dr. Spinks and Mr. Cooper were counsel for the petitioner. From the evidence it appeared that the parties were married at Leeds in 1830, and cohabited until 1848. In that year petitioner was obliged to go to her father's, with whom she had since resided. She took her three children with her, and had supported them since the separation. He compelled her, by his annoyance, to allow him 4s. a week; but becoming more extortioLate, he demanded £1 a week, and the petitioner was advised to institute the present pro ceedings. The petitioner in her evidence deposed to various acts of violence on the part of the respondent, and to his having several times struck her w'th his fist and a whip. He also turned her out of the house, and otherwise ill-treated her. This conduct com menced after the birth of the first child, and con tinued till their separation. The charges were fully proved, and the Court pronounced the decree nisi, with costs against the respondent, and nirected the children to remain in custody of the mother until further order. GILL V. GILL AND TIOGGE. In this suit Captain Dundas Reinhart Gill, late an officer in the 10th Hussars, prayed the Court for a dissolution of marriage with his wife on the ground of her adultery with the co-respondent, Col. Came ron Neville Hogge, of the 2d battalion of Grenadier Guards. The respondent and co-respondent denied the charge, but placed no other plea on the record. The een's Advocate and Dr, Spinks appeared for the petitioner, and Dr. WTsmbey for the respon dents. The parties were married at St. Nicholas Church, Brighton, on the 19th of March, 1858, and after the marriage resided at Brighton, Reading, and at Paris, in the Pyrenees, Bagnerres de Bigorre, and Tarbes, in the south of France. The first act of adultery alleged in the petition took place at the Hotel de France, Paris, where the petitioner and his wife were staying, and where the co-respondent and his brother Captain Hogge, who were intimate with the family, subsequently took apartments. There was one child issue of the marriage, a daughter, who was born on the 16th of February, 1829; and the cohabitation continued until the middle of June, 1861, when the petitioner suspected the fidelity of his wife. In the opening statement of counsel there was nothing to show how the re spondent's affections became estranged from her husband. _ Sir William Maxwell was examined, and said that he was the stepfather of the petitioner, and was present at the marriage. After the marriage the parties resided with him at his seat in Leicester shire for some time, after which they went to Reading. He visited them at Nice during the winter of 1859 and 1860. He met the co-respon dent there. The two photographs produced were likenesses of Colonel Hogge and the respondent, but he could not say when they were taken, or when he saw them first. He did not think he ever saw them in the custody of Colonel Hogge or the respondent. Cross-examined by Dr. Wambey—The first year after the marriage the petitioner and his wife visited him at his residence, Kilburn Lodge. He con sidered the petitioner's habits perfectly regular in every respect. He (witness) and his wife remained at Nice for about five months in the same chateau with petitioner and his wife, and Colonel Hogge also resided in that chateau. That was in 1859, and the petitioner's habits at the time were unex ceptionable. Colonel Hoi.,7ge visited them frequently, and wis in the habit of dining with him, Lady Max well, and the petitioner and his wife. Captain Gill was not in the habit of absenting himself from the ' chateau. Mr. Thomas Plumstead Marshall said he was a farmer, and proprietor of Branston, in Lincoln shire. He was at Paris in January, 1861. He rented an apartment, but dined every day at the table d'hote of the Hotel de France. He formed the acquaintance of the petitioner and his wife, who were residing at the Hotel de France. He became acquainted also with Colonel Hogge, who was staying at the same hotel. The parties re mainea at the hotel during the time he was there; that was to the 21st of March, and were absent only one day, when they went to the mountains. Colonel Hogge paid very great satisfaction to Mrs. Gill, and they were in the habit of driving and walking out together frequently. He also identified the photograph which he saw. He believed the colonel's photograph was taken at Paris, because he was re presented in the same clothes he was in the habit of wearing there. He never saw the photograph in the possession of either of the respondents. Cross-examined by Mr Wakiabey—He never heard Captain Gill say that he and Colonel Hogge oc cupied the same sitting-room, nor was he aware that they had done so. The attentions of Colonel Hogge at dinner to Mrs. Gill were of the ordinary nature paid to a lady. What he meant by the at tentions to which he alluded in his examination in chief was Colonel Hogge's driving and walking out with Mrs. Gill. Mark William Lindon, a clerk to Messrs. Cox, bankers, Charing-cross, said that firm were the army agents of the 2d battalion of Grenadier Guards and he identified the handwriting of Col. Hogge. The remaining evidence consisted of depositions which had been taken abroad by commission. From the statements of these witnesses it appeared that Colonel Hogge did occupy a sitting-room at the hotel at Paris which communicated with the bed room of Captain Gill and his wife. It was also proved that Colonel Hogge and Mrs. Gill had been absent together occasionally from Paris, and that they occupied the same apartment at the Hotel du Grand Soliel at Tarbes. Other evidence establish ing the nature of the intimacy was also given before , the commission, which concluded the petitioner's case. The Queen's Advocate then summed up. Wambey replied, and contended that the petitioner had not shown the necessary care of his wife's honour, inasmuch as he permitted her to be much in the company of the co-respondent, and in allowing him to occupy a sitting-room adjoining her bedroom. Sir C. Cresswell—He may have thought his friend too honourable to debauch his wife. Dr. Wambey contended that although the adul tery could not be disproved, the petitioner's conduct did not entitle him to ask for costs. Sir C. Cresswell said he would read the deposi tions before delivering judgment. WRIGHT V. WRIGHT AND NORMAN. In this case the parties, who are in humble life, resided at Halstead, in Bedfordshire, and were married in 1851. They cohabited until 1854, when the wife left her home, and formed an illicit connec tion with the co-respondent, who is a labourer. The facts were proved, and the court pronounced a decree nisi with costa. ROBINSON V. ROBINSON. This was a suit by the wife for a divorce on the ground of adultery and desertion. The parties are in a respectable rank of life, the respondent, Capt. Robinson, being a gentleman of property, and the petitioner, whose maiden name was Raines, being the daughter of a clergyman, The marriage was solemnised at Kirklingcon, in Yorkshire, and the parties lived together until the 24th September, 1859, when the desertion was alleged to have taken place. The respondent had previously formed a connexion with a female the daughter of a cobbler, and he admitted this fbct to his servant some time afterwards. The evidence proved the case, and the Court made the decree nisi with costs. The Queen's Advocate and Dr. Spinks were counsel for the petitioner. SHIMELL V. SHIMELL AND BROWN. The petitioner was mate of a vessel, and married the respondent at Hull in 1841. They lived together till 1852, when the respondent left her husband and became a 1 rostitute. She subsequently lived with the co-respondent, by whom she had a family. There was no defence, and the Court pronounced a decree nisi. A REPRIEVE. —An interesting incident, says Galignani of yesterday, took place during a review held by the Emperor at Compiegne on the 15th. A sergeant of the 75d Regiment of the line, who had just arrived by the rail way, approached his Majesty, and, presenting a letter from his colonel, besought the immediate attention of his Majesty to a matter of life and death. On receiving permission to explain himself, the sergeant related that another sergeant who had like himself made the campaigns of the Crimea and Italy had just been condemned to death for having, in a moment of excitement, committed an act of insubordina tion, and that he would be shot in three hours if the impe rial clemency were not extended to him. The Emperor, after examining the testimonials sent, turned to the aEm press, who was standing near, and said that on the jet the of Sainte -Eugenie he was happy to be able to gr an t n ip to favour requested, and ordered one of his aides-de -L , immediately telegraph his Majesty's decision and prevent the execution. POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—Nov. 20. MARYLEBONE.—THE ALLEGED FRAUDS ON THE MEDICAL PROFESSION.—AIfred John Davis, of 13, Grenville-street, St. Pancras, described as a collector, surrendered to his recognisances, on the charge of having obtained, at 5, Henrietta street, Cavendish-square, on or about the sth inst., from Mr. William Adams, the sum of £1 is., under false and fraudulent pretences. Mr. Metcalfe appeared to prosecute, and Mr. Sleigh, instructed by Mr. Vaughan, appeared for the defence, The case seemed to create a great degree of ex citement, and the court was crowded by gentlemen connected with the medical profession. From the evidence formerly adduced it appeared that the prisoner went to the residence of Mr. Adams to solicit subscriptions on behalf of the widow of the late Mr. Brent, who acted as deputy coroner to the late Mr. Wakley. He stated he was clerk in the Lancet office and had been clerk to the late Mr. Brent, and that Mrs. Brent was now in g reat distress, and that Mr. Wakley had given him authority to make use of his name. A number of gentlemen, he said, had given their subscriptions and their names for the pur pose of raising a fund for getting Mrs. Brent an annuity, or else get her into the Royal Medi cal Benevolent College. In case of the amount of subscriptions falling short Dr. Wakley had pro mised £5O towards purchasing the annuity. A list was produced containing about 100 names of medi cal gentlemen, with subscriptions affixed of from ss, up to three guineas. On the faith of these repre sentations Mr. Adams paid a guinea. Dr. Wakley denied having given any authority to use his name, or that he had pr Iniaed £5O. The evidence taken upon the last occasion having been read over by Mr. Tate (clerk), Mr. Adams was recalled, and, in reply to Mr. Sleigh, said he (prisoner) said he had been a clerk in the Lancet office. He understood he was then. By Mr. Metcalfe—l am quite sure he said he called by the authority of Dr. Wakley, and he gave him money in that belief. It was here proved that notice had been served at prisoner's address for the subscription list to be produced in court to day ; and on Mr. Metcalfe now asking for its production it was not forthcoming. Dr. Wakley was recalled, and said, in repl3 to Mr. Metcalfe, that he was known as Dr. Wakley, and had a brother a surgeon. He (himself) was a physician. He gave neither the prisoner nor Mrs. Brent authority to use his name in any way what ever. He knew nothing of Mrs. Brent. Mr. Thos. Henry Wakley stated he was a sur geon, residing at 7, Arlington-street, Piccadilly. He gave no authority to Mrs. Brent or the prisoner to make use of his name. Neither had any member of the family given authority for the name to be used. Mr. George Joh❑ Vine, physician, 3, Henrietta street, Covent-garden, said the prisoner called on him one evening at the latter end of October, and said he had come with a petition on behalf of Mrs. Brent, the widow of the late Mr. Brent, the deputy coroner. He (witness) said at first he knew nothing about it. This was in reply to what he said when he first came in. The name of Dr. Wakley was used, and he (prisoner) said he was one of his clerks, and he had authority to receive subscriptions. Witness then gave him 10s., upon which the prisoner said he might go to Mr. Wakley's office and make in quiries. He would not tax his memory as to which Mr. Wakley it was he spoke of. On the represen tation that he said he had come from Mr. Wakley and by his authority, he gave him the money. Cross-examined by Mr. Sleigh—lt is perfectly true that he gave it for Mrs. Brent. Without pri soner saying that he had come from Mr. Wakley he should not have given the money to him. Dr. Thomas Hawke Tanner, physician, of No. 9, Henrietta-street, Cavendish-square, deposed, the young man at the bar either on the 3d or sth of November inet. called upon him. He said he was sent by Dr. Wakley to collect subscriptions on be half of Mrs. Brent, and showed a list of subscrip tions, and added further that Dr. Wakley had pro mised £5O, if a certain amount could be made up to purchase an annuity. Prisoner said it was a pity that the £5O should be lost, and on that repre sentation he gave him a guinea. Witness asked him if he paid it in at once to the widow, and on his (Mr. Tanner's) signing his name, he said he should have to account to Dr. Wakley for the guinea. He did not know anything of Mre. Brent, but knew the name of Dr. Wakley. It was on the faith of Dr. Wakley's giving £5O if the profession would give £l5O that he gave his money. By Mr. S.eigh—Prisoner gave him no receipt for his money. John Nicholls Huddleston, surgeon, 35, Comp ton-terrace, Islington, said—Prisoner called on him on the 14th of October, and said he came on behalf of Mrs. Brent, producing a list of subscriptions. He said some money was wanted, as she was left in very bad cii cumstances. That some money was re quired for her support, and be wished to get some from the profession, and Dr. Wakley had promised £5O if funds could be raised to get her (Mrs. Brent) into the college. He said he had been in the Lancet office, but was not there then. Witness's first im pression was to give a guinea, but then he changed his mind and promised him half-guinea, and asked when he would be that way again ; when prisoner replied oft Saturday, and was told to call again on that day, as he (Mr. Huddleston) wanted to see some one to speak to Mrs. Brent's good character. He called on the following Saturday and his wife gave him (prisoner) the money. He thought that it was some testimonial to her good character when Dr. Wakley had promised £5O. He knew the late Mr. Brent. Mr. Charles John Smith, surgeon, 20, Leicester• square, stated—One evening about three weeks ago prisoner called upon him, and produced a list of subscriptions. No provision, he said, had been made for Mrs. Brent, and he had the authorisation of Mr. Thomas Wakley to collect subscriptions for the widow. It struck him as peculiar that the Lancet had not noticed the subscription. He handed the list back, and said it prisoner would call in the morning he would give him a subscription. Pri soner did call again, and as witness had not seen Dr. Wakley, as he intended, he put him off. Pri soner seemed very anxious about getting the sub scription, when he (witness) told him he should call and see Mr. Thomas Wakley, and he (Mr. Wakley) would tell him (prisoner) when to call again. Pri soner said Mr. Wakley was not in the habit of speaking to his clerks, therefore he should not be able to call in on him again. 'Witness refused to give him the subscription he had promised, and pri soner then left and did not call again. Prisoner-1 called twice after that, and saw your servant. Witness—Perhaps you did. Mr. Charles Stuart Watkins, surgeon, Chandos street, Strand, said—At the latter end of October prisoner called upon me fora subscription on behalf of Mrs. Brent, widow of the late deputy-coroner. He looked at the list and saw Mr. Wakley's name. He could not recollect the Christian name to it. Prisoner said he had called by the authority of Messrs. Wakley. Witness said he felt surprised that prisoner had called for such a purpose, after the situation which the late Mr. Brent had held. Upon the faith of the prisoner's saying that some allowance was going to be made by Messrs. Wak ley he gave ss. Prisoner—May I ask the witness a question ? Mr. Sleigh (throwing his brief from him)—You can ask him what you like ; take your brief. Prisoner—Go on, sir, with it. I will not do it again. Mr. Sleigh (taking up the brief again)—You had better not, or else you will have to conduct your own case. Sarah Tirley, an elderly female, said she was in the prisoner's service for about three days, to nurse the baby, at 13, Grenville-street. Mr. and Mrs. Davis lived there. Prisoner is Mr. Davis. She always called the person she saw Mrs. Davis, and merely knew that Mrs. Davis was there. Mr. Metcalfe—Did they live as man and wife together ? Mr. Sleigh objected to the question, and Mr. Mansfield said, supposing they were living together in a life of profligacy, it would only esta blish the fact that she was poorly off. The question was not pressed. Mr. John Frederick Brent, brother to the late Mr. Brent—Knew very little of the widow of his brother. She was married to him but a very short time prior to his death. His brother and prisoner lived together. before his death. He saw Mrs. Brent there in court. Mrs. Tirley was recalled, and, on looking at Mrs. Brent she identified her as the same person whom she had seen in Grenville-street as Mrs. Davis- Cross-examined—She would not pledge herself that they were living together, as she did not see them sleeping together. It was a l o dging-house. Davis lived there, and Mrs. Brent, as they now called her, lived there. She did not know her by the name of Mrs. Brent. It was the sister's baby that was there. Re-examined by Mr. Metcalfe —They took their m'S c h a e ll Was her ted on the a n 3 1 e vr a a l s y to s ca l . e l e t d h e m r . By Mr. Sleigh —She ha d h ear d pr isoner rs.SDheaviws.ai Mrs. Davis, and never by any other name. This being the whole of the evidence, Mr. Sleigh addressed his worship, observing that he thought it hardly necessary to say anything in reply to the case, as there was one very patent defe c t in th e cas e, ea se, by the opposite side not calli ng a Mrs. Brent, who was then present, into the b t r ue that the young ma n had og.lt was quite obtained for the relief of Mrs.t Brent, subscriptions , and she was there, ii they had thought proper t to call her, to swear on her oath that she had received every farthing ~p - which had been collected for her. The prisoncil knowing personally Mrs. Brent and her late hus band, had been over zealous, no doubt, in her be half, and had incautiously made use of a name. He submitted there was no prima facie cese, and he could not comprehend why in attempting to make ont their case Mrs. Brent had not been called. Under the circumstances, he submitted that the prisoner was entitled to his discharge. Mr. Mansfield said it appeared beyond doubt that the statement made by the prisoner was a failse , " hood, to get money from the benevolent for the widow of the late deputy-coroner. It would, he thought, be a very difficult matter to prove a false pretence in this case. Ir had been brought out in a singular way that she was in needy circumstances , and there could be no doubt that she received the money. She was not called, therefore they must assume that she received the subscriptions. Under i all the circumstances he thought that nojury woula convict, and even if the prisoner was sent for trial, and he was convicted on this offence, he felt no hesitation in saying, that on an appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal the conviction would be upset as to the false pretence. No doubt the prisoner had acted the part of a rogue in going about gathering subscriptions witiout proper authority. He must discharge him, but reluctantly. He had no doubt that the publicity given io the case w, uld put an end to the system which he had been carrying on. Prisoner was then discharged. DISIIIPSSING ACCIDENT. On Thursday last the Comet, belonging to the Isle of Whithorn, with about 60 tons of coal on board, put into the harbour of Garliostown in consequence of a head wind. From the low tides, and the hour at which she made the harbour, she took the ground on a sandbank near the quay- Next day about noon, as the tide was flowing, five men were. engaged in docking the vessel, when a person standing on the quay observed that she was about to heel over. He gave an alarm, and four out of the five, by means of this timely warning, succeeded in keeping clear ; the fifth, a man named William Loch, a labourer, residing in Garliestown, was not so fortunate, his movements having been impeded by the soft, adhesive sludge on which he was standing; he was caught by the hull of the vessel as it went over, the bulwarks resting off his loins, leaving his head, arms, and. the upper part of his body free. The critical nature of his situation was at once seen. The fast flo wing tide of this coast was coming in rapidly, and it was known that the prostrate body would be submerged in the course of an hour if the superincumbent weight of the vessel could not be shifted from pressing upon the poor sufferer. In the course of a few minutes all the seamen, carpenters, and ablebodied men in Garliestown were upon the spot, and every effort was made by means of blocks, and wedges, and ropes, to lift the vessel a few inches and rescue poor Loch from her tenacious grasp. All these, alas, were in vain, and by the time the salt water had reached the prostrate prisoner, it was evident that his fate was sealed. The scene which ensued was truly pitiable and most heart rending ; it was witnessed by a large number of spectators, among whom there was hardly a dry eye, and who Were hushed into solemn silence by the sad and impressive e vent , At this period the Rev. Thomas Young, of the Congre gational Church, walked into the water beside the drown ing man, engaged in prayer, and drew his attention to thoughts befitiing the sudden and inevitable change aw ing him. His last words to his companions were, " Oh, take off my vest and cover my head, so that I may not COs the water." An effort was made to do this, but the garment could not be removed, and his face was covered with a napkin, just as the tide was rising round him. In the course of a few minutes after this the cold green waves covered the body, and the sorrowing crowd dispersed, their sorrow being the deeper because they were obliged to look on the fatal flow of the tide with helpless glances. This sad occurrence in our lovely bay has alst a deep gloom over the inhabitants of Garliestown. No moce mournful scene has been witnessed on our coast since the drowning of the Wigtown martyrs in the waters of the Biadnoch.—.M4M fries Courier. GOUNIBY 111 A KAI. Ab. ►, MANCHESTER—Nov. 20. This morning at our market there was a full attendance , but there was no improvement in the tone of the tired, The business transacted in English wheat was very Boo.teull although ()tiered at is per qr below former prices. Arnericaur without any alteration in price, and sluggish sale. Flo barely maintained late rates, and damp sorts negleetFa• Oats and oatmeal a slow sale. Beans were steady. Ind' corn 3d to 6d per qr dearer, and in good demand. BIRMINGHAM—Nov. 20. English wheat was sold at 54 s to 608 fo r white, an d 40s to 56s per 36 stone for red. Barley, new malting, 36 to o 428 per qr ; grinding, 26s to 30 s Oat s, old, 26s to per 30 stone ; new, 22s to 255. Beans, 42s to 44s per qr. Peas, 40s to 488 per 36 stone. PLYMOUTH —Noy. 18. White, 56s to 60s ; red, 54s to 56s per qr ; Dantzic, 57 5 to 588 ; American, 51s to 55s ; Spanish, —8 to —a ; Rus sian, —s to Barley at previous rates-34s to 38s per qr for malting ; grinding, 27s to 28s ; oats, 23s t 0278; and beans, —s to —s; flour, 38s to 41s Od. EDINBURGH GRAIN —Noy. 19. A large supply of farmers' wheat to-day, which brought is to 2s under the prices of this day week. Trade slow. Barley on the top 26 9d down average 2s ld 3. 1 ' 43 ' Wheat on the top lOs Od up ... avprage 15 Od up- Oats on the top Os 6d up . average Os 4d dowu • Beans on tho top is down average Os 4d &W¢. Total supply and Sales. Wheat .. ...... 1006 qrs Sold 530 qrs 8ar1ey........ 2507 qrs Sold 2010 qrs Oats Beans 6O qrs Sold 48 qrs Flour sells as follows :—Whites, 46s Od ; extras, 435 Od; superfine, 41s Od ; fine, 39s Od. DERBY SMITHFIELD—Nov. 18. The show of fat beasts to-dfty was good, but trade and a clearance could not be effected. The s upply of sheep by no means large, and they were disposed of at big prices. Fat pigs about the average. Fat calves scarce. Beet 6d to 6#dVeal Mutton .... 61c1 to 71d Pork '' to 7 6 1 : Lamb .. 8d to Sid Rough fat, 4s 3d pei st° lle. Hides, 3d to 4/d; calf skins, 5d to 6d. FOREIGN MAIL PACKET LIST. MAILS DUE. g_ A.us*.ralia and Mauritius, via Southampton. Nov. via Marseilles Dec. 1 r Airazil and Cape Yards, by British packet. Dee. Cape of Good Hope, Ascension, and St. Helena Dee. A; ( ,, China, Penang, and Singapore, via Southanipton Nov. via Marseilles Nov. : 41 • Falkland Islands • Gibraltar, via Southampton .. Nov 19 , India (Calcutta), and Ceylon, via Southampton Nov• via Marseilles Nov. 05, a . India (Bombay), via Southampton NOV via Marseilles Nov. 40. Lisbon Nov. IS. Malta, Egypt, and Aden, via Southampton No. 0. via Marseilles Nov 26 ' Newfoundland • Oporto and Vigo U. S. and British N. America, by Brit. packet.... Nov'. 26' by U.S. packet.... 0 1, by Canadian packet. Nov• f o. W.C. of Africa, Madeira, and Teneriffe D ec ' 20. Nov. Bahamas, via New York v - No 28. Mexico All parts of West Indies, including Chili, Peru, I Nov. 28. California, and British Columbia.. LIVERPOOL COTTON-MARKET, Nov. 20.—A better feeling and an increased demand sprang up in tho cott°'l; market late this aft ernoon , and the sales exceed 4,000 b 3 le —2,500 on speculation and for export ; the market °lola decidedly firmer. BIRTHS. BRETT.—On the 20th inst., at 17, Doughty-street, c . " f a lenburg-square, the wife of Henry R. Brett, E s q ., daughter. wife of lo CLARKE.—On the 20th inst., at Tottenham, the w ife- F. Clarke, Esq., of a daughter. •rA of STRACHEY.—On the 19th inst , at Brussels, the vil—„t. Richard Strachey, Esq., of Ashwick Grove , Somers' of a daughter. TURNBULL.—On the 19th inst., at 56, Thornhill-sqa are ' Islington, Mrs. R. T. Turnbull, of a son. MARRIAGES. House, Major-General S ir Edward Macarthur, MACARTHUR—NEILL.—On the 18th inst., at Ard,„ 881 : to Sarah, third daughter of the late Lieut.-Colonel W • Neill, of Barnwell' and SwinKidgemuir, Ayrshire. . ob. R. N., to Renira, youngest and o nly survi v ' — d POLLARD—WRITSTIED.--On the ltith inst., a t the pa l j. c h u rch of Delgany , co. Wicklow, Commander Edivin,,, r o f Sir St. Vincent Hawkins Whitshed, Bt. , WI P d a o u l l g a h r d t e , the Hon. Lady Hawkins M hitched. — w O es n tb th ou e r i n B e t . h t :in E : c A t : : lijoSh.n London, a t tY Lodge, Staffordshire. B l o c f x.L l 33 7 :i . Mos t BREADALEANE.—On the Bth inst., at Lausanne, the ',- Hon. John, Marquess of Breada lbane, LT. iv 1: 1 . BROOK —On the 19th inst , at his house, Lincoln, " . Brook, Esq., aged 56. • • 13. ConnWilli aM lE.—On the 19th inst. , at Cheltenham, andßictetyjsilii Corrie, Esq,, aged 51. D UCKETT.— On th e 18th i ns t at 24, Gloucester the Dowa ger L a d y Duckett ,. aged 76. 1, Escl' , EARNSHAW.—On the 14th inst., Robert Earns..avir, of 4, Park-villas, Hacky, aged 34. talle r ' GARDNER.—On h a 15th i ne nst., Mr. Thom as IC. Gs of 16, Oakley-crescent, Chelsea, aged 35. , of FINDLEY.—On the 18th inst., Mr. Edward Findle y Baker-street, Portman-square, aged 62. leto c- WARD.—On the 18th inst., Mrs. W ard, of 4, Tav street, Bedford-square. rts W el) WYLLIE.—On the 17th inat , a t Hoddesdon, He P Wyllie, Esq., of London, aged 69. LONDON: Printed and Published by JOHN CHAPi4II4,: of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at THE SuN Office, No.lll Strand, in the Precinct of the Ssvoy, la the CountY ° ALddleseze—Friday, November 21, 1864