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 Ron. 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 15 usual on such an occasion, the Lord Mayor and Sheriffs went in state from the Mansi.on-house to Guildhall. The LoRD MA,YOR, 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 d.ovrn 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 connec t e d w ith t he 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. J. 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 b.e 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 Corp , Jration. (Hear, hear.) The resolution was then put and carried unani tnously, as was also a motion that the resolution should be 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 him before the Corporation on Michaelmas Day, and also that he should be re quested to print the same. THE DISTRESS IN LANCASHIRE. Mr. LAWLEY 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 necessary that something should be done. Re said th a t h e b e li eve d thi s bill , if 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 nconvenience 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 the commerce of this great city. He did not believe that the Legislature would ever grant them the fresh powers they sought to obtain by this bill, and, therefore, he trusted the Court would not proceed any further with the matter. (Hear.) Mr. IL 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 ? (Hear.) For his own part he was pleased to see the extent of the traffic—it 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 ev il existed, andit appeared to him that it w as a b so l u t e ly necessar y somethi ng should be do ne i n order to remedy that evil. (Hear.) Mr. S. J. GIBBONS supported the amendment, on the ground that it was an improper interference with the trade of the city of London. Deputy ELLIOTT said he was sorry to find that the trading i ntereet was not willing to give up a small portion of its privileges for the benefit of the public generally, and he would only observe with sent stoo reference to the statement that the law as it at pre d was sufficient to m ee t th e case , th a t if i t were so it was a great pity that it was not acted upon to remedy the terrible state of inconvenience th a t existed at present, (near, hear.) After some further observations by Mr. Saunders, Deputy Bower, and Mr. Pedler, in opposition to the bill, and from Dep uty Pry and Mr. R ewe , i n its favour, the first mentioned of these gentlemen suggested it would be advisable to ref er the bill back for further consideration, and not to reject it at once. Deputy LOTT replied, and he urged that it w as clear the only opponents of the bill we re wholesale houses , who did not choose to hthee their great conve nience interfered with, and he contended th at the Court Wa s im p eratively called u p on to d o some, thing to effect a n alteration of the present system, If they did not , he could tell them that the evil was increasing every day, and before long they would come to a dead block, and would be compelled to take some steps in the matter. (Hear, hear.) The motion was then put, when the amendment was declared to be carried , A division was called for, when there appeared — For the amendment.. ........... 65 Against it .. 49 Majority against the bi 11.... —. 16 The whole of the aldermen present voted in the majority. Deputy FRY then proposed, as another amend meat, that the bill should be referred back to the Police Committee for further consideratio with a view to its provisions being altered and !Lade more in accordance with the feeling of the Cuurt. This amendment was supported by Deputy Pew tress and Mr. Lawley, and opposed hy 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, asking 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; but 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 WIL7SHLRE. I 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 very 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 pudding 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 prisoner, and frequently visited her. The prisoner 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 mouthsful 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 half 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 thrown away as not being fit for use, having been kept too long. The 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 ill. 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 o ccas i on. T he deceased got gradual l y worse . Mrs. T row b ridge was in constant attendance, an d deceas e d was particularly fond of her. She was some times sick when prisoner did not come to see prisoner I_2,_oernla3n year s, her. in riainwyaby:dy.w showed ucr The theyb y and the Cross-examined by Mr. Chitty—Had known the Cro ss - ex • h V called in villageaswarespilela.tesdhlye prisoner, disposition to assist wife) were in the habitr'o f witness, and deceased (his ship together, and frequea ri t t t i endin g r e li g i ons wor ment. Deceased wawa y received the Sundaysacra school teacher be fore her marriage. During th e time of deceased's illness Mrs. Trowbridge w as on geed terms with them both. Miss Annie Kidd le deposed tLt she Went to keep THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENEN ( ;T, NOVEMBER 21, 1862. 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. J o h n 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. THE LATE EXPLOSION AND LOSS OF LIFE ON THE GREAT WES lE.RN ICAIL 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 Eldridge, 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 Gooch, 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 115Ibs. 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 June, 1851. He first had the Per seus under repair about seven years L 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 akin there was nothing remarkable. They also repaired the tubes. A boiler was in no danger of bursting from bad tubes. The Perseus had run about 175,000 miles. That was not at all an extraordinary course for an engine to ran. There were many engines that had run double 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 Perseus without any examination—one that had run 281,716 miles without any internal examina tion. H e a t tr ib uted the accident to weakness of one of the plates caused by corrosion. By Captain Tyler—Considered the practice of subjecting those engines 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 was, 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 morning 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 about half an hour the jury returned a v er dict—" That the de ceased persons were killed by the explosion of a certain engine on th e G rea t W es t ern R a il wa y acci dentally, and that the jury were of opinion that • railway authorities should require that there should be a periodical examination 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. Lewis, jun., of Lewis and Lewis, Ely place, solicitor, appeared before Mr. justice Blac.i= 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 or 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 Lora 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 comm itt e d. 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 there, 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 toryarticles in ce r t a i n o f th e 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 theinstence 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 princi 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 persons either as principals or accessories to the commission of the said offences, or any of them, Apply to M,ijor Greig, 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 h e s h ou ld 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 16th of September was an arti c l e h eaded " T he L te i n v d e e rp cl on l Society Ship on Fire, from the pencil of Mr. Ruxton , a local artist, who has suddenly sprung into remarkable distinction of late. noticeof a o picture, Fine etn re Arts," , t he i n which was a pre tended amazing Observe the striking figure of the captain engaged in setting no fire to stand and have heard that the Hanging Com m it tee deep l y re gret that they cannot deal as th ey would des i re with this most promising artist , ' (A laugh.) doubt btbran an brandy; likeness. We ; a portrait, we under- The Lord Chief Justice—Do you really think that this would have the effect of prev ent i ng the pr i soner from having a fair trial ? Mr. Sleigh—Not that alone, p er h aps; b ut t h ere 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 h e h a d sat tw i ce as Judge of Assize at Liverpool, and had never heard of the l'orcupine. (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 w ou ld b e lik e l y to have the effect of preventing th e p r i soner f rom 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 that these allegations would be disproved, in which case 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 ntsi, 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. Spicks said 1 hat his client, 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 Queens Advocat e , w ith w h om was D r . Swaby, for the petitioner, then called the follow ing witnesses : William 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 o 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 end 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 h urt h er ." Th e respon dent raised his arm as if h e was about to strike t h e witness, and asked him why he interfered. In cross examination he said he did not hear the re spondent accuse his wife of having ieterrupted him in his business the day previous, and she offered no opposition when she was being ejected from the room. A woman named Barnet, who resided at Spald ing, said she had been acquainted with the parties to intemperance, and very in this suit for 24 years. The respondent was ad dictedtemper. He was in the habit of turning his wife out of doors, and she, with her nurse, used to come her house for shelter; and some time before the to passionate in his separation she heard him tell his'wife that he would not live with het any inure; 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 case 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 app:ication on the sub ject of alimony, .9•nd he would make the decree for judicial separation. TIORSFALL V. HORSFALL. This was a stiit by the wife for dissolution of marriage on the ground of her husband's cruelty and adultery, and there was no defence. Dr. Spinks and Mr. Cooper were counsel fat 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. lie compelled her, by his annoyance, to allow him 4s. a week; but becoming more extortiotate f 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. lle also turned her out of the house, and otherwise ill-treated her. This conduct cora -1 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 directed the children to remain in custody of the mother until further order. GILL V. GILL ANti 110GGgi . _ In this suit Captain Dundas Reinhart Chit, late an officer i❑ the 10th Hussars, prayed the Court for a dissolution of marriage with his wife on the ground of her adultery with the corespondent, 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 Queen's Advocate and Dr. Spinks appeared for the petitioner, and Dr. Wambey for the respon dents. The parties were married at St. Nicholas Church, Brighton, on the 18th 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, 1859; and the cohabitatio❑ continued until the middle of June, 1861, when the petitioner suspected the 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 Maiwell 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 Hogge visited them frequently, and was 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 mainen 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 Wambey—He never heard Captain Gill say that he and Colonel Hogge oc cupied the same sitting-room, nor was be 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 hhndwriting 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 Solidi 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. Dr. 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 eontemded 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 patties, who are in humble life, resided at Halstead, in Bedfordshire, and were married in 1851. They cohabited until :854, 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 costs. 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 Kirklington, 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 f ,, ct to his servant some time afterwards. _ . The evidence proved the case, and the Court made the decree nisi with costs. ---- Vhe Queen's Advocate and Dr. Spinks were counsel for the petitioner. SHIMELL v. SHIMELL AND BROWN. The petitioner was mate of a v esse l , and marr i ed the respondent at Hull in 1841. They lived together till 1852, when the respondent left her husband and became a t rostitute. She subsequently lived with the co-respondent, by whom she had a family. There was no defenc e , an d t h e Court pronounced a decree nis i . A REPRIEVE.--An interesting incident, says Galignani of yesterday, took place during a review held by the Emperor at Compiegne on the 16th. A sergeant of the 7:id 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. Tho Emperor, after examining the testimonials sent, turned to the Em press, who was standing near, and said that on theft eea Y of Sainte-Eu g e n i e he was happy to be able to grant the nip _ to favour Tequested, and ordered one of his aides-de c i a immed iately telegraph his Majesty's decision an the execution. eprevent .. • 1 .. ~. POLICE INTFLLIGENCE.—Nov. 20. MARYLEBONE.—THE ALLEGED FRAUDS ON VIE MEDICAL PROFESSION.—AIfred John Davis, of lg, 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. Vaugnan, 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 lath Mr. Brent, and that Mrs. Brent was now in great 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 naines for the pur pose of raising a fund for getting Mrs. Brent an annuity, or else get her into the Bop.; 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 promised £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 o ffi ce. lie 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 reply 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 John 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 108., 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 be bad 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 inst. 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 certa:n 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 Mrs. 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. Sleigh—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 circumstances. That some money was re quired for her support, and he 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 on 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 le 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—l called twice after that, and saw your servant. Witness—Perhaps you did. Mr. Charles btuart Watkins, surgeon, Chandos streer, 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 - 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 tact 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 lodging-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—Theytoo n k ell th h e e i r r meals 'together. Sh e waited on them. She was always called Mrs. Davis. By Mr. Sleigh —She had heard p risone r h ei t g i h t Mrs. Davis , a nd never b y any other name. This being the w hole of the evidence, Mr . a dd re ssed his worship , observing that he tho ught u g hardly necessary to se t ist o o s n ay idve anything in r eply to the c e ry not pat e nt calling Mrs.de f ect in the a ßrent, who wasbaystth heer e oep n present, int o the box. It was quite ctraue: then that the young man ha dobtain e d su b scr ip t i ons for the reliet of Mrs. Brent, and she was there, it her they oath had that ohe pro p er to .call her, to swear on And received ' every farthing • which had been collected for h er. The prisoner, g personally Mrs. Brent and her late hus kno7in band, ba...4 been over zealous, no doubt, in her be half, an d had ) :Lcautiously made use of a name. He no prima facie cE se, and he s ubmitted there wak. _ in attempting to make could not comprehend whj 4 not been called. ont their case Mrs. Brent Under the circumstances, he subs :itte` i that the prisoner was entitled to his discharge': Mr. Mansfield said it appeared beyond tk: vas that false the statement made by the prisoner as a hood, to get money from the benevolent for • the he widow of the late cleputy.coroner. It would , • thought, be a very difficult matter to prove a falae pretence in this case. I( had been brought out int 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 all the circumstances he thought that nojury would. 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 ivy going about gathering subscriptions without proper authority. He must discharge him, but reluctantly. He had no doubt that the publicity given to the ease w: uld put an end to the system which he had been carrying on. Prisoner was then discharged. DIS2RESSING ACCIDENT. On Thursday last the Comet, belonging to the Isle of Whithorn, with about 60 tons of coal on board, put izito the harbour of Garliestown in consequence of a head Vrind. From the low tides, slid 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 vessei, when a person standing on the quay observed that 81, , e was about to heel over. He gave an alarm, and four out of tie five, by means of this timelY warning, succeeded in keepng clear ; the fifth, a marl named William Loch, a labourer; residing in Garliestown, was not so fortunate, his movements having been impeded by the soft, adhesive sludge on which ke was standing ; he was caught by the hull of the vessel as ii went over, the bulwarks resting on his loins, leaving his he,Ad, arms, and the upper part of his body free. The critical nature of his situatiOn was at once seen. The fast flo wing ti.le of this coast was coming in rapidly, and it was known that the prostrate bodjr would be submerged in the course of as hour if the super:incumbent weight of the vessel could not be shifted from pres:qing upon the poor sufferer. In the course of a few minute' all the seamen, carpenters, an& ablebodied men in Gariliestown were upon the spot, and every effort was made by m ons of blocks, and wedges, and ropes, to lift the vessel a few it: eheo and rescue poor Loch from her tenacious grasp. All th'eset alas, were in vain, and by the time the salt water had reached the prostrate was sealed. The prisoner, it was evident that his fate' most heart." scene which ensued was truly pitiable ..1116 rending; it was witnessed by a large numbe spectators, were among whom there was hardly a dry eye, and V hushed into solemn silence by the sad and impreseive' event: At this period the Rev. Thomas Young, of the Congo gational Church, walked into the water beside the elrosyn" ho ing man, engaged in prayer, and drew his attention thoughts befitiing the sudden and inevitable change awa ing him. His last words to his companions were, t , Ohy take off my vest and cover my head, so that I may not see 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 waive 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 cast a deep gloom over the inhabitants of Garliestown. No more mournful scene has been witnessed on our coast since the drowning of the Wigtown martyrs in the waters of the Bladnoch.—Dunt fries Courier. COUNTRY MA RA1...1b. ------ ---- - MANCHESTER—Nov. 20. This morning at our market there vas a full attendance, but there was no improvement in the tone of the trade. The business transacted in English wheat was very limited, although offered at is per qr below former prices. Araeri,e an without any alteration in price, and sluggish sa2e. Flour barely maintained late rates, and damp sorts neg,le c l e n ,: Oats and oatmeal a slow sale. Beans were steady. corn 3d to 6d per qr dearer, and in good demand. BIRALINGHAM—Nov. 20, English wheat was soM at 548 to 60s for white, and 400 to 568 per 36 stone for red, Barley , new malting, 368 to 42s per qr; grinding, 26s to 30s Oats, old, 26s to 30s per 30 stone; new, 22s to 255. .Beaus, 42s to 44s per qr. Peas, 40s to 48s per 36 stone. PLYMOUTH—Nov. 18. White, 56a to 60s ; red, 54s to b 6 s per q r ; Dantzio, 570 to 58s ; American, 51s to 55s ; Spanish, to —a Rus sian, —a to --s. Barley at previous rates-345 to 38s per qr for malting ; grinding, 27s to 28s ; oats, 23s to :27s ; and beans, —s to —s; flour, 38s to 41s Od. EDINBURGH GRAIN—Nov. 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 2s 9d down ...average 2s ld down• Wheat on the top lOs Od up ........average. is Od Oats on tho top Os 6d up .. average Oa 4d down• Beans on the top is down average Oa 4d dowil' Total Supply and Sales. Wheat .1006 qrs 'Sold 530 qrs 8ar1ey........ 2507 qrs Sold 2010 qrs Oats Beans 6O qrs Sold 48 qrs d ; Flour sells as follows :—Whites, 4bs Od ; extras, 43s' - n superfine, 41s Od ; flue, 39s Od. DERBY SMITHFIELD—Nov. 18. The show of fat beasts to-day was good, but trade O at " and a clearance could not be effected. The supply of sheeg by no means large, and they were disposad of at b i g prices. Fat pigs about the average. • Fat calves scarce' „,d Beet 6d to 6id Veal 7d Wl2 6J ' Mutton .. 6id to lid Pork . od to e Lamb Bd to 84c1 Rough fat 4s 3d pei stop Hides, 3d to 41d; calf skins, 5d to 6d. FOREIGN HAIL PACKET LIST. MAILS DUE. 18 AuK.ralia and Mauritius, via Southampton ~ Noy., q `' via Marseilles Dec. drazil and Cape Verds, by British packet. Dec. 't" Cape of Good Hope, Ascension, and St. Helena. Dec. 2 ,., 9, China, Penang, and Singapore, via Southampton. Nov. ,t,,. via Marseilles Nov. -4 ' Falkland Islands Gibraltar, via Southampton India (Calcutta), and Ceylon, via Southampton Nov 1 4. via Marseilles Nov' A India (Bombay), via Southampton via Marseilles Nov. 20 ' Lisbon No t 20. Malta, Egypt, and Aden, via Southampton 2O. via Marseilles • r Nov. 06. Newfoundland Oporto and Vigo U. S. and British N. America, by Brit. packet.. .. No"' 26. by U.S. packet.... k t Nov. 21. by Canadian pac e . io, W.C. of Africa, Madeira, and Teneriffe.. .. Dec' 0. Bahamas, via New York ....Nov - 2 Mexico All parts of West Indies, including Chili, Peru, 1 Nov. 2 8 ' California, and British Columbia.. LIVERPOOL COTTON-MARKET, Nov. 20.—A betty feeling and an increased demand sprang up in the co tton' market late this aft ernoon , an d th e sa l es ex ceed 4,00 0 b alco —2,500 on speculatio n and f o r ex port ; the market closingdecidedly firmer. BIRTHS. BRETT.—On the 20th inst., at 17, Doughty-street, geek: lenburg-square, the wife of Henry R. Brett, BK., e ' - daughter. CLARKE.—On the 20th inst. , at Tottenham, the wi fe of A. F. Clarke, Esq., of a daughter. STRACHRY.—On the 19th inst., at Brussels, th e wife Of Richard Strachey, Esq., of A s h w i e k Grove, Somerset, of a daughter. TURNBULL.—On the 19th inst., at 56, Thornhill - sq uare' Islington, Mrs. R. T. Turnbull, of a son. MARRIAGES. MACARTHUR—NEILL.--On the 18th inst., at AY der House, Major-General Sir Edward Macarthur, to Sarah, third daughter of the late Lieut.-Colonel W. y, co. Wicklow, Commander Edwi ll Z; Neill, of Barnwesti:llEßauDe.d:Sroawn, i n yt r ho l ue d n g lg e B m etsh ui t jali r n , Bdt A . ,o r na s lc hir tshu e e . P O ryip churchLL A. RD —9 R.N.., Ws D. Nei. T a n. t P d h a o e u l g l a a h r o d t n er , o L f a S d i y r S H t a . w V k i i n n c s %t Hawkins Whitshed, t., , 1/ . — w O e s ll t b t o h u e rn 18th e.te r i inst., a s e t e . : DEATHS. Lodge, Staffordshire. Bl o c! 1. 1 33 7 BREADALB Af OA ANE.—On the Bth inst., at Lausanne, the 4-- Hon. John, j L o o hn ndo L n a , tiindßicEktietiYn':3llB2l Marquess of Breadalbane, K.T. BROOK —On the 19th inst.,at his house, Lincoln, Vi r . 11. Brook, Esq., aged 56. COR• • J 3. RIE.—On the 19th inst., at Cheltenham,W illtani Corrie, E Esq., aged 51. Du CKETT. —On the 18th inst., et 24, Gloucester-g te e ns, the Dowager Lady Duckett, aged 76. EARNSHAW.—On the 14th inst , Robert Earn Bsci't a of 4, Park-vill as , Hackney, . d ge 34. Garda GARDNER.—On tha 15th inst., Mr. Thomas K. Gar of 16, Oakley-crescent, Chelsea, aged 35. 1 FINDLEY.—On the 18th inst., Mr. E dward Find o'9 °f Baker-street, Portman-square, aged 62. o ck- WA RD.—On the 18th inst., Mrs. Ward , of 4, Taoist street, Bedford-square. Vi ni WYLLIE. —Oa the 17th inet , at Hoddesdon, Herts ; Wyllie, Esq., of London, aged 69. _______.....f.-1 LONDON: Printed and Published by JOHN CHA.PLIN, of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at TUE SuN Office, N 0.1121 Strand, in the Precf the Savoy, in . the Cotuity ° Mitidlemex.—Friday, Noy raber 21, 1864 r`