The Sun. — London, England, 1858-12-30 00:00:00

THE LATE DREADFUL ACCIDENT AT THE VICTORIA THEATRE. [The following appeared in part of our impression of last evening An inquest was held yesterday afternoon at St. Thomas's Hospital, before Mr. Payne, upon the bodies of William Cooper, of No. 7, Anthony street, BermOidsey, and Henry Nash, aged 17, two of the unfortunate persons who lost their lives ; on the afternoon of the 27th. %.• The jury having been sworn, The Coroner said the jury were assembled to • quire into the deaths of two of the sufferers who lost their lives in consequence of being trampled upon, on an alarm of fire being raised at the Vic toria Theatre on Monday afternoon. • The other unfortunate individuals had been conveyed to dif ferent parts of the metropolis, and that fact ac counted for the present inquest being limited to the two persons above mentioned. Before entering into the inquiry Ae begged to state that, in order to set aside any notion to the contrary that might exist, that if any person wilfully raised the cry of fire in a crowded assembly, and death was the consequence, he was, without question, liable for all the fatal conse quences that might follow. The jury having viewed the bodies returned to the inquest room. The first witness called was William Hands, who said—l am a money-taker at the gallery of the Victoria Theatre. About half past 4on Monday afternoon I was in the gallery saloon, when I saw the people in the gallery all jump up. The morning performance was going on. I wondered what was - the matter. The audience commenced rushing towards the staircase crying out " Fire." Coroner—Who did that ? Witness—l can't say. The check-taker and myself tried to stop them going out the way they were going. We directed them to go down the cross staircase. Some went that way, but a good many, however, got_past us and unfastened the frontdoor. That was the commencement of the panic. We did all that was possible to prevent fatal con sequences. The fatality took place on the third landing. There was no fire at all, at least I saw none. I cannot say how the cry arose. By a Juror—There was an escape of gas after the people had broken down the gas pipe. That was after the fire. The pipe was pulled out of its place by the people trying to escape. The alarm was given in the boxes, not in the gallery. There are two galleries. The staircase of the top gallery is five feet six inches wide. Mr. John Croft said—l reside at 3, Nursery row, Walworth, I was at the Victoria Theatre on Monday afternoon. I entered the house a few minutes after two. I was in the boxes—the dress circle—almost in the centre of the house. Every thing went on quietly for an hour and a half. At about a quarter to 4 some smoke arose from the front part of the boxes, about eight or ten seats in front of me, and I then heard some persons say— " you're on fire—you're on fire." The persons who called were in the boxes, and they said it to a man who was close to them. The man's coat was on fire. Immediately there was a rush to the doors from the boxes. .Coroner—Did you see what became of the man whose coat was on fire ? Witness—No. I ran out with the rest. I only heard the words, " You're on fire," when the audience began to leave. By a Juror—l can't say what became of the man who said, "you're on fire." I only saw a little smoke. The people ran out frantically. Mr. Edward Bowden said—l reside at 41, Grey street, Webber-street. I am assistant artist at the Victoria Theatre. At the time the alarm was given I was standing at the back of the boxes in the lobby. I was looking at the last comic scene when I took my eye off, and I saw some smoke. It was about five feet from the boxes. It was such as would be produced by about two or_ three boxes of fusees. There was a sulphurous smell. I jumped into the box where the smoke was. I saw a quantity of stuff like blue-fire alight on the floor. I trampled it out with my feet. A cry of fire arose, and the people immediately rushed about in a frantic manner, and began to make their escape. I implored them to keep their seats. I saw a man and three or four boys standing together where this occurred. A loy told me another boy's coat had caught fire. After the house was empty I looked on the floor, but I only found a piece of paper which smelled of sulphur. I found no lucifer matches. My impression is that the smoke was occasioned by fusees. No part of the boxes was burnt. I imagine the fusees ignited of themselves. I heard some person say, " His coat tail is on fire." There was not a very great dis turbance made. I know nothing of what took place outside. By a Juror—There was no person smoking. Mr. Henry Young said—l reside at 50, Elliot's row, and am treasurer at the Victoria Theatre. When the cry of fire arose I was in the box lobby. It seemed to proceed from the left centre of the boxes. I saw the people rise up in a• mass. I entreated the audience to keep their seats, and asked them the cause of the alarm, when several of them said, "There's fire, we can smell it and see the smoke." Numbers then made a rush to tho principal staircase. After a minute or two I suc ceeded in pacifying some persons near me, and then went to the staircase and told the audience they might safely return to their seats. They did so. I heard the commotion in the gallery. The alarm was perfectly electric. It spread over the whole house in an instant. There was a smell of lucifers or fusees. I looked on the floor but found nothing to indicate fire. After the tumult sub dided several persons told me a boy's coat had taken fire through having some fusees in his pocket. I asked where the boy was, but I was unable to find him. By a Juror—l cannot say positively whether the smoke was occasioned by lucifers or fusees. The parties who lost their lives were on the gallery stairs waiting to come in to the evening perform ance. That is my opinion. The persons rushing out of the gallery must have opened one of the front doors in their fright, and thus caused the cata strophe. The persons who opened that door were cautioned not to do so. They were directed the way out. There are three outlets to the gallery. Joseph Holmes, 40, Salisbury-street, Bermondsey said—l was on the top stair of the gallery near the pay place, with Cooper (the deceased) and Patrick Andrews; he is also dead. We started from home about half-past three. We had all been waiting at the door for about half an hour. There were a great many people below us, wanting to go in to see the night performance. Cooper stood behind me, on the stair below. Andrews was on the same stair as I was. He was on my left hand side. I laid hold of the bannisters with my right hand. The first thing I saw of the accident was the gallery door opening from the inside, and some persons said, " Get out; the place is on fire." We all made a rush to get down stairs, and I was thrown down on the top of the others. I looked up,,and then I saw a gas pipe had burst. We all laid on the first landing. I called out for help. A policeman tried to pull me out, but failed, as I was wedged in too tight. I saw Patrick Andrews cry until he was black in the face. There wore persons below and above him. It all happened in consequence of the people trying to get out. I did not see William Cooper. I can't say where the alarm was first given. All I know is, that I heard the person who opened the door say, " Get out ; the place is on fire." By a Juror—l never noticed the gas pipe. We were all lying on the top of each other. I don't know anything more. I was carried immediately to a coffee-shop. I think the gas pipe was fitted too high for the people to tread on it. fames Cooper, a lad aged about 15, said—l live at Anthony-street, Bermondsey. Cooper is my brother. He was turned 17 years of age. He worked with my father, who is a costermonger. I went with him to the theatre. They advised me to get out of the crowd previous to the alarm being given. I, however, went back, when I heard some body say, " Get out, the place is on fire." The people on the stairs all began to rush out. After the alarm vas over I saw my brother lying down. I cried for help, when two policemen came. When I first saw my brother he was lying on the floor. ' I thought he was dead. I put my hand to his heart, but coult not feel it beat. lie was taken to the doctor's, who said he was not quite cleat and that he had better be taken to the hospital. That is all I know about it. Mr. W. Edgar—l am check-taker to the gallery. My box is a flight above the waiting place. I saw the people rushing out of the theatre—they were rushing towards the front staircase. Two or three boys opened the door. They gave the alarm. people then began to rush down—that caused mischief. The people, as they came out of the ga lery called out " Fire." I don't know anything but what I have been Told by Mr. Boden. Mr. Johnson Towers said—l am lessee of the acatre. The staircase is 6 ft. 6 in. wide, with 13 inches tread. It is the same width from top to bottom. I was at the back of the stage when the alarm was raised. My son and one of the attend ants at the pit bolted the door, and no acci dent occurred there. The same was done with respect to the boxes. The explosion of gas spoken of was merely a small fissure in the pipe. The gas-man put out the flame with his cap. It was fixed nine feet from the floor. The gas pipe, I believe, was pulled from its place by persons trying to see' what was the matter. Had the people gone down the outlet they were directed, no fatal acci dent could have taken place. Police constable L 168 gave evidence, but it re lated merely to carrying the wounded parties to the hospital. Sarah Bickers said—l know one of the boys lying dead. He is my son. He was a porter. He went by the name of Henry Nash. Police constable 33 L said—l was on duty in the Victoria Theatre when the accident occurred. I fastened the gallery door, on the top of the stairs, about 20 minutes past four. There were people then waiting on the stairs for the evening perform ance. I was going to arrange the pit doors, when I heard a confusion, and I ran back to the gallery door, which I had fastened, and found it had been opened. A man told me the gallery stairs were on fire. I saw an unusual light under the third landing. I went to see what was the matter. I saw a number of persons lying huddled together. The slit in the gas pipe was about the 16th of an inch in width and half an inch in length. It would not have done any harm had it burnt for hours. George Batt, police sergeant, 9 L—l saw the mob on the gallery stairs. I heard some of them say " The place is on fire." I saw tie gas blazing from the pipe. I don't know whether the light could be seen inside the house. The people were shot from the top of the gallery like coals. I saw two or three people jump over the side of the stairs. The whole of the unfortunates were completely wedged down, none could get up, not even those who lay on the top. _ _ Edwin Corbyn, the gasfitter, said the pipe was quite perfect when the performance began in the afternoon. The leakage might have been caused by persons taking hold of the pipe to climb up by. The gas pipe was here produced, and some of the jurors were of opinion that the fracture was one of old standing. Mr. Henry Gervis, house-surgeon to St. Thomas's Hospital, said both boys were dead when brough to the institution. Nash had three ribs broken on one side and four on the other. The lungs, heart, and brain bore all the appearance of death having been caused by suffocation. The same was the case with Cooper, only he had no fracture. The Coioner summed up, and said if it could be proved that any person had wilfully raised the cry of fire, and death had been occasioned thereby, he would be guilty of manslaughter. _ _ A verdict of accidental death was returned, the jury being of opinion that the alarm in the boxes was the cause of the accident. ' VALUE OF THE SELF-RIGHTING PRINCIPLE IN LIFEBOATS. (From the Lifeboat Journal.) On another page we record one of the most fear ful catastrophes that has ever happened on the seas. The burning of the emigrant ship Austria, with 528 persons on board, of whom no less than 471 were drowned, suffocated, or burned to death. This unfortunate vessel was foreign property, belonging to a Hamburg company, and one of a line of steamships running•between that place and New York. We cannot, therefore, be held na tionally responsible for this terrible sacrifice of human life, from whatever cause it may have arisen. The question must, however, naturally occur to many a thinking Englishman—Are our own pas senger ships any better prepared to meet such a terrible visitation as destruction by fire, or may we expect after a while to have our feelings shocked by the account of some English Austria presenting the same deplorable spectacle of panic, destruction of boats, and loss of all on board but some small por tion whom accident may have led to a better boat, or to one more fortunately managed than the others ? Alas ! that our reply must be, we may, and most probably will, ere long have to record a similar sad tale on board an English vessel ; for we have no reason to suppose that this unhappy ship was a whit behind the best of our own in the provision of boats or other means for effecting the safety of those on board in the event of accident at sea. The Austria was a fine vessel, of capacious size, being 2,500 tons ; she was new, and of English build, having been launched only a year before in the Clyde ; and she was considered to be most complete in the supply of boats, life-buoys, and all such appliances, after the most approved modern custom. Yet all was of no avail to no less than 471 persons out of 528 who had trusted themselves and their all on board her. It will be well to consider what was the cause of so great a sacrifice of life, and why the means pro vided for the security of the living cargo so terribly failed in the final emergency, in order that we may ascertain what steps might be adopted to prevent, or at least to lessen the chances of such calamities in future. It appears from the account of the survivors that there was considered to have been a good supply of boats on board, although not enough to contain all the passengers and crew ; but that accidents hap penened to all of them in the act of lowering or after they reached the water, chiefly caused by the panic which seized on the affrighted passengers, who rushed indiscriminately into them, and crushed or swamped them one after another, two or three of them being also upset by the action of the vessel's screw. As a panic amongst those on board was then the immediate cause of the greater portion of this fearful loss of life, it will be worth our while to in quire how far there was reason for panic, and what• arrangements may, with advantage, be adopted to lessen the probability of a panic in all similar cases. The first of these inquiries is readily replied to without other information than we are already acquainted with. The second is one loudly demand ing the serious• attention of the Government and Legislature of this country. With regard to the first inquiry, we have only to learn that there were not sufficient boats to take off all those on board the ill-fated ship, and we have at once ample cause for a panic. For if it were known to those on board that the boats would take off all but five or six, or even all but one in dividual, that knowledge would be sufficient to cause a panic, since the fear of being that doomed one would suffice to raise up the demon of fear in nearly every breast, and a panic would be the sure result. We may then at once proceed with our second inquiry, viz. :—What arrangements may with ad vantage be adopted to lessen the probability of a panic, with all its fearful consequences, in every future similar case ? To this inquiry we shall devote our careful consideration, and we hope to show that it is quite practicable to provide such security for every person on board the most crowded emigrant or any other passenger as shall materially lessen the probability of a panic seizing them, and shall diminish the chances of loss of life even when a panic has ensued. And surely, as we have remarked above, this is a subject worthy of the serious consideration of the Government and Legislature . of this . s For when w e consider the m t o to t o t c t ap h rer a oy t p i le s ei evidentlycivilisation ie most distant at in oost in God's providen ce b e f ore distant parts of the world, andus ,i and religion into its darkest corners ; when we con sider our enormous and increasin g commerce, and the vast number of our countrymen whose lives are ea which on the seas, how the eh peals great ofprivi leges, thecaanndwm,ellslubffiecoieonntsltyanestltyimiamtpeetliell responsibility rests on us, as a nation pospseosssseidbloef to lessen as far as deep? In the answer to our first inquiry, we have pointed out the necessity for sufficient boats in every ship to convey every person on board_in , the event of destruction impending, whether by fire or other danger incidental to the sea. We shall be at once told that in the crowded emigrant or troopship our remedy would be inap plicable, since a sufficient number of boats could not be stowed on board. We are prepared to maintain that sufficient boats can be stowed to carry the ful lest complement of passengers or troops conveyed in any ship, and that it is therefore as much the duty of the Legislature to require that such boats shall be carried, as it is to limit the number of per s ms conveyed by any land carriage to such a num ber as may be safely carried by it. A similar law requiring that no ship should carry more persons on board than she had boat accommodation for, would very quickly produce;the desired result, and difficulties which appeared insurmountable when seen through the mingled and conflicting atmos phere of Christian duty and worldly interest would spedily disappear when viewed in the unobscured light of commercial enterprise. The spirit of emulation and competition, and the keen desire for pecuniary profit would soon, as by magic, build boats and rig davits, and find out blank spaces of stowage-room. We must not, how ever, be satisfied with vague generalities, or trust even to the all-potent motive of worldly interest, which more frequently busies itself in seeking to evade the law than in endeavouring to turn it to best account. It is, therefore, indispen sable in the first place that the number, size, description, and place of stowage of every boat on board a ship should be exactly defined and subject to official inspection and approval, so as to leave no loophole through which they who would dis honestly evade the Jaw might obtain advantage at the expense of those who conscientiously abided by it. The necessity of such definition being granted, we will proceed to explain the exact character of those requirements which we think might be advantageously defined and rigorously insisted on. I. That there should be a sufficient number of boats to carry every person on board a ship, each fitted as a lifeboat, of the size and description as per given standard, hoisted to davits at the vessel's sides, fitted with Clifford's or other sanctioned im proved lowering apparatus, and having always in her such articles of equipment as should be defined by law. 11. That every such boat should have painted on her exterior, in legible and conspicuous characters, the number of persons she was legally authorized carry ; , in order that every passenger, or other person on board, could, at any time, by adding the total numbers together, satisfy himself that there was lifeboat accommodation for all. It would also be a manifest advantage that every boat should be of corresponding size, so as to take an equal num ber of persons on board. Thus, if each was autho rized-to carry 30 persons, it would be readily cal culated that 10 ;boats would carry 300, and the number would be so familiar to every one, that in the hurry of taking to the boats, the regulated safe cargo of each would be more certainly known and less likely to be departed from. 111. That on leaving port, and at certain inter• vals during every long voyage, the captain of the ship should muster all hands, and call over the names of the officer to take charge, the crew to work, and the passengers to embark in each boat individually specified. IV. That the boats of every passenger ship should be especially and carefully inspected and reported on by the appointed Government Inspec tor previous to each voyage. At present, the inspection of ships' lifeboats is of no service, as there is no fixed standard, and it is notorious that the generality of those in passenger ships, and nearly or quite all of those in our coast passenger steamers, are a mere sham, unentitled to the name of lifeboats. We will offer some remarks on the above recom mendations to make plain their practicability, and to meet any objections which may be made against them. lstly. As to the number of boats to be carried, and their places of stowage, How and where could a sufficient number be stowed to suffice for a full cargo of passengers ? In reply to this question, we must acknowledge that there might be difficulty in stowing a sufficient number of ordinary boats to take on board them all the denizens of a crowded passenger ship ; if, therefore, such boats only are carried, the rights of humanity call for the interference of the law, which should allow no more passengers to be carried than should be proportional to the number of boats. But by the aid of the Berthon collapsible lifeboat, the diffi culty of stowage can be at once got over, and any passenger ship may carry on board, in readiness for instantaneous lowering on the occurrence of danger, as many boats as she could carry passengers to occupy them. Thus, it will be acknowledged that a-ship of 2,500 tons, such as the Austria, could readily carry, if a screw vessel, six pairs of boats' davits along each of her sides, or if a paddle-steamer, five pairs besides those of her paddlebox-boats. This number, supposing each boat on board capable of carrying 30 persons, would give boat accommoda tion for 360 persons. But we showed . in the 25th Number of this Journal, to - which we must refer our readers, that a Berthon's collapsible lifeboat can be easily stowed at the inner part of, every pair of davits, against the ship's side, the other ordinary boats being hoisted up to the davit ends, the latter being first lowered, and the former then in readiness for lowering. We have thus the boat accommodation doubled, and in the case of such a vessel as the Austria we have boats for 720 persons, all hoisted to davits at the vessel's sides ready for instantaneous lowering. Here, then, we have at once an important source of safety—" there are boats enough for all on board." But, 2dly, each of these boats should be life-boats of a standard description, as defined by the Legis lature. The Berthon boats are life-boats of a supe rior description, but every other boat should be also a life-boat after a given standard, or no life boats worth the name will ever be provided by shipowners. For a review of the whole question of the importance of a " Standard Life-boat," we must refer our readers to a paper on that subject in the 23d number of this journal. It will be suffi cient here to point out the advantages to be de rived from every boat being a life-boat, not only in name, but in reality. In addition to the greater safety of such boats in the event of bad weather overtaking them after their leaving a sinking or burning ship, there would be this immediate advan tage, that if such boats were upset in lowering, they would not founder, and if several such boats capsized in lowering, they might be again righted by the aid of the remaining boats that had been safely lowered, which could not be done with com mon open boats : this capability would still further diminish the evils of a panic. 3rdly. These boats should be all fitted with Clifford's lowering apparatus, which has been proved to be superior to all other similar inventions, and which, as an additional source of security, would be a further means to prevent or allay a panic. 4thly. The advantage of a legalised number of persons to be carried by each boat, and of painting that number in legible characters on the exterior of every boat, will be sufficiently obvious without' further observation. sthly. The periodical mustering and stationing of the passengers, officers, and ship's company to the several boats would have the advantage, be sides those already mentioned, of making the officer, crew, and passengers of each boat familiar with each other's personal appearance, which would be a means of preventing confusion, and therefore of lessening the chances of a panic in the hour of danger. 6thly. The advantages of inspection by autho rised and qualified Government officers arc too obvious to require comment. There are two incidents in the history of this disaster deserving of notice. The/one, that the only boat which it is reported was safely lowered from the davits full of people was a Francis's metallic life-boat. The other, that two or three of the boats were drawn towards the screw by the stream of water which always tends to it, and were thus upset. An account of Francis's galvanised iron life-boats will be found in the 22d number of this journal ; their great strength, their unliability to leak or rot, and their being to a great extent fire-proof, give them strong claims to the attention of shipowners. They, however, require considerable modification, of their interior fittings, and increase of " extra buoyancy" to make them what a ship's lifeboat ought to be. The danger of destruction by the action of the screw-propeller is a novelty in the history of these disasters ; it may, however, be readily guarded against by a simple precaution, which also adds much to the safety of the process of lowering a boat at sea in other respects. Every boat should have its " painter," or some other rope from its bow' fast to the vessel at some distance before it ; any boat• will be safer hoisted up or lowered by adopting this precaution, as it steadies a boat greatly in the act of lowering or hoisting, and thus prevents her being damaged against the vessel's side, whilst, as soon as she is in the water, she is prevented going ; adrift, and can be immediately, by the use of the rudder, kept away from the vessel's side, or brought close to it at will. Every boat would thus not only be prevented from being drawn within the action of the screw, but would be retained alongside the ship, even if upset, until she had her proper cargo of passengers on board : by the aid of a small hatchet, to be kept in the bow of each boat, this rope might then be cut at the right, 'moment, and the boat at once steered clear of the ship. There remains but one serious obstacle to be alluded to, but it is one which surely ought to be no obstacle at all. We allude to the expense of I providing a sufficient number of lifeboats for every ship. Undoubtedly a considerable 'additional ex pense would be incurred ; but shouldexpense be pitted against huinan life ? Surely it is a secon dary question ! Besides, if required from all alike, it would give no advantage to one shipowner over another, and the additional outlay would, in fact, be paid for by the passengers themselves ; who, by a small addition to their passage-money, would, after a few voyages, have paid for the whole cost of the boats of a ship. We have now considered this most important subject in all its bearings. We consider it to be one the importance of which cannot be ex aggerated ; one in which the national character is implicated. We have now, as on several preirious occasions, raised our feeble voice to urge its serious consideration by the authorities of the land. We earnestly hope that we may not have.. given uttterance to it altogether in vain. THE - NAVIES OF ENGLAND AND OF FRANCE. (From the Conversations _Lexicon, Leipzig, 1858.) The history of the last ten years has exhibited . two mighty Powers playing a part which has asto nished the world. Within that period of time, and mainly by the instrumentality of these Powers, the serious political complications which had shortly before disturbed all Europe were brought for the present, at least, to a close, and at all events, Europe has to thank those Powers that the Eastern war was so speedily concluded. We allude to the fleets of the two Western empires, whose enormous display of forces gave the world a sight such as it had never until then witnessed, and whose impos ing power astounded at the same time that it showed how much can be accomplished by deter mination and earnest efforts. From centuries back we are accustomed to see England great at sea. From the days of Queen Elizabeth she has claimed the reputation of being the first Power on the seas, with her numerous fleets, to exercise lordship over them, and has proudly made true the lines of her national hymn, " Rule, Britannia," &c. Derived from the peculiar geographical position of Great Britain, become necessary for the requirements of her trading inha bitants, essential for the maintenance of the State, called for by the people, and intimately connected with their growth, the English navy is no political measure of modern date, nor any means of satisfy ing the national pride ; but it is a natural pheno menon, growing out of the peculiar conditions of the country. From that time forward when this necessity was recognised, and Henry VII. united in one national navy the contingent of ships which the five principal ports of England were called upon to furnish for the protection of the country, continually advancing in its development, the Eng lish navy has always recovered itself in a very short time from the blows which it may have received from other fleets, and especially from the immortal naval heroes of lolland, and has gradually grown to a magnitude which enabled it with truth to take the first rank among navies, and to retain that position for centuries. Looking at the enormous extent of her merchant marine, the inexhaustible financial resources of the country, and the well-known tenacity of the. cha racter of the English nation in following out any determinate object, we cannot much wonder that - during the events of late years we have seen Eng land's fleet attain in number and power that posi tion which we should have expected it would do from its antecedents. But so much the more must we wonder to witness a naval Power rise up by the side of England, which, as it were, raised from nothing, and called into life with magical rapidity by the iron will of one man, has in a few years been elevated to a position which is not only command ing general attention, but which demands loudly, from England a share in the command of the seas. From the remembrance of the continual wars of these two rivals from the days of Louis XIV. down to the end of the empire of Napoleon 1., in which the French were - almost always beaten, we have involuntarily formed a very unfavourable opinion of the French navy, and it became the general opi nion that the latter could never take up any com manding position at sea, assuming commonly as the reason that the French were not a seafaring people. Nowhere, however, was this view of the subject more deeply-rooted than in England itself, where, dwelling on the past glory of Nelson at Aboukir and Trafalgar, they till recently beheld with com passionate shrugs of the shoulder the efforts of France in this direction, and made merry over the struggles of their neighbour on this side of the Channel. The Eastern war first opened the eyes of England, and let them,'„to their no small alarm, see their error. Individual voices had, it is true, during the Presidency of Louis Napoleon, made themselves heard, and far-seeing persons had pointed out the threatening possibility of a French invasion of the British islands. The national pride of England alone, however, derided all such warnings, until 1854 revealed 38 French ships of the line ready for action, with 66 frigates and corvettes, and thus si lencedall scoffs. In three years Louis Napoleon had built 24 sail of the line; and in the course of 1854 alone were, 13 ships of war launched, of (which nine were ships of the line, and 52 taken in hand, of which three were of the line and six frigates. The English had not only the vexation of leaving their allies to take precedence on land, but also of seeing in them an equality of rivalship by sea where they had hoped for an undoubted supremacy. These painful convictions established at once in England a complete revolution of public opion, and just as they had previously looked disparagingly on the navy of France, now for the first time they • watched her progress with serious attention, which was far from free from anxiety, as was more than ' once shown in the public press. The neighbour which with little noise, but with all the more en ergy, was extending itself, defeated the efforts of the English press, which , laboured to make its ' readers acquainted with the newest details, and with each progressive step . of the French navy, and • despite the entente cordiale to place prominently • forward the threatening danger of a French inva sion. The apprehension of the latter has become so prevalent that even after the last visit of Napoleon ' 111. to Osborne (1857), which, however, in the ' general opinion was onlyviewed as a new strength ening of the English and French friendly alliance, voices have been loudlyraised in Parliament which with plain undisguised words pointed out the threatening probability of such an invasion, and when ; moreover, the Euglish Prime Minister re pelled these insinuations with becoming hauteur, ' he seemed himself not the less imbued with simi lar thoughts. Germany, however, is also interested in casting a glance at the neighbouring navies, in order to arrive at an impartial judgment as to their powers of action by a comparison of their respective navies as the outward appearance alone of a fleet gives no true criterion of its intrinsic value. We have before observed that the navy of Eng land, from the earliest period, has been making continued progress, and that its development was only for a short time ever delayed by any defeats which it experienced, the whole existence of the British empire being involved in a powerful navy. These conditions we do not find in France. Although her navy is older than that of England, and reaches back to the days of Craeee's triumphant campaigns,- hers has suffered the greatest variety of fate and condition. At one time we sec her rise like a shin ing meteor, at another time sink ;into a nullity; and while the navy of England sprang from the people, lived with their life, and advanced step by step with their gradual growth, we find that of France altogether distinct from the people and only the plaything of her rulers. While Gallia of old possessed 9. numerous fleet and held the neighbour ing coasts in perpetual terror, we find her as a naval power, after the conquest of Cesar, entirely retire from the political stage, and so remain until the days of Charlemagne. Under the Carlovingians the navy first recovered. Later, during the crusades, under Philip 11. and Louis IX., and subsequently under Philip of Valois, it attained a certain im portance; only,. however, despite the efforts of Louis XII., Francis 1., and Louis XIII., who fitted gut large squadrons, soon again to decay. As Louis XIV. appeared on the political horizon, and with him commenced a glorious century for France, so also a new era opened for' her navy. Under Colbert's administration the French saw with pride a new fleet of 40 sail-of-the-line and 60 frigates arise. Several arsenals and ports were constructed, and the maritime war which broke out under Louis XIV. perfected in every respect the work of that great Minister. In the years 1680-82 the navy of France numbered 100 sail-of-the-line, and this host was commanded by such men as d'Estrees, Duquesne, Jean Bart, Toueville, and others, who carried the honour of the flag of their fatherland into all seas. A highly-gifted ship builder, Chateau Renault, who without Colbert would have remained unknown, essentially im proved the construction of the ships, and invented the bomb vessels, with which. France checked the Barbary States. What the celebrated Vauban was for land fortresses, that Renault was for the navy. Moreover, a new administration .elasee minuteststablishetl for the navy, and every point, oven to v the detail, laid down. Under Louis XV. the navy could not be kept up at the same high point-which it had assumed under , the beforeonentioned leaders. The Ministers - Dubois and Fleury let it entirely droop. But under Louis XVI. the French fleet again rose, and, under Napoleon 1., took part in the unfortunate but glorious engagements, such as those of Aboukir and Trafalgar, which will ever remain memorable in history. These battles of themselves had utterly ruined the nas=al power 'of France, and while Eng- land in the year 1815 numbered in her fleet 117 ships of the line, 238 fri g ates, and 328 smaller ves sels—in all 743 sail, the French navy consisted of only 69 ships of war, of which the greater number were small and - not seaworthy. The continual de feats by sea, in which France had suffered excessive losses, had so disheartened and shaken their reliance on their navy, that they for many years hesitated to bring it again to that point which her geogra phical situation and political power as a nation imperatively called for. On the contrary, the fleet was totally neglected. It numbered in the year 1820 but 48, and in 1833 actually only 33 ships of war—a low figure such as it had scarcely ever stood at.* The war with Algiers had, it is true,in the year 1830, rendered some exertions necessary ; but they were not followed up, and, for the first time, in 1839 the. state of 'affairs in the East and the war of Mehemet Ali with the Sublime Porte demanded a reawakening of the power of France, and the building a near navy , was under taken with energy. While the French squadron at first consisted of only three ships of the line, it was increased in six months to 13, and already in the spring of 1840 to 40 sail of the line. From that year dates mainly the present French fleet, a cir cumstance which has great weight in favour of France in any comparison with the English navy. The value and power of a fleet consist of two _ _ points—of the ma - teriel, in which have to be consi dered the quantity and quality of the ships and of the artillery, and of the personel. Let us now turn our attention to the materiel of the two States, which is, and often with reason, con sidered the test of efficiency in a navy, and we find on the list of the English navy for the year 1857 the number of 546 ships of all descriptions, to which must be added also 162 steam gunboats; while the official French accounts give the state of the French navy at 450 ships of war and 30 steam gunboats. The number of ships of the line, on which the issue of the larger and more decisive naval actions more or less depends, stands by these accounts at 78 for England against 63 for France, the proportion of screw and sailing ships of the line being about like. France is, therefore, as regards England, in a minority of 15 sail of the line, 100 smaller vessels, and 60 steam gunboats. _ . 'Were one only to look at this minority, which of itself comes to the amount of a whole second-rate navy, the anxiety of England at the superiority of France would appear to be unfounded. However, it cannot, as observed, be forgotten that not alone the number, but also, to an equal degree, the quality of the - ships establishes the strength of a navy. Keeping this in view the comparison becomes far better as regards France. For while in the English list of ships all the vessels of war are reckoned which she possesses, whether they are unrigged or in commission, whether old or new—and we find still included among them ships of the line and others, such as the Victory, which were built either in the last century or in the commencement of the present—the French navy, which, as we have be fore observed, first came into existence in 1840, pos sesses scarcely any ship over 20 years old. This is, however, of considerable importance, and is a circum stance oimuch weight in favour ofFrance. Although each old English ship appears on the list as sea , worthy and fit for action, still they are, as Admiral Sir C. Napier pointed out, in his celebrated letter to the First Lord of the Admiralty in 1849, either utterly useless, or it must be taken into account that their durability as old ships in real warfare must be only slightly relied upon. Apart from the introduc tion of the screw, the armament, as well as the con struction of ships of war, has experienced such a change in 50 years that a modern ship of the line of 120 guns with the calibre now in use could maintain a fight with 10 such as the Victory and come off victorious. If we reckon the number of old English ships of the line at 20, that of unfit frigates at 40, and of the bad smaller vessels at 60, certainly not too low a reckoning, while France possesses at the most 10 old ships of the line and 20 frigates and corvettes, since in 1833 her whole navy consisted but of 33 vessels ; the amount of materiel in the two nations may be considered as equal, so long as the important difference in the number of steam gun boats, 160 to 30, is left out of the calculation ; but we shall return to these later. We turn now to the second and more important aspect of the materiel, to the construction and to the goodness of the timber employed in building the ships. There can be no doubt that up to some years back the English ships far exceeded French ones in durability and strength. The continued de feats which the French sustained from the English in the wars dating from the outbreak of the Revo lution were by no means the result of less bravery on the part of the French, nor yet so entirely of the want of professional capacity, as is very commonly assumed, but mainly the consequence of worse ships and guns. It is a known fact, and is also much in sisted upon by English historians, that the French were not deficient in battle either in courage or en durance. On the contrary, the annals of naval war fare reveal an extraordinary number of examples of French captains only striking their flag at the mo ment that their ship was sinking under them, or was so battered as to be incapable of further con test. These destructions of French ships in action happened, hawever, so frequently, because the ships were slighter built, worse fitted out, and had not the power of tenacityofEnglish ships. Compare the individual accounts in the history of each battle, and it will be found that the hulls of the English ships were not less riddled by shot than those of the French ships, while, however, the latter sunk, and the former, in consequence of their superior material, floated through all, and remained mas ters of the field. When Nelson at Trafalgar formed his bold plan cif. attack, and, contrary to all the rules of nsval tactics, bore down before' the wind on the line of battle of the united French and Spanish fleets, he knew well what he was about, as by thismanceuvre he exposed his ships for a long time to a frightful raking fire. He knew his ships could endure the enemy's broadsides without sink ing, but that the enemy's ships, when he had once broken through their line, mad opened an effectual fire, could not similarly support his fire. How cor rectly the English Admiral had calculated is proved by the result of the battle, which ended in the cap ture of 13'French and Spanish ships of the line, of which half sunk. While, however, the English ships everywhere exceeded the French in strength, the latter, on the other hand, distinguished themselves as ' faster sailers. This was thoroughly recognised by the English, and they consequently not only built henceforth mainly after French models, but added to their navy all such French captured ships as could in any way - be repaired. So find we the respective positions up to the year 1844. About this time a man stepped into the chief command of the French marine who united to a thorough knowledge of the subject a high patriotism, and addressed himself with rare devotedness and all his talents to the welfare and progress of the navy. His keen glance detected the former failings —he made the country acquainted with them through his writings—he applied himself energeti cally to their removal, and laid the foundations for the present naval power of France. This man was the Prince de Joinville, who, it is true, as the son of a king, had a favourable position and could do more than others. He achieved what up to that time no French leader had done. Remade the navy - .popular, and thereby - improved it. Previously it was only an ornament—one shining jewel more in the crown of the splendour-loving kings of France.; and Louis XIV. himself, under whom the navy reached its zenith, only desired to make by it one more show of the power of his rule, although Col bert had prepared it for an altogether different and nobler destination. Neither leaders nor people had as yet become aware that for every mer cantile, and seaboard State a corresponding navy is a condition of its existence and prosperity, and a political necessity. The Prince de Joinville made great efforts to convince the French nation of these facts, and he seems to have succeeded. The road - cut out by him has been also wisely followed byLouis Napoleon, and the nati on now l oo k s w ith pride on the work which, completed by his will and efforts, has now given to France- so imposing a po sition. Napoleon 111. has prepared the materiel in an energetic manner ; but the credit of having raised up the inner kernel and condition of the fleet, as well as the corps of officers, belongs alone to the Prince de Joinville and to his instructor, the Admiral Lalonde ; and this, moreover, is well kno . wn to the French. Shortly after the banishment of the Bour bons the Delegate Collas proposed, in his brilliant critique on the budget of the navy, from the-Tribune of the National , Assembly, a vote of thanks from the country to the Prince for his patriotic exertions. Equally practically as philosophically educated, Joinville turned his attention especially to the con struction of ships, tried carefully all the new inven tions in naval matters, and adopted them when they had been proved. He more particularly kept in view the steam navy, and France produced under his auspices real masterpieces of construction, which the English afterwards net only equalled in every respect, but even exceeded. And truly these results were attained with a far smaller expenditure than is the case in England, for there was system—they avoided the failures of the English shipwrights, and even turned them to account. The same sph it wh!oh pc rvades the English people also governs the English Admiralty. As each new discovery finds applause everywhere, and money is found to work it out, be it ever so problematic, so the Admiralty appears to *This number relates only to seaworthy ships of the line and frigates, which alone in war can be taken into 4ny kind of account. Including Useless and small vessels, the num, ber is brought up to 110, THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 80, 1858. spare neither trouble, nor cost, nor money, in bring ing into use and to perfection any promising pro blem for the navy. The 'object once in view will here also 'be followed out with the well-known Eng lish pertinacity which neither waits for the popular opinion nor is frightened back by doubtful success. When we look at the new English ships, such as the Sovereign, the frigates Imperieuse, Euryalus and others, we must, above all, admit that such works are capable of furnishing wonderful results ; but take into account other portions of the English navy, and no one can say that the results answer to the incredible cost. The fabulous sums of uselessly spent money must be a matter of astonishment, which have been lost on so-called failures, or other unfortunate experiments. We have before observed that the extent of the English fleet in the year 1815 consisted of 743 seaworthy ships of war, without reckoning those building and transports, while the present number of English ships-of-war consists of 546—a diminution of 200 ships. The aggregate expenditure for the navy from 1815 to the breaking out of the Eastern war amounted to £160,000,000 sterling, and, as the cost of materiel as compared with personel, is generally taken as 5 to 4, England has spent £90,000,000 to bring down the fleet of 1815 to its present state. This compa rison comes out much more favourably for France. The French navy, increased from 1833 to 1857 by 400 sail, at an expenditure of 1,660,000,000 francs, which, at the previously quoted proportion for materiel, gives a sum total of 900,000,000 f., or £36,000,000 sterling. It is true that the French Administration cannot always boast of economy or discretion, but the facts whie,h we have instanced must point it out as a wise one compared with that of England. Admiral Napier reckoned, in the presence of the First Lord of the Admiralty, that since 1815 13 three-deckers, 144 two-deckers, 21 frigates, of the first-class,, 155 of the second, 50 of the third, and 334 smaller vessels —in all 717 ships-of-war—had altogether disap peared. In the same manner Mr. Hume was able in the House of Commons to make the assertion, without receiving contradiction from either side, that England from 1828 to 1843 had built 308 ships-of-war, of which a third turned out to be useless. In the same extravagant and reckless manner, also, was the construction of steam vessels under taken. While England had already in the year 1822 commenced building paddlewheel steam vessels for war purposes, it was not until the year 1840, when the French steam• frigate brought the King Louis Philippe to England, that they built after its pattern, the Terrible, a ship which expressed its object, and even surpassed its French model. Previously, however, eight steam frigates had proved unsuccessful. In the year 1850 England possessed 20 paddlewheel steam frigates, each of which was constructed to carry 32 guns of heavy calibre. Three only, however, of them—the Ter rible, Sidon, and Odin—could carry their armament —all the rest were too weak for their between deck batteries, and could only receive their six upper deck guns. The French navy numbered at the , same time 22 steam frigates of a similar armament, which could perfectly carry them. At the same time England built at once 30 iron steamers. Scarcely were they ready when it was discovered that iron was not suitable as a material for ships of war, and that the ships were therefore not available for the purpose for which they had been intended. This was a useless experiment which cost the country three millions, while France kept to her wooden ships. It also demanded great expenditure and effort before the screw could be introduced and adopted in the English navy. In the year 1846 the sailing frigate Amphion was fitted with a screw, but not withstanding ii double building, which cost 800,000 dollars (£120,000), it was requisite to put her on one side as completely unfit for the service. It fared not much better with the altered ships of the line Blenheim and Sanspareil, whose screws cost 500,000 dollars (£75,000), without. giving a greater speed than eight knots. The frigates Imperieuse, Euryalus, and Shannon, which arose about this time, succeeded, however, perfectly ; and the new ships, as well as the altered ones, began henceforth to answer better. The Wellington, Arrogant, Con queror, Agamemnon, and others, have given evi dence that they are really masterpieces. The French, on the other hand, did not hurry in the use of the screw, but tested the new dis covery by small experiments. Their constructors, more scientifically educated than the English, pondered beforehand ere they built, and only when the screw was recognised in France as successful did they begin to introduce it. From that time, however, they proceeded ener getically to work. After the French constructors had had the glory of having, in the Napoleon, built the first screw ship of the line, and of having also produced in her a pattern ship, there have been, under Louis Napoleon, not only 20 new screw ships of the line, 20 frigates, and more than double that number of corvettes and smaller vessels built, but also all the not unfit sailing ships of the line have been generally- fitted with screws, without there having been, so far as we know, one single failure. After such bitter experience one would have thought that the English Admiralty and their builders wonld have become more cautious, but still in the years 1853. to 1856 the same precipitation and negligence took place, and especially in the class of gunboats. Being, then, convinced that the Russian fleet would not leave the harbour of Cron stadt to measure their strength with the allies on the high seas, and that Cronstadt itself could only be attacked by small vessels, the building of screw gunboats was undertaken in England with a perfect furore, and foreign countries saw with astonish ment of what development of power a nation is capable which is determined to aceomplish its ob ject. Soon 100 gunboats were ready, and their number eventually reached 162. Half only, how ever, of these gunboats attained their object, and in general they were built too light for their heavy armament (a 92cw t 68-pounder shell gun), although they proVed quick and handy. The French, it is true, produced no masterpiece, for they fell into the opposite error, and built a third of their boats too heavy. However, they built in all only 30, and the failure with them amounted to only 10, while, with the English it reached 80 gunboats. Besides, the French boats which answered were superior to those of the English. The same spectacle was repeated with the floating batteries of both countries, and with the screw trans ports. The English batteries were complete failures, and could not even be propelled; the French, on the contrary, were excellent, and answered their purpose. In transports France possesses 26 of the best iron screw steamers, expressly built for this object, of which each can conveniently carry 1,000 troops ; so that with these alone she can readily throw 26,000 men on any selected post of an enemy's coast. Take, besides, the 22 paddle steam frigates, of which one in the year 1849 con veyed in 30 hours one whole regiment of infantry from Toulon to Civita Vecchia, and another a com plete regiment of cavalry, and France has means of transport for 60,000 infantry and 10,000 cavalry, independent of her ships of the line, screw frigates, and corvettes. England, on the other hand, suf fers under her unfortunate transport ships, as, for example, is exemplified in her thrice-returning Transit. It became, in fact, necessary to hire pri vate shipping in order to send only 10,000 men to India. We gather from all these facts the conviction that England is not wrong when as regards one part of tho ship's materiel—namely, the quantity or quality of the • shipping—she looks with anxiety towards France, and watches closely the remarkable development of her neighbour's navy, which, al though it has often taken a temporary stride, had never yet taken one so durable and systematic as it has done at the present time. Let us now, however, turn, as regards both navies, to the other not less important part of the materiel—namely, the artil• lery. Under the artillery of a. ship we include not only the number of the guns and the size of their calibre, but also their crew, which in battle is the main point. We take as the ground of our opinion the history of naval actions, and from several single actions as well as large battles arrive at one conclu sion, which is in favour of the English, and which can only result from their superior artillery. This is the remarkable and uniform difference between the loss of men in English ships compared with the loss of the ships of all the other nations with whom England was at war. We will, in illustration, take only a few instances. In April, 1798, the Englishship Mars took the French ship Hercule ; the first had 90 killed and wounded, the latter 290. In February of the same year the English ship Sybille engaged the French ship Forte, in which action the first had 21 killed and wounded, the last 143. In March, 1806, the English ship London took the French ship Marengo ; the first with a loss of 32, the latter of 145 men. On the 4th of November, 1805, an engagement took place between four French and five English ships of the line, in which the English lost 135, the French 730 men . O n the 14th of February, 1797, a battle took place between English and Spanish ships. The English lost 300, the Spaniards 800 men. On the 11th of October of the same year followed the battle of Canperdown be tween the English and Dutch. The first lost 825, the last 1,160 men. On the sth of July, 1808, the English frigate Seahorse took the Turkish frigate Badere Zuffer. The first lost 15, filo last 370 men. Finally, in the same 3'ear a Russian ship o f th e line, the Sew o l o d, was taken by two English ships, in which the Russian lost 303, aild the English only 62 wen, This cOmilaratively smaller IQSS on the part of the English during the whole of that war was but the result of their superior artillery: Not only did they aim and fire better and .more accurately than the French and other nations, but also more rapidly. While the English in the year 1805 delivered one discharge of shot per gun in each minute, the French could only do the same in three minutes. Besides this, the latter pursued a bad plan, inasmuch as they sought to dismast their enemy and fired too high, while the English .steadily aimed at the hull, and their balls hit the large ship's hull more certainly than the small 'surface of the masts and rigging. Independently, however, of their better aim, and of the quickness of their gunners, the English had an advantage in heavier calibre ; for although they nominally. had the same weight of artillery as the French ships of the same class, their ships were in reality much heavier, as, for example, the English 40-gun frigate Lavinia carried in reality 50 guns ; and frigates of 36 and 38 guns had almost always 44 and 46. The English ship of the line Belleisle, which took part in the battle of Trafalgar, was a 74, but carried 80 guns, while the Spanish ship in that battle of nominally M guns carried only 78. These circumstances, and the good manning of their guns, contributed mainly to the success of the English, and explain how the French and their allies lost in those wars 85 ships of the line and 180 - frigates, while the English lost only 13 ships of the line and - 83 frigates. All at once, but very lately, the French arrived at the conviction that their defective artillery had much to do with their ill success, but this was only at the end of the war. The unfortunate Admiral. Villeneuve complained not of the artillery but of the little experience of his officers and men, and the , incomplete and b'ad fittings of his ships, which led to the disproportionate loss of the French. He was, however, like all the rest, in error. The weakness of the French fleet lay . mainly in her artillery, and indeed, not so much in the . guns themselves, as more particularly in a system of manning them which had prevailed for 200 years in Fiance, and which affected the efficacy , and full power cf the ship, inasmuch as it impeded on board her ships of war the absolutely necessary unity of command. (To be Continued.) COUNTRY MARKETS. NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE-DEC. 28. Operations in the corn trade are usually contracted at this holiday season. Prices, however, are at about late rates. Spring corn difficult to quit. Flour was nominally lower, but not pressed. NEWARK-DEC. 29. Wheat in limited supply, the best dry samples being in request at an advance of is to 2s per qr. Barley in mode rate supply, and is higher. Other articles were about pre-, vious values. White wheat, new, 43s to 47s Barley, grinding.. 27s to 30s Red do. 37s to 41s Oats, old, .. 2Bs to 30s Old white 43s to 47s New do 28s to 30a Red do. 37s to 51s Beans. 48s to Barley, malting.... 33s to 40s Peas to —s HULL-DEC. 28. We have to report a moderate supply of grain at market, and prices at a slight advance on last week, but there was little doing in the trade. Barley ruled about the same as previous rates. Beans and peas unaltered. Oats met a slow sale. Seeds rather improved. Wheat.... Old white.... per qr ... 44s Od to 46s Od Old red New white .. „ New red .... „ Dantzic, Konb., &c. old white 50s Od to 52s Od Dutch, Belgian, and French 4ss Od to 46s Od _ _ , Baltic and Hamburg, red 433 Od to 45s Od St. Petersburg and Riga, old 38s Od to 39s Od Barley.... English malting 32s Od to 36s Od Grinding 2Bs Od to 30s Od Saal and Oderbruck Holstein and Danisk 29s Od to 31s Od Grinding English, - 26 s Od to 28s Od old Oats 24s Od to 28s Od Archangel and Riga, per st.. Os lld to llid Friesland and Dutch Osllid to la Od Swedish and Danish Oslld to Osllfd Beans ....English, old, per qr. 44s Od to 45s Od New pigeon 4os Od to 42s Od New tick. ' 39s Od to 40s Od Egyptian 3ss Od to 36s Od Peas Foreign breakers Grinding Tares ....Winter Bss Od to 90s Id Indian Corn . 3OB Od to 32s Od Linseed, feeding 5OB Od to 55s Od crushing , Linseed cakes (Hull) £9 5 oto £9 10 0 Foreign BlO oto 815 0 Rape cakes 6lO oto 615 0 Bones 's 12 6 -to Al 5 0 DUBLIN-DEC. 23. The market to-day continues much the same as last Tuesday as regards prices, but more disposition shown to do business. s. d. s. d. Wheat, white 22 6 to 24 0 Do., red 2l 6 to 22 0 Do., new Barley Oats Do., black ll 0 to 12 0 a. d. s. d. Do., new ll 6 to 13 0 Bere . ll 6 to 12 6 Rapeseed 26 0 to 29 0 Oatmeal l2 6 to 14 0 Bakers' flour Indian. corn 26 0t029 0 CORK—DEc. 28. The following were the quotations this morning :—Red wheat, 18s to 19s 6d; white, 18s 6d to 22s Od; barley lOs Od to 14s Od; oats, 108 Od to 12s 6d. COAL MAR. (Prices of Coal per Ton a .ET—DEc . 29. the close of the market.) Walls End. s. d. Davison's WestHartleyl4 6 Wylam 15 6 Haswell Gas. l3 6 Buddle's West Hartleyl4 6 Byass's Bebside West. Hartley .14 .3 North Percy Hartley ..14 0 Tanfield Moor l2 • 0 Tanfield Moor Butes-12 0 Walker Primrose l3 6 Hastings Hartley-- 15 3 Lambert's W. Hartley.l4 3 Holywell Tyne Main 12 6 ; ; B.d. i Kelloe - 17 9 1 Acorn Close 17 3 i Harton - Eden • 17 3 •Heugh Hall 17 3 1 Eden• Main 17 0 1- Stewart's 18 9 1 Russell's Hetton 17 9 ; Haswell . • l9 0 1 South Kelloe lB 0 Whitworth 15 3 1 Hetton Main l3 6 ; Northumberland l5 0 Framwellgate l7 0 South Hetton 18 9 Shincliffe l7 0 Thorpe 18 3 Benson 16 6 Gosforth l6 6 Cassop Bell 16 6 250—Sold, 208. Walls End. Hartlepool. 18 .3 South Hartlepool. l7 6 Trimdon Thornley 16 3 Riddell 16 6 Bradyll's Hetten 17 9 Harvey .16 0 1 Ships at market, ALLEGED SIMONY.—We understand that a com mission appointed by the Bishop of the diocess, the members of which were the Chancellor, the Archdeacon of Carlisle, the Rev. Canon Gipps, the Rev. R. H. Howard, vicar of Dalston, and Mr. G. H. H. Oliphant, barrister-at-law, to inquire into the circumstances relating to the last presentation to the rectory of Great Orton, near this city, held their sittings on Wednesday and Thursday, at the re sidence of the registrar (Mr. G. G. Mounsey) in. Castle street, and reported to his lordship that there were sufficient prime facie grounds for instituting further proceedings. We may mention that these proceedings arise out of an alleged case of simony at the late presentation of the Rev. F. Wilkinson to the rectory of Orton.—Carlisle Journal. [ADVERTISEMENT.]—Rarey's Horse and Cattle Improv ing Food is equally adapted to improve the stamina of ill conditioned Horses, Cows, Bullocks, Calves, Sheep, and Pigs. It causes no extra expense, as it contains far more and better nourishment than its cost of Id. per feed sup plies in corn and hay; hence ensures an actual saving in the keep. But its princip a l a d van t ages are a great im provement in the digestive functions, the stamina and general condition of horses enabling them to perform far more labour without getting distressed. It impart s new vigour to sick, debilit a t e d, or old apparently worn-out horses, and it puts rapidly the finest flesh on cattle gene rally, and improves the milk in cows, as it enables them to extract the entire nourishment out of everything they feed on. Rarey and Co., 77, Regent's Quadrant, Piccadilly, London. Packed in tins of about 99 feeds, lls. • in casks of about 450 feeds, 50 s . ; o f a b ou t 1 , 000 feeds, 15, being lid. per feed. BIRTILS. • BEST.—On the 26th inst., at 7, Park plac e , St. J ames ' s , the Hon. Mrs. Best, of ason. DALRYMELE.—On the 25th inst., at Elliston. House, St. Boswell's, the Hon. Mrs.. Dalrympl e , o f a d aughter. ELLIOTT.—On the 26th inst., at Heathfield House, Wool wich, the wife of J. W. Elliott, Esq., M.D., R.N., of a gen. LLOYD.—On the 25th inst., at Dudnaston Hall, county of Salop, the wife of John Charles Lloyd, Esq., of a son and heir. MARRIAGES. LON GFIELD—DRANE.—On the 23d Sept., atWindsor, New South Wales John, eldest son of the Rev. J o h n Long field, to Elizabethi Mary, the second daughter of James Drane, Esq., formerly of Pulliam St. Mary, in th e co unty of Norfolk. PILIESTLEY—FIILL.—On the 28th inst., at Stockton-in-the- Fields, Mr. Vrederick Priestley, of ' Berners-street, Ox ford-street, to Matilda, eighth daughter of the late Mr. John Hill, Ship Hotel, Charing-cross. DEATHS. AITLECK.—On the 25th inst., at Brasted, Sevenoaks, Emily Philippa, the child of Sir Robert Affleck, Bart., aged six years. ALLEN.—On the 28th inst., at Broxbourne, Herts, Mary, widow of the late Mr. G. Allan, aged 93. CORDEN.—On the 28th inst., at his residence near Derby, John Cordon, Esq., of Distrib u t or of Stamps for that county. • CUSTANCE.—On the 28th inst., at Bruges, Myles Custance', Esq., aged 89. iAGGARD.—On the 26th inst., at Belmont, Bath, Thomas Haggard, Esq., aged 68. LEVER.—On the 29th inst., John Charles Weaver Lever, Esq., M.D., of 12, Wellington-street, London-bridge, aged 48. WHISTLER.—On the 28th inst., at Belle-vue Lodge, Fla' ham, Edward Webster, only son of Mr. Edw. Whistler, of the Strand, aged 6t years. LONDON : Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG, of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office, No. 112, Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the county of Middlesex, Thursday, recanber 30,1858. `,=~.-.