The Sun. — London, England, 1858-11-23 00:00:00

KR. E. P. BOUVE.RIE, M.P., AT KILMA.RNOCI. (Abridged from the Glasgow Mail.) On Thursday the Right Hon. E. P. Bouverie, M.P. for the Kilmarnock district of burghs, ad dressed a numerous meeting of his constituents in the George Inn-hall, Kilmarnock. Mr. BOUVERIE-111 the last 18 months three events have occurred in this country, all of very great magnitude and importance. I refer first of all to the revolt in India—in that immense posses sion of ours on the other side of the globe, and of which we have since seen the origin, and, I would hope, have seen nearly the close. The second event, not, perhaps, equal in importance, but of great importance to the people of this country, and to a commercial and manufacturing community such as you are, is the commercial crisis, which occurred about 12 months ago, almost unexampled in,its severity, and fatal in many cases in its con sequences. The third event, more particularly of a political character, affecting the interests and opinions of the constituencies of this country, is tho change of Ministry , which occurred at the beginning of the past session of Parliament. Now, first of all, with regard to the revolt in India. I do not purpose at all to attempt to awaken in your breasts those feelings of horror and distress which were excited in this country 12 months ago by the accounts received from week to week of the atroci ties committed upon our unoffending countrymen and countrywomen in India. There has been a tendency of reaction in respect of those atrocities visible in the public mind latterly, almost leading people to disbelieve that such things could have taken place at that time. Now, I have no doubt, with regard to these narrations, and which curdled our blood, that exaggerations and misrepresenta tions were used ; but still I do believe that there was a stab-stratum of fact and truth in many of those dreadful stories which fully justified the pub lic feeling which arose at that time with reference to those events. But lam not going to enter into that topic. The great dramatist has put the words into the mouth of a very wicked woman, but still it was wise philosophy that Lady Macbeth ad ministered to her murderous husband when he began to lament over the cruel and murderous deeds he had done :- 6 , Things without remedy should be without regard ; What is done is done." Therefore I don't propose to enter into that branch of the subject. Let us hope that these awful deeds, in respect of which many a heart is still bleeding, and many a home still desolate—that these things will be forgotten, and, as much as we can, buried in oblivion. But there are things connected with these events which, I trust, never will be forgotten by the people of this country. I trust the daunt less courage which our countrymen exhibited, the heroic resolution which they showed in the most trying circumstances at that time, in that country, will never be forgotten by ourselves or our descen dants; and let me assure you that, as far as I can ,judge, I believe no brighter page will ever be found in the history of this country than the account of the way , inlwhich that handful of our fellow-coun trymen in that country, taken by surprise, scattered throughout an enormous territory, not only faced the tide of revolt, but drove it bac'h and suppressed it, showed, in the capture of Delhi and in the de fence of Lucknow, that no odds were too great nor disadvantages of position too numerous to over whelm their dauntless resolution, or to destroy that British vigour and energy that were exhibited there upon a stage, I trust, to all the world for all time. (Loud cheers.) All sorts of causes have been given as the reason why that great revolt sud denly broke out. lam not going to enter into a discussion now as to these causes--this is not the time and place for such a discussion—but I will say this, that it appears to me, as a plain man, that we su fficiently account for that event when we reflect that we had in that country an enormous mercenary army, whose sole allegiance to us was based upon their belief in our power ; and when that army, which we had petted and pampered— an army which, I believe, had grievances which had not been redressed, and whose allegiance was based upon the fact that they believed we had the power, at any time, to repress any outbreak that might burst forth. Well, our might in India rested upon our European troops—upon those of our countrymen who were out there—and whose invincible courage displayed itself recently in so unmistakable a way. These troops were few as .compared with our large mercenary army. That mercenary army believed and felt that our power was gone—their allegiance hung by the slightest thread-3,nd, on the first temptation offered, they revolted against our authority. In point of fact, we discovered, what was known before by many, that we were sitting upon a barrel of gunpowder, and the wonder is that the spark which ignited it had not blown us up long before. I trust we shall gather wisdom from the experience we have had, and not have a recurrence of such an awful event again. The practical result of our proceedings in Parliament is, that we have spent a great portion of time during last session in considering how India was to be best governed. That is a problem of the greatest difficulty, which scarcely admits, in the circumstances, of a satisfactory solution. What have been the appliances we have had hitherto to control and govern this vast extent of territory ? Why, there have been something like 900 paid civil servants, and something like 30,000 European troops, officered by about 5,000 or 6,000 European officers. These arc the whole appliances we have had to govern that country, and it would have been impossible to have done it with the success which we have hitherto done without the immense moral superiority which our habits, character, and reli gion give us over the races in India. That supe riority we still possess ; but it is obvious from the result of the mutiny, that for the present at least we must have a larger European Power than hitherto to control that people. Our occupa tion of India must be simply a military one. I believe at present there is something like 100,000 of our troops in India. The ordinary calculation with reference to the waste of European troops in India I believe is annually that 10 per cent. are disabled by death, disease, or age ; therefore, it is easy to calculate that to keep up an army of 100,000 men—setting apart all questions of re placing old regiments by fresh ones—we must be constantly sending, every year, a supply of 10,000 soldiers, which our people, I think, will not be prepared to do. On that ground, apart from the consideration of the climate, I do not think we can contemplate retaining our possession of that vast dominion for an indefinite time. There is one ques tion connected with this subject which I wish to say a few words upon. We must, if we are to re tain our empire even now, respect the religion, pre judicies, superstitions, and feelings of the inhabi tants. I pass now to the second topic upon which I purposed to address you—the commercial crisis which twelve months ago happened throughout Scotland and England. Now, you know the evil effects of such an event—how, all of a sudden, trade is at a standstill, the public works are closed, and your men are standing idle in the market-place, seeking employment but finding none ; how there is a lack of employment for those who are able and willing to work ; how no man whose capital is sunk in trade is certain that he may not be a beg gar the next hour or day. You know these are the circumstances which attend upon those com mercial storms, and which it appears, from modern experience, occur every ten or twelve years. Now, this question of commercial ci i ie is connected with a subject about which moi e nonsense has been writ ten and spoken, and a greater amount of practical blundering c ommitted, than on any subject that has ever occupied the attention of the Legislature—l mean the currency , question, or the laws that relate to money, which is the ordinary medium of ex change in this country, and the standard of value. No doubt it is an intricate and complicated ques tion. Now, Ido not think it is in the power of Government to prevent the recurrence of such disasters, and certainly it was not the way to accomplish this by putting restrictions on banks. Of course, if bankers act recklessly, locking up their money in schemes that do not pay, then, of course, like all other imprudent people, they must suffer, and their shareholders be brought to ruin. You have seen an example ' Glasgow of this in • but no direct l aws could make the managers of such a bank pr u d ent in the i r advances to commercial con cerns ; so th a t it is inevitable, when a commercial storm comes, th a t d i sastrous events must:follow. (Hear, hear.) Now , holding these views—not new on my park--I shall resist any proposal' made to put further restrictions up on the banki ng onera tions of this country. (Cheers.) I believe it was a great evil, the restriction o f '1845. Cheers. I I now proceed to the third subject— th e his chang e: of Government. When Lord Derb y friends assumed the reins of power, the an difficulty arose that there was a Government in power with only a mi nority of the House of Commons at its back. N ow, the practical working of our constitution is this : We have a Minister and his colleagues who exer cise the executive authority of the Crown, w h o conduct the ordinary administrative business of the country ; we have a House of Commons, and a House of Peers, which fills up all great public ap pointments—which exercises, in fact, all the prero gatives of the Crown in name of the Crown, and is backed by a majority of the House of Commons. That is the modern theory and pract ice of our con- . stitution, which has been found to work advanta geously for the interests of the c ountry. But a change has now taken place. The Ministry we have got now are not backed by a majority of the House of Commons; and Lord Derby and his col leagues started with dialbulties. How haTe they attempted to get over the difficulties ? By giving way in defence of their own previous opinions and all their own principles—giving way, when they thought they were going to be defeated, to the Liberal majority of the House of Commons, not by leading the majority of the body .n the course which they considered advantageous to the public interest, but in followhig the Liberal majority con trary to their own feelings and opinions for the sake of avoiding defeat. Now, gentlemen, is that a course of conduct deserving the confidence of Parliament or of the constituencies of this country ? I own I have no confidence whatever in Lord Derby an d his Administration ; first of all, because of lai s avowed political opinions; and secondly, because of the party by whom he has always been sup ported. They are the Tory or Conservative party, and he the leader. For the last quarter of a cen tury he and his friends have always stood in oppo sition against anything like advancement, or pro gress, or improvement, or reform, in this country. Therefore, I say, they are not deserving of your support or mine. But they have endeavoured to obtain the support of the Liberals in Parliament, and some acts which they have spent their lives in resisting when proposed V from the other side have now been agreed to. The speaker then instanced the admission of the Jews into parliament, and proceeded :—Lord Derby seemed to be rather like a coquette with two lovers on either side, oglinrs the one, and pressing the foot of the other under the table, and trying to persuade both that he is all in favour of their views. (Laughter.) Lord Derby tried to satisfy his own friends that he was a good Conservative, and on the other side, press ing the foot of the Liberal party, persuaded them he wanted progress, improvement, and reform, calling them to witness what he would do if they would stay and assist him. He was endeavouring to balance himself o_n_a tight rope, from which .he was sure to get a fall. fie (Mi. Bouverie) had a perfect conviction that Lord Derby and his friends, however much they yielded to the Liberal majority in the House of Commons at present, would, if a chance were to turn out, be as vehement Tories as they were before. (Loud applause.)` The hon. gentlemanthen drew attention to the all-engrossing subject of Parliamentary Reform. He did.. not think that either himself or his constituents needed to be convinced of the expedience of Parliamentary Reform ; they had all been of that opinion for a long time. Now, one important and main part of any future Reform Bill must be an extension of the franchise. (Cheers.) No bill without in cluding that would deserve the name of reform ; for they all knew that there were large classes of people in this country who were quite competent to use the suffrage, and who ought to have it. (Cheers.) If Lord Derby proposed a measure that would enfranchise these masses, he would have his hearty support (applause)—for he was very strongly in favour of granting political liberty to all classes. But he was against settling the matter entirely by population. He did not know that it would be for the advantage of the kingdom if Lon don, with its population equal to that of Scotland, returned as many members as the latter did ; nor did he think that it would be advantageous to the Kilmarnock burghs if Glasgow, with her 400,000 inhabitants, were permitted to represent her pecu liar habits and pursuits and feelings by ten times as many as themselves. Then, let them look at the allotment of representatives to Ireland, the country that gives the smallest number of members to popu lation. Now, if they had recourse to population for deciding the number 'of members, they must at once grant 50 additional to I re l an d. H e respecte d the Irish members, but he did not know nor did he think they were prepared to say that the Irish element should be increased so much. (Hear.) Several questions were then put to Mr. Bouverie, and answers having been given to them, The CHAIRMAN proposed a vote of thanks to Mr. Bouverie for his able address, and for his great trouble and kindness in representing them so long. (Applause.) Mr. BOUVERIE having acknowledged the com pliment, a vote of thanks was, on the motion of ex- Provost DONALD, passed to the chairman, and the meeting separated. LABOUCHERE, M.P., ON THE _NEW REFORM BILL. The annual civic feast was held at Taunton on Friday, presided - over by Messrs. Easton and Bar nicott, bailiffs of the borough. The right hon. H. Labouchere, ex-Colonial Secretary, and Mr. Arthur Mills, members for Taunton, were present. In reply to the toast, " The Burough Members," Mr. LABOUCHERE said—The worthy bailiff who had proposed his health had made him out to be a very venerable personage. (Laughter.) He had given him a sort of paternal character in which he (Mr. Labouchere) could hardly hope to aspire. He was not a young Irian, but he hoped he had a little work left in him still, and therefore he did not ex actly, like to be spoken of as a veteran. (More laughter.) The worthy bailiff said as he (Mr. Labouchere) had represented Taunton so many years he must be the father of the House of Com mons. There were a good many gentlemen in that house who were born long before him, and also some who were elected representatives before him; and although he was, perhaps, one of the elder members of the House of Commons, he could through their kindness boast of that which very few could boast—that he had represented the same constituency Which he had represented before the passing of the Reform Bill, and by whom he had been sent to Parliament ever since that Reform Bill was passed. (Cheers.) And that reminded him of a topic on which he was anxious to say one or two words. He was well aware those were not occasions on which party differences ought to be introduced, but there was one subject which largely interested all of them as electors of Taunton, and as that was, perhaps, the only opportunity he should have before Parliament met, he was anxious to say a few words upon it. (Cheers.) It had been announced by her Majesty's Government that a new Reform Bill would be introduced in the next session of Parliament. For his own.part, he had no doubt such would be the case, and it was hardly possible but that this bill would materially affect their position and interests as a constituted body. (Hear, hear.) Now, he thought it right to say to them that he considered iu Would be his duty—and he knew but little of their feeling if he supposed they did 'not wish him to perfotm that duty--,to consider that mea sures not solely or even principally as regards the constituency he had the honour to re present, and which he ought to be attached to, if ever member was attached to a constituency, but he should consider it in reference to its bearing upon the great interests ofthe community. (Cheers.) He would also say that of the nature and details of that bill he was profoundly ignorant, he had no connection with the Government which would bring it forward, and could only form the vaguest conjecture of the form and colour it would be. But he conceived that a measure which would affect the future generations of England should be regarded not as to whether this or that set of men shall oc cupy the bench of office, and he should look upon it with every feeling of deference to the wellbeing of the country, and not as a question which pertains to a mere political partisan. (Cheers.) He had no wish -whatever to see the constituencies of England put up as - it were to auction, to be obtained by the most unscrupulous bidder. (Loud cheers.) But if that measure should appear to him calculated to improve, purify, strengthen, and to enlarge our re presentative system, that bill should liave his sup port. (Hear, hear.) If on the other hand it be merely a specious pretence—if it should appear to him not to be calculated to produce that end for which alone the representative system was of any value, namely, the good order and good government of the country, he should fearlessly oppose it, and he would trust to the good sense and public spirit of the men of Taunton to support him in that course. (Loud cheers.) Mr. MILLS also acknowledged the toast. He said his right hon. colleague had referred to the coming Reform Bill. He (Mr. Mills) was hot in the confi dence of her Majesty's Government, and knew no more of the provisions of the bill they intended to bring forward than he did of another bill—that of friend John Bright. (A laugh.) They had come to such a pass in legislation that they could not have one bill announced but they had another for the same object. Last session they had two India bills—he was not sure they hadn't three ; next session they were promised two Reform Bills, and they might have three; but whatever might be the fate of them, he trusted, notwithstand ing any change in the representative system his relations with the constituency would be in no way interrupted. The hon. member then referred some length to local and personal topics, and con cluded by saying that in any new Reform Bill he should be glad to see a clause introduced for the entire abolition of " Parliamentary Christmas boxes," a practice which he understood had long been regarded as one of the time-honoured institu tions of that ancient borough. (Laughter.) (ADVERT ISEMENT.)—Rheumatism and its Cure.—llol loway's Ointment and Pills.—These extraordinary medi cines are daily revealing their wonderful properties. Mr. Taylor, druggist, of ltothesay, writing May 4, 1858, says : —" I hear of numerous cures being effected by the use of your medicines, one of whi c h I w i ll mention. It is of a labouring man, who was so ill with rheumatism that he could not move either his arms or hi s l egs without the most excruciating pain, and who was completely cured by the ;Ise of your pills and ointment." These medicines also 'will cure lumbago, wens, tumours, stiff joints, contractions, en. largements, and glandular swellings. In gout, rheumatic gout, and neuralgia, the pain is assuaged by the ointment and cured by' the pillar THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 23, 1858. LAW INTELLIGENCE.—Nov. 22. COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE. (Before a Common Jury.) MARCHIVIONT V. MARCHMONT. Mr. Sergeant Pigott, Dr. Deane, Q.C., Dr. Spinks, Mr. Tindal Atkinson, and Mr. F. J. Smith were counsel for the petitioner; Mr. K. Macaulay, 'Q.C.,, Dr. Phillimore, Q.C., and Dr. Swabey for the 'respondent, The petitioner, Caroline Maria Marchmont, prayed for a judicial separation from her husband. Henry Marchmont, on the ground of cruelty. She alleged that he had treated her with great unkindness and cruelty, and had extorted large sums of money from her by threats and violence. Various acts of cruelty were specified in the petition. The respondent de nied all the allegations of cruelty, and also pleaded condonation. Mrs. Marchmont this morning added to her pre vious evidence that including the money she had lent to Mr. Marchmont's father, Mr. Marchmont had received from her from first to last upwards of £2,000. She was then cross-examined by Mr. Macaulay, and said that her annual income at the time of her marriage with Mr. Marchmont was more than £2,000 al•ear, and she believed Mr. Marchmont had told her that he had £2OO a-year. She did not know that Mr. Marchmont had. £4OO a-year, from private property, £3OO a-year from the chapel he gave up, and that he made about £2OO a-year by writing. It was arranged that the carriage and horses were to be kept at his expense. His three children were sent to school. Mrs. Walmsley, she continued, is a daughter of my sister, Mrs. Davies. My sister lived with me for some time at the tavern kept by my first husband in Threadneedle-street. She is a widow with a fortune. Before our marriage Mr. Marchmont lived with his wife and children at Stoke Newing ton. His furniture, books, and wine were re moved to my house at 10, Percy-place, but I lent him £350 - to pay for the wine. At Tunbridge wells we lodged at Mrs. Bennet's, Jordan-house. There was a servant in the house. I did not refuse to have anyone as nurse when I was unwell, or to take care of the children. Mr. Marchmont did very little for me. He was-writing-all day long in my room. When he went ,-‘; scratch,., scratch,' it annoyed me very much, but when he stopped writing I did not say he was lazy : I was pleased at his staying with me. I never insisted upon his doing for me what ought to have been done by a nurse. I never said that I hated marriage, and would not live with my husband. Mr. Marchmont may have sometimes washed and dressed the children, but not often. I had a fire in my bedroom, but I did not object to a fire being lighted in the drawing-room on account of the expense. I never said that my husband was trying to cheat or rob me when small change was given me. We were married from my sister's house. By his desire no friend of his and no member of his family were at the wedding. My husband deceived me in his age. He gave me rea son to believe that he was 10 years older than he really was. When I asked him his age after our marriage he said he was 35, and added that he had never deceived me but in that one thing. My sister came to see me when I was ill at Tonbridge-wells. I told Mr. Marchmont that she had told me that he had been heard to say, " A pretty honeymoon I have had, shut up in my wife's stinking sick room." When I heard that expression I wrote to my attor ney to alter my will, having previously left Mr. Marchmont half my property. He had good wine, but he gave me bad wine, and I complained of it. I told him he thought anything , good enough for me. I did not call him a fool in the presence of the children, or at any time. The £220 at my banker's was not included in my settlement. At my request he wrote to the banker to honour my checks. At Dover we lodged with a Mrs. Hyder. There were two servants in the house. I never replied to his re quest for a few pence to post a letter that the letter• might lie and rot. When he proposed a separation the reason he did not have the £lO,OOO was because be could not get it. The offer of a separation and the payment of £lO,OOO to him came from him, not from me. I very seldom called him a liar. If any one was coming towards us at the moment it 1s; very probable he might have used such expressions, as, "Don't make such a . noise ' • behave like a lady." " Remember we are strangers here ; what will peo ple think of us ?" He would say things of that kind without any provocation. I certainly did not lay hold of him by the hair of his head as he was stooping down to unlock my trunk. When we went out for a walk on the 25th Nov. at Dover, and there was a piece of work about the children, let go his arm because he became violent. I did not say, when he threatened to go back, that he might go, to the devil if he liked. When he took my hand. I struggled to get it away. It was this quarrel that caused me to go to Deal. When he compared himself to Mount Vesuvius, it was not in answer to a complaint of mine that he had received me coldly. He did not say the coldness was like the snow on , Vesuvius. I found the m.ney for the expenses of the trip. I very likely gave him small sums, even to 2d. to the showman of a cathedral, as they were iwanted. He ought to have carried money himself. If I had given him a large sum of money he might have left me. I did not forbid more than two meals a-day abroad ;he and the children might have had . tea if they had pleased. He went out of the Hotel St. Antoine at Antwerp to buy a little brandy to save the expense of having it at the hotel, but not more by my desire than by his own. I left my boa at Ostend and bought a new one at Dover, but I did not tell my husband in the hearing of the shopman when it was being bought that he knew nothing about it, or order him to walk out of the shop. If I did it was done kindly. He did walk; out of the shop and wait for me. The quarrel on Sunday, the 10th Jan.,did not originate in mysay ing that I would leave him. When he was in his humours I never said anything to him ; it would have been as much as my life was worth. The house at Percy-place is not a large one. I kept two maid servants there—Tobin and Lewis. It had been understood before the marriage that a larger house should be taken. When he complained that his goods _were spoiling by being kept in the back kitchen I did not say I would not be bothered with his things. One of the children slept on the floor in our bedroom. I wanted to have one of them with me to protect my life. He often spoke about having a third servant. When the Newfoundland dog was brought home I did not say " There are dogs enough already—l have four to maintain." But I did object to his cutting a piece off the roast beef for the dog. When we spoke about the education of the children I did not say I would not have a governess in the house for him to flirt with. He said he wouldrather be broiling in hell than feel as he then did. The money I advanced to his father was for the purpose of enabling him to take a lease of a farm. On the morning of the 21st January Mr. Marchmont came into my room, but I did not tell him to leave the room in the presence of the servant. I did not speak to him in an imperious manner before the servants. As he was sitting in his study on that day he told me to go and fetch him a wax candle off the chim ney-piece. • I said, " If you were to turn round to the window you would not want a candle just yet." I did not say it was his extravagant ways that made him want candle. He rushed past me in a passion, went upstairs, and called me a drunken faggot. He did not say it was foolish to dispute about such a trifle, and he would fetch one of the wax candles we had brought from Brussels. He brought down the candle and the key basket, and said he had turned all the things out of my drawers, and I then went upstairs and locked the door. He then went up and broke open the door. He did not say I must be either drunk -or mad to refuse him a halfpenny candle, and to lock him out of his own room. I was writing in the account-book the names he had called me, when he took it eut of my, hand and threw it on the fire. I had made memo randa of my disputes with my niece Mrs. Uzzielli, then Miss Cumming. I took the book out of the fire and he snatched it away again, and in the struggle he blacked his face. The servants came up. I never lost my temper or spoke violently—l was too frightened. Mr. Macaulay—Did you ever swear at him ? Witness—l may have said —you once or twice when he was telling dreadful stories. Mr. March mont and the two servants tried to prevent my going out of doors. The serxants did not hold me. He did not come to me in the dining-room and say he hoped the storms were over, and pour out some wine and water for me, nor did I throw the wino and water over him. He did not say " Here is a pretty example for the children," nor did I answer that I wished he and his children were in eternal perdition. On another occasion when he called me a, dreadful, name I did throw a little wine over him. Mr. Marchmont knew Mrs. Uzzielli before he knew me. I had lived with Mrs. Uzzielli. He has com plained of my temper as intolerable, and I have re plied that whatever it was he knew it before he married me, and I could not change it. I did not tell him that his congregation at Stoke Newington was a blackguard gang of hypocrites, but he told me that a letter had been written and I should be " bonneted" if I went to his chapel. That was also on Jan. 21. He did not push me away by placing his open hand upon my forehead, saying, "Get away, you insolent little creature." On the 25th of January he proposed that we should take opera tickets, and I bought 12 guineas' worth ; then he would not go, and I had to give away the tickets. I went from home on the Ist Feb. and on the 25th Feb. he fetched me from Mr. Waimsley's. He said on. the Ist Feb. it would serve me right if he did something to get a divorce. When I left the house I said I would see him at my feet before I would go home again. I did not say to Tobin 1 that I would not go home unless I was fetched. I screamed es loud as I could all the time I was in the cab, and he tried to stop my mouth. I begged the cabman to stay, for God's sake, or I should be murdered. I did not call him a liar and a cut throat. When we arrived at the police station he begged me not to make a charge. The police begged me to be reconciled. We went home in another cab. We occupied the same room. I was obliged to do as he liked. The letter written by , him at Mr. Prescott's, the banker's, was not written as a con dition for the payment of the money. He wrote voluntarily, and we were then friendly. I never said to him that I supposed while I had been away he must have had a nice time of it with his nasty women. On the 19th March there was an unplea sant discussion about the house. He said if he re mained the trustees must make him tenant of the house, in order that he might not be subject to be turned out by them. He also said I must give a check for the rent. When I had a dispute with him it was my habit to ring for the servants. On, the 19th March I rang for them, and went to the window and screamed. He thrust me on the sofa. I trembled before him, and he knows it. I did not leave the house because when he went away he had kissed the children and had not given me a kind look. I left on account of the piece of work we had had in the morning. I wrote to him from Mrs. Mackenzie's. Several letters passed, and on the 27th of March he came to fetch me. The soli citor who prepared my settlement was Mr. God win. I first consulted him, but after I had been to Mrs. Mackenzie's I consulted Mr. Barnard, be cause Mr. Marchmont had used expressions with regard to Mr. Godwin and myself which caused me to determine not to resort to that gentleman. Mr. Marchmont never apologised for those expressions. On the 6th of April there was a quarrel about my will. The effect of what he said was not an inquiry whether I was aware that I had left a large sum to my residuary legatees. He complained of my having only left him £lO,OOO, and said he ought to have half. I said if he behaved well for six months I would alter the will. At the end he said some thing about destroying my will, and not making another for six months, and if I died in the mean time he would not come in for anything. I offered to send him up his breakfast in bed, and he de clined, but he did not say I had taken away his appetite. I went away the same day, and was ab sent for a week. I took lodgings with Mrs.-Mac kenzie. After my return he insisted on my going with him to his father's farm, at Shandley. We were there for two days. After a sale at Shandley he asked me for £lOO, and I gave him part .of it then and made up the rest the following week. I did not charge him with having had improper in tercourse with other women during my absence. I had a different opinion of him then, but I think he is that now. After a certain letter had fallen into my hands I told the servants to give me all the letters before they were delivered to him. He showed me one letter, which purported to be from a young lady asked him to recommend her as a gover ness. He at first offered to let me answer it my self, but he would not allow me to answer it after wards when I wished. If he had, it would have relieved my mind. I remember his asking me to lend him 14s. to pay the coachman, and I reminded him that he had promised not to ask for more money until November. I went to the window and told the servant not to pull down the blind. He snatched my purse out of my hand and put it into his pocket. There were either sovereigns or checks in it. We then drove to a shop in Newgate-street, where he accused me of having left him seven times in six months, and of having lived with another man. On our way to Newgate-street he had called at a money-order office, and I slipped out of the carriage and ran away. He saw me again in the shop in Newgate-street. He told me to go to the Mansion-house if I had any charge to make • but I did not know how to act. I went away from him that day. On the 24th May I returned home in consequence of what I had heard about the child. (The witness repeated her denial of having charged her husband with having had improper in tercourse with other women, and continued :—) I perhaps rode out with him afterwards and made it up, because I am of too forgiving a temper, and he knew very well that one kind word would bring me round. He would not let me see my friends and relations. I wanted to have a party after my wed ding, but he said that if my relations came he would go out. On the 4th of June he was angry at my having been to my lawyer. He did not ac cuse me of carrying on a course of deception, nor did I call him a liar. I did not insist upon his giving up the chapel before I married him, but I wished him to do so, and' offered to build him another. He told me I should be " bonneted" if I went to the chapel, I suppose because I was a Roman Catholic. Sir C. Cresswell—Very likely. Cross-examinaton continued—When he caught me in the garden, after I had escaped from the house, he flew upon me like a tiger. When we were in the house I did not swear at him and say, 66 You muraerod your mother, and now you want to murder me." I was locked in all day and became ill. He did not attend upon me. He slept in the same bed with me that night, but re rimmed at as great a distance as he could from me. He did not sleep with me on the Sunday night. I lived at Mr. Mitchell's for nearly three months— that is within a few doors of my own house, where my husband is living. I did not go to my stster's, because Mr. Marchmont protested against it before the magistrate. He wished me to go to Mr. Mit chell's. A friend of mine called on me after visiting my husband, but I would not hear about a recon ciliation. The cross-examination of Mrs. Marchmont occu 'Pea the entire day, until the rising of the Court at five o'clock. COURT OF EXCHEQUER. (Sittings at Nisi Prins, before Mr. Baron Martin and Common Juries.) TRUSS AND ANOTHER V. SMITH.-FALSE IMPRISONMENT. This was an action for an assault and false im prisonment, to which the defendant pleaded not guilty. Mr. Sergeant Petersdorff and Mr. Taylor were counsel for the plaintiffs ; and Mr. Sergeant Ballan tine represented the defendant. It appeared from the case of the plaintiff (Mr. Truss), that he is a warehouseman, a n d an agen t f or Scotch and Irish goods, residing at Hatcham-ter; race, Old Kent -road, and the defendant carries on business as a market gardener and fruiterer in High-street, Deptford. The circumstances which gave rise to the case are disclosed in the evidence of Mrs. Truss, who deposed as follows :—I am' one of the plaintiffs. On the 15th of June last I had to walk to Deptford, and as I was within six weeks of my confinement, and the day was very hot, I felt very much fatigued. I went into the defendant's sbop, and saw the defenda n t' s d aug ht er th ere . Sh e handed me a chair, and I called for a bottle of ginger beer, which she opened. I gave her a half sovereign—all the money I had with me. She vied it with a coin tester, and broke it. She said, " This is a bad half-sovereign," and handed it to me. I said I was much surprised, because I had received it from my brother-in-law, a respectable architect in Biriningham. She asked me for the half-sove reign back again. I said, " It is of no use to you, and if it is a bad one I will get it exchanged." She replied, " If you don't return it to me you will get into trouble." I said, " If you doubt my respecta bility, I will give you my name and address." She called her mother, and said, " Mother, this woman has been trying to pass a bad half-sove reign." The mother wished me to give it to her, but I refused. I gave her my name and address, and offered to take them to my house to show them my brother-in-law's letter enclosing the half-sovereign. Mrs. Smith then called' her hus band, and said, "This woman has been trying to pass a bad half-sovereign and refuses to give it back to me." Th e d e f en d an t r eplied, " Won't she ? Then I will make her." I then gave him the half sovereign, and Mrs. Smith said I might go. The defendant said, " No, I don't know about that. I will have no mere of this. If it costs me £2O I will make an example of her." I then gave him my name and address. He told his daughter to fetch a policeman. I said that if she would go to Mr. Dovenor, a grocer, a few doors off, who knew my husband well, he would speak to my respectability. I. also referred to my condition. He refusedlo send to Mr. Dovenor, and two policemen passing at the time, he called them in, and gave me into custody for passing bad money. The policemen told him to come with us. I then entreated him to go to Mr. Dovenor's, or to my home, to spare my reputation. The defendant, handed the half-sovereign to the policeman. I was then taken to the police-station. There was a crowd round the shop. On the way to the police-station we passed Mr. Dovenor's shop. I asked the defendant andthe policemen to take me in, and make inquiries about me. The defendant refused. On my arrival at the police-station I was taken before the inspector, and the half-sovereign was handed to him. The defendant repeated the charge. I was then taken into the searching room and searched, the whole of my clothes having been taken off, Whilst I was dressing there was a knock at the door, and some person said the half-sovereign was found to be good, and that I was at liberty. He offered me the half-sovereign back, and a sove reign as compensation. I refused to take it, saying I would leave it to my husband to settle. I was in custody an hour. My cloak was torn and my bonnet strings were pulled off. I was seriously ill for a week afterwards. It was the occasion of my being very ill after my confinement. Cross-examined—l was going to Deptford to transact business. I objected to go to the station. I do not know that defendant had offered to pay £5 as comp( .nsation. The defendant expressed his sorrow for w hat had occurred. He took me home andipaid my fare. He waited some time to see my husband. The same evening my husband consulted an attorney. The plaintiff's husband was then examined, and he stated that when he called on the defendant about the matter, Mrs. Smith said he was as bad as his wife, and ought to be placed in the same situation. In 'consequence of that he had threatened to kick the defendant out of his house when he called upon him. Other witnesses having been called in support of the plaintiff's case, The lean led Counsel summed up the evidence. The defe nee was that the defendant had lost large sums by taking bad money, 'and thinking that the plaintiff was endeavouring to pass a bad half-sovereign under the suspicious circumstance of getting it changed to pay for a penny bottle of ginger local-, he had considered it his duty to give her into cu stody, but when he discovered he had made a mistake he had done all in his power to make amen ds for it. It was contended that this was an at ;orney's action, and that very small damages would compensate the plaintiff. Mr. Baron Martin, in summing up, commented on the fact t hat the defendant's wife and daughter had not bee-ci called to deny the truth of the plain tiff's accomat of the transaction. It must, there fore, be tak en to be true, and the only question for the jury was what amount of damages she was fairly entitled to. She had been taken into custody through they streets, she had been stripped naked and searched, and had been exposed to almost every indignity that could be inflicted upon a woman. It, was the duty of. a policeman, when a person was charged under such circumstances, and gave a name and address, to make inquiries as to respectability, for any person might innocently pass,had money. It was clear that the defendant had acted 6ona fide, but he was not justified in giving the plaintiff into custody. The lury returned a verdict for the plaintiff— damages £2O. COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL—MoNDAY (Before the Lord Chief Baron and Justices Wight. man, Williams, Hill, and Baron Channell.) THE QUEEN V. HILTON AND ANOTHER.-STEALING AND RECEIVING. The prisoner, Elizabeth Hilton, was charged with having, after a previous conviction for felony, stolen a watch, and the other prisoner, M'Newall, with stealing and receiving. Hilton was found guilty of stealing, and M'Newall of receiving. Counsel for the prisoners had objected at the trial that Hilton should not have been at first arraigned on the previous conviction, as it would prejudice the minds of the jury, and the recorder of Hastings, before whom the case was tried, assented to this proposition. After the conviction for the felony of the watch, it was proposed to arraign her on the charge of the previous felony, when the learned counsel objected, on the ground that the count had been exhausted. He also contended that the facts warranted the conviction of M'Newall for stealing, but not for receiving, and both these points were reserved. Mr. Ribton, who had been counsel for the pri soners in the court below, now appeared for them. The Lord Chief Baron said it was discreditable to any gentleman acquainted with the law suffi ciently to exercise the office of recorder to have reserved the first point, and he did not believe he had intended to do so. Mr. Justice Wightman said the learned counsel had requested the recorder, as a favour, that the previous conviction should be excluded from the arraignment, and the recorder having acceded, the learned counsel had then urged that it was too late to do so after the Conviction of the substantive felony. Mr. Justice Williams said the Court could not hear an argument on such a point. Mr. Ribton having been heard on the second point, The Lord Chief Baron said he was of opinion that there was no ground for the interference of the Court. It was a matter indifference whether the previous conviction was stated at the beginning or at the end of the indictment, and he did not believe that the learned recorder had intended to reserve it. He had not much more to say in favour of the other point, and the time of the court could be much better occupied than in hearing discus sions on frivolous convictions, such as those which had just been argued. Mr. Justice Williams added—lt was lamentable that the member of the Court should be kept from their regular business to hear such objections. The conviction was affirmed. THE QUEEN V. CHRISTOPHER-FINDING MONEY. The prisoner was indicted for stealing a purse containing money. It appeared that the prosecu trix had dropped the purse. About four hours afterwards the prisoner was drinking in a public housA, and offorecl a sovereign in payment. At that moment the crier was crying the loss. The prisoner asked what it was, and the landlord told him. About 12 o'clock at night the prisoner was apprehended. The prisoner was found guilty, and the question was whether at the time there was a felonious appropriation. Mr. Ffookes appeared for the prisoner ; and Mr. Stock for the prosecution. The Lord Chief Baron said he felt bound by the decision in the case of " King v. Thorbon," and would hold that the subsequent conduct of the pri soner did not show a felonious intention at the time of the finding. The conviction was quashed. INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT. (Before the Cdief Commissioner.) IN RE WILLIAM NYE-INSOLVENCY THROUGH AN ALLEGED ROBBERY. This insolvent, who had been a corn and flour dealer in the London-road, Southwark, and whose case had been several times before the Court, ap • peared to receive its judgment. Mr. Nichols opposed for Messrs. Judkins, seed merchants, who were the detaining creditors, and Mr. Sargood supported. The insolvency in this case was alleged to have occurred in consequence of a robbery of £l9O, nearly all in gold, from the insolvent's premises in the London-road, Southwark, on the night of Sunday, the 23d May last, about 11 o'clock. The opposing creditors doubted the robbery, and the insolvent was arrested at their suit, and, having petitioned the Court, the matter was thoroughly investigated, and great pains taken by the learned Chief Commissioner to arrive at the truth of the alleged robbery. The insolvent and a policeman, whom he pro duced, were examined in respect to the robbery. The insolvent's account was that he had been at home all day on the Sunday, making up his books. and that he and his wife went out for half an hour after 10 o'clock at night, and when they returned at nearly 11 they found the shop had been broken into and the money taken from a cash box which was placed in a desk and locked. He said he sent for the police, who came and examined the place. Into the cash-box ho stated that he placed, late on Saturday night, £4O which he had borrowed, and £144 which a person named Galloway, a commis sion agent, had paid him, all in gold, at half-past 10 o'clock at night. The policeman's version was, that he was going his round trying the shop doors at about 11 o'clock on the Sunday night, and when he got to the insolvent's door he found it open and saw a woman, who said he was wanted. He went in and saw some women and a man, after which the insolvent came home. An acting inspector examined the place, and the policeman gave his opinion that it was a " curious case," and stated that the desk had not been forced open, and there were other circumstances which induced the police to say it was a curious case. It appeared that the insolvent, who is a young man, had been 15 months in business. His debts were £717, of which £492 were trade debts con tracted since March. Galloway was described as a commission agent, and underwent a long and searching examination as to his bankruptcy, and his general transactions. He was examined apart from the insolvent, and several material discrepan cies occurred in their evidence. The insolvent was sued by this creditors and got rid of the property that remained. An offer of 2s. in the pound was made to the creditors and refused. The insolvent's shop was said to be now carried on by a friend named Keating. The learned Chief Commissioner gave a very lucid judgment. He weighed the evidence adduced, contrasted the discrepancies, and dwelt on the fact of the desk not having been forced open, and on the absence of all corroboration by parties who were said to have been present when the police were called into the back parlour. He believed that the insolvent had prepared for a failure, and he did not believe that a robbery had taken place. Impressed with that opinion, after much consideration, he believed that the insolvent had concealed or made away with his property to defraud his creditors. His Honour gave a judgment of 11 calendar months' imprisonment from the vesting order. (Before Mr. Commissioner Phillips.) IN RE ALFRED BAILY. Mr. Richard Martin, who supported the insol vent, said he was the son of Mr. Bally, the cele brated sculptor. It appeared that the insolvent was a sculptor, and had petitioned as a " trader." A discussion arose on the point, and the insolvent said he pur chased marble to work upon it. The learned Commissioner held that the insol vent was a trader, and named a day for the final order. • POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—Nov. 22. MANSION-HOUSE.—Charlotte Moore, aged 23, was charged before the Lord Mayor with steal ing four silk handkerchiefs, of the value of 18s. 6d. from the shop of Messrs. Kerry and Co., hosiers, of Bishopsgate-street. H. Smith, the prosecutors' assistant, said—On Saturday afternoon the prisoner entered our shop to look at some ribbon. I thought she was a suspi cious character and watched her. I had occasion to leave the counter, and on returning found her in the act of concealing something under her cloak. I communicated what I had observed to one of the partners, who detained her while I fetched a police man, who afterwards showed me the four handker chiefs produced, which belong to the prosecutors. Police-constable No. 653, said that upon being called to the prosecutors' premises he found the four handkerchiefs produced lying at the feet of the prisoner. He went to the house of her parents, who informed him that she had left home a fort night ago for the purpese of getting married. The prisoner, in reply to the charge, said there were between 30 and 40 dresses and silk handker chiefs lying on the counter, and she supposed that in looking at some articles she must have acciden tally pulled the handkerchiefs under her cloak, upon which she was requested by one of the part ners to walk to another part of the shop and await the arrival of an officer. Mrs. Bowyer, the female searcher at the station house, produced a piece of ribbon which she found upon the prisoner, and added that while engaged searching her the ticket produced dropped from the clothes of the prisoner, who immediately picked it up and put it into her mouth. Witness succeeded in getting it out before the prisoner had an oppor tunity of chewing and swallowing it. The:witness Smith identified the piece of ribbon as having been stolen from the counter, and said that the ticket produced by the searcher had been torn from the handkerchiefs. A metropolitan constable said that the pri soner had been in his custody about two years ago for theft, when she was summarily convicted at Guildhall. He thought that since that time a City officer had had her in custody for stealing some rings in Aldersgate-street. The prisoner denied having been in custody on more than one previous occasion. The Lord Mayor—Your parents say that you left home to get married. Prisoner—l was going to get married to a young man, but when the day arrived he told me that I must wait another fortnight. The Lord Mayor—Where did you get your head shaved ? Prisoner—l fell asleep one night and burnt my hair, my lord, so that I was obliged to have it shaved. (Laughter.) The Lord Mayor remanded the prisoner, who pleaded guilty to the charge, till Friday next, when she will be dealt with iii petty sessions. John Hicks, Thomas Ridley, and Ellen Johnson, were brought before the Lord Mayor, charged with stealing 86 knives and 86 forks, under the follow ing circumstances : Mr. J. Davis—l am a ship chandler and marine store dealer, at 5, St. Mary-at-Hill. On Wednesday evening last, between the hours of six and seven, the window of my shop was broken from the out side, and several packages of knives and forks ab stracted from the window. The six knives andforks produced formed part of those I lost. I had previ ously seen the male prisoners with their backs to the window, and apparently lo o ki ng at some b o y s who were playing at marbles. I asked Hicks •to get out of my way whilst I was attending to a covering over head. I closed my door after me, leaving the premises in the care of my niece. About half-past eight I returned and was informed of my loss, and found two windows starred and one broken. C. T. Lewis, constable 348—From the description of the stolen property given :by the prosecutor, I accompanied Foulger to 8, Ewer-street, Gravel-lane, Southwark. I found Hicks in bed, and. told him I wanted him for some knives he had stolen at St. Mary-at-Hill. He replied, " Oh, very well ; I know nothing about it." I examined the place, and in an ornament on the mantlepiece I found three duplicates relating to the knives, which have since been identified by the prosecutor ; I found on a shelf in the room the six knives and seven forks produced. I then proceeded to a house in Redeross-street, where I found Ridley and John son. If a remand be granted I believe I shall be able to prove that Johnson pawned the things and that she has been connected with another robbery. The prisoners were remanded till Wednesday. Five costermongers were charged with obstruct ing the public streets. Constable 651 said that each of the prisoners had been previously warned, and that warning was of no use. Shopkeepers were in the repeated habit of complaining of the nuisance arising from the ob struction by fruit barrows in the streets. Lord Mayor—The next time a shopkeeper makes a complaint, let him attend here. I cannot allow the public thoroughfares to be blocked up, and it appears that the defendants have been here before. If you are brought here again, it will be my duty to fine you. The policeman has done perfectly right in bringing you here. I shall discharge you on the present occasion with this caution. WORSHIP-STREET.—John Gallory, 56, a jobbing e porter, was charged before Mr. D'Eyncourt with stealing a pony and chaise, value £lO, from the door of this police court. Samuel Snooks, landlord of the Old House at Home, in the Cambridge-road, Mile-end, stated that on Friday last he attended to answer a summons, and on leaving, after a brief hearing, to his great astonishment missed his trap, which he had left in the care of a lad, a perfect stranger to him. He had since received it from the purchaser. George Bocking, a barman in Winchester-street, Mile-end, said that on Friday evening a green grocer named Hill, a near neighbour of his, in formed him that a man had got a pony and chaise to sell, and only wanted £3 3s. for them. He therefore purchased them ; but yesterday evenin ,, having heard that they belonged to Mr. Snooks ho went to him and acquainted him with the fact, which appeared greatly to surprise him, for he ob served, " Why Hill was with me at Worship-street police -court when I lost it." In reply to this, Hill explained that, although he certainly was at the court on the day in question and saw prosecutor, he was quite unaware of his loss, and actually advanced the purchase money to Bocking. The prisoner had applied to him to "house" the trap, and mentioned that he had tra velled 40 miles to sell it, not having further use for it. _ _ Mr. D'Eyncourt observed that it was very de sirable the lad left in charge of the pony and chaise should be found, but even if he was not the prisoner would be sent for trial. Hill observed that a boy was in the chaise when the prisoner offered it for sale. No defence was offered, and the prisoner was re manded for the completion of the depositions. WESTMINSTER.—Wm. Door, Wm. Hosier, and Georg© Rogers, respectively 13, 14, and 15 years of age, were charged with the following rob bery :—Rogers and Door were in the employment of Messrs. Parton and Statham, carmen, carrying on an extensive business in Crutched-friars, and were entrusted with goods to deliver at various parts of the metropolis. Hosier, formerly in their service, had been discharged. Owing to some tea having been recently missed from a chest, Mr. Par ton resolved to watch Door and Rogers ontheocea sion of their having on Saturday to convey a simi lar commodity. Shortly after the cart left Messrs. Parton and gtatham's premises Door and Rogers were met by Hosier, whom they took into the cart, and after some conversation he was seen forcing an opening in a chest, with a wooden wedge, suffi ciently large to enable him to shake out 511bs. of tea into a sack with which he was provided, after which Mr. Parton gave the whole of the accused persons into custody. When at the station house Rogers said he had been urged to the com mission of the robbery by a man. The police intimated that Rogers had been before convicted. Mr. Parton said that he was aware that he had been in custody, but as he was averyshaaripsolaidn, he was i nduced , at the request of his brother, w ho was an honest respectable person, his employment, coupled with the circumstance, of his family . being poor, to giv e hi m an oppor tunity Mr. of n it was very ki n d o f M r . pa3nter earning remarked a l Parton, although it appeared the accused had made a very bad return for it. Rogers and Hosier declared that they had been inveigled into the commission of the offence by a man in the street. Hosier said he came to them in Cannon-street, City, and told them he would give them 3s. for as much tea as they could get out of the chests, at the same time throwing the wedges spoken of into the cart. They were to meet the man at an appointed place at night to give him the tea. The prisoner Door said he knew nothing about the robbery. Mr. Paynter committed the prisoners for trial at the same time suggesting to Rogers that if he pleased to state all he knew with respect to any thing that had occurred previously in connection with goods entrusted to him, it might ultimately weigh in his favour. Upon the application of Mr. Parton, the prisoner Door's mother's recognisance was taken for his appearance at the sessions. LAMBETH.—Mr. Solomon applied to the Hon. G. C. Norton for an order for protection under the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act for Mrs. Anne Jane Couzens, of 3, Trinity-place, Larkhall• lane, in the parish of Lambeth. Mr. Solomon said that his client had been married in October, 1852, to Thomas James Couzens, a tailor, by whom she had issue by such marriage two children. Her husband and herself lived together up to about March 1856, when on or about the middle of that month he deserted her without any apparent or justifiable cause, and his client now gets her living by her own industry. Having been promised £2OO by her mother, she was desirous of protecting it from her husband or his creditors, and therefore he (Mr. Solomon) had to request the usual order under the act for that purpose. Mr. Norton—What has become of the children ? Mr. Solomon—One, I understand, is dead, and the other is under the care of my client. Mr. Norton—Well, I think it a very proper case for protection, and shall give it as requ:red. THE LATE POACHING AFFRAY NEAR HULL. On Saturday last six men were charged before a bench J magistrates at the East Riding Sessions House, Beverley, with being concerned in the murder of the gamekeeper Jet, who was killed during an affray with poachers near Hull, the par ticulars of which have already been given in The Sun. The following are the names of the prisoners: —Joseph Playforth, 20, labourer, Market Weigh ton ; Michael M'Grath, 21, labourer, Market Weighton ; Charles Franklin, 30, labourer, Brigg; Thomas Johnson, 27, labourer, Hull ; George Pell, 23, labourer, Swaffham ; and George Smith, 27, labourer, Beverley. The prisoners maintained a most resolute de meanour during the whole of the examination, which lasted nearly three hours. Smith, in parti cular, who was convicted for poaching two years ago, and sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment, conducted himself with great coolness and un concern. Mr. Earnshaw, of the firm of Lightfoot, Earn-ef shaw, and Frankish, Hull, conducted the case for the prosecution. The prisoners were undefended. After similar evidence to that given at the in quest had been adduced, Superintendent Gibson, of Beverley, was called. In the course of his examination he said that the two white pearl buttons which he had picked up on the scene of the encounter, and which he sup posed belonged to some of the poachers, he now found belonged to the clothes which Jex wore on the evening he was murdered. He then stated that on leaving Bishop Burton he proceeded to Market Weighton, and apprehended Playfair at his mother's house. When charged with the murder; Playfair said, " I ca n p rove th a t I was no t there. Witness then saarched the house, and found & loaded gun (produced). Mr. Shepherd, the gover nor of Beverley House of Co r rection, had " drawn'' it in the witness's presence, and it was found to contain shot and slugs corresponding with those which had been extracted from the body of the under-keeper, Geddes. Superintendent Hartley apprehended M'Grath at Market Weighton the same morning. Both the prisoners were imme' diately conveyed to Bishop Burton, and on being taken into the presence of Geddes, he identified them, saying that, to the best of his knowledge , Playfair was the man who shot him. Witness said further that about ten o'clock the same night (Wed" nesday) he apprehended Smith at his lodgings in Beverley, and before he had charged him with any' thing, Smith said, " I know what you are co ming for, Mr. Gibson, but I am out of this mess, 'for was at Hull that night, and I was drunk. I left Hull about eleven o'clock, and returned about flour in the morning, having slept in a straw stack dui' ing the night." Mr. Brcreton, surgeon, of Beverley, deposed to the nature of the wounds the murdered man had received. He said that Robinson was a little better, having spoken a few words the previous night (Friday), and there were now hopes of his ultimate recovery, though he was by no means out of dan ger. Geddes was improving rapidly. Superintendent Young said he apprehended Pell at a beerhouse in Driffield, on themorning of Wee' nesday. He had a bundle with him, and on witne° opening it he found it contained amongst things , a shirt, which appeared as if it had been lately washed at a roadside pond. On hearing the charg e : he said, " I am out of that mess; I slept at Garto n all night, and came here about half-past eight this morning." There was no other evidence of importance ter dered, and after a short consultation the magistrates, decided to set Pell at liberty, being of opinion tha t the evidence was not sufficiently strong agains t him, and remanded the other prisoners until Sato day next. Another poacher was apprehended on Friday night at Brigg, and examinedprivately at Beverley on Saturday, but we believe we are correct in ing that he was one of the gan g a t Bi s h o p B urton' though, it is said, he has had important intelligence to communicate. stat ing is also pretty well understood that the rea l murderer, and the most violent members of the gang, are yet at large. Their names and appear" ante are, however, well known to the Hull detec tives, and there can be little doubt that in a day o r two they will be in safe hands. COUNTRY MARKBTB. KIRKALDY—Noy. 20. There has been a limited show of wheat to-day, "(We b was sold at fully last week's prices. Wheat (0). Barley (0). Oats (0). First.... 38s Od —s Od —s Od Second.. 46s Od —s Od —s Od Third .. 50s Od —s Od —s Od Wheat (N). Barley (N). Oats (N). First.... 34s Od 26s Od 22s Od Second .. 42s Od 31s 7d 24s Od Third .. 48s Od 33s Od 26s 6d COLCHESTER—Noy. 20. A good supply of wheat ; the best samples were taken readily at last week's prices, other sorts not a brisk sale ' Fine malting barleys continue in good demand, th e dling samples were difficult of sale except at some abate ment in prices. Beans and peas not plentiful, and las t weeks prices are about maintained. Wheal, white 46s to 50s I Beans, Mazagan.. 35s to 385 red 38s to 44s I Middle & small 40s to 44s Barley 3os to 46s 'White peas 44s to 46, Oats —s to —I s Grey.. 42s to 45s COAL MARK (Prices of Coal per Ton at s. d. Bate's West Hartley..ls 0 Buddle's West Hartleyl6 0 Byass's Bebside West Hartley .15 6 Davison's WestHartleyls 6 Hartlepool. 15 6 Hastings Hartley l5 6 Haswell Gas. l3 6 Holywell 15 6 Howard's W. Hartley 15 6 Lambert's W. Hartley 15 6 North Percy Hartley l5 0 Tanfield Moor 1 33 Tanfield Moor Butes 1 33 Walker Primrose l3 3 Wylam 15 6 ET—Nov. 22. the close of the market.) Walls End. 5 . d. Belmont l6 Bradyll's 'Lefton l7 a 7 Brandon l7 ' Hetton. l9 9 Hetton Lyons 16 Lambton lB 6 Russell's Hetton 17 9 South Hetton 18 9 Cassop 17 9 6 Heugh Hall 17 0 Tlunwiek 15 3 West Kelloe... South Hartlepool 17 t , South Kolloe lB ",„ Tees l9 v Th or p e 18 A 9 Trimdon Thornley...J.6 0 Whitworth l5 o 15 6 Evenwood .... ...... Nixon's Merthyr. 21 0 A Powell' s Duffryn Steam 21 0 u Nixon's Duffryn .21 Gosforth l7 202—sold, 156. Walls End. Acorn Close 17 6 Benson 16 9 Byron Eden 17 6 Riddell 16 3 Eden Main l7 6 Bell 16 3 Ships at market, BIRTHS. CAMPBELL.—On the 12th Oct., at Delhi, the wife o f John Scarlett Campbell, E sq., B engal C. S., of 11 daughter. FANE.—On the 21st inst., at Avon Tyrol, Hants, the wif e of Lieut.-Col. Hy. E. Fane, of a son and heir. • GRIFFITH.—On th e 21 st inst. at Norwood, the wife of Griffith Griffith, Esq., o f Taltreuddyn, Merionethshir e ' of a daughter. RODNEY.—On the 20th inst., at 84, Wimlole-stre et s l Cavendish-square, the wife of W. P. Rodney, sq., of son. STOPPORD.—On the 20th inst., at Seafield, Gorey, Irelan d ' the Viscountess Stopford, of a son. MARRIAGES. ROBERTS—WAINWRIGHT.—On the 20th inst., at St. Pan eras New Church, Charles Manleyßoberts, 8.A., Sch eme of St. John's College, Cambridge, eldest son of C. "i Roberts, Esq., of 18, Ampthill-square, to Ellen, yonag_ ii " daughter sf the late R. Wainwright, Esq., of Eccleswi'''' court, Ross, Herefordshire. TAYLOR—DOYNE.—On the 20th inst., at Clifton, Markha Le Per Taylor, Esq., Captain Royal Artillery, eldest son of W. W. Taylor, Esq., of Lee, Blackheath, to France s Elizabeth, only daughter of the lase Rev. John DoYaef of Old Leighlin, co. Carlow. D2E A T H S. BURT.—On the 18th inst., at Worthing, Commander Edward Burt, R.N., in his 79th year. GYDE.—On the 16th inst., aged 67, at Pitchcombe, cestershire, Mr. Charles Gyde, of 17, Albion-gr n" ' Islington, London. M'DoUGALL.—On the 11th inst., at 30, Great Titch field• street, Mr. Lewis INPDougall, i his 82d year. PHILIPPS.—On the 12th O c t ., on hi s passage from Cambs/ - to Bombay. of dyse n t ery , J o h n L ew i s Ph i l i pps, Col. H.M.'s 89th Reg iment, aged 36. WARREN.—On the 9th inst., at Dublin, Mrs. Susan ./ War ren, widow of th e l a t e P e t er W arren , Esq of Henrietta street. Lieut. LONDON : Printed and Published by MURDO of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office, No. 112 i Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the countY of Middlesex, Tuesday, November 23, 1858.