The Sun. — London, England, 1858-11-24 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—Nov. 23. . . COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE. (Before a Common. Jury.) MARCIDIONT V. MAACHMONT. 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 groan& 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 on donation. Mrs. Marchmont was again put in the box this morning, and admitted, in reply to Mr. Macaulay, that her husband had - frequently remonstrated with her respecting the wine she drank at dinner. He would have preferred her not liaving any, but she had, always been accustomed to take it. Re-examined by Mr. Sergeant Pigott—l usually took two or three glasses of wine and water with my dinner. I rarely took any at other times. The house at which we resided _in Percy-place is a three-Storied house. I requested Mr. Marchmont to give me his'opinion of my character a few weeks before our marriage; and he wrote the • following statement:— "4.31 y dearest Caroline—As you wish to have my opinion of you, I will candidly tell you that I think you kind, ge nerous, truthful, loving, benevolent, sympathising, for bearing, forgiving, gentle, devoted in friendship, and truth ful in affection. I love you above all the world. As to myself, I am irritable, unkind, false hearted, jealous, harsh, deceitful, changeable, proud, unforgiving, hasty, ungene rous, maliciouti, and utterly unworthy of that love which you have so generously bestowed upon me.—l am, my dearest love, yours living and dying, " HENRY MARCHMONT." (The reading of the document was received with much laughter.) I threw some wine and water over Mr. Marchmont after he had been saying something very bad to me. He raised objection to my writing to my friends. He would not let the servant post letters for me, and all the letters brought to the house were taken to him. His man ner was sometimes very mild. Our differences never arose from my accusing him of going with other women. I went to the shop in New gate-street in order to hide myself from him. When he came to me there his manner was at first mild, as it always was when people were near. He threw the blame on me. During my illness in Percy -place he said that if I insisted on having a doctor he would write and tell my sister that I was dying of some inexplicable disease. Mr. J. P. Perry, clerk to the Lambeth Police Court, proved that on the 10th June last Mr. Marchmont was ordered to find sureties to keep the peace - towards his wife for three months. It was arranged between the parties that Mrs. Marchmont should stay with Mr. Mitchell, the surgeon, but no stipulation - was made as to the time she was to re main there. On cross-examination he said that Mr. Marchmont had asked for an adjournment, on the ground that he had had no time to consult his attorney. Mrs. Louisa Charlotte Davis—l live at Black heath, and am the petitioner's only sister. She and her first husband, Mr. Locket, always lived on very good terms. She married Mr. Marchmont from my house. I saw her at Tunbridge-wells. She came to my house two days before Christmas. She was in a very nervous condition. She left me to return to her husband on Christmas-day. When she came tome on the 16th May she was also very nervous, and her wrist was sprained She seemed to be very unhappy. On the evening of the 24th May Mr. Marchmont came. He said he wished to see his wife, and that his child was dying . . As soon as Mrs. Marchmont saw him coming, she jumped out of the window and begged the servants to hide her in the coal cellar. By her request I went to see the child, and found it was not ill at all. I asked to see the doctor,!to ascertain what was really the matter with it, but Mr. Marchmont said he lived somewhere at Islington.. I then returned home, but he arrived there before me. He rushed past me at the gate, exclaiming that he had come for his wife, and that he would have her. I said he should not, and he replied that he would search the house for her. I called the coachman to keep him out of the house. In the morning Mrs. Marchmont went' home. I received a note from her, in consequence of which I went to her house about the 7th June. She was ill in bed. She repeated to the the names that Mr. Marchmont had called her in his presence. He did not deny the languasre which she attributed to him. He said he would not leave his wife with any doc tor or nurse who should be sent to her by me. As I was leaving the room my sister called me back, and told me her husband had put his fist in her face and threatened to make her pay for what she had told me. She requested me to go to the solici tor, Mr. Barnard, and I went: I was present at the service of the warrant on the Ist June. Mr. Marchmont was very violent ; at first he tried to shut the door, and afterwards carried my sister into the dining-room, where she fainted. He threw her into a chair and held her down. Mr. Mitchell was sent for. When she recovered Mr. Marchmont went on his knees and begged her not to send him before the magistrate. Cross-examined—Before the death of Mr. Locket I lived for some time at the hotel in Threadneedle street, and assisted him and my sister in the man agement of the business. I made it a condition of having the wedding breakfast at my house that none of Mr. Marchmont's friends should be invited. After he had been to Tunbridge'Wells he called on m e, and I offered him a seat and a glass of wine. When I went to Tunbridge Wells I told my sister that he complained of having passed an uncomfort able honeymoon. My sister made no complaint about him. I think she even said he had been as kind as ever he was before the marriage. I have drivenlwith my sister past Percy-place, but not with a view of letting him see her. On the 7th June I received a letter, not in my sister's writing. I do not know who wrote it. I went to Percy-place after receiving it. He did not say it was evident I and my family- wished to get hold of my sister's money, and we did not care for the misery we had caused. Ile accused me of having given rise to their differences. I did not call him a brute. My sister had told me in his presence about the cause of her illness at Tunbridge-wells, and he said she was a filthy creature to talk of such things before me and t`he servant. I disapproved the match, but I did not say he had only married her for money. Re-examined—She had only told me what one sister - might properly communicate to another. I don't think the servant could have heard it. The next witness, Emma Oxley, the servant of Mrs. Davis, corroborated her evidence in various points. Bridget Tobin, who had lived in the service of Mrs. Marchmont for five years, gave evidence with regard to the events which occurred in Percy-place and substantially corroborated Mrs. Marchmont's statements. She athred, that she had left the place since Mrs. Marclimont had gone away from the house, in consequence of having had a few words with -Mr. Marchinont. Cross-examined by Dr:Phillimore—l was living with Mrs. Marelininnt when her niece Mrs. Uzzielli, resided with her. She sometimes rang the bell violently at that time. ' Dr. Phillimore put a question to the witness re specting the quarrels said to have taken place be tween Mrs. Marchmont and Mrs. Uzzielli. Mr. Sergeant Pigott objected to the question as irrelevant. Mr. Macaulay and Dr. Phillimore contended that they might be allowed to elicit evidence as to the temper and habits of the petitioner. Sir C. Crssswell said he would state his opinion as distinctly as he could, in order that it might be as bison to conirover.3y as he wished all his opinions to be upon all occasions. In a new court like this the sooner any point that was mooted, or any question 'that was disputed, could be settled by a court of ap peal the better. He could but decide the important questions which were raised to the best of his abi lity at the time, and he should always be glad to fglve every facility in his power for calling his opin ions in question at a future time. He thought the question put by the learned counsel was inadmissible and irrelevant. The issue they were trying was whe ther the respondent had been guilty of acts which the 1 NW regarded. as cruelty, and it was an element in that inquiry whethcath \ er . e was any such provo cation on the part of done by as to mitigate the character of the acts y t t h he respondent. But what hatli„,pa.-;s0c1 between 'third persbwn could not have petitioner i and a l e nyt ling to do with the provocation, given to the Husband. A question Might be raised as to her credit if she said that she had- not provoked Mrs. ; bat, in matters merely tending to impeach the credit of a witness the witness s answer mu s t be taken for b e t ter for If inquiries of that kind were pursued a trial would last till Doomsday. In answer to further questions the witness stated that after the quarrel about the account-book Mr. Marchmont had a black patch on his face, which he attributed to being struck with a book by his wife ; and that Mrs. Marchmont did not deny it. After their quarrels Mrs. Marchmont looked frightened, and Mr. Marchmont would try to make it up. ,lle would say, " Never mind, Carrie," and try to kiss her ; but she refused. _ During the quarrel about the 14s. Mrs. Marchmont called him " a monster" and " a rascalrand he said he would not hurt a hair of her head, but he would• not be set at defiance in his own house. Mr. Mackenzie, to whom Mrs. Marehmount had gone upon two occasions, and who had known her for 30 years, stated that on her arrival the 'first time she seemed almost paralysed. When Mr. Marchmont came the first thing he said as, "Well I've found you at last, Caroline. Money I want, and by -, money I'll have." < ..He threatened to send for a policeman and have her taken before the Lord Mayor. On the second occasion Mrs. March mont took lodgings under the name of " Mrs. Scott," so that he should not find her out. Mr. Marchmont said he found her out by watching Mrs. Davis's house at Blackheath, and when she posted a letter bribing a man to let him see the address. He used very foul language as he was going home in the cab, and said he would have £25,000.. Mrs. Marchmont was very much fright ened. The next morning she was ill. Mr. March mont repeated his demand for money. Witness left because he called her a spy. He afterwards brought her a few bottles - of port and said he was afraid the case would go hard with him if it went into court. In cross-examination the witness said Mr. March mont had observed that it would be better for his' wife to leave her money tohis children than to those Walmisleys. She added that he never spoke of that respectable family in a respectable manner. (Laughter.) Mr. Walmisley, the husband of a niece of Mrs. Marchmont, and a merchant residing at Black heath, described what had occurred when Mr. Marchmont went to fetch his wife. Witness ordered him to leave the house, but he threatened to crack his skull, and forced Mrs. Marchmontinto the hall and then into the cab. She struggled violently and screamed. Mr. Marchmont applied all sorts of epithets to witness, and put his finger to his nose with a vulgar gesture. Witness called him a " miserable donkey." The petitioner was struck by Mr. Marchmont on the chest and shoulders. Jonathan Ellis, the cabman who drove them from Walmisley's to the Peckham police-station, de scribed the screams of the petitioner while on the road, and gave a similar account of what had occurred at the station to that given by previous witnesses. The Court rose shortly after 5 o'clock. COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. RX PARTE THE REV. ALFRED POOLE. (with whom were Dr. Philli more and Mr. Coleridge), said he had to apply to the Court on the part of the Rev. Alfred Poole, for a rule, calling upon his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury to show cause why a mandamus should not issue, commanding him to make, or cause to be made, inquiry into the matter of the appeal of the Rev. Mr. Poole against the decision of the Bishop of London revoking his license as stipendiary curate of St. Barnabas, Pimlico. The application was made under the Ist and 2d Victoria, cap. 106, upon the ground that the Archbishop had not heard the appeal which Mr. Poole had made against the decision of the Bishop of London. In point of form his Grace had pronounced judgment on the appeal, but in point of substance he had not heard it, for he had not heard Mr. Poole's witnesses, nor had he (Mr. Poole) been heard by his counsel. The demand made by Mr. Poole in his appeal was that he might be heard by himself, counsel, and witnesses, and that he might have an opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses brought against him, and giving an explanation of the facts and circumstances of the case. lie (Mr. Poole) com plained that he had not had justice done him by the tribunal appointed by the law, owing probably to a misapprehension by the Archbishop as to the functions which had devolved upon him. Mr. Poole had been for seven years officiating as stipen diary curate of the district of St. Barnabas, Pimlico, without any complaint of any sort being made against him, and he had discharged his duties to the entire satisfaction of the incumbent. Lord Campbell said the only question for the Court was whether Mr. Poole's appeal had been heard, for if not, he was entitled to a mandamus to hear him. Mr. Bovill said that after the missapprehensions which had gone abroad he hoped the Court would not stop him in the few observations he wished to make on that subject, for he wished only to state that Mr. Poole had acted throughout with the en tire approbation of Mr. Liddell, the incumbent, and that no complaint bad ever been made against his (Mr. Poole's) character. Lord Campbell said this Court had nothing to do with the merits of the case, but only to see whether the applicant had had an opportunity of being heard. Mr. Bovill said that if Mr, Poole were coming here for the first time he (Mr. Bovill) would have done no more than confine himself to the strict point ; but this Court must have received some information on the subject which must tend to prejudice them, and he (Mr. Bovill) wished, there fore, to bring Mr. Poole before their lordships as a gentleman of irreproachable character, and he did that as well for the sake of Mr. Liddell as of the Bishop of London, who held Mr. Poole in the highest estimation. He would now state the circumstances which had deprived this gentle man of his license, and had destroyed the character which he previously enjoyed. In the year 1851 he was licensed by the then Bishop of London to offi ciate as the stipendiary curate of. St. I3arabas, and he had continued to fill that office down to the 25th May, 1858. in the month of March, 1858, the Rev. Mr. Baring received the statements of certain females, which were made the subject of a public discussion. The statements were taken down in writing, and forwarded by him to the Bishoji of London, who made them the ground of a serious charge against Mr. Poole; and, certainly, if those statements were true, Mr. Poole ought to be de graded and scouted from society. On the 22d of March, 1858, Mr. Poole received a letter from the Bishop of London, stating that a formal complaint had been made against him by the Hon. and Rev. F. Baring, " respecting the practice of confession at St. Barabas;" that for his own sake, as well as that of the Church, the matter must be fully inves tigated ; and requesting him (Mr. Poole) to call upon him at the London-house. Upon that Mr. Poole had an interview with the bishop, when the bishop read the statements sent by Mr. Baring. The statements themselves were of so gross a cha racter that it would be an offence against decency to read them in public ; but the Court would take it that they were of the grossest and worst descrip: tion, and, if true, as he had said before, Mr. Poole ought to be scouted from society. But he (Mr. Bovill) was instructed by Mr. Poole to make the most complete and positive denial of these state ments. Lord Campbell said he must again entreat the learned counsel to turn his attention to the subject on which his application ought to turn. Mr. Bovill then proceeded to contend that the decision of the Archbishop had proceeded on grounds quite different from what had originally been charged against Mr. Poole, and even from those on which the Bishop of London had pronounced his judgment, and decided to withdraw his license. Mr. Poole had requested that he might be heard by the Bishop of London upon that new ground, but he was not heard. He then made his appeal to the Archbishop, under the Ist and 2d Victoria, c. 106. The 98th section of that statute enacted that— " It shall be lawful for the bishop to license any curate who is or shall be actually employed by any non-resident incumbent of any benefice within his diocese, although no express nomination of such curate shall have been mado to such bishop by the incumbent—and that the bishop shall have power, after having given to the curate sufficient op portunity of showing reason to the contrary, to revoke summarily and without further process, any license granted to any such curate and to remove such curate for any cause which shall appear to such bishop to be gookand reasonable . provided always that any such curate may, within one month after service upon him of such revoca tion, appeal to the archbishop;ef the province, who shall con firm or annul such revocation; as to him shall. appear just and proper." The Bishop having decided to revoke the licen it was not his (Mr. Bovill's) intention to inquire into the propriety of the mode in which he had conducted the case. An appeal was then presented to the archbishop in due time, as prescribed by the 111th section of the statute, which enacted that— " All appeals under the provisions of this Act to any Archbishop shall be in writing, signed by the party appeal ing ; and that, in order to discourage frivolous appeals, no proceeding shall be had in any such appeal until the appel lant shall, if required, have given security, in such form and to such amount as the Archbishop shall direct, of pay ment to the Bishop of such cossit as shall be awarded by the Archbishop, if he shall decide against the appellant, and that after such security, if required, shall have been given, the said Archbishop shall forthwith, either by him self or by some commissioner or commissioners appointed under his hand from among the other Bishops of his pro vince, make or cause to be made, inquiry into the matter complained of, and shall after such inquiry, and in the latter case after a report in writing from his said commis sioner or commissioners, give his decision in such an appeal in writing under his hand ; and when he shall decide the matter of the appeal against the appellant he shall also award and direct whether any and what amount of costs shall be paid by the appellant to the Bishop respondent ; and in like manner when ho shall decide in favour of the appellant he shall also award and direct whether any and what amount of costs shall be paid by the Bishop respond ent to the appellant." On the occasion when Mr. Poole presented his appeal to the Archbishop the Archbishop's secre tary required that security for costs should be given, and security was given accordingly for the amount required. For what purpose did the Act require security for costs to be given, but that it required that a judicial inquiry should take place on the appeal to the Archbishop ? Mr. Poole, in his petition of appeal, prayed his grace to annul the revocation of his license, and— " That your grace will be pleased to appoint a time for the hearing of the petitioner on the matter of the said appeal, and that at the time so to be appointed by your gr ace you will be pleased to sit j u di c i a ll y, and to hear him, the petitioner, by counsel, on the matter of the said, appeal', and to allow any witnesses to bo examined, viva voce, whether against the said petitioner or on his behalf, for the following among other reasons." The learned counsel submitted that the Archbishop was to sit judicially on the appeal, he was to make inquiry, and the appellant was entitled to be pre sent. The appellant was entitled to have his case heard and decided on, and if that was not done, justice was not done as the Act required. Why was it required that security for costs was to be given ? It was known there was to be the Bishop on one side and the appellant on the other, in the form of a judicial proceeding. But what actually occurred was simply this—without examining any witnesses or calling in the assistance of assessors, in the absence of the appellant, who was not even summoned to show cause, the Archbishop at once decided on the appeal. The petition was dated the 24th of June, and on the 9th of July the Arch bishop wrote this letter to Mr. Poole : " Lambeth Palace, July 9. " Rev. Sir,—l have considered very carrfully the state ments contained in your petition of appeal against the revo cation of your license as curate by the Bishop of London, which you haVe presented to me under the provisions of the Ist and 2d Victoria, cal). 106, sec. 93. . " Under that statute the Bishop has power, after having given to the curate sufficient opportunity of showing reason to the contrary, to revoke, summarily and without further process, any license granted to any curate for any cause which appear to such Bishop to be good and reasonable. " My duty, therefore, is to examine , in the _first place, whether sufficient opportunity has been given to you of showing reason to the contrary. And I find that, by a formal letter under the hand of the Bishop, dated the 18th of May, you were appointed personally to attend the Bishop., for that purpose at London-house on the 22d of May, unless you preferred at any time before that day to show such rea son in writing under your hand ; and that on the 21st of May, in obethence to the Bishop's letter, you addressed to him, in writing under your own hand, what appeared to be necessary on your own behalf. " I have to consider, secondly, whether there has been good and reasonable cause for the revocation of your license. " It appears from the statements in your formal reply of the 21st of May, and in your letter of the 15th of May, to which in your formal reply you refer the Bishop, that you have been in the practice of conducting a system of private confession and absolution among your people ; and that the Bishop deemed such practice to be not authorised by the Church of England, and to be calculated to bring scandal on the Church. " I concur with the Bishop in the view which he has taken of your practice in this respect, and therefore think it ust and proper to confirm the revocation of your license, and I confirm it accordingly. " I am, Rev. Sir, your faithful servant, "J. B. CANTUAR. " The Rev. Alfred Poole, St. Barnabas College, Pimlico." The learned counsel here commented at great length on this document, and contended that the ground on which the Archbishop confirmed the decision of the Bishop was different from that on which the Bishop revoked the license ; and that that also was not upon the ground of the charges originally brought against him by Mr. Baring, but upon another ground, which arose out of certain admis sions which the Bishop said Mr. Poole had made in his letter to him—viz., that in admitting females to confession he " addressed to them ques tions of a character calculated to bring scandal on the Church." This miscarriage of justice all arose from not summoning Mr. Poole before him and hear ing his witnesses. That was a practice which the law of this country would not allow. The law required that there should be no mistake as to the charge, and that an accused person should know who his opponent was, and should be heard in his de fence, and have an opportunity of examining his witnesses. It was of essential importance in this case that the Lord Archbishop should know what the facts of the case were, and if the witnesses were worthless in point of character, that their motives should be explained. There ought to have been a most rigid inquiry into the charges, and when the facts were ascertained the question would then arise as to what the practice of the Church was in regard to confession—whether it was not, under certain circumstances, sanctioned and enjoined. He submitted that there was no case in which there was greater necessity to investigate the facts, in order that it might be seen whether or not there had been any infringement of the law. The learned counsel said he should call their lordships' attention to the facts which were brought before the Bishop of London, and the charges which were made against Mr. Poole by . Mr. Baring. If those facts were true, Mr. Poole ought to be deprived of his license, but Mr. Poole denied those facts. He would only refer to one particular. Lord Campbell said the learned counsel had really better not, for this was not a Court of Appeal; his lordship hoped the learned counsel would confine himself to the point for this Court. Mr. Bovill said he would only mention one point, in order to show how the charge varied from time to time ; but Lord Campbell interposed,'and said the question was whether Mr. Poole had had the power which which the statute gave him of appealing. Mr. Bovill then contended that the Court, reading the 98th and 111th sections of the Act together, would come to the conclusion that there was to be a judicial investigation, and he then referred to the case of Capel v. Child" (2, Crompton and Jervis, 558), to show that even when a Bishop was authorised by the statute 57 George 111., c. 99, in certain cases to appoint a curate, and to decide "according to his Own know ledge," he was still bound to proceed' judicially and to give the clergyman an opportunity of being heard and examining his witnesses. That case was twice argued before the Court of Exchequer Chamber, first by common lawyers, and after wards, at the request of the eourt, by civilians ; and as the Court held that the Bishop had decided without summons, and without hearing . the clergy man,, the proceeding was invalid. The learned counsel here read* several passages from the judg ment of Lord Lyndhurst in the _case cited, and commented on it as he proceeded, to show how it was applcable to the case now before the Court. The curate was required by the statute, 1 and 2 Victoria, chap. 106, to give notice of his appeal, and required to give security for costs, and power was given to the archbishop to appoint commis sioners to make inquiry into the matter com plained. of. _ __ • Lord Campbell said the statute also required that the curate should have notice, and a sufficient op portunity of showing reason to the contrary before the bishop could revoke his license. Mr. Bovill said, the effect of the bishop's de cision in revoking Mr. Poole's licen se was th a t h e was destroyed, for he could not disrobe himself, and no other occupation was open to him. Mr. Poole appealed to the archbishop, and the latter decided against him without giving him an oppor tunity of being heard, and even without notice that he was about to give judgment. Lord CampbAl—You contend that the appeal ought to be heard in curia ; not in camera, but in the public forum ? Mr. Bovill said, that was his contention. Under the statute the 3d and 4th Victoria the archbishop could avail himself- of the highest legal assistance by the appointment of commissioners to inquire into the matter. In the case of a beneficed clergy man, the bishop could proceed only under the 3d and 4th of Victoria, but in the case of a-curate the jurisdiction was given to the bishop with an appeal to the archbishop. The Legislature never intended that a curate should be deprived of his means of obtaining a living without being heard. Lord Campbell said the question was whether it was not sufficient if the curate had had an oppor tunity of being heard before the bishop ? Mr. Justice Hill inquired whether the act gave power to compel the attendance of witnesses? Mr. Bovill said it did not. Mr. Justice Eric said it was a. question whether the appeal to the archbishop was to be a new trial of the facts, or whether it was not, as was some times the case, an appeal on the question reduced to writing. Mr. Bov,ill said that one ground of appeal was that the appellant had not been heard by the bishop. Lord C ampbell—You complain that the appel lant has not been heard by his counsel and wit nesses. Mr. Justice Wightman—Nor by himself. Mr. Bovill said it was true there was no power to summon witnesses before the archbishop • but the same objection might have applied- in the case of " Cape' v. Childs," decided under 57th Geo. 111. At all events, he was entitled to be heard by himself. Lord Campbell said that in the. case of a parish clerk, this Court had held that he could not be con demned before he was heard. Mr. Bovill then referred to Dr. Bentley's case in Strange, and that.of ." Brunaker v. Evans" (16 Q. 8., 162), and contended that although there might be no power to compel the attendance of Witnesses, the. appellant had right to be heard, and to examine those who might attewi voluntarily. Mr. Justice Erle said that on a trial in a court of first instance a party had a right to be heard, but he wished to be satisfied whether the appellant had the same right. Mr. Bovill then referred to Dr. Bentley's case, in 1 Strange's Reports, 537, and contended that the principle applied to all courts of appeal, as well as courts of first instance, that a party was not to be condemned without being heard. Lord Campbeil said the question was whether the court of appeal was to rehear the case; or merely to decide whether the decision was right or wrong. Generally speaking a court of appeal did not re hear, but decided whether the first judgment was right or wrong. Mr. Bovill then referred to the facts of the case, as stated in the appellant's petition to the arch bishop, and commented upon them at great length, with a view to show that he had not been heard before the bishop upon the question on which the archbishop had decided the appeal. The learned counsel also read and commented upon the corre spondence which had taken place between the appellant and the Bishop of London, and which was sat forth at length in his petition of appeal, and showed that facts were alleged against him which he wi , hed to have an opportunity of dis proving and explaining. The bishop had not in quired into those facts, and, even if he had done so, the question still remained as to what, was the doc trine of the Church of England in-regard to them. The learned counsel said it was admitted that con fession was sanctioned by the Church, and he asked where was the line to be drawn ? Was this or any other Court competent to draw the line? A few took the Communion voluntarily, and 10,000 ab stained from it, and thus a few made confession voluntarily, while 10,000 voluntarily abstained. Thousands abstained, while others, for the unbur dening of their sins and delivery from grief, made confession either when about to enter the presence of their Maker or to avoid partaking unworthily of the Communion. No one could assert that con fession was not allowed by the Church, and. no bishop or archbishop was competent to decide the question whether a clergyman went beyond the proper line. Mr. Justice Erle said, the question was not whe ther or not the archbishop had decided properly. Even if he had decided glaringly wrong this Court would not interfere. The question was, whether he had declined to exercise his jurisdiction. Mr. Bovill contended that, if there was any case in the world, this was one, in which a gentleman ought not to be deprived of all his temporal pos sessions and his character without being heard. It was contrary, not only to the act of Parliament, but to the first principles of justice that, when a man applied .to be heard, his case should be decided against him without inquiry. After some observa tions the learned counsel sat down, and left the case in the hands of the court. After a few minutes' conference with the other judges, Lord Campbell said, the court thinks that a rule to show cause should be granted.—Rule nisigranted. POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—Nov. 23. SOUTHWARK.—George Brown, a middleaged man, was brought Mr. Burcham for final examina tion, charged with intermarrying with Ellen Mur phy and Elizabeth Ann Pankhurst, his first wife, being then and now living. Daniel Bellow, 118 City police, said that the pri soner was given into his custody on the 31st of last month, for bigamy. Since then he had been to Durham, and searched the books in Hetton church, and found that the prisoner was married to Mar garet Mordue, on the 11th of April, 1840. He afterwards ascertained that he married Ellen Mur phy at Newington, on the 12th of Feb., 1852, and that on the 17th July, 1854, he married Elizabeth Pankhurst at Frinsbury, in Kent. He also deserted her, and witness believed he had since married another female, but witness was unable to get evi dence of that. When taken to the stationhouse prisoner told witness he believed that his first wife was dead when he married Ellen Murphy, and that he was compelled to marry the other in consequence of a child. Witness now produced certificates of the three marriages. Matthew Mordue, the father of the first wife, proved that marriage. The prisoner left her with four children in 1852. Two of them had since died. Witness had to keep them up to the present time. Ellen Murphy said she marrried the prisoner on the 12th Feb. He left her in September, 1853, leaving her with a child. The third wife he had deserted after taking away all the money and property he could lay hands on. The prisoner, who declined making any defence, was then fully committed for trial. Henry Harrison, a middle-aged man, of respect able appearance, but very shabbily dressed in black, was charged with having threatened to stab his wife and cut the throat of his daughter. The wife stated that she had been married to the prisoner 23 years, and had six children. Her hus band had been an Independent minister, but they were now in extreme poverty. He officiated about three years ago at Ebenezer Chapel, Shadwell. He had since published a book, but for the last twelve months he had done nothing. He was in the habit of drinking to excess. A fortnight ago he followed her into the kitchen, and said he would stab her to the heart, and threatened to cut her daughter's throat. _ _ _ _ The prisoner denied that he had threatened to stab his wife, but admitted that he had said he felt as if he could stab her. Mr. Burcham (to the complainant)—Where are you living ? • Mrs. Harrison—At 86, Grange-walk, Bermond- sev. .Prisoner—That's true, but we have nothing there. I did not think I should have been treated in this manner. Nov my wife has had me before you on a warrant, I solemnly declare before God, that I'll never live with her again. This has placed a last ing barrier between us. I, however, will not de sert her or my children, but will .endeavour to obtain employment to maintain them, I have dur ing the last twelvemonths done all I .could, to get employment. I have replied to innumerable adver tisements in the newspapers, but with no success. I have tried to obtain a situation on, the press as reader and corrector. Yesterday I went ,to the office of a morning newspaper after sucha place, but I did not succeed. I would gladly accept the situation. of light porter, or anything else. I went to Dartford last week, and walked many miles look ing about. After some further evidence, Mr. Burehain said he should require the prisoner to find one surety in £2O to keep the peace for three months. The priNner said he was unable ,to do so, and was coml,nito prison for three months. Challice, the time-keeper to Kite's opposition omnibus at the Alfred's Head, Newington-causeway, summoned Palmer, a driver, recently employed by the London General Omnibus Company, - for annoy ing him in the performance of his duty, and making use of disgusting language towards him. Challice said that .on Sunday evening, the 14th inst., the defendant came up to him and began to abuse him, and on his telling him to go away and not annoy him, Palmer pushed up against him and made use of disgusting language. The defendant denied making use of disgusting language. He had a summoms against Challice for hearing the same day. Mr. Burcham requested Palmer to give his evi dence against Challice, as then he should be able to judge between them. The whole of the parties appeared to be a set of slang blackguards. Palmer said that at the time in question he was standing at the Alfred's Head. He had been talk ing to a driver and conductor of the London General Omnibus Company. While passing Challice he called him a ticket of leave convict, when he pushed him aside. _ . Mr. Burcham said Challice had been so often before him on different charges that he was tired of hearing him. With a view of putting a stop to these disgraceful disturbances between the rival omnibuses, he should order both parties to enter into their rccognisances to keep the peace for the future. GREENWICH.---Richard Killick, a young man about 30 years of age, and son of a master boot and shoe manufacturer, residing in Deptfordßroadway, appeared to a summons, charged with having, on the 25th of September, indecently assaulted Hen rietta Cornbridge. Mr. Downey appeared in support of the sum mons; and . Mr. Robinson, from the office of Mr. Buchanan, for the defendant. _ _ From tfle evidence of the complainant, a young woman of respectable appearance, it appeared that on the afternoon of Saturday, the 25th of Septem ber, the defendant, with another young man, en tered a cigar and tobacconist's shop, kept by her for her master, Mr. Mitchell, in South-street, Greenwich, and forced himself into the shop-parlour, his companion, who was intoxicated, leaving the place. On remonstrating with him, and asking him whether he was aware the parlour was her private sitting-room, and desiring him to leave, the defendant used disgusting expressions, and laid hold of her and dragged her on to the sofa, placing his arm round her Nraist and acting in an indecent manner towards her, which conduct was repeal e I a second time, when he left the place. Her master after wards came to the shop, and she told him she had been grossly assaulted by the defendant, whom she de scribed, not knowing his name, and it was not until the 9th of ;the present month that she again saw him, when' ascertaining his name and address, the present sutmons was applied for. In reply to Mr. Robinson, the complainant Said she had not been instigated by her master to take the present proceedings, and that she had not seen the defendant in the shop since the day on which the assault was committed. Mr. Robinson, for the defendant, said the only excuse he had to offer on behalf of his client was that the house and shop was, previous to the pre sent oecapa:-.ey, a place of disreputable resort, and that the assault having took place on the day the shop had been opened b 7 Mr. Mitchell, he (defen dant) was not aware of its altered character. Evidence as to the former character of the house having been given, Mr. Seeker said it had been satisfactorily proved to him that an assault of a gross nature had been committed by the defendant, and it had been a question with him whether he ought not to inflict the highest punisment allowed by the act of Par liament, namely, six months' imprisonment with hard labour without fine. There had been a de fence set up that the house was formerly one of a, very questionable character, and that it was under this notion the defendant had visited it. It was not, however, to be tolerated that females of respectable character and virtuous habits were to be attacked in such an outrageous manner, and it was only with the greatest reluctance he (Mr. Seeker) re strained himself from inflicting a punishment of imprisonment without fine. He should mark his sense of the defendant's conduct by ordering him to pay a fine of £2O, or to be imprisoned with hard labour for three months. ' The fine was immediately paid by defendant's father, and the parties left the court. MURDER NEAR QUEEN-SQUARE. Yesterday afternoon a respectably attired man, about 33 years of age, who gave the name of Ed ward Toornes, described on the charge-sheet as a commercial traveller, residing at 1, Pickering-place Lower-road, Islington, was brought up in custody of Inspector Witham, of the E division, before Mr. Corrie, at the Clerkenwell Police-court, charged with wilfully murdering Charles Cantly, by cutting his throat with a razor, at 17, Gloucester-street, Queen-square. From inquiries that were made on the spot it would appear that the deceased carried on the busi ness of a lithographer and a general printer, and that although the prisoner and he had been ac quainted for some time, they never had any words. The deceased has for a long time been affected with consumption, and although the wound is of great depth and extends from ear to ear the hemorrhage appears to have been internal, as there is no out ward flow of blood. The police, under. Mr. Inspec tor Witham of the F division, were at once in at tendance, and rendered essential assistance in keep ing the crowd back. When the prisoner was placed in the dock and the charge read over, he treated the matter with the greatest indifference, and merely said it was all right. Mr. Corrie inquired if any one was in attendance who knew what the facts were. Inspector Witham said the prisoner was known to the parties in the,house and to the deceased, and that morning called and went almost direct to the kitchen and murdered the deceased. The deceased, Who was a very weak man, was about 36 years of age. The first witness called was Mrs. Sarah Bell, of 17, Gloc6ster-street, Queen-square. She said—l am a married woman, and my husband's name is William. My husband is a whitesmith. I had a person named Cantly living with me, and he had done so for some time. He was about 24 years of age. This morning about 11 o'clock the prisoner came to me at my house, where he had been the night before two or three times. Mr. Corrie—You had better let me know what was done last night by the prisoner, Witness—He came between 10 and 11 o'clock and said, " I have come to warn you, for you have a number of detectives in your house." Mr. Corrie—Did you notice anything singular in his appearance ? Witness—Yes, and he talked about nearly all the parties in the house. Mr. Corrie—Did the p6oner appear excited ? Witness—Oh, yes, he was very excited; but al though he talked about nearly all the persons in the house, he said the least about the deceased. The prisoner said, Cantly is against you, and he is one of the detectives. Witness continued—While the prisoner was at our house he said, `. Bring the deeds of your house next door." The prisoner knew we had that house, and he also said, " Bring my colours and take them all to your sisters." The prisoner came to my house three times this morning, and, from his excited manner, I said " You are mad—you are a raving madman." He was that, we have thought, for some past—a raving madman. He came in a cab, and said " Will you do as I do or as I say ?" He then went away, and came back again, and, repeating the same question, asked where Mr. Bell was. T said, " I will not send for him, you are mad." When he came this morning he rapped at the door, which I opened, when the prisoner said " Good morning," in his usual quick way. I said " Good morning;" when the prisoner said, " I have come to apologise for my conduct last night." I said " You need do so, sir." _ _ Prisoner—Now, did you say that you would give me in charge for doing so ? Witness—No. I said vou had better walk in here, which was a parlo'ur occupied •by a lady lodger of mine, whom he had mentioned the night before as being a detective. The prisoner walked in and looked round the room, and then he walked downstairs. I followed him, and I saw him point a pistol at the deceased's head. The prisoner did not fire the pistol, and I do not know whether he said anything at the time I heard the deceased scream " Ah !" Mr. Corrie—What did you next see ? Witness-1 saw nothing more, but I rushed out for my friends. My friends went in, and I saw no thing more. Mr. Cowie—ls the prisoner any relative ? Witness—The prisoner is not a relative, but he has been an intimate friend for many years. Mr. Corrie inquired of the prisoner if he wished to ask the witness any questions. Prisoner—No, I acknowledge to having.mur dered the man. Helwas treated kindly hy that woman, and she behaved like a mother to him. Miss Elizabeth Hodgkins said,—l am a single woman, and reside at 18; Glocester-street. This morning I was at No. 17, and was in the kitchen. I was there at work, and the deceased was sitting with his back to the fire. The prisoner came down and talked to the deceased. I did not see the pistol at first. I heard the deceased call out " Oh, mur der !" and then I turned round and saw the pri soner holding the deceased by the collar. I then saw a pistol, and then I screamed. The prisoner then turned round, and held the pistol at me. The deceased got up, and walked along the kitchen, the prisoner having hold of the, deceased's collar, and the prisoner still holding the pistol at me. The deceased was trying to get away. I mean by that, pushing the prisoner away. I ran away and sent a boy for the police. When I saw the police I said, There is a man murderino , another in the kitchen," and I followed him. Before the police came I went down and saw the prisoner over the deceased with a knife at his throat. The deceased when he saw me said, " Look at me." The prisoner here said,—Not a knife, but a razor. I want it all down correct. Witness continued.—A razor. I saw the prisoner hold it at his throat, and he held the pistol at me. Prisoner—No. Speak the truth ; I put the pis tol down. Witness continued—When the police came I did not go in, but I fetched a surgeon. Prisoner—May I correct her ? Mr. Corrie—Not at present ; you had better not say anything. (To the witness Mrs. Bell).—From the excited manner of the prisoner you thought him delhous ? Witness—Yes, and so did my sister. We have thought so for some time. Police-constable Thos. Webb, 110 E, said,—This morning about a quarter past 11 o'clock I was sent for to go to Glocester-street, Queen-square ; I went down to the kitchen and found the doer fas tened ; I knocked in the panels with my.trun cheon, and when I broke the panels the prisoner pointed a pistol at me and said, " You area dead man if you enter here." I went upstairs- to get something to force the door when I met the prisoner coming upstairs with the pistol in his hand. Prisoner- r I gave myself up to you, and that you know. Witness continued—l took the prisoner into cus tody, when he said " I have done what I intended to do. At that time he had a pistol in his hand. I then went down in the kitchen with the prisoner ' and found the deceased with his head nearly cut off. The prisoner pointed to a razor about, a yard from the deceased and said "There is the razor that I did it with." I sent for a surgeon. The razor was lying on the dresser covered with blood. Sergeant Brown, 10 E, said,—About a quarter past 11 this morning I was called to the house. I told the prisoner what he was charged with, when he said " I know what I have done—l meant to do it." I found a pistol loaded, and on the table an exploded cap. There was no cap on thc nipple. On the road to the station the prisoner said, " It was an unfortunate thing for me that the pistol did not go off, for it was that made me use the razor." Prisoner—Allow me to correct. I said, "I would have sooner done it with that because it would have been better." Inspector Witham produced the pistol, and said that he had unloaded it and found it to contain a pad, some powder, and one ball. The property found upon the prisoner was a gold watch chain, a silver watch and chain, a knife, £3 10s. in gold. and other trifling articles, besides the pistol and the razor. The prisoner here said—l brought out a watch and chain, knowing what I was going to do, and that I want given to my brother, for I intended.it for him. Mr. Witham—l know the address, and shall at once communicate with him. Mr. Corric remanded the prisoner for a week. The prisoner treated the matter with the greatest indifference. BURGLARY FRUSTRATED IN CANNON-STREET.-- Yesterday morning, between five and six o'clock, as the policeman on duty in Cannon-street was passing No. 28, he tried the door and found it unfastened. He waited outside till further assistance arrived, when the door was pushed open, and the burglar found behind it, with a large amount of property ready for removal. He was taken to Bow-lane station, when he confessed that he had concealed himself. The police knew him for an old offender. " GETTING UP" A COMP4NY IN FRANCIS. The Tribunal of Correctional Police has been occupied with the trial, commenced last week, of Mancel, calling himself de Valdouer, and Laurent, of Blois, gerants of the Compagnies des Chemins de Fer Departementaux et des Chemins de Fer d'Embrauchement, for swindling and other offences in conne2tion with those companies. As on the previous occasion, Mancel did not appear, and the public prosecutor said that he had received from him a most improper letter, stating that " his friends had recommended him to leave France, be cause every gerant when accused was sure to be condemned." The President observed that the Court would not condescend to take notice of such a letter. He then stated that the charge against Mancel was, that he had taken from the company 12,500 shares, of the nominal value of 1,250,000 L, and had stipulated for 15 per cent. of the profits, and a salary of 11,000 f., on the pretence of trans ferring to the company a patent and 18 concessions of tramroads, but that his patent was worth nothing, and that he had not obtained any such concessions ; also, that he had left the company after it had sus tained a loss of 400,000 f. He then proceeded to interrogate Laurent, and it appeared that the charge against him was that, though without re sources, he had got up what he called the Com pagnie des Chemins de Fer d'Embranchement with a capital of 40,000,000 f., and had reserved to him self 1,000,000 f. worth of shares. Laurent pretended that these shares were only a recompense for the trouble which he had had in making surveys, &c., for forming tramroads, but he could not show that he had really done anything to meria any such sum. It appeared that of the 1,000,000 f. 200,000 f. went to a person named Delarue, and Laurent could not say what right that person had to them. It further appeared that Laurent, pretending that he had ob tained subscriptions for shares to the amount of 885,000 f., had brought about an amalgamation be tween his company and that of the Chemins de Fer Departementaux of Maucel; but that the said sub scriptions were either not serious, or were made by persons of no substance. It was also stated that he had attempted to get subscriptions for his shares in London, but had failed, and had sent a circular to a great number of the clergy, representing that they would do a good action by subscribing for shares, and promising them a percentage on all the subscriptions which they might obtain. Several witnesses were then called, and they deposed to the irregularities committed both by Mancel and Lau rent ; they also said, amongst other things, that the latter having been authorised to issue shares amounting to 3,250,000 francs ; had taken on himself to make an issue of not less than 6,000,000 francs ; also that on one occasion, he, to raise the small sum of 80,000 francs, had rendered the amalgamated companies liable for 5,000,000 f. The public prosecutor having delivered a long ad dress, in the course of which it was stated that Mancel had been mixed up in several swindling transactions and had falsely assumed the title of Count, but that Laurent previously to this affair had done nothing. The tribunal condemned Man cel to five years' imprisonment and 3,000 f. fine, and Laurent to fifteen months' imprisonment and 2,000 f. fine, each besides of five years' interdiction of civil rights. FROM THE GAZETTE OF: YESTERDAY. WINDSOR CASTLE, Nov. 9. Her Majesty the Queen has been pleased to appoint Colonel the Hon. Robert Bruce to be Governor to his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. TO BE EQUERRIES TO HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS. Brevet-Major Robert James Lindsay, Scots Fusilier Guards. _ _ _ Brevet-Major Charles Christopher Teesdale, C. 8., Royal Artillery. Captain George Henry Grey, Rifle Brigade. EXTRA EQUERRY. Viscount Valletort, Captain in the Cornwall Rangers Militia. WHITEHALL, Nov 20. The Queen has been pleased 'to appoint Horatio Wad dington, Esq., to be one of the Commissioners for the pur poses of the ' Act to make further provision for the Good Government and Extension of the Umversity of Cambridge, of the Colleges therein, and of the College of King Henry the Sixth at Eton," in the room of Doctor George Peacoat, Dean of Ely, deceased. FOREIGN-OFFICE, Nov. 20. The Queen has been pleased to approve of Mr. Gustave Heyn as Consul at Belfast for his Majesty the King of the Belgians. DOWNING-STREET, Nov. 20. The Queen has been pleased to appoint James Misick, Esq., to be President of the Council of the. Turks and Caicos Islands; Antonio Mathe, Es ,_to be an Unofficial Member of the Executive Council ot the Settlements of Honduras; William Wells, Esq., to be a Member of the Executive Council of the Island of Grenada ; Edward John Cloke, Esq., to be a Member of the Council of the Island of St. Vincent; Major Henry Charles Bird, to be a Member of the Legislative Council of the Island of Ceylon ; and Colonel George Maclean, R.A., to be a Member of the Council of the Island of St. Helena. COMMISSIONS BY LORDS LIEUTENANT. 2deteglment of Royal Bucks Yeomanry Cavalry—Henry Wm. Currie, Gent., to be Cornet, vice John B. Parker, promoted. Queen's Own Royal Regiment of ,Glasgow and Lower Ward of Lanarkshire Yeomanry Cavalry—Cornet George Lumsden to be Lieutenant, vice Stirling, resigned; Alex. Ewing, Gent., to be Cornet, vice Lumsden, promoted ; H. Neilson, Gent., to be Cornet, vice Wilkie, resigned. East Kent Regiment of Militia—Ensign C. J. Coventry to be Lieutenat, vice Leatham, appointed to the 91st Foot. Northumberland Light Infantry Regiment of Militia— William H. Shafto, Esq., late of the 92d Regiment, to be Captain ; George P. Hughes, Gent., to be Lieutenant. North Durham Regiment of Militia—Ensign Benjamin W. Eames to be Lieutenant, vice John Bowling, deceased , Ensign John Nicholas Garvey to be Lieutenant, vice Frederick Wallis, resigned ; Edward Temperley Gourley, Gent., to be Lieutenant, vice William Henry Green, re signed. Ross, Caithness", Sutherland, and Cromarty Regiment of Militia—Robert Douglas, Gent., to be Lieutenant, vice Sutherland, resigned Herefordshire Regiment of Militia—Alfred Dower Rey nolds to be Ensign, vice John Early, resigned. Ist or Royal East Middlesex Regiment of Militia—En sign Donald Noble to be Lieutenant, vice Cole, promot e d ; Douglas John Crespin, Gent, to be Ensign, vice Noble, promoted. 2d or Edmonton Royal Regiment of Middlesex Militia— Ensign Francis Bya.ss to be Lieutenant, vice Alderson, re signed ; Ensign Frederick Bridger to be Lieutenant, vice Smith, promoted. sth or , Elthorne Light Infantry Regiment of Mid dlesex Militia—Edward Chapman, Gent., to be Ensign, vice Harris, resigned. Royal Sherwood Foresters or. Nottinghamshire Regiment of Militia—Lieut. Percy Charles Stanhope to be Captain, vice Clements, resigned. [The following appointment is substituted for that which appeared in the Gazette of the 2d day of November inst.] Royal Sherwood Foresters or Nottinghamshire Regiment of Militia—Ensign John Alexander Byrne to be Lieutenant, vice Wall, resigned. CROWN-OFFICE, Nov. 23. Days and Places appointed for holding Special Commis sions of Oyer and Terminer and Gaol Delivery. Berkshire—Monday, Dec. 20, at Reading. Cheshire—Tuesday, Nov. 30, at the Castle of Chester. Cornwall—Saturday, Dec. 11, at Bodmin. Devonshire—Tuesday, Dec. 7, at the Castle of Exeter. City of Exeter—The same day, at the Guildhall of the said City. Durham—Wednesday, Dec. 1, at the City of Durham, Essex—Wednesday, Dec. 1, at Chelmsford. Glamorganshire—'Saturday, Dec. 4, at Cardiff. Gloucestershire—Wednesday, Dec. 8, at Gloucester. City of Gloucester—the same day, at the City of Gloucester. Kent—Monday, Dec. 6, at Maidstone. Northumberland—Saturday, Dec. 4, at the Castle of New castle-upon-Tyne. • Town of Newcastle-upon-Tyne --the same day, at filo Guildhall of the said town. . Somersetshire—Thursday, Dec. 16, at Taunton. Southampton—Wednesday, Dec. 1, at the Castle of Win chester. Staffordshire—Monday, Nov. 29, at Stafford. Warwickshire—Monday, Dec. 13, at Warwick. Wiltshire—Tuesday, Dec. 21, at Devizes. Worcestershire—Tuesday, Dtip. 14, at Worcester..,, City of Worcester—the sametkiy, at the City of WoreP,.ster. Yorkshire—Wednesday, Dec. B,•at the Castle of York. City of. York—the same day, at the Guildhall of the said city. PRIZE MONEY. Department of the Accountant-General of the Navy, Admiralty, Somerset-house, Nov. 22. Notice is hereby given to all persons interested therein, that preparations are now making for the intended distri bution of the award voted by Parliament for the destruc tion of pirates in the China Seas by her Majesty's ship Hornet on the 19th March, 1857. Agents or other persons having any j u st and legal de mand, unliquidated, against the said proceeds are required to transmit the particulars of any such demand to the Re gistrar of the High Court of Admiralty, in order that the same may be examined, taxed, and allowed by that officer, and paid under the sanctionofthe in Jud s g tr e u o m f saidetnhtes,by virtu© Coutrt(: Age nts and other persons h oldin g p owers of attorney, assignments, or other legally entitled to clai m th e share of f prizewhich orders, they asmsiagny be belonging to any captor, are requested, with as little delay as possible, to transmit the same, accompanied by the usual d o cuments, to the Prize Branch of the Department o f the Accountant -General of the Navy, Admiralty, Somerset house. no tice will be given, by future advertisements in the London ue Gazette, of the date pr o p ose d for the commence ment of distribution; and, at the same time, the amount of respective classes will be an an individual's share in th e no uncut. BANKRUPTS. Edmund Connor, wholesale boot and shoo warehouse man, Brooke-street, Holborn, to surrender, Dec. 4at ono, and Jan 1, at twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Thomas Fisher and William Fisher, carpenters, North ampton, and Hartlestone, Northamptonshire, Dec. 3, at half-past t wo , an d Jan. 4, at one, at the Court of. Bank ruptcy. William Holtaway, inkdealer, Park-terrace, Hammer smith, Dec. 2, at one, and Jan. 6, at two, at the Court of Bankruptcy. James Daly, licensed victualler , Shacklewell, Dec. 2, at eleven, and Jan. 6, at one, at the Court of Bankruptcy. George Plumridge, grocer, Crown row, Walworth-road, Dec. 3, at eleven, and Jan. 10, at twelve, at the Court .cf Bankruptcy. Francis Ingham, grocer, High Holborn, Dec. 5 and Jan, 10, at eleven, a t th e C o urt of Bankruptcy. Robert. Slemmin;, boot and shoemaker, Portsea, South.- ampton, Dec. 6, at eleven, and Jan. 10, at one, at the Court of Bankruptcy. John Murray, ironmongar, Sheerness, Kent, Dec. 3 and 31, at half-past eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Thomas Harrison, fringe and trimming manufacturer, White Borse-fard, High Holborn, Dec. 3, at eleven, and Dec. 31, at twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Samuel Hanks, coal dealer, Birmingham, Dec. 6 and 27, at ten, at the Birmingham District Court. Mary George, druggist, Bryn. mawr, Breconshire, Dec. 6 and Jan. 3, at eleven, at the Bristol District Court. Thomas Jennings , dealer in iron ore, Truro, Dec. 14 and Jan. 14, at one, at the Exeter District Court. Thomas Pickworth and Robert Walker, builders, Shef field, Dec. 11 and Jan. 8, atten, at the Leeds District Court. George Woodmancy, corn merchant, Glamford Briggs, Lincolnshire, Dec. 8 and Jan. 12, at twelve, at the Leeds District Court. SCOTCH BANKRUPTS. Robert M'Nair, warehouseman, Edinburgh. Alexander Milne, draper, Glasgow. COUNTRY MARKETS. LIVERPOOL—Nov. 23. Our trade has ruled exceedingly firm during the last ten days, and to-day there was a better inquiry for wheat, flour, and Indian corn, with no observable change in prices. Oats, oatmeal, barley, beans, &c., sold only in retail, and no alteration was made in figures. The im ports this week are moderate of wheat, but fair of flour, Indian corn, oats, and oatmeal. LEEDS—Nov. 23. Wheat fetches last Tuesday's prices, and rather more business doing. . _ Averages for the week : Wheat 3,379 qrs., at 43s (1d 8ar1ey......... 2,711 „ 34s lid Oats 882 „ Rye 2O „ 3ss 3d Beans Peas ll „ 49s Od Arrival; this week : Wheat 2,924 qrs. Oats Barley Beans Rapeseed 235. Linseed — BRISTOL—Nov. 23. The supply of English wheat at market to-day was far shorter than of late, and sold freely at about last week s rates. Fine barleys maintain their values ; inferior malt ing and grinding rather easier to purchase. Oats meet with a better inquiry, at somewhat enhanced rates. Other articles unchanged. SHEFFIELD—Nov. 23. Owing to the winter fair being held there was little business done in the market to-day. The extreme prices of last week. White wheat, new, 16s to 20s Red do. lss to 16s Old white to —8 Red do. —s to —s Barley, malting—. 33s to 368 Barley, grinding 29s to 325 Oats, old, .. —s to —5 New do 21s to 32s Beans.. 17s to 195 Malt.. —B to —ll is sd, is 7d, and is 9d per Millers' prices for flour-11 14lb: Hay, 80s to 90s ; wheat kr, to 40s; turnips, 16s to 20s pe: Lw, 28s to 353; oat straw, 355 ton. NORWICH CATTLE—Nov. 20. There was a small show of store beasts to-day, consisting of Scots, shorthorns, Irish, and Devons. Sales were very fair. The selling price for Scots was 4s to 4s 6d ; short horns, 4s Od to 4s 6d ; Irish, 3s 6d to 4s per stone of 141bs. estimated weight when fat. Fat beasts firm at 7s 6d to 8s ad per stone. Sheep—Fat sheep, 8s to 8s 6d, prime lots 9s per stone. Pigs—Good store pigs, 15s to 20s per head. Fat pork, .5s 6d to 6s, prime 6s 6d per stone. COURSE OF EXCHANGE.—.YESTERDAY. Amsterdam Ditto Rotterdam . 11 17 11 17 1 Antwerp Brussels — 25 271 25 32 Hamburgh Paris Ditto Marseilles — 25 30 25 35 Frankfort on Maine — • 1181 1181 Vienna Trieste Petersburgh — 34 34 • Madrid Cadiz — 491 49 Leghorn — 29 771 29 21 G9noa — 25 45 - 26 50 Naples Palermo • 123 123 • Messina l23i 123 Lisbon Oporto Rio Janeiro New York — .. • • E.I. Co's Ws. House bis. 60d Calcutta, Co.'s rupee 26 23 1 Bombay ditto Madras ditto — 26 231 East India Company's, Bills drawn from the 24thult. to _ . . the Bth inst. Bengal £1,201 5 0 Madras 0 0 0 Bombay L 1,201 5 0 Foreign Gold in Bars (Standard) per oz. £3 17 9 Mexican Dollars Silver in Bars (Stand a rd) ~0 5 1 MR. CHARLES DICKENS AT HANTITORNDEN.-' During his recent visit to Edinburgh, M r . Ch as . Dickens visited the beautiful and classic scenery of Hawthornden. A correspondence of the Dumfries Courter gives the fol lowing account of his visit :—" Mr. Dickens wont out with an order for admission from the pro prietor or his brother, but not a regular day for admission. When he got to the gate with his party, the wrinkled woman who acts as Cerberus refused most decidedly to let them in. Mr. Dickens was so astounded at the insolence of the old Scotch beldame, . that he was-driven to the desperate resource of appealing to • his fame. My good woman, my name's Dickens and I can't come here every d a y.' ' I ne ith er ken nor•care what ; your name is, but ye canna get in excep' on the replier days,' responded Cerberus. And then,' went on the great man, astounded ut the old woman's ignorant con tempt for his great name, ' I h ave an order, if you will look at it,' producing the document to the bleared lady, who ejaculates angrily, What's the use of lettin' me see an order when I canna read ? Utterly foiled in his attempt upon the female, the illustrious novelist was compelled to wait for about an hour until a messenger returned from the house of Hawthornden to allow him to enter." [ADVERTISEMENT.)—HoIIoway's Pills.--Bilious head ache and all affections of the spleen that 'result from de praved, or insufficient, or superabundant bile, are relieved with a wonderful, celerity, and most thoroughly by these mild aperient Pills. They are not, however, aperient only, but have a peculiar and specific influence upon the blood, which they at once purify and enrich. It is well known that the liver and stomach always sympathise with each other, and that the liver is never much disordered itself without causing similar disturbance or impediment in the organs of digestion. These truly wonderful pills act power fully and simultaneously on both the liver and stomach, and thus the double cause of 'what is called bilious head ache is subdued at once. [ADvEunsmuNT.—Rarey's Horse and Cattl e Imtorof" ing Food is equally adapted to improve the stamina of ill conditioned Horses, Qows, Bullocks, Calves, Sheep, and Pigs. It causes no extra expense, as it contains far more and better nourishment than its cost of lid. per feed sup plies in corn and hay ; hence ensures an actual saving la the keep. But its principal advantages are a great improve ment in the digestive functions, the stamina and general condition of horses enabling them to perform far more labour without getting distressed. It imparts new vigour to sick, debilitated, or old apparently worn-out horses, and it puts rapidly the finest flesh on cattle generally, and im proves 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 90 feeds, 118.; in casks of about 45 0 feeds, 50s. ; of about 1,000 feed g 5, being about lid. Per feed. BIRTHS. PARISH.—On the Bth Sept., at the British Consulate' General, Buenos Ayres, the wife of Frank Parish Esq of a son and heir. GORDON.—On the 20th inst., at South View Lodge, sea, Hants, the widow of Capt a i n W. G. C onw ay a °I.- don, 91st (Argyllshire) Rogt., p rema t ure ly, o f a dough" ter, stillborn. South- MELLISH.—On the 22d inst., at 37 A, Upper Grosvenor' street, the wife of Lieutenant-Colonel Mellish, of , - daughter. M'LAuGHLIN.—On the 19th inst. At 9, Portland-t errac e, Southsea, the wife of Edward 3h. e aughlin, Esq., Royal Artillery, of a son. YOUNG.—On the 31 inst., at Rothesay, the wife of Major S. D. Young, of the Madras Array, of a son. 31 ARRIAGES. SANKEY—BENSON.—On the 16th Oct., at Madras, capt• Richard Hieram Sankey, Madras Engineers, to Sophia' Mary, only daughter of W. H. Benson, Esq., Retire List, Bengal C. S. • SHERIV OOD — VODOZ.—On the 20th inst. at St. MarY'°,. Church, Strand, Robert, second son of Mi.. Sherwood, 01 Epsom, to Louise, second daughter of V. L. Vodoz, Escl• of Albemarle-street;•London. WEAVER—WHITE.—On the 23d inst., at Bayswater, Henri Weaver, Esq., Devizes, to Rosalie, widow of the late B• White, Esq., of Mark-lane. DEATHS. CECIL.—On the 19th inst., at Hastings, Lord Hearr i Poyntz Cecil, aged 20, fourth son o f th e M arqu is ° Exeter. CONINGIIAM.—On the 16th inst., at Kemptown, of dyph theria' in her 18th year, Elizabeth Meyrick , only dim& ter of W. Coningham, Esq., M.P. COURTOWN.—On the 20th inst., at Courtown, the Earl of Courtown. GIRDLESTONE.—On the 21st inst., at St. Leonards-on-Se a ' Captain James Girdlestone, formerly o f H. M. 31 s t and 64th Regiments, aged 75. HEATH.—On the 22d inst., at 28, Gordon-square, in h is 20th year, Francis Heath, late of H.M.S. Imperieuse• HOCRLY.—On the 30th Sept., a t C a l cutta, J ane, w ife o f Capt. T. H. Hockly. ROBERTSON.—At Belgaum, in the Bombay Presidency , the 13th Oct., Lieut. Patrick Alexander Robertson , H.M.'s 56th Regiment, aged 25, eldest son of the lat e ' Rev. P. Robertson, D.D., minister of Eddlestone. R o l a n t B e E o u —On h f theßengal e t ng e a 6th Horse inst, aged C 0 7 1 3 . .John LONDON : Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG' of No. 112, Strand, PrinterAt Me Sun Office, No. 112.. Strand, in the Preci nc t o f th e S avo y, i n the county 01 Middlesex, Wednesday, November 24, 1858.