The Sun. — London, England, 1867-11-21 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON. THURSDAY EVEN) M, NOVEIVIBEII 21, 1867. The Condemned Convicts at Manchester. TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN. SIR, —I beg to enclose a copy of the statement submitted by myself and my learned friends for the consideration of Mr. Justice Blackburn and Mr. Justice Mellor, with the reply of Mr. Justice Blackburn, which I have his permission to publish. I will not pause at present to examine the grounds of their lordships' decision ; but, with the sincerest respect for their high authority, I must say that the consideration thereof, and a calm perusal of the reasons alleged in its support, have not changed my matured and deliberate conviction that the opinion of myself and my learned friends is law. Were this not so, it must occur to every lawyer, and, indeed, to every citizen uninfluenced by prior opinions, or, it may be, prejudices, that in a ques tion of such solemn gravity—one of life and death, involving the fate of four human beings—an argu meht on the points suggested would have been more in accordance with precedent, and more consistent with the protective vigilance and im partiality which have always characterised the administration of the criminal law in England.—l am, sir, your obedient servant, Temple, Nov. 20. 'WILLIAM DIGBY SEYMOUR. STATEMENT SUBMITTED TO MR. JUSTICE BLACKBURN AND MR. JUSTICE MELLOR. REGINA V. ALLEN AND OTHERS. Upon the trial of Allen and others for the murder of Sergeant Brett, two points of law arose under the following circumstances : On the morning of the 11th Sept. last, two men, who turned out afterwards to be Kelly and Deasey, were arrested by a Manchester policeman, as he al!eged, under sect. 216 of the Manchester Police Act (7 and 8 Vict., chap. 40), which enacts that it shall be lawful for any constable belonging to the police force of the borough to take into custody, without a warrant, all loose, idle, or disorderly per sons whom he may find disturbing the public peace, or in his own view committing an offence against this act, or whom he shall have good cause to sus pect of having committed, or being about to commit, any felony, misdemeanour, or breach of the peace, or to instigate or abany such breach. The two men, who gave the names of White and Williams,were taken before a magistrate on the 11th and remanded until the 18th by a warrant, which stated the charge against them to be, not for sus picion of felony, on which they were arrested, but "for felony," and omitted to specify what felony or other offence they were charged with. They were brought up again on tho 18th, when no evidence whatever was given upon the charge on which they were alleged to have been arrested, but an inspector of detectives from London, who stated he had a warrant against Kelly for treasonable practices alleged to have been committed in Ireland, and a constable from Ireland, who was stated to have a similar warrant against Deasey, appeared, and on their application, without the production of either of the warrants, which, in fact, were not then backed as the statute reluired, the prisoners were again re manded for a week. No warrant for such second remand was pro. duced upon the trial, but it was stated that a war rant had been signed, a copy of that signed on the 11th inst., and had been destroyed by the police after the escape of the prisoners. Kelly and Deasey were then placed in the prison van for the purpose of being taken to prison ; and on the way the van was attacked, the prisoners rescued, and Brett killed. The two questions were, first, whether or not Kelly and Deasy were in legal custody ; and, second, if they were not in legal custody, whether the crime of killing Brett, in the act of rescuing them, amounted to murder or manslaughter. As to the first point it would seem (first) that the magistrate bad no jurisdiction to commit for felony, no charge of felony having been made ; and (second) that the magistrate had no jurisdiction to entertain the charge of treasonable practices committed in Ire land, or to remand the prisoners upon such a charge. By the 11 and 12 Vict., c. 42, a. '22, justices are em powered to take the examination of witnesses against persons who are brought before them charged with an offence alleged to have been committed in any county or placs3 within England or Wales wherein they have not jurisdiction. By sect. 2of the same act they are empowered to issue their warrant to apprehend any one within their jurisdiction charged with having committed any crime or offence on the high seas, or in any creek, harbour, &c., or any " crimes or offences committed on lands beyond the seas for which an indictment may legally be pre ferred in any place within England or Wales." By sect. 11, where an English warrant is backed in England, the offender when apprehended may be taken before' the justice who issues the warrant, or if so directed by the justice backing the warrant, before such last mentioned justice or any other jus tice of the same county or place ; but by sect. 12, when an Irish warrant is backed in England, the offender must be taken before the justice who granted the warrant, and there is no power to take him before the magistrate who has backed it. It would seem therefore that in this case the proper course would have been, in the case of Deasy at least, for the magistrate to haye backed the Irish warrant, and for the prisoner to have been taken, under the authority of the warrant so backed, to Ireland, and that the magistrate had no jurisdiction to examine any witnesses against Deasey, or to remand him upon the charge of felony. Thirdly. It is laid down in Coke's Second Insti tute, p. 591, when speaking of prison-breaking, that a mittimus must " contain the cause, but not so cer tainly as an inditement ought, and yet with such convenient certainty as it may appeare judicially that the offence (prison-breaking) tale judicum re quirit' as pro alta proditione,' viz., 'in personam domini regis,' &c., or pro felonia,' viz., pro morte talis,' &c.," and he lays it down that a " mitiimus pro felonia " generally is bad. So again,. Hale (P. C., vol. 2, p. 122) says that a mittimus " must contain the certainty of the cause, and therefore if it be for felony, it ought not to be generally pro felonia, but it rust contain the especial nature, of the felony briefly, as for felony for the death of J. S., or for burglary in breaking the house of J. S., &c., and the reason is because it may appear to the judges of the King's Bench upon an habeas corpus whether it be felony or not." Hale, however, adds that he does not think the absence of such particularity would make the warrant void. It is worthy of notice that in the forms of remand given by Chitty in his Crimi nal Law, vol. 4, pp. 33, 116, and in the form given in the 11 and 12 Vict., c. 42 (Q. 1) the felony is specially described. The second point, which appears to be of the greater importance, looking at the actual direction to the jury, and to the fact that they were not asked to find the existence, contents, or form of the war rant, is whether, assuming the detention of one or both of the prisoners to have been illegal, the kill ing of Brett amounted to murder. The first case on the subject is that of Sir H. Ferrers (Cro. Car., 371), who was arrested for debt, and thereupon Nightingale, his servant, in seeking to rescue him, as was pretended, killed the bailiff : " But because the warrant to arrest him was by the name of Henry Ferrers, Knight, and ho never was a knight, it was held by all the court that it was a variance in an essential part of the mine, and they bad no authority by that warrant to arrest Sir Hcnery Ferrets, Baronet ; so it is an warrant, and the killing of an officer in execut b!g that warrant cannot be murder." Thi s case i s also reported by Sir W. Jones (p. 346), where it is said to have been held not to be murder either in the servant or in the prisoner, because the warrant was not good. The next case is that of Hopkin Hugget, which was tried in 1866, and is best reported in J. Kelyng (p. 59). In that case nugget and three others pursued three constables who had impressed a man, and demanded to see their warrant. The constables showed a paper, which the prisoners said was no warrant, and thereupon they drew their swords, and llugget killed one of the constables. Of the twelve judges eight delivered their opinion That this was no murder, but only manslaughter, and they said that if a man unduly arrested or restrained Of hi s liberty by three men, although he, be quiet himself, and do not endeavour any rescue, yet this is a provocation to all other men of Eng land, not only his friends, but strangers also, for common humanity's sake, as my Lord Bridgman said, to endeavour his rescue ; and if in such endeavour of rescue they kill any one, this is no murder, but only manslaughter. The four other judges held it murder, and thought the case in question to be much the stronger because the party himself who was im pressed was quiet and made no resistance, and they who meddled were no friends of his or acquaint ances, but mere strangers, and did not so much as desire them which had him in custody to la him go. Although all the judges of the King's Bench thought it murder, they conformed to the opinion of the other eight, and gave judgment of imprison ment for 11 months. In Beg. v Mawgri,ige, which was tried in 1707 (J. Kelyug, 136), the Chief Justice alluded to Ilugget's case as having settled the law upon the point. In Tooley's case (2 Lord Raymond, 1296) which was tried in 1710, Ann Dakin was in the custody of one Bray, when the prisoners, who were strangers to Dakin, assaulted Bray, but withdrew. They afterwards assaulted Bray again, after the woman had been locked up, and killed one Dent, whom Bray had called to his assistance. One of the pri soners gave the stroke, the two others were aiding and abetting. Seven of the 12 judges held this to be manslaughter, and five held it to be murder, one of the five thinking that the constable had autho rity. Those judges who held the offence to be man slaughtei only, so held on the opinion that the pri soners had sufficient provocation, for if, they say, one be imprisoned upon an unlawful authority it is a sufficient provocation to all people out of com passion, much more where it is done under a colour of justice, and where the liberty of the subject is invaded, it is a provocation to all the subjects of England. In R. v. Adey (1 Leach, 206), which was tried in 1779, a somewhat similar point arose, and the presiding judge, on the authority of Tooley's case, reserved the point for the consideration of the 12 judges. The prisoner escaped in the riots of 1780, and no judgment was given, but Leach says that it was understood the judges held it to be man slaughter only. Again, in R. v. Osmer (5 East, 304), argued in 1804, Lord Ellenborough, C.J., says, that "if a man without authority attempt to arrest another illegally, it is a breach of the peace, and any other person may lawfully interfere to prevent it, doing no more than is necessary for that purpose." In Reg. v. Phelps (Car. and 111., 180), tried in 1841, a policeman attempted to apprehend a man on suspicion of having stolen growing potatoes. He resisted, and some persons came to his aid, and killed one Southwood, whom the policeman bad called to his assistance. Upon proof of these facts, Coltman, J., directed the jury that, as the police man had no right to apprehend the man, the offence of those who killed Southwood was manslaughter only, and not murder. . These appear to be the cases bearing most closely on the subject, but turning to the authority of text writers and the dicta of judges, we find Hawkins, in his Pleas of the Crown (Book 1., c. 31, s. 60), stating the law as it was laid down in Hugget's and Tooley's cases, and adding that " since in the event it appears that the persons slain were tres passers, covering their violence with a show of jus tice, he who kills them is indulged by the law, which in these cases judges by the event, which those who engage in such unlawful actions must abide at their peril." Hale (P. C., vol. i., p. 465) also cite 3 Hugget's case, and apparently with approval. On the other hand, Foster, J., in his " Discourse upon Crown Law' (p. 312), while he appears to approve of the law as laid down in Hugget's case, combats the doctrine of the majority of the judges in Tooky's case, and appears to doubt the propriety of that decision, partly upon general principles, and partly because the second assault on the constable seemed to him rather to have been grounded upon resentment or a principle of revenge for what had before passed than upon any hope or endeavour to assist the woman. It is these observations of Foster, J., which Alder son, 8., appears to have had i❑ his mind when he is reported to have said in B. v. Warner (I. Moo, C C. 385), that • Tooley's case had been overruled. Tooley's case had in fact no bearing upon Warner's case, in which no attempt was made to arrest the prisoners at all, and Alderson, 8., does not refer to any authority for his statement. A similar remark was made by Pollock, C. 8., in Reg. v. Davis (Leigh and Cave, C C. 71), but there again no au thority is given. East, in his " Pleas of the Crown" (vol. i, p. 325), states the question with the arguments on either side, without showing much leaning either way, and so does Russell (Criminal Law, vol. i, p. 632), although his editor, Mr. Greaves, from his note (p. 848 of the 4th edit.) appears to have been convinced by the arguments adduced by Foster. It would thus seem that the doctrine laid down by the majority of the judges in the cases of Ferrers, Hugget, and Tooley has been acted upon, not only in those cases, but also in R. v. Adey and Reg. v. Phelps, and recognised in Reg. v. Mawgridge and R. v. Osmer, and by Hawkins and Hale. The opposite doctrine is supported by the autho rity of a minority of the judges in Hugget and Tooley's cases, and by Foster, J., and receives some sort of sanction from the observations of Alderson, 8., and Pollock, C. 8., if they can be considered to display a sufficiently accurate knowledge of the sub ject to entitle them to any sleight. This view of the law, however, has never once been acted upon, and it follows that if the prisoners convicted at Man chester be executed without any discussion of the law, they will be put to death in opposition to the decided cases on the subject, upon the authority solely of extra-judicial arguments and dicta. In some of these arguments a distinction has been taken between the interference of a friend or a re lative and that of a mere stranger ; but this distinc tion does not appear to rest upon any authority. Hawkins, in his " Pleas of the Crown" (Bk. i., c. 31, ss. 56 and 57), say; that " if a man's ser vant, or friend, or even a stranger, coming sud denly and seeing him fighting with another, side with him and kill the other, or seeing his sword broken send him another, wherewith he kills the other, he is guilty of manslaughter only. Yet in this very case, if the person killed were a bailiff or other officer of justice, resisted by the master, &c., in the due execution of his duty, such friend or ser vant, &c., are guilty of murder whether they knew that the person slain were an officer or not." For these and other reasons we are of opinion that the points raised in this case are of such a grave and serious character as to demand further discus sion and consideration, and that they ought only to be decided after full and deliberate argument be fore the Court of Criminal Appeal. W. DIGBY SEYMOUR, Q.C. MICHAEL O'BRIEN, S.L. ERNEST JONES. JAMES COTTINGHAM. LEWIS W. CAVE. REPLY OF MR. JUSTICE BLACKBURN. Nov. 20, 1867. Dear Mr. Seymour,—Mr. Justice Mellor and I have received and carefully perused the paper signed by you, my brother O'Brien, an-3 Mr. Cave. It contains nothing that is new to us, but it puts all the authorities in the light most favourable for your clients, and I need not say that it is a great Eatisfaction to us to think that nothing has been overlooked which could bear on so grave a question. The Legislature have, by the 11 and 12 Vic. c. 78, cast upon the presiding judges the very disagree able and invidious duty of determining whether their own view of the law at the trial is or is not so ques tionable as to justify an appeal. If they refuse to reserve any point made, it is still open to the pri soners to appeal to the equitAble consideration of the Sovereign, but no appeal lies to any court of law. In the present case my brother Mellor and I con sidered the points raised before us on the trial, and entertained no doubt that the direction which we then gave to the jury was strictly according to law We therefore reserved no question f,r the Court of Appeal at the time, but simply post oued our trial determination on the subject until we had the means of referring to the authorities and considering the case more at leisure. We have now considered the authorities and have consulted the other judges, not with the view of dividing our responsibility nor in order to obtain a judicial opinion from them which they could not give on a point not regularly before them ; but because, in a case so serious, we were very anxious to have the best advice and assistance that we could obtain for our guidance. I need not say that if the result of such consultation and re search had been to lead to the conclusion that there was doubt enough to justify a further appeal, it would have relieved us from a most painful respon sibility. I regret to say that the result has been to satisfy us that the law is too clear to justify us in reserving any point for the consideration of the Court of Criminal Appeal. Entertaining that opinion, we have officially in formed the Secretary for the Home Department that there will be no further appeal to a court of law, and that it is now for her Majesty's Govern ment alone to determine what shall be done with the convicts. This decision of ours is final ; but, as a satisfac tion to you and the other counsel for the prisoners, I will briefly state the reasons which have induced us to think the law too clear for argument. When a constable, or other person properlyautho rised, acts in execution of his duty, the low casts a peculiar protection around him, and consequently, if he is killed in the execution of his duty, it is, in general murder, even though there be such circum stances of hot blood and want of premeditation as would in any ordinary case reduce the crime to manslaughter. But when the warrant under which the officer acting is not sufficient to justify him in arresting or detaining prisoners, or there is no warrant at all, he is entitled to this peculiar protec tion, and consequently the crime may be reduced to manslaughter when the offence is committed on the sudden, and is attended by circumstances affording reasonable provocation. The cases which you have cited are authorities that where the affray is sudden and unpremeditated, when, as Lord Holt says in R. v. Tooley (2 Ld. Raymond, 1300), " it is acting without any prece dent malice or apparent design of doing hurt," the mere fact that the arrest was not warranted may be sufficient provocation. But in every one of those cases the affray was s•idden and unpremeditated. In the present case the form of warrant adopted may be open to objection, and probably might ou application to the court for a writ of habeas have entitled the prisoners to be discharged from cus tody, but we entirely agree with the opinion of Lord Hale (2, Pleas of the Crown), that though defective in form the gaoler or officer is bound to obey a warrant in this general form, and conse quently is protected by it. This is a point which, had the affray been sudden and unpremeditated, we probably should have thought it right to reserve. In the present case, however, it was clearly proved that there was on the part of the convicts a delibe rate, prearranged conspiracy to attack the police with firearms, and shoot them if necessary for the purpose of rescuing the two prisoners in their cus tody, and that they were well aware that the police were acting in obedience to the commands of a justice of the peace, who had full power to remand the prisoners to gaol if he made a proper warrant for the purpose. It was further manifest that they attempted the rescue in perfect ignorance of any defect in the warrant, or illegality in the custody, that the courts of law were open to an application for their release from custody. We think it would be monstrous to suppose that under such circum stances, even if the justice did make an informal warrant, it could possibly justify the slaughter of an officer in charge of the prisoners, or reduce such slaughter to the crime of manslaughter. To cast any doubt on this subject would, we think, be productive of the most serious mischief, by dis couraging the police in the performance of their duties, and by encouraging the lawless in a disre gard of the authority of the law. We feel bound under these circumstances to de cline to take a course which might lead to the belief that we considered the matter as open to doubt. Comx BLACKBURN. The preparations for the execution of the four convicts at the New Bailey, on Saturday, are being actively pushed forward. Yesterday workmen commenced the erection of barriers in New Bailey street; and this morning they will take down a portion of the prison wall at the spot where the scaffold will be erected. The streets branching from New Bailey-street, and the entrances from Chapel street and over Albert Bridge, will be closed by barricades. After noon to-day no vehicles will be permitted to pass along New Bailey-street until after the execution. The Mayor of Salford issued a no tice last night, requesting the well-disposed and respectable inhabitants of the borough to stay away from the scene of the execution on Saturday, so that the danger arising from the pressure of large crowds may be diminished as much as pos sible. In fact, by the modern arrangements of an execution, so little is to be seen, that those who usually congregate about such horrors have scarcely anything to attract them. The enrolment of special constables has proceeded in the most satisfactory manner. The Mayor was engaged last night swearing in numbers of men ; and the response to the call of the authorities has been so general that it has not been found necessary to issue any summonses for special constables. It is expected that by this evening 2,000 will have been sworn in, and the entire force will be on duty from four o'clock on Friday afternoon until ten o'clock on Saturday morning. We are informed that the convicts, having clung to hope until lately, are now fully convinced that the sentence will be carried out, and their demeanour shows the most complete resignation. They have attended most assiduously, and with the utmost fervour, to the ministrations of the Roman Catholic clergymen who have attended upon them every day. Allen still continues to protest that he did not shoot Brett. O'Brien (alias Gould) has not shown the least desire to do anything that might tend to avert his fate, and the same observation applies to Larkin. The convict Condon (alias Shore), who has borne a captain's commission in the American army, is a native of the United States. He is known to have been connected with the Fenian organisation both in America and this country, and satisfactory proof has been obtained that he took steps to provide legal assistance for Kelly and Deasey whilst they were lying in the City Gaol. The convict solicited, some time ago, the assistance of the American Mi nister to this country, and wished him to interfere on the ground that he (Condon) was an American citizen. As in the case of O'Brien, Mr. Adams de clined to interfere. Since sentence was passed upon him Condon has repeated his application that Mr. Adams would interfere with the British Government on his behalf ; and that Mr. Lord, the United States Consul in this city, has received a communication from Mr. Adams, to the effect that as Condon has broken the laws of this country, he (Mr. Adams) cannot interfere in his behalf. The Rev. Mr. Gadd will remain with the convicts during the whole of Friday night. On every alter nate morning since their conviction the condemned men have partaken of the CGmmunion. It has been arranged that they shall again partake of it imme diately before the execution. Allen had a parting interview yesterday with an uncle and three cousins. Many persons were surprised that Thaddeus Stevens closed his couventation with the German, through whose means he lately addressed his fellow citizens, without alluding to his views :on the Na tional Debt. It appears that he reserved this for a separate address, as a telegram from New York, dated Nov. 9, informs us he has written a letter ad vocating the payment of the 5-20 bonds in currency. Whether Thaddeus Stevens is a good guide on questions connected with Reconstruction remains to be proved ; but on questions of political economy and finance he is as little to be followed as any man in the Union. his influence, impaired by recent events, will not be strengthened by the course he is pursuing, and if the Republican party has ma terially lost ground, it is perhaps most due to Thaddeus Stevens. Metropolitan Board of Works. A special meeting of the Metropolitan Board of Works was held yesterday at the office in Spring gardens, Sir John Tbwaites in the chair. THE CHARGES AGAINST MR. DOULTON, H.P. The Court was specially convened yesterday for the purpose of investigating the charges which had been made by Mr. Furness, one of the contractors for the execution of the Thames Embankment works, contained in the evidence he gave before the Registrar in Bankruptcy, in reference to Mr. Doulton, M.P., one of the members of this Board, and which, if true, were of a very serious charac ter. The Board room was fully occupied by mem bers, and the space devoted to strangers was com pletely filled by vestrymen and constituents of the hon. member for Lambeth. At 12 o'clock precisely Sir JOHN THWAITES took the chair, and opened the business by stating that he saw the hon. member for Lambeth in his place, and a copy of the evidence given by Mr. Furness in the proceedings in bankruptcy had been sent to each member, and the same had no doubt been re ceived by the hon. member himself. The hon. mem ber had expressed a desire to make a statement, and the special Board had been called that day to give him an opportunity of doing so. Before, how ever, the hon. member began, he wished to call the attention of the members of the Board to page 21 of the printed evidence, in which reference was made to some transactions connected with the Odessa con tract and Mr. Bazalgette, their chief engineer. There was a great disturbance amongst the vestries at that time on account of Mr. Ridley's tender for the Thames Embankment works being lower than the one that was accepted. Mr. Furness, in the evidence he had given, had stated that he had re ceived a letter from him (the chairman), making some arrangements as to money being received as expenses by Mr. Bazalgette in reference to the Odessa contract, but that he was not to receive any com mission. Now he (Sir J. Thwaites) did not write any such letter, and on looking over Mr. Furness's evidence he was astonished to find that stated, as he had never written him any letter on the subject in conjunction with Mr. Bazalgette or otherwise. Upon that he directed his secretary to write to Mr. Furness, and he returned him a reply that he had not done so, and that Mr. Bazalgette had only written a letter declining any participation of the commis sion out of the Odessa contract. If the hon. mem ber for Lambeth was then desirous of making any statement, they would be very glad to hear it. Mr. DOULTON, M.P., said--The observations which I may feel called upon to make to-day will be very brief, but I trust will be very intelligible. In the first place, I desire to assure the Board that my absence on Friday last arose from no indisposi tion on my part to give you an explanation, or from any inability to answer satisfactorily all the statements which have been made. It was simply a question of possibility in regard to other matters in which I am engaged, or I should have been able then to giye you that explanation which I shall give you this day. That appears to me to be not only the legitimate but the only course open to me to take. On the 9th of October I first heard of even the slightest whisperings against my character in relation to this matter, and what I heard was of the vaguest description; and on the same day I wrote to the solicitors who had been connected with the examination, asking to give me a copy of the evidence givea by Mr. Furness. In the next place, I asked that an opportunity should be afforded to me to give my answer in the same place and be fore the same tribunal where the charges had been made. In consequence, however, of the absence from town of the principal of the firm, I did not re ceive a reply to my communication until the Ist of the present month. I was then informed that there was no objection to my having a copy of the evi dence, but they saw no means of giving me the op portunity of making my statement before the Court of Bankruptcy. This matter had not then come be fore the Board at all. Now, what could I do ? I could only wait until I could obtain the evidence in which the statements were made, and I obtained that evidence, in common with the other members of the Board, only on Tuesday week last. Until that day I had not seen any evidence, and only statements in the vaguest form had been made. On that day I personally saw the chairman of the Board (Sir J. Thwaites), and told him that, as it would be impossible for me to be present on Friday last, I wished the matter to be referred to a committee to be investigated—not to a committee of seven or nine members, but to a committee of the whole Board, which was the usual course taken in such matters. Having been investigated by the committee, the re port could have been presented and the whole subject publicly gone into. The Board, on Friday, thought differently, and did not adopt the course that I sug gested. I do not complain that they did not, but what I do complain of is that certain members of the Board, although they did tot endorse the statements which had been made, by the inference that could be drawn from their observations they assumed their truth. It was very foolish on my part that I should have made the suggestion that the subject be referred to a committee, for in this Board as elsewhere there is a class of persons who, if they can obtain a bit of scandal, roll it on their tongues like a sweet morsel, and take every opportunity of which they can avail themselves to damage my public character, acting, if you throw enough should like to know n dirt, doubt, some oi is s t u h r e e p t r o i n s c t i i p e l k e t h a l t , what the charge.is that is made against me, because there is a difference between that made here and that made out of doors. Out of doors the general im pression is that 1, as a member of this Board, used my influence to obtain a contract for a certain con tractor, and by influence so obtained it, for which I received a sum of money. The inference drawn from the evidence is that I received a sum of money, as I induced two gentlemen to become sureties, and thus enabled Mr. Furness to obtain the contract ; that the two gentlemen who undertook the respon sibility and risk of becoming sureties were paid, and that I received a part of the money. To the infer ence that can fairly be drawn from that evidence allow me to say I give a firm, unhesitating, and un equivocal denial. Certain sums were to be paid to the gentlemen who were to become sureties, and the inference was that I received a portion of that sum as a member of the Board. As a proof of what I have stated, I sought out with some difficulty a gen tleman thoroughly conversant with the matter, for it is four years since the transaction took place, and I have received a communication from him which is marked " private and confidential," but there are portions of that letter, with a certain reserve, that I will read, and I will place it in the hands of the chair man or of a committee,and it will show that the charges against me are unfounded. (Some portions of the let ter were then read, which stated that Mr. Doulton had never received anycash, bill, or other consideration in reference to this matter.) I have not received the writer's permission to make the whole letter public, but I will place it in the hands of the com mittee. What I did was this—to introduce the contractor to these two gentlemen, he having paid on a previous contract £20,000 to the sureties. The gentlemen I introduced became his sureties for half that amount, but not one penny of that sum ever came into my possession. If there ever was an absurd idea enter the mind of man, it was the ab surdity of supposing that any contract could be ob tained from the Board by the influence of a single member of it. I do not think it po sible that any contractor can be found who would pay for the imaginary influence which I am supposed to possess in reference to this matter. The whole history of the Board gives the lie to such an assertion. When we have large and small matters to deal with we refer them to others and take their opinion, which is a legitimate influence we possess to obtain what we require. We use our legitimate influence when we have five or six candidates for an appointment, and when we do not know them personally, and we naturally bend to the opinion of those who have some knowledge of their ability and services. In this very matter, as to the acceptance of Mr. Furness's contract, when it was before the committee and before the Board I was not in favour of it, and when there was a division 1 recorded my vote against Mr. Furness's contract being received. You may take that for what it is worth, but it is a fact. After the debate of Friday I should have been content that the Board should have investigated the matter, and I should have also been content with its report. Probably you may question my discretion, but tell ing the history of the case from end to end I do not believe that one member of the Board will endorse the opinion that could be drawn from the inference of the observations of last Friday that the charges were true. When I came to town and saw the debate of Friday, it is not possible for me to leave off where I intended. This is not the first time charges have been made against my public character here and else where, owing to my having the good fortune to know something of the contractors, and on that ground charges utterly indefensible have been made against me, and I challenge any member of the Board to prove them. That took place four years ago, when an attempt was made to injure my poli tical character, and, although I have called upon my political opponent to justify his charges, they have utterly failed. Two yea►s afterward the same charges were made, with the same person at the head, but supplemented by a political and parochial opponent who sits beside me (Mr. Richardson) ; who asserted his own purity and threw his mantle round the dignity of the board. There were offshoots from the same charges, and by the same men, but I tell them now that they have utterly and ignominiously failed to establish the charges they have made. It might be said the Board did not make these charges, and it is true that you did not make them as a board ; but what I complain of is that only with the simple question before you, without having even been dis cussed by a committee, some of you have asserted by implication the truth of the statements that were made. And I would ask why should there be this gratuitous anxiety to discuss this question before I had an opportunity of offering any explanation, or defending my own dignity and honour. If the board is attacked it naturally looks to one man to protect its honour; but my hon. friend led the way, and he was particularly emphatic, in doing so, to reiterate the charges against me, to assert his own virtue, and then to throw his own shelter round the dignity of the board. When I read this gratuitous statement of the hon, member, in which he proclaimed his own virtue at the corner of every street, I said simply " I do not believe it." Then there is another gentleman opposite (Mr. Savage) who could put into the smallest number of syllables the most objectionable things, who said it was very awkward ; and the inference to be derived from what he said was that I wasnot in my place because 1 was not prepared to answer the charges which had been made. Then there was an other gentleman who was good enough to say that I had risen to my present position by my talents. I am obliged to him for the compliment, but I fear I am not able to return it. I think it one of the most un just and unmanly statements ever made. It was a species of parochial Fenianism, and a stabbing in the back which could only originate in the parish of Marylebone. It was only natural, as the debate had been begun by the hon. member for Greenwich, he should throw his sheltering arm and the dignity of the board over the hon. member for Paddington (Mr. Roche). The hon. member for Padding ton had said if the board was to be defended it should be done publicly, and he had appealed to Cs✓;ar. To Caesar he should go, for within a few days I have received a communication involving fresh charges in reference to the transactions of this board. I have received a letter from a contractor to this board, in which it is stated that Mr. Roche, the member for Paddington, spoke to him at Spring Gardens, and promised to support him in the con tract, if he would only have the granite he required from the Lundy Granite Company, and my name was mentioned by Mr. Roche as referee without my consent or knowledge, and he said that Mr. Ridley had done the same thing, and showed him a paper that he held in his hand ; and this was the guardian angel of the board. You hav got;the evidence be fore you and attach great value to it ; but it has not been corrected by the person who gave it. It was given in his rough and ready style, but, as the chair man has already shown you, it was untrue in some very important particulars. Well, after Mr. Fur ness's evidence about me, he was anxious to make a full and complete sweep of all he knew, and wanted to give evidence about the granite, and in reference to which Mr. Roche's name was mentioned more than once, but he was stopped short and told that was not the object of the inquiry. No ; the object sought bad been obtained, and no evidence was to be taken against any other member of the board except on the one question in which I had been en gaged. I emphatically deny the evidence that has been given ; I deny all the statements that have been made, and I say that they are without a sha dow of foundation. The hon. member sat down amid some cheering. Mr. H. L. TAYLOR thought the truth would be best elicited by referring the whole matter to a committee, and moved " That the subject be re ferred to a committee of the whole Board, and that they do report as early as possible upon it." Mr. SHAW condemned the system of members of the Board being mixed up with contractors, and with regard to the sureties provided by Mr. Doulton they were not seen by Mr. Furness until they were introduced to him by a member of the Board. Mr. RICHARDSON urged that the public would never be satisfied with a private inquiry after the charges which had been made against Mr. Doulton, and he should hold up his hand against this matter being sent to any committee unless it was an open one. Mr. Roc LIE indignantly denied that lie had any personal interest in the contract referred to, or in the Lundy Granite Company, he having not a single share in it, and altogether ceased to have any con nection with it for some time past. He denied ever having produced such a contract as had been de scribed, or did he ever see such a document. In his professional capacity he had to draw up a contract from instructions he received from the company for a supply of granite, but for that he ba I received no accommodation bills, or any remuneration whatever to the extent of a single sixpence. He acted for the company, and in doing so was very careful. He prepared the legal document and got it signed, and the name of Mr. Doulton was ,inserted at the re quest of Mr. Furness, who stated that he was his closest and most sincere friend. What he did was strictly within his duty as a member of the Board and as a representative of the company. He would ask any gentleman to read the document before them, and he would see that Mr. Furness was not in a position at the time to take any contract, for he was then little better than insolvent, and yet he bad the audacity to say that he had been brought to his present position through the conduct of the mem bers of the Board. The letter he had written might have been written at the dictation of the gentleman who produced it, but he did not say that was the case. At a►ny rate, Mr. Doulton threw dirt on some one else, so that he might come clean himself out of this transaction. He (Mr. Roche) had asked for publicity before—he asked for it still he had never been a party to any of these transactions, and had never received any remunera tion for being so. Mr. THOMPSON was in favour of a public inquiry, for it was impossible that the matter could rest where it was, and he hoped the hon. member for Lambeth would prove correct in the statements he had made. Mr. FREE3IAN believed that they would never be able to prosecute a thorough investigation unless through the means of a coumittee—not a secret one, but one of the whole Board. Mr. Bolus urged that as the inquiry had begun it should be continued and concluded in public. Mr. HALL should vote for sending it to a com mittee, and the same view was taken by Dr. Evans, who said that if the inquiry was in open Board they would be unable to obtain the necessary evidence, they having no power to compel the attendance of witnesses. After some further discussion the motion was carried for referring the subject to a committee, whereupon a motion was made that such committee should be an open one to the press, which was put and negatived by a majority of 18 to 13. It was agreed that a shorthand writer should be engaged to take down the evidence given in the committee. The Board then adjourned. Mscellaneous News. (From the Anglo-American Times.) The advocates of Woman Suffrage have.met with a difficulty as amusing as unexpected by them, though deemed likely enough by others. It turns out that in Kansas, where the agitation has assumed the most formidable proportions, the women do not want to vote—displaying a stubborn indifference to the highest privilege of American citizenship, which has baffled their allies. The " persuasive Caroline Da11" is required to deal with her fair sisters. Complaints have been made to Washington of the manner in which the military commanders have arranged the districts, so as to give the negroes and Radicals the advantage. An appeal was made to General Grant against the " jerry-mandering" of General Pope, but it was forwarded to Pope, who declined to make any change. The same charge is brought against General Schofield in the late elec tions in Virginia, and it is further alleged that through the skilful manner of " districting" an undue advantage has been given to the blacks. The elections are progressing, on the whole, favourably to the Republican party. In Colorado the Republican majority in a vote of 9,349 is 876 against a majority of 108 last year. Nebraska has been carried by that party, who had gained in every county heard from at the date of our last advices. In lowa the majority was 28,000. In West Virginia the Democrats have been successful, but in Virginia the Radicals have carried everything. The returns show that 75,924 whites and 93,656 negroes voted ; the Radicals polling 14,835 white and 92,507 negro votes. The Conservatives 61,249 whites and 638 blacks, the Radical majority being 45,455. As far as ascertained, 25 black and 43 white Radical dele gates had been elected, and 37 Conservatives. Few of the black delegates chosen are able to read or write. In Georgia the Republican majority is very large, as well as in Louisiana and Alabama. New York has, however, been gained by the Con servatives, as well as New Jersey; but Mas sachusetts has elected a Republican ticket, though by a decreased majority. The fight there fore is well maintained, the Conservatives being generally successful in the Nortb, the Radicals in the South, and the parties pretty evenly balanced in the Pacific States and Territories. Late news from Ohio gives the official return of votes on the Negro Suffrage Amendment as in all 484,603, of which 216,987 were for negro suffrage, 255,340 against it, and 12,276 were blacks. The majority against negro suffrage is given at 38,353. Petroleum is rising in the market, and again the active American is on the look-out to " strike 'ile." The petroleum mania was succeeded by a depres sion so great that wells were everywhere abandoned as the oil did not pay for the production. The trade is again reviving, and now in a healthy, legitimate manner. The oil, it is hoped, can be usefully em ployed in generating steam, and if so the demand will be great, and the industry profitable to all par ties. Petroleum stocks are rising in Wall-street. Numerous meetings of shareholders are announced, new strikes are declared, large iron tanks have been erected near the wells, and the trade altogether shows vitality. lICINNICUTT,S POLICY. Unprejudiced men have long foreseen the danger of a broad separation, political as well as social, between the black and white races in the Southern States. That the emancipated millions required careful guidance when so suddenly called on to exercise the privileges of freedmen is everywhere conceded. The Radical party, who have pushed matters to an extreme, were supposed to be able to control the negroes. Some thought that their former masters would influence the race ; others that they would attach themselves to those to whom they owe emancipation ; but it is now seen that the tendency is for the blacks to act in a body as blacks, with an utter disregard for any other con sideration than their own ascendancy. The late elec tions show that the negroes understand liberty only as the elevation of their race at the expense of their white fellow-citizens, so the line that now separates the Southern people is the natural one of colour—the blacks being on one side, the whites on the other. Out of 10,051 white citizens in Richmond, 51 only voted with the blacks, and less than 50 blacks voted with the whites. Yet in that city there are many Republicans as sound in principle as in any other of the Union. Many earnest advocates of negro education, negro emancipation, and negro suffrage, have been compelled to take the place marked out for them by nature among the men of their race, because the blacks have insisted on blow ing principle to the winds, and establishing their party on the simple issue of Black versus White. This fatal decision is mainly due to a man named HUNNICUTT, who has obtained an influence over the negroes, which he is using to further his selfish ends. His object is to combine the negroes into one body under his control, and he has announced himself as a candidate for the United States Senate and for the vice-Presidency as the acknow ledged representative of the negro race. A narrow minded demagogue such as Mr. HUNNICUTT is a despot of the worst type. To maintain his sway it is necessary that those on the ticket with himself should be creatures of his own. For this reason, gentlemen like Governor PIERPOINT and FRANKLIN STEARNS were removed to make way for a JAMES MORRISSEY. None but the lowest schemers could act with a person like HUNNICUTT, who openly preached negro supremacy—the confiscation of the property of the whites—and the rule of coloured citizens by the strong arm. Having announced his atrocious programme, the white inhabitants took measures in self-defence. Employers were advised to dismiss negro workmen, and to induce white labour from the North and from Europe to supply their places. It is said that a proclamation was posted in Richmond, offering a reward of V 5,000 for HUNNICUTT'S assassination. Addressing a crowd of his coloured friends, Mr.HuNNic urr said— " Don't you know, fellow citizens, that when the assassin's bullet passes through my brain, or his dagger touches my heart, more than one white man will fall upon that day ?" The assemblage responded " Yes, yes." It is thus he works; not by an ap peal to law and justice, but to fear—himself dread ing the assassin's knife, hoping to check the hand of others by showing the consequences that must result to themselves. A negro guard was posted over his house, and a Vigilance Committee organised, who proceeded to serve notices on leading citizens to withdraw from the State. The coloured people write to their Northern friends of the dread of the whites' violence in which they live, and ask permission to form themselves into a militia. The whites report to the Government their appre hension of a negro insurrection in the South, peti tioning for an increase in the military force and the disarming of the negroes. The whites who voted with the negroes are under a social ban, and the negroes who voted with the whites are murdered by their black brethern. It is marvellous in our eyes, looking across the broad Atlantic on this spec tacle, to see men hurrying blindly to their fate. The one thing the negroes should have avoided was to separate into parties marked by colour. To them a war of races means death—a destruction hopeless and inevitable. The first step to a war of races is such a separation. Once taken, the line will quickly grow into an impassable barrier—and who can doubt the result? Can the negroes for a moment suppose that they will receive Northern aid in establishing black ascendancy ? —can they for a moment believe that such an ascendancy could be established without Northern aid? Absurd as are such expectations, we fear it is but too true that at least the latter is held by the coloured citizens of the South. The blacks have combined to carry out Mr. HusiNicurr's programme, and unless this man be quickly removed, and the Radical leaders take effi cient steps to direct the efforts of the negroes into other channels, the fate of the race will be sealed, and the Republican party involved in the gene ral ruin. If the dreaded war of races should arise, it would be due to the action of such men as HUNNICUTT, calling themselves Radicals, which action would derive its vitality from the Republican policy of putting votes into the hands of newly enfranchised slaves. Were an armed insurrection of the blacks to occur, the fate of the Radical party would be sealed, for the nation would hold them responsible both for the policy and the manner in which it was carried out. They have the strongest incentives to suppress the selfish demagogues that would use the ignorant blacks—whatever the risks —to further their own ends. Whatever might be the fate of the Southern whites, and doubtless they would have to undergo cruel sufferings, there can be little doubt as to the speedy end of the blacks as a political body and of the Republican party. The North would see in a war of races the failure of the great civil war for emancipation they under took. The grief with which they would reflect on the life and treasure wasted would give point to the enmity with which they would tarn on those who inaugurated so fatal a policy. The extent of the danger will probably arouse the Radicals to action and avert the catastrophe. Negros cannot be handled by demagogues as are Irish or German emigrants, for they belong to another race, and there is a deep-seated feeling of prejudic and antipathy which may quickly be fanned into a consuming tire. A negro rising would bring down on the woolly bead the full force of UNCLE SAM'S arm, nerved by the strength of every sinew, for there could be little doubt or hesitation in the North how such an out break should be met. A slave rising against op pression —and armed negroes striking for ascend ancy to put their black heels on the white necks Of their former masters, are two very different things* The SUMNERS, the THADDN:US STEVENSES, t he WENDELL PHILLIPSES, the BROWNLOWS, and BU T " LERS would go down before the hurricane of Nor thern feeling raised by such an insurrection as the palms and cocoa nuts before a relentless cyclo ne ' They might as well reason with the wind as wit h Northern sentiment in presence of their whi te brethren falling under negro knives. It is not by closing our eyes that the danger can be averted — as well shut them while standing on the track before a coming train. Indeed, there is some safety in th e very magnitude of the danger, for even such things as HUNNICUTT must quail as the awful storm ap proached. He is playing with edged tools, wit h loaded guns, and the first head that will be blown off if the collision comes—will be his own. At the same time, we believe, the negroes, under the guid ance of honest and unselfish leaders, are both trac table and law-abiding, which adds to the responsi bility of the Radicals, on whom will fall the retribution if they permit them to be deluded to their ruin. The action of the PRESIDENT, as shown by the advices through the Royal mail vessel that arrived yesterday, indicates his dread of the races . coming into armed c olli s i on . Ge n eral GRANT, is reported, will shortly issue an order for the dis solution of all the military and volunteer organisa tions in the South, an order which stands in strik ing contrast witn that just issued by Mr. JourlSol l to restore to their owners all the Fenian ar u3s seized during the raid on Canada.—Anglo-Amer icaTh Times. COUNTRY MARKETS. MONMOUTHSHIRE—TuEsDAY. ch There is a great scarcity of old white wheat, for -1 w prices continue firm ; but for all other kinds prices bavs 3 downward tendency. Barley meets with a good inclui l l s ; and malting sorts are firmer than a week ago. Beans fair request. For oats quotations wore about as hig h - last week. ed The following are the average quotations:—Wheat , 8s Od to 8s 3d per bushel ; white, 8s 3d to 8s 9d ; Wen!. is Od to Os ,Od ; malting barley, 43s to 46s per qr ; gra,',6s ing ditto, 36s to 38s Od; beans. 43s to 458 ; white oats, Od to 30s Od ; black ditto, 26s Od to 27s Od. SALISBURY.—TUESDAY. A good attendance of farmers, millers, and dealers t ae day, and prices for most articles were about the ea se last week, with a fair trade. The following are the quotations :—Wheat realised from si . , l; GBs to 76s ; barley, 36s to 48s ; oats, 25s to 32s ; beauo to 58s; and peas, 42s to 50s per qr. Tares, from 5s 6 ', 6 1 7, Od per bushel ; Best bread, lid ; household ditto, per 81b loaf. Flour, 52s to 53s . per sack. HULL.—TUESDAY. A middling supply of English wheat to-day, and the a attendance was pretty fair. The inquiry was limited, 9,10 tendingplices downwards. Oats steady, and a to leratm demand for beans. mot English white wheat, 78s to 83s ; red, 67s 'to 72 8 ' sic and Konigsberg, 76s to 80s ; Baltic red, 70s to '; 6 - 4 " • Danish and Hamburg, 70s to 72s ; Russian, 63s W Barley, English, 42s to 48s ; grinding, Mediterraneaut 34s to 33s 6d. Oats, new English, 26s to 28s; RussitTs 26s to 278. Beans, old English, 45s to 465; foreign , - to 435. Peas, English blue, 14 to 46s Ocl ; foreign vilu tl 43s to 445; grinding, 42s to 43s Od per qr. LYNN—TUESDAY. The attendance of growers was good to-day, but " was still a very small supply of wheat, with a r °3 i r . trade, and pricos fully the same as last week' for all s o F t Barley in good supply, and both malting and grindl sorts supported late rates. Beans and peas unaltered. Ne oats wore 6d to is lower. New wheat, 75s to 808 ; now red, 66s to 72s • old white; 52s to —s ; old red, —s to —s per 36 stone. Barley L.,° malting, 418 to 45s ; secondary, 40s to 41s. Oats, Oa' 24s to 28s per 24 stone. Beans, small, 45s to 4 8 s l' ev "" 38s to 48s per 28 stone. COAL 11 Price per Ton s d ARKET. at the Close. 0 " ~ 18 Haswell - 21 Kelloe New Belmont l9 6 Walls End Hetton ... ,„ 9 Eden Main South Hetton I Original Hartlepool Ships at market, S3—sold, 29. Foreign flail Packet List, MAILS DUE. ,v y Australia and New Zealand, via Southampton.....— ° • 19. 14 ' Ditto, via Marseilles ............. Ditto, via Panama Nov . 23* Brazil, Buenas Ayres, and Monte Video No's 422 Nov. 22 Ditto, ')y French packet Cape Verde, by Brazil packet ....Dec. r Dec. **,., .• Uape of Good Hope. Asoension, and St. Helena....N° ' • , 9 . China, Penang, and Singapore, via Southampton..N oV• Ditto, via Hansenles 4. Falkland Islands Deo. g• • Gibraltar, via Southampton 19. India, via Southampton Ditto, via Marseil es Malta, Egypt, i&o. • Ditto, Marseilles... Mauritius, Cape of Good live, and Antal, * v . i . a .52712.:: NOV. 11 Southam Ditt Marsei.les Dec. 4• 9.0, Newfoundla • • •.. • ..... • • • • •• ortugal .......... Pea* Ditto, by rN t. ship to Oporto Ditto 4 1 to Lisbon United States, i ana CaWanda, Szo ,oy British „ 3. packet NOV . ' ...... Ditto, by L _,lied states packet Ditto ditto 'New York) Ditto ditto Ntw York) Ditto ditty ( Bal dmure) ....... ....... .• O. Ditto, by Canadian packet ..... West Coast of Atria, nadenra, and Teneriffa ...... De°. West Indies and Pazilic (except Mexico and Baha- ~, Nov. as) NO. 28 Cub m a and Mexico D ec. 12 ' Bahamas, via New York Bermuda, via Halifax TIIE FARNHAM WORKHOUSE.—The inquiry re ,: o lating to the condition of the Farnham Workhouse Iv-nf resumed yesterday. Dr. Powell, the medical office r L " the union, was subjected to a long cross-examination e 0 the counsel for the guardians. Other witnes ses is examined, and then the inquiry was adjourned until t- morning. Births. rap BELL—On the 19th inst., at Southsaa, the wife of the ' - William Bell, R.N., of a son. the HAVELOCK -On the Ist inst , at Montreal, C3114-9' Lady Alice Havelock, of a:daughter. v p a lls l ‘ l PALG . RAVE-011 the 19th inst., at Reigate, MO, Palgrave, of a daughter. Marriages. TAP?, " HILL—LONGWORTH—On the 19th inst., at P f - Cheltenham, Col. Hill, of Court of Hill, SbroPsi vicar Emma, o Emma, widow of the late Rev. T. J. Longwortb, Bromfield, and of Wallworth House, Chelteubalu'Abbei APGREGOR—BAIRNSFATILER—Ou the 19th il3St.7 at E5 , c1. , Villa, St. Andrew's, N.B.,Alex. C. M. 31‘Gregt°,;Vessil son of the late Captain A. N. Murray M'G re P r ' ° Miller, younger daughter of Peter Bairn sfather, Durnl;arrow, Forfarshire, N.B. c 000s"' Deaths. C.llAstr mnEttLAIN—On the 17th inst., at Vivenhoe, , Essex, James Chamberlain, Esq., late of Osweter FAME— On the 18th inst., at 19, CLIM bridgo Villas,i,,`,sci-.1 of ford-road, Walham-green, Thomas 11. 1 ) . F"Y le ' - Union Bank of London, aged 38 . DP 3rt IIt.:NTER —On the 16th inst., at London, MatthoW Hunter, Esq., of Autonshll and Medomslel. Vitt .- HOME—On the 18th inst. at Woodville, , F, C i. , : : 6 1 Ba l burgh, Robert G. Home, Esq., late of v.., CO ' ment, aged 23. „ a . Nimmo —On the 17th inst.. at Grantehester, 11e-- bride, George Nimmo, Esq., aged 72. . 000 ,t3: 1 9 TONG— g On the 17th inst., Thomas Tong , of Bticici .L-1 Notts, Esq. WS. P. WARREN—On the 16th inst., at Exmouth, Devol3, - Warren, aged 91. ----------- 1° A . Do' London : Printed and Published by VirILLL O N 0 of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at Tan the Stiri o.o l°, , c oiti 0. v Strand, in. the Precinct of the Savoy, Middl9sol.-.—Thllatian li 07 @alb or 21, 1807. • AFTER After Di After Ft After A fter 01 After St After NI After St After Pr Lond on sin, R EN ki 18;:hnt°41: n iP I nPA A .€lal GREA • ,biervri t, 14 q tr43 l , Any. kx ,,3 4 , Pre,,lllll re plYahle diecounted:v T$ Ttn, nZ t 1 A, froT /sTp nct nar.l arl atel ra. Rur and ohoras trellin E r ., an, F( 9(11 ' 4113 Y ) STER A FiveT. in mi—rn this Evenin! Private rae aade. is : W E S 1 Cito vvrl Elm/ 111 GREAT 6, o 7l 4o h s : tacaiir r s, en. sa t iie l l( 11° CY'N . • thA p, et E r LEv AN iLP IA R V superb band 13Z,SPE( • ORD , i ng at 10 o't p ast 7. n be 4 4 ' ) 1 1 : rij4. ufe-si LTA 2 N th e th .00t a mitttiOttbe tt Iron s AtitYt Prll- f E rn. Mao. IC " ' ha an ar v t si 110 OPRI , j Curti r °-° 111 1 -AXP I end w ,fecti r reor ne : lo eßai B Citi NT ) TIII A,M " %e' NI tts. , 4 ot VA R . 4.1,• ` l "laiti q , "t-tr, r "'vim 41 °Pist t:" l i e 11' : 41tc'l te vell'a 104 trlter,, t , qu i h , PR A! ha . ' It it y,,,%T s rp,) s &TA:X. eegt o_q ahi tile,!.) • rm.t ROlhori vin r ,„,, t n Tht, , 0 r Z ~enl Vine t; -245, L I AT R -( Llie,,T4r4 141 Kr(: -41 Of all ( N-RtY t" 43 , . 3' 10? 54 ,81 te I I NDerl n t °nin ..fmtn h /WI 1 4 4 klp. At * Ny 1 111 th e opp itnn rt 04, .TrOn s It,thit "lent " nie C NA e Drin c , i tt I for eu litt B () Pria e . tt l t t '°" , f) 4 tink -4eilvo'ol;te)'l , 440 t n rib utio 1), 4, 1 1 1. (1 4 11 I ' e °11 :1 a n n ' 44 10 '). ; at 4