The Sun. — London, England, 1867-09-18 00:00:00

2 RADES' OU7 RAGES COMMISSION. i ELEVENTH DAY. • - - MANCHESTER, Sept. 17. After the despatch of our report yesterday Mr. John Brookes, master brickmaker, Oldham, de posed that he had two stacks of hay fired in 1859, through not employing union men, and that he had two cows poisoned. In t h e following year, in May, he had bricks spoilt and clay needled. Joseph Rigby, a brickmaker, deposed that he heard Richard Beasley say he helped to make the shell thrown at Mr. Greaves, but Beasley, having been sworn and cautioned, denied all knowledge of the matter. This morning the Court opened at the usual hour, when Richard Beasley was again placed in the witness box. He had met Thomas Rigby about five years ago, and slept in the same bed with him at Run corn. Slept with him only one night, and the man was drunk, and behaved more like a lunatic. Never told him that witness and James Kay made the shell which was thrown at Greaves, or that he was the first man that brought needles from Sheffield. Did not fill the office of auditor to the accounts of the club at Oldham that he could recollect, but might have done so on an emergency. A memo randum book being handed to him with the words, "Audited and found correct, James Egan, Richard Beasley," he said that was his signature, but he had forgotten. He coald not say what the entry, " Cash, £20," was for. There might have been 20 men on strike, and £1 each for the week would account for it, but the book did not say what year it was in, and though it might have been explained at the time, his memory did not serve him now. Mr. Pickering, looking at the book, said he found the entry was in September, 1862. The witness said his Honour must allow for the ignorance of the class he belonged to. If he re metnbered what the entry was for he would say what it was, but he did not know much of book keeping. Mr. Pickering said he thought the books seemed to have been well kept. People seemed to have a habit of losing their memory when they got into the witness box. Witness said that was not the case. _ _ _ Thomas Rigby, sworn--• Was cautioned, and told if he made a full confession he would have a certifi cate. Witness said he was a member of the Oldham union six or seven years ago. In 1859 he joined in the only outrage he had been connected with. He went with Wm. Birchall, Wm. Smith, and John Suthers to fire a shed. They put naphtha in a tin, but it did no execution at all. He was stationed at the door of the shed with a pistol, and had no doubt he should have shot any one that came; he had no doubt, he was so ignorant then. He knew no better. He remembered sleeping with Richard Beasley at Runcorn for about a week, and Beasley asking him if he remembered the affair of old Cobbold. And he went on to say he was one who made the shell to throw at Greaves, but it was not done to kill, but to " fear" him. Never heard the outrages brought be fore the council. Remembered Kay bringing £lOO to Oldham, and it was to support a strike. Had heard of Kay receiving as much as £25 for an out rage, but could not remember what it was for, though he thought it was for Blocksage's affair at Ashton. Had heard of Kay being paid for many a job at Oldham, but it was not that he knew any thing about them. James Wrigley deposed to a strike at his brick croft in 1857 at Oldham in consequence of his em ploying a non-union burner, and to the spoiling of his bricks and other property subsequently through employing non-union men. In May, 1858, had both union and non-union men in his employ. Discharged his non-union men, and had not been disturbed since. Samuel Smith had been burner to the last witness, but said the damage was done to his property be fore the union men were discharged. Knew of no reason why his property was destroyed but that he (witness) was a non-union man. He had since then become a union man. Was fined last week by the Ashton union a pound for doing another man's work and charging 4s. instead of 6s. for it. He did it because the man had done him a good turn. Charles Renshaw was making bricks by machinery in 1862 at Heaton Chapel, which was in the Stock port district. On J une 19 the roof of the shed and the end of it were blown away during the night. In the morning found the remains of two canisters, which smelt of powder. The damage was £B. Gave information to the police, but no one was taken, though they could trace the steps of the six men coming from and returning towards Gorton, which is in the Manchester district. Found great difficulties in carrying on ; bricksetters would not set his bricks, and contractors of buildings were obliged to return, though they would have preferred usingthem. Gave up business in consequence of the annoyance from the trade. John Clay Johnson said he had been a wooden shovel maker 20 years, such as were used by brick makers. Had been a member of the Manchester Brickmakers' Union, but bad not attended much for the last 17 years. They called him " Shovel Jack." Never heard of the outrage on last witness. Might have heard of Renshaw's machine being blown up, but did not remember it. Had been in custody for harbouring Burke and Ward, who committed the murder of Jump. Was tried and sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment. Was in the lockup atAshton, but never 'sked constable Rogers if he remembered six men passing him in Hyde-road, and that he (witness) was the third man. Did not say they had been blowing up Renshaw's machine. Never said anything of the kind. Had heard of a machine being broken up at Cheetham-hill, but had nothing to do with it. Never said there were eight of them engaged and they received £2b among them for it. Nothing of the kind ever came from his lips. The witness, at the close of his examination, said he craved no certificate. He had lived 30 years. Constable Rogers said in 1862 he and another man apprehended Burke and Ward at Jonnson's house. Remembered being in Hyde-road the night Renshaw's machine was destroyed. It was in June, 1862, a week before Jump was shot. Johnson was taken for harbouring Burke and Ward, and said in the lockup he had been in several jobs, but this was the worst. He said he had been engaged in blowing, up Renshaw's machine and a machine at Cheetham hill, and they received £25. He told them they must not tell the brickmakers or they would buy more shovels from him, and that if they got to know they (the police) must say he was not right in his head. He referred to the Cheetham-hill affair again, before another constable, either Barlow or Anderson. Mr. Robt. Wilson is au engineer and acting part ner at Nasmyth's at Patricroft. They were using bricks which were very inferior, and the maker, whose name was Burton, said they must take them or have no other. They applied to another brick maker, but they supplied bricks that were too small. They then determined to make bricks themselves, having excellent clay, and set men to work. Early in February last two men came from the Union in Manchester and asked if he would give them the job. He said he was employing his own men. They said he had better give them the job or he might be subject to annoyance. Asked if this was intended as a threat, and they said no, but he would find great difficulties, and had better give them the job. He purchased 200,000 bricks at Swinton, having engaged bricksetters to lay the bricks. After the bricks were brought the union men got at the brick setters, and they refused to work. Ile got three men afterwards to set the bricks, but after working for a time they were told they would be fined, and they left. He bad since obtained six non-uuion men, who continued to work steadily. In June he had 500 or 600 bricks spoilt in their own yard, he sup posed by union men. John Twigg had been in the employ of Messrs. Nasmyth and Co., engineers. Was employed in taking off the sod for them to get clay for bricks. Two union men came and asked if he was in the union. He told them he was not. They offered him £5 and another job to give it up. He told them he was set to do it by his master, and could not give it up. They told him he must take what followed. Ile offered them a subscription to the union, but they would not take it. Robert Ellerton sworn—ls a bricklayer, and was building some houses in Radnor-street, Manchester, in the spring of 1863. Was using common bricks: for the backs and machine bricks for the fronts.. Saw Jas. Kay, who told him if he used a machine, he could not have hand-made bricks, and he had to give up the contract. Was building nine houses in, Crowther-street in 1863, and the walls were pushed. down. It was a wet night, and they made such a. wreck of the buildings that he should think a dozen. must have been engaged. The damage would be. about £lO. He was using machine-made bricks. Machine-made bricks were better and cheaper than, hand-made, and would supersede them in an open market. He had been stopped building with thin in consequence of these interferences. Mr. J. Ashworth said he was a brickmaker, of Regent-road, Salford. In June, 1861, he found more than 60,000 bricks destroyed. Employed 30 men, all union men. He had a son in the croft who was not a union man. He had been carrying slack for the burner. Ile attributed it to that. Four men were apprehended, but discharged. After that Pa trick Cullum was apprehended. Jonathan Edwards and another man came from the union and called the men away. Jas. Manning and George Kershaw came and said he must pay £5O for the expense of taking Cullum up. Said he would not, and they said he would have to rue it. He and his sons and two men then did the work, and he got a machine and made bricks by machinery. At first he found a market for his bricks, but afterwards, when the hand-made brickmakers and bricklayers had amal gamated, the market was stopped. In Aug., 1865, received a threatening letter (which was read) tell ing him that at a meeting of brickmakers it had been agreed to shoot him, or put an end to him, if he continued making by machine. It was signed by a well-wisher, who desired him to advertise that he had received it, and he did. In consequence of the spoiling his and other bricks to the extent of 150,000, the masters offered a reward of £2OO, of which he offered £5O. Remembered 10 days after he got this letter W. Parks, who, dressed like his (wit n ess's)son was found 50y ards from the house of witness badly beaten, and nearly killed. In the pool of blood in which he lay were found bottles with which they had beaten him. One bottle was filled with blasting powder. In consequence of this he feared some out rage being attempted on himself, and had to keep house a great deal. Knew of no reason for that but that he made bricks by machine. After Parks was hurt some masters came and went through his works and said they thought the men had had enough, and offered a sum of money for the machine, but he re fused. Had been at great loss through the giving up his machine, and resumed hand making. A few days after thelanonymous letter a ,man came to him and told him two men were to take his life, and a house had been prepared to harbour them in at Eccles, the house of a man named John Mosley. After that employed Ryder, a non-union brickmaker, to do some house painting, and in August a man came from the union and told him he must discharge Ryder. He was obliged to do it. His son was ad mitted to the union now, and employing union men. He (Mr. Ashworth) was making bricks without in terruption now. Thomas Ashworth, son of the last witness, cor roborated the evidence of his father as to the bricks being spolt and the visits of the union men offering terms. William:Ashworth, another son of Mr. Ashworth, was giving evidence in further corroboration of the statement of his father when our report was de spatched. SOUTH GERMANY, AUSTRIA, AND FRANCE. (From the TVestminster Gazette.) Europe is threatened with a new plague in the shape of alliances. The armed peace, as was to be expected, is breaking out in the first stage of war—alliances for warlike purposes. These purposes need not of necessity be aggressive, nevertheless they point to war. The journey of Napoleon to Germany—his interview with the Emperor of Austria, explains itself. There is no need of listening to Imperial speeches, or of poring over official and diplomatic interpretations of what was said, or done, or arranged at the meeting at Salzburg. The matter speaks for itself ; this ominous alliance is a matter not of choice but of necessity. Austria is flung into France's arms as a last resort against the intrigues and stratagems of Prussia and the Revolution. France also, as well as Austria, needs an ally in the three pending questions which affect the interests and stability of each country alike. The conclusion of an alliance, if it be not, indeed, already concluded, may be safely predicted from the need of such an alliance between two countries equally threatened in the Eastern question, the German question, and the Italian question. In all these questions France and Austria are opposed by three enemies ; in the East by Russia, in Germany by Prussia, in Italy by the Revolution. Russia aims at the extinction of the Ottoman Empire and the absorption of the European provinces of Turkey. Her success in the East would be a death-blow to the Aus trian Empire. The Cossack again would be the terror of Europe. Russian policy never swerves from its aim. Russian diplomacy is the secret agent ever at work—not only in the Courts and Cabinets, but in the Press of Europe. But if France and Austria have to guard against the predominance of Russia in the East, in Prussia they both see an enemy who, after driving Austria out of Germany, aims at the incorporation of the South German States and of the German lands of Austria, and which, thus aggrandized at the ex pense of its neighbours, would be a perpetual source of danger to France. And thirdly, there is revolutionary Italy which, if encouraged by the new alliances that armed Europe is forming, would not hesitate to seize upon Rome in defiance of France, and thus inflict a most damaging blow on the influence, military and moral, of France, on the peace and safety of Europe. With so many aggressive views in common, it is only in the nature of things that Prussia, Russia, and Italy should strike up an unholy" alliance, and such an alliance, if not as yet actually formed, is virtually so. And it is this danger to the peace of Europe, to the stability of their States, and to their rightful influence which has driven France and Austria into a counter alliance. It is the policy of such a defensive alliance not to take steps likely to precipitate a struggle. It is the duty of France and Austria to appeal to the Conser vative instincts of Europe, and to place their strength in the defence of right and order against the ambitious and revolutionary designs of the allied aggressors. The most important question which seems still in doubt is as to the part that South Germany will take in a war which, when it breaks out, will soon develope into a war of prin ciples most deadly in its character, and likely to be not a seven days' war as that of last summer, but a seven years' war, involving the whole of Europe. . . South Germany is in a very difficult position. Mistrustful of Napoleon, it has, on the one hand, a natural and deep-seated aversion of French in terference in the German lands, and on the other, a repugnance easily to be conceived against the intolerable arrogance of Prussia and against its scheme of universal domination in Germany. Between the choice of these two evils South Ger many vacillates. It is not powerful enough to stand alone, nor united enough in opinion and policy unreservedly to declare itself on the side of Austria. Moreover, a strong Prussianizing party is to be found in the South German States, espe cially among the governing classes. The ma jority of the people undoubtedly is opposed to the schemes of Prussian aggrandizement, even though propounded by the Liberals under the name of German unity. And though the Grand Duke o f Baden is prepared to offer up himself and his people at the shrine of Prussian ambition, Wur temburg prefers to preserve its own autonomy. Bavaria, on the other hand, is ambitious not only of preserving its independence, but of taking the lead in South Germany, and of actin.; as mediator between Prussia and Austria ; but there is also in Bavaria a party, large and influential in official circles, devoted to Liberalism and russian inte rests. The alliance between .A.ustri and Napoleon THE SUN, LONDON. WEDNESDAY EVENING, SEPTEMBER 18, 1867. produces a widely different effect on these various ;parties, and . hence the conflicting opinions which nbaund as to the true state of feeling in South Germany. South Germany is weak by its internal divi sions, and by the vacillations, if not corrupt policy, of the Governments. But its greatest danger springs from the Liberal party, which sees in the triumph of Prussia a means of establishing, on the ruins of existing kingdoms, a united and revolutionary Germany. But a wholesome popular feeling is being aroused, and it remains to be seen whether the sound and Conservative and national opposition to Prussia is strong enough in Wiir temburg and Bavaria to resist, with success, pro- Prussian Chambers and temporizing Govern ments. It remains also to be seen what effect on the political action of the Southern States the alliance of Austria and Napoleon will produce. Care is requisite on the part of Austria not to awaken the national susceptibilities of Ger many by this alliance, which only otherwise irre trievable mischances have forced upon her. It must not be by her fault that German land should be lost to Germany, or that victorious France should again be master on the Rhine or in the Bavarian Palatinate. Her most difficult task will be not to allow herself to be made a tool of to work out the designs of Napoleon for vindicating the military superiority of France over Prussia. She must act with France simply on the defen sive against -the aggressive policy of Prussia, and cause her affiance with France to be regarded simply as a protest against the understanding entered into between Prussia and Russia, and as a protection against such a hostile combination. The war—if war is to come in Germany—must not be the result of Austria's alliance with the foreigner, but be rightly traced to the ungovernable ambition of Prussia. Thus only can Austria escape the obloquy of bringing French soldiers on German soil. Thus only can she hope to regain influence in Germany, and be able to play the great part which we hope she is still destined to fulfil in Europe. The Turkish Minister's Address to the President. BLACQUE BEY, the Turkish Minister, when for mally presented to the PRESIDENT August 23, delivered an address which has caused some amuse ment and no little astonishment in tha United States. He said—" Our two nations have more than one cause for mutual esteem. Both conquerors, each has followed in its conquests the path traced for it by the manners and instances of its epoch— ochn chi ne c y o n b q y u e the r in artsg b by of t p h e e a f e o . rc e rr Thereof e arms, her u t l h o e n o e t re markable circumstance, perhaps not yet sufficiently understood in this quarter of the world—namely, that these two nations differ slightly in the prin ciples on which their social organisation is based, and while on the one hand the extent of ocean which ■e th p e a m r a s t t e r s a n a g nd er s d t i o v ide each e s h them o th e s r e , e m o n s d t h e s e t i o n t e h d e to r hand the Democratic affinities of their institutions tend to draw them to one another." On the principle that extremes meet, the Turkish Ambassador may not be so far wrong as people at first sight might suppose. If an American were asked to give an instance of a pure despotism, he would for, he en would example o f pthreobharbolaydseesltect spiritTu Turkey. If Republicanism, ed bl as ica k nism un doubtedly say the United States. Yet BLACQUE BEY, a travelled Frenchmen, finds in these two alien countries with which he is officially connected, "an affinity which tends to draw them to one an other." We would much like to know the points, where, in the BEY'S opinion, the affinity lies. Although an absolute despotism, the rule of the successive Sultans has so degenerated throughout Turkey that the law has little force, even the law of the SULTAN'S will. As the hand of authority is re moved, either the liberty of the subject is increased, or, more generally, the control is grasped by those strong enough to usurp it. In the former state of society "every man does as he damn pleases." In the latter this privilege is confined to the few. Where the first prevails every man is tyrannised over by his neighbour ; where the latter, if the number of tyrants be fewer, the unjust rule to which he is subjected (if less frequent in its instances of oppression) is even more complete. Where the liberty of the citizen attains its greatest proportion, society may have a tendency to approximate to a condition where laws are set aside ; and there are Territories and States of the Union to which the remark of the Turkish Ambassador may have some application. Where an unbounded freedom is given, license will surely follow, for this is the price men pay for being freed from the restraints of law. An Eastern despotism, tempered by an occasional revolt, which finishes by the bowstring or the scimi tar the career of the ruler, has many striking points of similarity to a country boasting of the greatest freedom. Mexico and Persia are not so dissimilar as the nature of their institutions would lead oue to suppose. Where all may aspire to any post, the great principle of equality is conceded. If the barber who shaves the SULTAN may become his Prime Minister, and eventually his successor, this principle is acted upon. When Secretary SEWARD asked HEPWORTH DIXON " what he thought of our country," he replied partly in jest, " I find your country so free that no one seems to have any rights." It was the exaggeration of this idea which must have possessed the Turkish Minister when he claimed au affinity between the United States and the nation he represented. In both he regarded the citizens as born equal, acknowledging only the authority of those in office. Travellers in America are astonished at the unquestioning deference shown by the people to those having the semblance of law ful authority. " Every dog in office," HEPwonm DIXON says, "is obeyed with such unquestioning meekness that every dog in office is tempted to be come a cur." In Turkey the office holder asserts precisely the same control, and the Minister may have been struck by the similarity presented between the popu lations bowing to the mandates of those clothed with office. The Turk in this acts from fear of of each h i n a n r a e t e totallyrev e rcoonnoseeqfuoerntchee aw. s l ;th . e A T m h e o r m ica o n ti , v f o r s om dissimilar, yet the action is alike. In Turkey all Turks may aspire to any office, and, when attained, the incumbent rides the high horse and enforces the obedience of his fellows. In the United States the case is similar, and herein is the democratic affinity to which BLACQUE BEY alludes. In England, on the contrary, and even in her colonies, the landed gentry patronise and look down on office-holders from an elevation which makes the incumbents appear quite small. When the English magnate accepts office he dignifies it—not it him— that is, he enjoys a social rank which no office in the country can confer, and to which no man in America or in Turkey can aspire, unless he' earns it by personal qualities. Wherever the feudal system prevailed it has left in a greater or lesser degree this trace, and the broad lines drawn between classes present such a contrast to a society where such lines can scarcely be seen, as the stripes do to the stars in the national flag. " Society is made and held together," HEPWORTH DixoN remarks, " by the poise and balance of two radical powers in man—the separating spirit of freedom and the combining spirit of union. Always acting, and in opposite ways, these forces hold each other in check; that, shaking masses into units; this, drawing units into masses ; and it is only in their nice adjustment to each other that a nation can enjoy political life in the midst of social peace." Before the civil war, the action of all political bodies in America, of all colleges and corporations, of all private teachers, agitators, and philosophers, was directed towards making the popular voice in favour of indi vidual rights. Society rights, class rights, property rights, State rights, land rights, church rights, per sonal rights, rights of labour, negro rights, Indian rights, woman's rights, babies' rights, were samples of the names under which a common sentiment of division had taken shape. Every man was to be a law unto himself, and after contemplating the pic ture he drew HEPWORTH DIXON exclaims, " What a glorious strength of constitution this young society must have had to endure with so little waste the shock of so many forces. What energy, what solidity, what stamina, in the young Saxon Republic !" . . The civil War—the great fire that ran over the land, leaving behind it such wide tracks of ruin— has had a cleansing influence, and in turning the tide of such general disunion, the undue separation of the masses in their search after individual liberty, it may have saved the nation from a great though unforeseen danger. Perhaps, then, the Minister may consider that the Turk in the absence of law, exercises an individual liberty which is akin to the liberty the law not only gives, but on which the American citizen has hitherto so freely acted : or, perhaps, he was laughing at the beard of the PRESIDENT ; or, were he a true Turk, at a great Ruler being without one. That BLACQUE BEY cannot only see, but openly announce, the affinities he de clares to exist between Turkey and the United States may well surprise the citizens of the Great Republic, although in the effort to attain individual liberty the extremes may approach so near as to give some colouring of truth to the Ambassador's asser tion. But if there be the amount of affinity we have endeavoured to discover, it is difficult to conceive two peoples whose characters and customs are more widely different. What will the Turks say to this comparison with these infidel dogs who wash down hog's flesh with the forbidden fire-water, whose women walk with brazen and uncovered face in the public streets, aye, and even declaim from platforms on the rights of the Heaven-denied sex ? Sunk in sloth and apathy, accepting events as the written law of destiny, bound in the shackles of un changing usage, greedy, fanatical, sensual, and merciless, the Turk presents a strange contrast to the enlightened, intelligent, active, energetic, self reliant, and progressive American, who in the knowledge of his superiority listened with the open eyes of astonishment to BLACQUE BEY'S address.— Anglo-American Times. PUGIN AND BARRY. (From the Westininster Gazette.) The controversy between the claims of Pugin and Barry to the authorship of the Houses of Parliament is likely to become one of the causes celebres of the day. Nothing can be more creditable to Mr. E. Welby Pugin than the desire to see his father's name righted before the public; and the ability, the perseverance, the discretion which he has dis played in bringing the mass of evidence together, in suggesting the most probable explanation of any seeming or actual discrepancy, and the clearness with which he has stated his case are recognized on all sides. His statement in the Times of Saturday last was very conclusive in establishing a prima facie case— a case which cannot now be put aside by mere dis claimers on the part of those who are bound to produce clear and positive evidence. That Mr. E. Welby Pugin's evidence is chiefly constructive evidence is no fault of his. his was not the hand which waylaid and burned letters and documents, and drawings, and designs, so that with their ashes all traces of clear and positive testimony might be dispersed. But enough of the volumi nous correspondence between Sir Charles Barry and Augustus Welby Pugin, stretching over a long period of years, still survives to indicate, if not to prove, that the confidential relations between these two men were those of fellow-labourers in one great work to which Pugin contributed his genius, and Barry his name. Let our readers re flect on the circumstances as related by Mr. E. Welby Pugin, and which Mr. E. Barry cannot con tradict or explain, under which seventy-six of these letters disappeared at a critical juncture, and they will be forced to the conclusion that in the corres pondence and documents which were on any other supposition so unaccountably destroyed, evidence would have been found of such a nature as to defy contradiction or cavil. On hearing, then, that a biography of Pugin was about to be pub lished, Sir Charles Barry called upon Mr. E. Welby Pugin, and was told by him that he intended to substantiate his father's long-ignored right to be considered the real architect of the Houses of Par liament, and that for the purpose of such a public substantiation he should make use of Sir Charles Barry's correspondence with his father, Sir Charles Barry showed agitation and alarm, and asked to be allowed to inspect these letters, under the pro mise of returning them the next day. From that day to this the letters have never been seen. No claim of right of ownership was set up ; they were simply made away with. The evidence which they contained, of whatever value, was destroyed by the hand of the man who, at least according to the prima facie case now established, would have been fatally compromised by the production of that evidence. Such an act unaccounted for, would in a court of law brand the perpetrator with the gravest suspicion. Matters of this kind are slow in coming be fore the public. There is a natural reluctance to bring disputed claims to a public arbitrament ; more especially when the one party is backed up by all the strength which long, though unrighteous, possession gives—by the influence and prospect of future reward, which the enjoyment of present patronage, perhaps unconsciously confers—and the other is almost single-handed, and has only his own courage, his own ability, and the overmaster ing sense of justice and duty, which compel him, in spite of risking his own professional advance ment, to vindicate his father's fair fame and unre quited services. No sooner is public interest aroused in the disputed claim, than the old memo ries of the time come back, and the floating tradi tion that in reality, somehow or other, Pugin, the great Gothic architect, who electrified the town with his enthusiasm and his fierce and witty attacks on the shams of the day, was the designer of the Houses of Parliament. But since at the time there was none to dispute Barry's publicly acknowledged claim, and since Pugin himself, when his name was in every one's mouth, came forward, why men at the time knew not, and gave Barry all the credit, the public thought there was a mystery about the matter, shrugged its shoulders, as is its wont under such circumstances, and went its way. But now, when the seeming mystery is explained why Pugin forewent his claims, and when a claimant in the person of his son comes for ward and submits evidence that the vague tradition which imputed the conception of the Houses of Parliament to Pugin is founded on facts of various descriptions, and though of unequal weight, yet all tending in one direction the public, fond of jus tice and fair play, will not stand by and allow those in possession of a disputed title, to waive it good by positive proof. the e is n e c n e o s t s i tenough a k t i h n a g t they content themselves with reiterated denials uttered by several voices speaking under one inspiration, if not at one dictation. The public, if we are not mistaken, will side with one who in spite of arduous pro fessional occupations, fi n d s ti me an d h as the of courage in face great disadvantages, with evidence mutilated b y h i s opponent, t o come for ward and claim a h earing. By the evidence which he has produced in his statement in the Times, in his letters to the Pall Mall Gazette, to the Globe, P h a u s g i w n i h t n a s e s fairly l e: le t a t a b n l h e p d e rahpaprisn:abfuatcsietilcia capables e. and the Sun, and th e Building News, Mr. E. Welby lle of giving unassailable testimony on behalf of his father's claim. The seeming incredibility of a man's acting as Pugi n i s of those h allegedose familiar to have done wth in p g u i g v i i o n , g Barry credit f ors the testimony a work w hi c h w as his own i s , b y character, converted into an antecedent probability of his so acti ng . produced, is strengthened th h n e e v d i ba rr bi h li e ty h , or a d n e d n evidence, c t s therefore, antecedent Barry and thos e who haraeveaettoing an opposite opi n i on, l o lli f f proof now - clearly lies on Mr. E. avourable judgments, based on be w r t v h e r s h e i d m . . There can be no difficulty, if his father really was the designer of the Houses of Parliament, to bring forward proof positive. He only weakens his case by relying on the memory of assistants and clerks in his father's office, or on the reports of men who, twenty years ago, were the friends of Pugin, but who were also, and in a much more recent period, the friends and supporters of Barry. How should such men know the private arrangement as to the designs for the Houses of Parliament which may have subsisted between Barry and Pugin ? Is it likely that Barry would have revealed to the clerks of his office, or to his assistants and gossips, like Mr. T. Bury, the " secrets of the prison house." Their negative testimony is not worth a button ; its only use is to throw dust in the eyes of the un wary. Of the same character is the ostentatious use which Mr. E. Barry makes of Augustus Welby Pugin's letter of 1845, disclaiming all credit for the designs of the Houses of Parliament. Had Pugin sold, as is alleged and not yet disproved, these designs for £4OO, could he have done less, in common honesty, than disavow to obtrusive ques tioners, in public or private, his authorship ? Was it not a part of the bargain ? Was it not "in the bond ?" Does not Mr. Barry remember that, on far less imperative grounds, Sir - Walter Scott dis avowed the authorship of " Waverley ?" Was Sir Walter Scott therefore a liar? There are three strong points in favour of Mr. E. Welby Pugin's statement. First—the evidence which has been collected bit by bit hangs well together, and coming from various sources points in one direction, and necessarily leads up to one conclusion. Secondly—the counter evidence, if contradiction can be called evidence, instead of being, as from the nature of the case it ought to have been, clear as daylight, and positive as a post, has been contradictory and vacilla ting in the extreme. The only point which the defendants in this cause have gained was to make at least one of Pugin's reputed friends and ad mirers, on whose testimony the son had good grounds to rely, depreciate to an extravagant and ridiculous degree the share which Pugin had in the building of the Houses of Parliament. And thirdly—Pugin's character and the circumstances of the time, his conversion to Catholicism, and many other matters which need not be detailed, all con spired to make the alleged arrangement between himself and Sir Charles Barry not only not in credible, but, on the contrary, highly probable. Mr. E. Welby Pugin has had the courage to bring the disputed claim to a public test ; .there can now be no shrinking from a decision. His aim is to let the public get at the truth, and to vin dicate for his father's memory the honour which he never enjoyed in life. It is a noble and gener ous task, and we are sure the sympathy of the public will be on his side. THE CATHOLIC CONGRESS OF MALINES. The opening of the Catholic Congress at Malines took place on Monday, the 2nd of September, all the members attending High Mass in the Cathedral, which was celebrated by the Cardinal Archbishop. About twelve o'clock the Archbishop of Malines, the Bishops of Tournai, Namur and Liege, accom panied by M. de Merode, the former Minister of War at Rome, by the Bishop of Bosra, the Patriarch of Antioch, M. Laforot, the Rector of the Univer sity of Liege, and several priests went in procession to the great hall of the seminary, where the other members of the Congress and the audience, num bering altogether about 5,000 persons, had taken their places. The Cardinal Archbishop opened the Congress. In his speech he said that at his first audience with the Pope, on the occasion of his recent visit, he obtained from his Holiness his con sent for the third assembly of this Congress ; and the best counsels he could give them were counsels from the highest and most venerable authority upon earth ; not that he was specially commissioned to give them counsels, for his Holiness relied on the wisdom and prudence of which this assembly had given so many striking proofs. The counsels to which his Eminence wished to direct the atten tion of the assembly were contained in the splendid Allocution which the Pope delivered on the 29th of June to the five hundred bishops assembled round his throne, and he concluded by saying :—" As this Congress had always shown itself to be of one heart and of one mind, he admonished it also in the present session to complete that union by a most intimate union with the glorious Pontiff Pius IX." An address was then drawn up to His Holiness Pope Pius IX., and M. de M6rode was commis sioned to communicate by telegraph to His Holi ness the unanimous adoption of the address by the Congress. The second session of the Congress was opened by the presentation to the Congress of the Bishop of Orleans. The Rev. P. Hyacinthe and M. de Falloux accompanied their distinguished country men. He was received with loud acclamations from all parts of the vast hall. After a few words from the President of welcome to the Congress, the worthy representative of Catholic France, Mgr. Dupanloup, acended the tribune. We are sorry to be obliged to hold over our report of the Bishop of Orleans speech till next week. The honorary presidents of the committee are his Eminence the Cardinal Archbishop of Malines and the Baron de Gerlache ; honorary vice-presi dent, Count de Theux ; vice-president, Dellafaille Vicomte de Kerckhove. Besides the general meetings there are special sessions of the various sections which take up the attention of the members nearly the whole day. These sessions also attract so large an audience that the large hall in which the general meeting assembles scarcely suffices to contain the immense multitudes that attend. But in the evening the members meet, however, for social intercourse at the Catholic club, the " Loyaute." In the next meeting, held on Wednesday, M. Dechamps made an excellent speech on the unity of the Church, which he represented as a proof of the truth of the Catholic faith, as a condition of the liberty of con science, as a guarantee of the faith, and, lastly, as the source of the fertile power of Catholicism. A Barnabite monk, Father Tondini, spoke on the means of the restoration of Russia to the Catholic faith. Mgr. Lynch, the well known Bishop of Charleston, spoke on the progress of Catholicism in the United States, and on the Catholic mission on behalf of the negroes. General de Lannoy called the attention of the assembly to the merits of the Papal Zouaves, and as two Papal Zouaves happened to be present, they were invited to come on the platform. No sooner had they taken their places than the whole assembly gave them a warm tribute of recognition. It was resolved that the committee of the Congress should send a letter to the Pope's Minister of War, expressing the satisfaction of the Congress at the report which they had received of the good conduct of their countrymen among the Papal Zouaves. The appearance of M. Dumortier, who took his place between - M. de Falloux and P. Hyacinthe, was the signal of another outburst 01 enthusiasm. This meeting was also attended by the Bishop of Ghent. Among other notable personages present were Mgr. Woodlock, rector of the Catholic University of Dublin; Mgr. Sacre", Rector of the Belgian College in Rome ; La Feunti, Professor of Canon Law in Madrid ; Father Hecker, Superior of the Paulists in New York ; and several members of the Belgian Chambers and other distinguished persons. At the fifth general meeting, P. Hyacinthe spoke " On the condition of the working classes." M. de Falloux also spoke with his accustomed power, but our space prevents us giving these able speeches. M. de Falloux read to the Congress a letter from Count Montalembert, expressing his regret that illness prevented his attending the Congress of Malines. At the close of the day's meeting, M. Dumortier seconded a proposition of M. Dechamps to convey to Count Montalembert, on the part o f th e C a th o li cs o f B e l g i um , expression of deep symp a thy, an d th e h o p e o f th e speedy restoration of his health and activity, so advanta geous to the Church and society, This proposal, which was unanimunsly carried, brought the fifth day of the Congress of Malines to a close, — West minster Gazette. LADVERTISEMENT.j—IIoIIoway's Pills.—All our Facul ties.—Almost all disorders of the human body are dis tinctly to be traced to impure blood. The purification of that fluid is the first step towards health. Holloway's pills recommend themselves to the attention of all sufferers. No injurious consequences can result from their use, no mistake can be made in their administration. In indiges tion, confirmed dyspepsia, and chronic constipation, the most beneficial effects have been and always must be ob tained from the wholesome power exerted by those purify ing pills over the digestion. Persons whose lives were a confirmed series of suffering have been restored to ease, strength, and perfect health by Holloway's pills after the fruitless trial of the whole pharmacopoeia of physic, DR. PUSEY AND DR. COLENSO. TO THE EDITOR OF THE "TIMES." Colenso's letter, which he has addressed to me only in your columns, is in truth intended much more for your readers than for me, you will allow me, I am sure, to answer it to them. Dr. Colenso. in it invites me to prosecute him, as I (upon what seemed to me adequate occasion) invited Mr. Go lightly and others, who had written or spoken against me. I did so, having good grounds to believe (as I do) that there is an University Court in which I might be sued, with provision for an appeal, which I proposed to facili tate, to the higher law courts. Dr. Colenso knows, as well as I do, that, holding no preferment in England, he is amenable to no jurisdiction in England ; that there is no English court in which I could cite him. Further, Dr. Colenso probably knows that those who hold the same principles as I do hold that the only tribunal before which he could be lawfully cited is that before which he was cited, before which his cause was patiently and carefully heard, before which he was defended as far as he himself chose, every step in the proceedings of which court was taken under very high legal advice—that of the Metropolitan of Capetown, with others his suffragan bishops. He knows probably that we believe that judg ment to have been just. To invite me, then, to prosecute him afresh, as if his cause had not been heard, is to ask me to ignore a judgment which, on my own principles, I am bound to acknowledge, and thereby to offer an insult to the Bishop of Capetown and the other bishops who sat as his assessors, or have since concurred in his judgment. Dr. Colenso further invites me to "move the Archbishop of Canterbury" to obtain such a tribunal. Now, apart from the facts that his Grace needs no advice of mine, and that it would be mere impertinence in me to offer any advice upon a subject on which he must long since have maturely thought and determined, it is again asking me to ignore a judgment and a tribunal which, on sound ecclesiastical principles, is the only one which I can acknowledge, and to pray his Grace to form, or have formed, an unecclesiastical tribunal, which should finally land the cause for re-decision in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council—a court which, it is well known, I, in common with others, hold to be in the last degree unsatisfactory. Dr. Colenso further draws attention to the fact that, although Professor of Hebrew at Oxford, I have not made any public attempt to answer his book upon the Penta teuch. Dr. Colenso looks upon his book with a parent's eye. I would have answered his book had I formed the same estimate of it. I did go carefully through the first part of it with those members of the University who liked to be present at the discussion, but I had often to apologise to them for occupying them with such objections. I thought it more useful to answer the pseudo-criticisms on the Book of Daniel (because, as I said, the rationalists held them to be their greatest achievement), and to leave the refutation of Dr. Colenso's book to others. In regard to what was called " The Speaker's Commen tary," I am glad that it was not published with the ra pidity which was originally contemplated. For with such rapidity no solid work could have been accomplished. In regard to that which I myself projected, death has de prived me of some most - valued contributors. The " Essays and Reviews " occasioned me rather to lay the foundation of a commentary on the Book of Daniel than to write one. Other troubles in the Church have pre vented me hitherto from completing the portion which I had assigned to myself. But, if God continue my life, I hope to resume my work. Dr. Colenso asks, " Are we to conclude from this " (the delay as to " The Speaker's Commentary "), " that it has been found hopeless to endeavour to maintain the old traditions in the face of all educated Europe?" Nothing less. Forty-two years have now elapsed since I became acquainted with rationalist criticism. lam acquainted with every notable book which has been written on the Old Testament ; and my conviction is that every solid ad dition to our knowledge tends to the maintenance of the old truths, and that "educated Europe," provided that such of it as is not converted be converted to the true belief as to Almighty God, will come to acknowledge those old truths. I make this limitation because as long as any part of "educated Europe" disbelieves in miracle or pro phecy upon apriori grounds, it would be delusive to think that more scientific proof could uproot such prejudices, or do the work of the Spirit of God.—Your obedient servant, Se ptembe r 9 E. B. PUSE Y . . Accidentally I only saw this morning Dr. Colenso's letter addressed to me through your columns. THE PARISIAN MIRACLES OF THE ZOUAVE JACOB. (From the Unita Cattolica.) Frederick 11., King of Prussia, wrote to Voltaire : —" Rely on it, if the Philosopher found a govern ment and establish a philosophical religion, before half a century the people will fabricate new super stitions, and will offer worship to some object which the senses do not see, or will make little idols, or adore the tombs of their founders, or will venerate the sun, or some absurdity of the kind will be substituted for the pure and simple worship of the Supreme Being." And it is this which is now taking place in Paris. For does not M. Renan flourish there, who, in the name of philosophy, denies the divinity and the miracles of Jesus Christ? lie declares it is not true what the Gospel recounts, that the Son of God cured the paralytic and the cripple, gave hearing to the deaf, sight to the blind. Renan has revealed to the world the falsity of these facts on the ground that miracles are impossible. A few years after and those who applauded this unbeliever are bowing down in this same Paris before a soldier, and are giving to a charlatan the faith, homage, and worship which they refuse to the Saviour of the world. The Zouave Jacob heals the paralyzed simply by a look, and the admirers of Renan believe it and blame those who deny it. Renan, himself, who has written 462 pages against our Divine Lord, has not printed a line to warn the people that the cures of Jacob are impudent shams. This unhappy people stands in need of faith, has a thirst for the supernatural. The Revolution of 1789 destroyed altars, churches, festivals, God. And then ? And then the people were beguiled into offering up sacrifices to the Goddess of Liberty, to the Goddess of Reason. For Catholic festivals were substituted festivals of regicide, of agriculture, of the sovereignty of the people, and finally they clamoured for the re-establishment of the worship of fire. impiety always calls forth superstition and unbelief begets credulity. No men were ever so superstitious as the atheists, nor so easily beguiled as the incredulous. Of a hundred free-thinkers, at least ninety believe in the evil eye, and hang up a horse-shoe on the nail of the door. A people which has not faith in God is open to all kinds of whims, religious, political, historical. It believes in sorcery ; it believes in liberty in the midst of ty ranny ; it believes in the daily tales of the news papers ; it believes in tables that speak, in hats that dictate words, and in turning chairs. In the midst of the Rationalists and Free thinkers of Geneva a Protestant minister succeeded in establishing the religion of the Table. All stood reverently listening to and worshipping the Table that spoke. We have before our eyes several volumes printed in Geneva in the years 1855 and 1856. One is entitled " Divine and Mysterious Revelations, delivered by the Agency of a Table," and three others, " Rome, Geneva, and the Church of Christ," works communicated by the agency of a Table of the Son of God. Thus those who denied the real presence of our Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist ended in proclaiming the real presence of Jesus Christ beneath a piece of wood. And at this moment in Paris some unhappy men who, with Renan, refused to recognize the divinity and the miracles of the Redeemer of the world, affirm, proclaim, and celebrate to-day the miraculous healings of the Zouave Jacob, who, by a mere look, heals the paralytic and makes the blind to see. Ancient society, dissevered from the true God, offered sacrifices to bulls and goats, and modern society worships fluids, and ethers, and gases. Disdaining to give its assent to the most august mysteries, it bows down before the most humiliating. In 1858, Napoleon 111. ordered to be published in his /3ulletin des Lois an imperial decree of 21st February, by which the Apostolic Letters, dated 18th of December, 1854, of his Holiness Pope Pius LX. relative to the dogmatic definition of the Immaculate Conception were allowed to enter the kingdom of France. These Apostolic Letters were received by. Napoleon "without the approba tion of the clauses, formulas, and expressions which they contained, and which are, or which might be, contrary to the Constitution and laws of the Em pire, or to the franchises, liberties, and maxims of the Gallican Church." But he who was so reluctant and timorous in accepting a dogmatic Bull, now gives full liberty to the Zouave Jacob, in order that he may perform his miracles; and `dispenses him froDa military service ) so that he may remain in Paris and watch over and heal the cripple and the paralytic. It seems that Bona parte cares little about the corruption of his people ; on the other hand he is much concerned that they should not believe in the Syllabus. We have good reason to suspect that the Zouave Jacob at Paris desires to carry on the impious work of Renan, who, in the fourteenth chapter of his wretched book, denying in general the pos sibility of miracles, ascribes the cures of Jesus to the beneficent influence of his eye. " Th e presence of a man of a superior nature," writes Renan, " who treats a sick man with kindness, and who gives him, by some visible sign, the assur ance of his recovery, is, in many cases, a certain emedy." This explanation of Renan's is enough to mak e any man of common sense laugh ; and, indeed, can anything be more ridiculous than to attribute the instantaneous cure of blind, and deaf, all paralytic men, to the assurance given by a man of superior nature " to the blind man that he sees , to the deaf man that he hears, and to the paralytic that he can walk ? The " man of superior nature who worked such miracles is certainly a God. To avoid this necessaryconsequence, the Zouave Jacob has appeared in Paris, who cures with a look ; and if credit can be gained for these extraordinary: cures, these cures will serve as an explanation of those of the Gospel ; but if the imposture is de tected, it is hoped, in such case, to destroy faith in the true miracles as well as in the false. And, first of all, though many speak of the cures of the Zouave, as yet no paralytic man has come forward to bear testimony in favour of Jacob to those who regard him as an impostor. No man blind from his birth has presented himself at the office of the Courier Francais, saying, Behold, Dee! In the second place the false miracles, far from damaging the true, confirm them. Whence comes it, asks M. Nicolas, that false money is coined ? Because it is hoped to pass it off as true ; and whence comes it that men hope and succeed in passing it off, but because of the existence of the true which predisposes men to receive whatever resembles it. The false would not exist were it not that the true gave it importance and credit. Trace all the falsehoods which have obtained currency in the world, and it will be found tha t they owe their fortune to some primitive truth of which they were the external imitation. A dm . it . that there have been true miracles, and reason will, easily prove that there must have been false ; starting from false miracles, and tracing the source of their credit, it will be found that true miracles must have existed. In such a manner false miracles not only prove nothing against the true, but , on the contrary, prove much in their favour ; and, there fore, we add that the Zouave Jacob at Paris, with his pretended cures, not only in nowise confirms the absurdities of Renan, but rebuts them by de monstrating the impossibility that Jesus Chrlt s _ i could have attained such repute as to have reach to our days through so many centuries, had lie worked miracles, and been what lie announce u Himself, the Son of God. COUNTRY MARKETS. At the corn market to-day there BRISTOL—TUESDAY was . a fair &van d Di for wheat at an advance of is pe r qr . B a rley Gd dearer. 11, dian corn 2s per qr highe r . O a t s d u ll, and p re quay at Gd cheaper. dearer Iron, LEEDS—TUESDAY. a nd We had only a small attendance of the trade to-da!f' last th- the Prices ,nerd was a firm demand for wheat at • P- art Tuesday. Barley is is to 2s per qr lower. other a firm. . 0 O a We had a good attendance to-day o f both the toW,inesS country trade at our market, and a cons id e rable 1)704 was done. Wheat and flour met with a strong 11 ` l , brl demand at an advance of id to 2d per cental, and isr l diatt and is 6d per sack on the rates of last TuesdaY.„veeß• corn in good demand, and 2s per qr advance on tue,orted• Oats and oatmeal dull, but the rates of last week suPrrather Barley and beans at late quotations, but peas -were dearer. MELTON MOWBRAY.—TnEsDAY. 36 sto ne. White wheat, 6 , 1 s to 73s ; red, 58s to 6Ss P er 38$ P er 3 2 s tO r 21s t, Barley for malting, 40s to 52s per qr ; feed, 30 stone. Oats old, 308 to 32s ; new, 25s to Vs per Beaus, old, 528 to 545; new, 45s to 502 per qr. There was SalipEooFrFsluEpLpDly-03.;u1EvhsnoaAtY:. a nd the b „ u o si r v a e tro was slow. At the ope n i ng o f th e market the extrell!ward of last week wero for wheat, and at the cl ose the up movement in prices was insignificant. os Od Red wheat, per load of 3 imp bushels 21a Od to ~9 8 od White do . do New red do27s Od ; 08 oil ...:zoa Od t i B od Eew white do do 29s t d ! ' 2 ' 2 B ° II Beans do 1. B od A ".,:, od Peas, per r. 4ls Od "" pd Grinding barley, per qr 46,3 ... Matting barley, t.o 42a Od ' od od 336 Oats, do do Ws Od ~, od 289 F10ur....2a 4d to Os 8d per 111 b, MARKET lIARBOROUGH.—TIJ ESDAY• er 36 Old white wheat, 65s to 74s • new red, 61$ to 6 9 s s t. stone. Barley, fine, 52s ; other kinds, 23s to 3 6 s p er 01d, Oats, new, 25s to 30s ; old, 30s to 32s per qr. 1 303157 46s to 53s ; new, 42s to 47s per qr. COURSE OF EXCHANGE.--Last EveDilil .1 , i i. Amsterdam Short. 1 1 19 1 12 ' 4 Ditto 3 Months. 12 Oi i i 12 Rotterdam Antwerp — 25 42i 25 45 Brussels Hamburg 25 -I. 25 Paris d - 2 25 40 Ditto 3 Months. 25 35 25 42 i 25 37 1 - 1201 Marseilles 12q Frankfort on the Maine 12 62 1 12 bil 12 92fr Tiennt. — 12 57 0 21 A riesto retersburgn Berlin Madrid Cadiz Leghorn Milan Genoa Naples Palermo Messina Lisbon Oporto 000000000000000 321 32 6 g 27 49} 48i 27 4i 491 5 ° 27 40 27 50 27 40 27 50 27 40 27 50 27 40 27 50 27 40 27 50 27 40 511 52 52 511 -------------- . [ADVERTISEMENT.] —Consumption, and all nervous, bilious, stomach and liver complaints in every stage are only perfectly and accelerated by drugs of every dsption, but perfectly' oau ble by Du Barry's health-restoring Revalenta Arabica Food, as proved by thousands . of . cases which had been considere d haemorrhoids, liver constipation, c ompl d a i i a n r t r s h , hopeless; such as indigestion (dyspepsia), cough, asthma, con" a' ll a a ' tu a l menu, sumPt i con sumption, l e l: ey, gastric nervousness,deran biliousness, fevers, sore throats, diphtheria, catarrhs, colds, in fluenza,in- fluenza, noises in the head and ears, rheumatism, gout , iniPu rites, eruptions, hysteria, neuralgia, irritability, sleeplessuesl, acidity, palpitation, heartburn, headache, debility, dropsy, cramps, spasms, nausea and sickness, even in pregnancy or at sea, sinking fits, bronchitis, scrofula, tightness of the elle; pains at the pit of the stomach, and between the shoulders, ;-: We quote a few.—The Pope's health restored by Du narrYo; Food. Cure No. 68,413.—" Rome, July 21, 1866. —The health _ i i the Holy Father is excellent, especially since, abandoning 2,.'„ other remedies, he has confined himself entirely to Du nar e ry fu l Revalenta Arabica Food, of which he consumes a P l l c ial at every meal. It has proiaced a surprisingly raise t his effect on his health, and his Holiness cannot praisC.,.",-.,, excellent food too highly." From the "Gazette du x-_,T r . July 25. Cure No. 46,270. Mr. James Roberts, tinaber_uu., chant, of Frimley, Surrey, of thirty years' diseased l e up .... % spitting of blood, liver derangement, and partial. deafn ii s, „ f Cure No. 1,771. Lord Stuart de Bodies, Lord Lieutena, ~,,r,,,, Waterford, of many years' dyspepsia.—No. 49,832• u r . ',..W, years' indescribable agony from dyspepsia, iiiervo .siit_d asthma, cough, constipation, flatulency, spasms, sickness raat, vomiting—Maria Joly." Important Caution.—Be ware . of the . 2;4 unsa,vouty and more than sloppy imitations to which, w,' - ` 0 1 :1 . authority, Baron Liebig's name is most audaciously attacii.,s. In tins at ls. 11d.; 1 lb., 2s 9d. 2 lbs., 5 1b5,,,,i' 7 , 12 lbs., 225.; 24 lbs., 40s.—BARRY Do BARRY and Co : , T d ' il l y ; l iegent-street, London; also Fortnam and Mason, 182, Piec , 00, • 63 150, an d .. and at 61, Gracechurch-street; 4, Cheapside; ~ Oxford-street : 330 Strand ; and all grocers and chemists. ------ Births. BATTISCOMBE—On the 15th inst., at Rhayader, Radnorshire' the wife of Arthur Battiscombe, Esq., of a s on. PALMER—On the 13th inst., at Sunbury, Middl e sex, the wife of J. E. Palmer, barrister-at-law, of a daughter. T ENN ANT—On the 16th inst., at Scarcroft Lodge, I(°r shire, the wife of Robert Tennant, Esq., of a sou. Miaes. , HoLus—JlGGiss—On the 1 r 7th g inst , St. George A I, thedral, Southwark, Benjamin Wm.. Hollis, of Arnol-. Sussex, to Eunice Matilda. second daughter of W ill ' Jiggins, of Stanwell, Middlesex. JONES —BEAD —Oa the 17th inst ,at St. James's ro ddin r: ton, William, second son of * James Jones, of lient i „ i „, town-road, Woodside, Sutton, to Maria Louisa 811-01 Mary Ann, eldest survivinr , daughter of J. AV- i le ' tt " Lower Thames-street, and Upper Westbourne-terrace• Deaths. -c, both BARIATINSKY—On the 13th inst., the Princess -"LiZ3 Bariatinsky, aged 60. FElUir. J. -- L O a n Ftchuevrlol,thEsig„ agednst., at 68. 11ighfield, Southolpta, Wm. OLIVER—On the 15th inst. at at 30, Ladbroke-stree t, aE l s n q s . No hill, James Oliver, Esq., barrister-at-law, aged 48 ' a PAUL—On the 16th ' 1 Morton,Sun.°, Joseph T. P s ee, Arthur the 15th inst ,at St. Leonard's -at- c_, t;,agated3S6osr.den-roac , Arthur W. Saunders, Esq ,• of 82, Gloucester-terr? _es Hyde-park, oldest son of * the late Capt. A. Saued er ' 12th Lancers. Ward, WASD—On the 6th inst. at at Guernsey, Lieut.-Gen. • • Colonel-Commandant :Royal Engineers, aged 77. _..... _____—..—_______-------- --- London : Printed and Published by VILLLIA.3I of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at THE SUN Office, N° of Strand, in the Precinct of the S a voy,in the Con 3tY laiddlesg..—Weatwsday, eptember 18, 1807.