The Sun. — London, England, 1815-01-30 00:00:00

v:ithout orders. - With these im- . press:ons on his mind, it would ill become him to hove listened to the advice of Admiral Hallo wt•ii ,and to have ha-larded the destruction of an army upon which so touch depended. had he suffered Os own personal feelings-to get the bet ter of his prudence; which had he obeyed the im poke of the moment in gilt have. been the case, he Wave deserved reprobation. • The pnblic, it was -true, might be silent, but' what a 9 ology could he make to the Commander in yvhose positive orders he had received ? What excuse could he offer ..t . or having lost the flower of his army, and, for the sake of saving a tvw guns, have :,ad the hurses of the cavalry slaughtered on the beach ? And who would be I%i -1i enough to doubt that such would have been the case, when the force•of the enemy advancing; in‘iereodent of the garrison of Tarragona, was known to be 12,000 of the best troops of France ? Delea). would• have been almost certain, but its probability (mild not be doubted. The expedi tion to Ostcnd.had not been forgotten„ and the events at Corunna were still:fresh in our recol lectiun. The period was critical, and it was lucutn- Lent on him to avoid a delay, which might have been productive of the most fatal consequences. If he had remained, and attempted to take off the pins atall hazards, might not Marshal Suchet have arrived on the beach ? And if he had, would be have permitted the Allied Army to embark ? And if this was prevented, he would have become ni;ester of the field, and a decided blow would have been given, to the hopes of success on the eastern efast of Spain. A few hours might have been of the utmost consequence ; and therefore his refusal to meet the wishes of Admiral Hallo well, to wait till night, was, he trusted, satisfac torily accounted for. The enemy was on one side atViila Franca, and on the other at l'crrella and :'rum what there appeared there was Bulldog prevent them from arriving at the beach at the •very moment the embarkation bad com menced—a circumstance which would have en sured them almost infallible success. By the' operatioos, as they did take place,. he (Sir John .\ltaray) was enabled to seed the ca valry to the Col tic Balaguer—an opportu nity which, by the delay of a few hours more, would .have been lost. • Upon the whole, when the importance of the trust reposed in him was taken into consideration, as well as. the irrepara ble injury which - would have resulted from anv misfortune occurring to the army-under his coin, rnann, he was satisfied the Court would agree with him in thiukinr, that he would not have been jus tified in playing so desperate a game as that which had been suggested by his Prosecutor. it only,. in fact; requires! to refer to his instructious, which painted consequences of his defeat, to bud the measure of his punishment. The interest of Eu rope was interwoven in the success of the plans of the Duke of Wellington ; and these operations depended, in a great measure, in the safety of the .51cilian army. It YOBS not his part to calculate what the enemy would, hut' what they could do—their approach seemed unquestionable from all the sources of in formation which he •had ; and he could only ac count for their retreat by ascribing it to the arri val of Lord Exmouth in the Bay of Rosas.. Up on this lie had no right to calculate, and nothing could be considered less. probable than that the enemy would retreat - after having made forced marches for the purpose of obtaining au object which seemed to be perfectly within their reach. He had embarked his troops entire, and had not left one man or one horse behind, neither.had be left any one piece of field artillery.; 17 service able and unservireable, out of .91 pieces of ord nauce, haying been alone left behind. It was true, the enemy might boast of this, to their use less prize, but how much more galling would have been their boast,lf they had had the opportunity of proclaiming the number of the death bodies of our soldiers, the carcases of our horses, and the list of our artillery in their possession, to which tro phies might be added, the colours of the Allied Army. If such had been the case, blasted indeed would have been the hopes of victory in Spain; and well merited would have been the condemna tion of the unfortunate Commander, who, listen ing to the advice of shallow advisers, had, in agree ing to a proposition for•delay, sacrificed his own judgment, and orsobeyed the orders of his Com mander. Before he concluded, he was de s irous of correcting two errors which had crept into. the former part of his defence, the one was the state meat that the British had achieved on the 14th ; this should have been the 13th, and the error was attributable to the transaction. The other was, that he should have stated his 011icers to have seen the enemy on the 17th, and not the 6th, at Vendrilla. The gallant General then proceetied to corn ment on the evidence - for the prosecution ; that of Captain Withers, 1-Joddart, and Inglefield all tend ed t o the same point, and therefore only n single observation was nmssary ; they proved his in tention to continue the attack on the fortress up" to the night of the 1 Irk, to ‘vhich time, accord,- ing to their evidence, the landing of stor6s and guns did not cease. From the evidence: of Lieut.- Col. Williamson, the fact appeared tlia.t'the rockets ordered to he lauded were lying in the: boats for t wo- days ; a circumstance which showed that the beach was not always practicable for landing or cm,. bark iug. This made for his case; and CaptAllithers's evidence, relative to the requisition for boats on the morning of t the 12(h, proved his anxiety to accele -I,*te the emarkation when once, .4.l:ad been de tert”i! - on. II was also in proof that Gen. Doukin spoke from liimselT when he announced the speedy -o . rival of the enemy ; and it was equally proved that-the enkany's advance could- mot have been. checked on the beach roads t,y the fire.,of gun boats. He was most anxious to rebut the charge of indecision, and be most positively denied that . such, a charge could he inferred from his conduct. Li e „ tenan t.C o lonel Williamson's evidence rela tive to the position of the enemy, was only a re petition of the story of the peasant, which had previinisly been found to be false. The.tieneral - here compared the evidence of Colonel William son with that of Generals Mackenzie and Clinton, and said, froei it was to tie gathered that his or-. (lets to spike the guns wag contingent and condi tional.- Colonel . Thackery. was the next hef. called'; he proved twat the attack on the • Puerto Beale was continued to the last moment that any chance existed• of sehduing ',Laura gona: 'l4e algid proved that the enemy could ad vance by two rolls ; and, in opposition to the opini , ms of the Naval O:litleis, he gave it as his belief that it was impossinie, by marine force, to intercept the enemy on tho,e roads. In all this witness's tetittiony th.e General found nothing in support of the prosecution, except that the witness new of no reaion for raising the siege, and indeed it was impossible he should,u oless he had pos sessed more- im - ormation relative to the trio% ements of the enemy ; but this by no means proved that no reason existed. Gen. Mackenzie's opinion of : the brilliant success to be expected, in case of a conflict with the enemy was toended on his know ledge extending only to the advance of De Caeu's column. He had no knowledge of the advance or even movements of Sachet. He admitted,that the embarkation had been conducted without loss or confusion, which wits proof that it was • not so precipitate as had been described ; and, above all, his opinion that 1200 men would •be sufficient to mask the garrisoe of Tarragona, was sufficient to chew the Court how precipitately his opinions had been formed, and how little they deserved the serious attention of the Court. Of the complete state of the army and equipments he would not go the length that General Mackenzie had done, in speaking its praise ; some part of it he was well aware could nor he spoken of in too high terms, either as to gallantry or 'discipline ; but this was not the case with all the troops, as might be col lected from the letters of Generals Mackenzie and Clinton, front the latter csf whom he had been informed that the men in the batteries had thrown away their animunition as soon as they were ex posed to the tire of the enemy. Lord 1?. Ben tinek's evidence only went to one point, and on that point he was certainly very ill informed.— When be (Gen. Murray) saw Lord Bentinck at his post he had been at the head-qearters of Copons, eight miles in advance of Lord F. Bentinck, whose memory died not appear to be very perfect, fin •though he considered the ca valry completely covered by Copon's army, yet he sent to Lund F. B. to keep out 'a stronger picket. The last witness Called was Lieut. General of the asperity of whose evidence he had am ple reason to complain. The tone and manner in which it wets delivered equally shocked and stir pri,e!4 him.: General Clinton was the last min from whoM he had a right to expect such evi dence ; - but. if the General complained of the end less change in the orderi given 'to General Mur ray, he could only account for that - continual change, by the little activity displayed by General Clinton in obeying and e'xeceting those orders. If the General complained of a want of confidence in he (general Murray) was -sorry for the existence of such a feeling ; but his duty was not to conciliate the private feelings of individuals, but to attend to public service ; a service which was not always advanced by a too liberal and in 7. discriminate communication of secrets. The in jury done by the opinions given by so high a cha racter as General Clinton, must be acknowledged, and %would be deeply felt : this injury, however, would only extend to the country, it would. not operate in that Court ; but wheit the day came; as he was sure It would, when a fair judgment would he lot reed upon the whole case, then the acrimony of the witness would -become visible, his want of information would be apparent, .and the public would learn how to estimate such evidence, even though coming from such a character as Sir W. Clinton. But if General Clinton thought at the time that the embarkation bad the appearance at a disgraceful flight, he would ask, was it•not• the duty of the General to have sought Lord Win.,Bentinek the moment• he arrived, and have called on him to institute a Court Martial upon the spot ?. It was , not enough to - say, that from Admiral Hallowell's letter, he saw that an inves tigation would take place ; and, indeed, he had no right to know of that letter ; but in any ease lie should upon such an opinion have demanded inquiry, and if he (Sir J. M.) had not done his (ay, General Clinton was the person to step for forward—he was the only legitimate- champion of the army. _ The General concluded his defence with a com mentary on the last document produced by Admi ral Hallowell, and said, he had only then to lay the documentary evidence before the Court, which fur evident reasons of convenience he should ar range •as-' follows :7--First, he would -produce in regular order all the information' he had received and acted upon ; secondly, he would lay before the Court, the orders he had received and given . - and lastly, he would bring forward the general evidence applicable to the whole case. He would begin with the information, as the first in order. Sir J. Murray then submitted to the Conti a great va riety of documentary evidence, referred to in the course of the defence, consisting of information re ceived from Spanish Officers, Magistrates, and pea sants,togetherwithorders and instructions given and received by himself, and correspondence between the Duke of Wellington, Sir John Murray, Ad miral Hallowell, and other British and Spanish Officers. • Those docuMents were not read, but merely put in ; the dates, signatures, and trans lations being proved by Captain Milner, Colonel Kennah, ; Captain Sharp, (Royal Nary), Colonel D'Aguila, the Judge Advocate, .General Donkin, and .G.etieral Whittingham. The greater part of them was received by the Court, though some Were suspended for the future consideration of the Court. Among the latter was one from Admiral Hallowell, dated - the 9th of June. When ail the documents were produced, Admiral Hallowell asked permission to lay be fore the Court the answer to the letter which had been presented, as addressed by him to ,Sir John Alurray. lie wished the answer to be .placed in the same situation as the letter itself., • Sir John Murray objected to the production of this letter, or any other document from the prose tutor after the prosecution was closed. The JUDGE ADVOCATE said, that it was not only the practice of Courts Martial, •but of every other Court, to admit evidence from the prose cutor after he had closed his case, when that evi dencevent to oppose some new matter or evi jeace introduced in the course of the defence, a - nd of which the prosecutor• could have no pre- , vious knowledge. .If the present was deemed to be a ca*e hi twilit, the later of Ad.iliral Hallo well would be admitted by the Court. Admiral Hallowell said, the letter he offered came under the description of the . Judge Advo cate ,; it was to be opposed to the lettered evidence by Sir John Murray, which was new matter in th© I defence. Sir J. ?jitrrav dial not object. to the letter of fered, from itsuature, but lie objected to the prin ciple of admitting evidence after the prosecutor had closed his ca s e. The JUDGE AovocATE said, where new matter was introduced into a defence loosely, it was cus tomary to reply to it merely ; but where that !nat ter was supported by evidence, then the prosecutor was allowed to answer such new, matter by evi dence for instance, there was- a case in the books on this .subject. When a soldier was charged with 'mutiny,. and the charge was proved, if the prisoner in his defence gave evidence to prove that he was forced by others to commit the act, and that it was not done of his own volun tary agency, then the prosecutor was at liberty to produce new evidence to disprove such a state ment. Earl Montressor said, that the mere- statement or a defence was of no importance, and made no impressive► on the Court, except so far as it was supported by evidence. Admiral Ila:lowell said, so many and such grave accusations bad been made against him in the course of his defence—accusations that he could not haze anCcipattd ; that be trusted the• Court, would see the iteee!,sity of - his bringing forward evidence to repel those accusations,; this he must do in justice 'to himself', and be was desirous of being sworn, so that Sir John Murray. might have an opportunity of cross-exan►ining him in the se veuest manner. The JUDGE ADVOCATE , said, the proper time for, Admiral Hallowell to offer this letter, or any other evidence, would be when Sir J. Murray's evidence was all decided upon by the Court, and when it should be, read The Court was about to proceed to the consi deration of the suspended papers, but it being three o'clock, the Court adjourned till Monday at ten o'clock. FROM THE LONDON GAZETTE, JAN. 28. Admiralty Office. Jan. 28, 1815, Copy of a Letter frun► Captain Sir George It. Collier, of L., Majesty's ship Leander, addressed to Rear-Adruiral Griffith. _ His Majesty's ship Leander, Dec. 29, 1814. .Slll,-1 have the pleasure to acquaint you, that with the squadron under my orders, being in quest of the . Anaerican ships of war which escaped .during the late gales from the ports of Massa chussets, 1 had the good fortune, yesterday at sunset, to capture the celebrated privateer Prince de Neufchatel, hermaphrodite-rigged, pierced for 22 guns, and having 18 mounted, six of Which are long. nine and 12-pounders, and the rest 12- pounder carronades ; measures 330 tons, With a crew of 130 men, under the command of Nicho las by birth a Frenchniatt, and one of su perior professional skill and enterprize. She sailed from BostOn on the 21st inst. and is the completest vessel Lever saw. The activity of the Captains of th e Newcastle and Acasta cut off the chance . of escape from this cruizer during a chase of ten hours, the wind plowing a hard gale. I cannot refrain from congratulating you on the capture of this vessel, as she had been chased during former cruizes by upwards of 60 different British 'men of war, and frequently under their guns; nor did- she bring to, in the present in stance, till the shot from this ship and the New castle were flying over her. I have, &c. GEO. R. COLLIER, Captain. Rear. Admiral Griffith, January . 23,. 1815. • • .• The Prince Regent has' been pleased, iii the name and on the behalf of bis Majesty, to appoint the .Hon. Robert An nesley to be his ;Majesty's Consul at Antwerp, BANKRUPTS. Thomas Finn and ...Lan Johnson, Nottingham, tailors, to surrender feb. 20 . , 21, and March 11, at eleven, at the Punch 11,•wl, Nottingham. Attornics, Messrs. Bleasdale Alexander and Horne, New .Inn, London, and Messrs., Coldham and Enfield, Nottingham. Thomas Palmer, Bahia, South America, Merchant, Feb.. 7, 14, and March 11, at ten, at Guildhall, London. Attor ney, Mr. Poole, Adam's-cimrt, Old Broad-street. John Gould, Aston, near Birmingham, chymist, Feb. 10, 11, and March 11, at twelve, at the Royal Hotel, Bir mingham. Attorniez, Mr. Platt, New Boswell-court, coin's Inn, or .Mr. Elkington. Birmingham. David Hargrave, Hollywell-row„Worship-square carpenter, Jan. 31, Feb". 7, and March at. twelve, - at eiuildhall.— Attornies, Messrs. , Rubinson. and Hine, Charter-House square. • Henry Cooper, Saintbury, Gloucester s hi re , f armer , F e b. 2.2, . 23, at the Northwich Arms Inn, Bengworth, Worcester shire, and Maid) 11, at ele , •en, at the Rein Deer Inn, • Worcester. • Att( rtrey, Mr. Bo.usfield, Bouverie-street, Fleet,-street, London. Charles Engledow, Stockton, Durham, grocer, .Feb. 9, at two, Feb. 10, and March 11, at twelve, at.the Red Lion, Stockton. Attorney, Mr. Raisheck, Stockton. Gooldsmith Liug, Norwich, •Unen-draper, .Feb. 6, 10, and March 11, at four, at the Norfolk Hotel, Norwich. Attor nies, Messrs. IVindits and Co. Chancery-lane. James Elder, Aluwick, Northumberland, merchant, Feb, 20, 21, and March 11, at eleven, at the Angel Inn, Alnwick.— Attornies, Mr. Sdbv, Alnwick, or Mr. Burn, Auetiou Mart, Bartholomew-lane,, London. Philip 'Ballard, Great Malcom, Worcestershire, scrivener, Feb. 9, at five, 10, andMorch 11, at eleven, at the Rein Deer Inn, Woreftster._ Attorney, Mr.'Bousfield, Bouverie . , street, Fleet-street, London. , John Greares, Burton-upon-Trent, common-brewer, Feb. 9, at two, 10, at ten, and March 11, at eleven, at the King's, Arms Inn, Derby. Attornies,. Mr. Savage, Great Win chester-street, London, or Mr. Grcaves, Derby. Henry Newman, Knowl Mill, Wargrave, .Berkshire, shop keeper, Feb. 13, 14, and March 11, at ten, at the Angel Inn, Reading. Attorney, Mr. %Pines, Reading. Philip Il:uei:ins, Beer-lace, "Dames-street, victualler, Feb. 4, Iy, and Nl:in:4 11, at one, at Guildhall. Attornies, Messrs. Hutchinson and Eannott, Brewers' Hall, Addle street, Wood-street. . John Brooking, Bristol, dealer, Feb. 8,9, and March 11, at one, at, Londtm Inn and Talbot Tavern, Bristol. Attornies, Sir Samuel Whitcombe and King, Serjeant's Inn, Fleet street,' London, or Mr. Ftantas , Bristol. Thomas Russell, Beverley, Yorkshire, victualler, Feb. 2,3, and March 11, at eleven, at the Dug, and Duck, Beverley. , Attornies, Messrs. Hal! and Campbell, Beverley. Henry Smithers and John Hatitpden Sm i the rs, Bridge-street, and Oxford-street, Feb. 4, 11, and March It, at twelve, at Attorney, Mr. Parr I'opkiu, Dean-street, Soho. Thomas Amor and Isaac Amor, Whiteparish, Wiltshire, farmers, Feh. 10, at six, 11, and March 11, at eleven, at the Public Rooms, NeW Strum. Attornies, Mr. Tholnas Oakford, Silver-strict, Salisbury, or Mr. Poykin, Dean street, Soho. Edward Martin, Alconbury, Huntingdonshire, farmer, Jan. 31, Feb. 18, and MIA) l 1, at ten, at: Guildhall, London.— Attorney, Mr. A. C. Bond, Ware. Edward Shat man, Bogle-street, Savi le-row, St. James, clwse- Inonger,•Jan. 31, Feb. 15, and March 11 at ten, at Guild ' hall. Attorney, Mr. J o hn W a ll s , Sumers-place, West Euston-square. Birminghain, timb,n . -m-reit'int,Y,..i.).l, at one, ,11, an I March at twelve, at Guildhall, London. At torney, Mr. B•iusfichl, Botiveric-street, Fleet-street. James Silvester, Clifton, Gloucestershire, delleT, Feb. 7, 15, and March 11, at ten, at Guildhall, London. Attorney, . Mr. Evans, Hattofi-harden, London. David Ander , ort,. Gray's inn -lane, coal-merchant, Feb. 4, 18, anal Marcit'l i 1 at one, at Guildhall. Attorney, Mr. Battye, Vaancyry-lane. Twitchin, N.ingscl ere, Southampton, maltster, Jan. ".:1, at eleven, Feb. I. and Mareh 11 ,at ten, at Guildhall, Londoit. 2'..ttornics, Mr. Barfield, Hatctialii, Berkshire, or -• Mr. Carter, Temple Chanibers, London. Hididay, eat-dal - Any, plumber, Feb. 13, at seven, 14, and .March 11, at eleven, at the Guildhall, Canteibitry- Attornies, Mr. Julin James Pierce, Canterbury, or Messrs. Collett, WirtibUra and Collett, Chancery-lane. George Wilsinora and Henry Batley, Newgate-street; drapers, Ftb..4, 11, and March 11, at eleven, at Guildhall. Attorney, Mr. Chipchase, Walbrook. Tiio:nas Day Finch, Canntridge, fanner, Feb. 4, 11, and March 11, at eleven at (fnlitihall, London. Attoinies, Messrs. Itooke and Col . !, •Artnunrels . Peter. Simeon, late of Token-house-yard, merchant, Feb, 4, at twelve, 11, and M , irch 11, at one, at Guildhall. Attor ney, Mr. Poole, Adam's -court, Old Broad-Street. Robert Fowler, late of the Strand, jeweller, Feb. 4, at ttrelve, 11, and March 11one, at at Guildhall. Attornies, Messrs. . . . Ala'..llew and Price, Symond's-inn. , • Charles Henn-White, Upper NlUntagne-street, milliner, Feb. -4, 11, .and - March 11, at eleven,. at Guildhall. Attuvuef, Loivden, Clement's-Inn. • bIVIDENDS.• Feb. IS. G. PinnistOne, Marchinont-street, Brunswick square, .straw-hat-mater—Feb. is. J. Cory, Holdswoi thy, Devonshire,, shopkeeper—Feb. 21. H. Branman, Green' street, Betlinal-:green, 21. J. Wilkerson, Barley/ Hertfordshire inaltster—Feb..4. S. Cock, Basingh a ll- s treet, merchant- Feb. 23. D. Griltithi, .Abuustwith, shopkeeper-' Feb. 22. J. Smith and .41 - • Unsworth, Manchester, cotton manufacturers—Feb. .20. G. Elliott, Liverpmil, I mereliant--* Feb. 23, R. Brown, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, swine-werchant-- - Feb. 24. T. Wright, Boston, druggist—F c b. Qs. M. B rog y, Broad-street, Nlitiories,.guu-stock-maker—Feb..22. M.Oliver7. Durham, carpet-manufacturer—Feb. 13. - J. Cornes and J• Wood,. Paddington, coach-makers—Feb. 11. Heseltine, Nicholas-lane, wholesale tea-dealer—Feb. Id. T. Robeys Mile-end, carpenter—Feb. 21 . . J. Pei ks, Brackley, Northainp" tonshire, earthenwareimui—Feb. 21. W. Raper, Chichester, tanuerFeb . . 22. W. Hopkins, Swansea; shopkeeper. •CERTIFICATES.-Vmi. 18. C. Kisling, Wigntore-street, upholsterer—R. Ashby, of the Poultry, engraver—J. Maynard, Lambeth-walk, haberdasher —W..I. Auckland, Doncaster, saddler—W. Osborne, Wed nesbury, Staffordshire, mercer.- PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED. R. Newbald and J. Pullin, Potter's-fields, Southwark, boor benders—R. Fisher, A. Issot and G. Issot, Newarh..nyou- Trcut and Balch:atm, woolbuyers—J. Flanders, N. Merridmv, &c. Atherstoue, Warwiclishire, booksellers—T. Batt. and J• Denby, Manchester, ~ rdicolirinters-4. Hall and IV. Hall, Derby, saddlers—W. Clifford and J. .Howard, Wooburn, paper-makers--M. NewtOn and C. Vale, Manchester, Otis., terms—T. Duckworth and D. Brophy, Marsden, Yorkshire, calico-printers—H. Holden and P. Tregent, Birmingham , paper-mercuantS, .1. Arbouin and J. 'Gowen, - wine and spirit brokers-..-E. Hawkins,'se.n. E. Hawkins, W and N. Dukinlield, Neath Abbey. New Works, Glamor,s , an" copper-smelters---J. Scott and. J. Cook, Bermondsey'. street, woolstaplers—G. Woodward and E. Hobbs, Great Guildford-street, Southwark, smiths—P. Walthall and '.l l . Ward, Newcastle, Staffordshire, attornies—J. Sheppard aixi I-1. Knight, jun. Ratcli tfe,•stace-merchants—J. Whitford as(' J. W hitford, Shrewshory,plaisterers—M. Simpson, R. Welt thorpe, and R. Falkinghain,_ Cheapside, warehousemen- 6 : Rutherford and J. Wright, serf: of the George-street Co.' Work Company, Glasgsw—W. Blease and W., erosion . , . I, i' . verpoul, coopers. LAW INTELLIGENCE'. COURT OF CIIANCERY, JAN.2B. The LORD CHANCELLOR was engaged the who!e, morning in the - investigation of the business of Lord Portsmouth. His Lordship sat in his pri vate room, with closed doors. • COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JAN. 48. THE KING AGAINST MISS DICKENSON. Mr. ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved for the Pair, meat of the Court against Miss EleatlOr DictW e i, son, for 'obstructing th ree Sh er iff' s of fi cers ,a% preventing their arresting a Gentleman of til`; name of John Gordon Sinclair, formerly4t Colonc i in the Army. The Lady . had suffered judgmen t to pass against her by default. It appeared froal the indictment, and the affidavits of the prosece tors, that Colonel Gordon, for some offence b e had committed against the Excise, became artier."' able to the Commissioners in the suns o f 200 1 For this penalty a warrant was given to Thomal George, a Sheriff's Officer, who having procure' the assistance of Alexander Ball and Francis Rail' ton, proceeded to the house of Miss Dickensoni with whom Colonel Gordon lived. They wer e unable to obtain admission to the house ; b u t ob'' serving that the Colonel was in his garden, chef knocked at the garden door, and, under pretenc e of inquiring about a cottage that was to let, _suc ceeded in getting into the garden ; the Colone l made a precipitate retreat into the house, and 0 6 Officers would have followed him, but Miss.picl‘: .enson, seizing a musket, with a bayonet fired' which lay ( on •the ground, put herself in a postAn e , of offence, and placing [NIA's& between the lions and the,Colonel's pursuers,, forbade their approach; This, however, the defendant denied, allegine that she offered no obstruction to the Officer.'" The Colonel bad since been arrested. The defendant was sentenced to be imprisone d in the King's Bench prison for six weeks. BIRTHS. On Wednesday last, the wife of Rear-Admiral Relies, 011 daughter, still-horn. The sante day, Mrs. Francis, wife of Philip Francis, of a daughter. On Friday last, at Clapham, the Lady of Willitm Bulla0(1° Esq. of the Adelphi Terrace, of a son. j, A few days ago, at Rotherham, Mrs. Raby, wife of Nir% It thy, of the Ship. Tavern, of a datighter, being her 'WARMED. Wit' On Tuesday last, Janes Coombe, Esq. Banker, of Wi'" gor, to bliss Brown, of Marlborough. t oo On Thursday last, at ,St. Margaret's Church, Roches' Lientenalst-,Colonel Bingham, to Mary, only daughter Thomas Elliott, Esq. of the Vines. On Saturday morning last, St. J EdWs ..ay last, ~ James's Church, ,Selieenek, Esq. to Ming Boy'', of Waustead, Essex. 0 9. 'The•same day, at St. George', Blootashury,Tbos. BO i v Esq. of Hale-End, Walthatust , riv, to Catherine, third da°3 teiuf WilliankXgnew, Esq. of i f twoell-square DIED . On Friday, the 20th inst. _ :tt Bath MArr, wife of Frede . Lindeman, his Britannic Majesty's Consul at Bahia. , ( 1 , Ott the - 23d inst. in the ti9th year of his age, Samuel • wards, Esq. of Cothatu Lodge, in the County of Glouce9t, o e On Thursday night, at his apartments. in the Strand, tain Richard )Ailey of the Roal Nvy. At Newcastl ( e, on , Thursd4 y last, a Rear-Admiral Wi. -1 Char .Oleton, aged 56. voc P .n FriOy . morn ing last, at his house, Raker-street, 1 0 man-square, Richard Bard Harcourt, Esq. Lite of rev' Herts.. i‘t On Saturday week, very suddenly, at Manchester , 0 , Seddon, printer.. He had heon at the Office a short time er fore his death and appeared in perfect health, and very cl c os . ful—went twine to tea, which riot being ready, he sat al' ~A and seemed to hare fallen asleep"; but when his friend' ecif deavoured tu• awal;e him, he was discOr,ered to have beco o corpse. ;;-- ci li LONDON: Printed by J. B. CARSTAIRS, No. 7 , C rP :0 01 buildings; and published: by W. - A. SCRIPPS, of Vr i% ;ige at the SUN-OFFICE, No. 112, Strand; where Adve r e d. went:, Orders, Letters f c fost-paid), &C. must be WI css`