The Sun. — London, England, 1861-12-20 00:00:00

LA TV INTELLIGENCE.—Dec. 19. ARCHES COURT. (Before Dr. Lushington,) THE OFFICE OF THE JUDGE PROMOTED BY THE BISHOP OF SALISBURY V. THE REV. DR. ROWLAND WILLIAMS (CLERK). The suit was brought by the Bishop of Salisbury against the Rev. Dr. R. Williams, vicar of Broad Chalk, in the county of Wilts, and diocess of Salis- bury, the author of one of.the essays - contained in the book entitled " Essaysand.Reviews." Dr. Phillimore, Q.C., Mr. Coleridge, Q.C., and Dr. Swabey appeared on behalf of the Bishop of Salisbury : and Dr. Deane, Q.C., and Mr. Fitz James Stephen for the Rev. Dr. Williams. The case came before the Court to-day on the 'admission of the articles, which was opposed by the defendant. The charges brought against the defendant are contained in 22 articles, of which the _first, second, third, and fourth are entirely formal. The articles objected to are from the fifth to the 17th inclusive. The essay contributed by the de fendant is entitled " Bunsen's Biblical Researches," to which exception is taken on the ground that it contains doctrine contrary and repugnant to the Articles of Religion of the United Church of Eng land and Ireland, and that the review has a ten dency to inculcate a disbelief in the Divine inspire tion and authority of the Holy Scriptures. Article 5 is as follows :—That by your order or consent, by "way of preface or introduction to the said _book, entitled " Essays and Reviews," it is printed as follows To the Reader,—lt will be understood that the authors of the ensuing essays are respon sible for their respective articles only. They have written in entire independence of each other, and without concert or comparison. The volume, it is hoped, will be received as an attempt to:illus trate the advantage derivable to the cause of religious and moral truth from a free handling, in a becoming spirit, of subjects pecu liarly liable to suffer by the repetition of con ventional language, and from traditional methods of treatment. And that the said book has, with your knowledge and consent, passed through nine editions, and that no other preface or introduction than the aforesaid one has been prefixed thereto, or printed or published." Article 6 is in the following terms That the said articulate essay or review, entitled Bunsen's Biblical Researches,' has not, during the nine editions aforesaid, undergone any, or at least any material or substantial alteration, but is in all of them exactly, or almost exactly, in the very same words as it was when first published by you, or by your order, in the first edition." Ar ticle 7 is as follows : —" That in the said article, essay, or review are contained the following pas sages As in his "Egypt" our author sifts the historical date of the Bible, so in his " Gott in der Geschichte" he expounds its directly religious ele ment. Lamenting, like Pascal, the wretchedness of our feverish being when estranged from its eternal stay, he traces,as a countryman of Hegel,the Divine thought bringing order out of confusion. Unlike the despairing school, who forbid us trust in God or in conscience, unless we kill our souls in literalism, he finds salvation for men and States only in becoming acquainted with the Author of our life, by whose reason the world stands fast, whose stamp we bear in our forethought, and whose voice our conscience echoes.:: In the Bible, as an expression of devout reason, and therefore to be read with reason in free dom, he finds record of the spiritual giants whose experience generated the religious atmosphere we breathe.' . If we could estimate the truth of such views, the full import of which hardly lies on the surface, we find two lines of inquiry present themselves as criteria; and each of these divides itself into two branches. First, as regards the sub ject matter, both spiritual affection and metaphysi cal reasoning forbid us to confine revelations like those of Christ to the first half-century of our era, but show at least affinities of our faitja existing in men's minds anterior to Christianity, and renewed with deep echo from living hearts in many a genera tion. Again, on the side of external criticism, we find the evidences of our canonical books and of the patristic authors nearest to them are suffi cient to prove illustration in outward act of principles perpetually true ; but not ade quate to guarantee narratives inherently incre dible, or precepts evidently wrong. Hence we are obliged to assume in ourselves a verifying faculty, not unlike the discretion which a mathema tician would use in weighing a treatise on geometry, or the liberty which a musician would reserve in reporting a law of harmony. Thus, as we are ex pressly told, we are to have the witness in ourselves. It is not our part to dictate to Almighty God that lie ought to have spared us this strain upon our consciences ; nor, in giving us through His Son a deeper revelation of His own presence, was Ile bound to accompany His gift by a special form of record. Hence there is no antecedent necessity that the least rational view of the Gospel should be the truest, or that our faith should have no human ele ment, and its records be exempt from historical law. Rather we may argue, the more Divine the germ the inure human must be the development-' . . . lint if such a notion alarms those who think that, apart from omniscience belonging to the Jews, the proper conclusion of reason is Athe,ism, it is not in consistent with the idea that Almighty God has been pleased to educate men and nations, employ ing imagination no less than conscience, and suff e r ing Isis lessons to play freely within the limits of humanity and its shortcomings. Nor will any fair reader rise from the prophetical disquisitions with out feeling that he has been under the guidance of a master's haul. The great result is to vindicate the work of the Eternal Spirit ; that abiding infiu• ence which, as our Church teaches us in the Ordi nation Service, underlies all others, and in which converge all images of old time and means of grace now; temple, Scripture, finger, and hand of God; and again, preaching, sacraments, waters which comfort, and flame which burns. If such a spirit did not dwell in the Church the Bible would not be inspired, for the Bible is, before all things, the written voice of the congregation. Bold as such a theory of inspiration may sound, it was the earliest creed of the Church, and it is the only one to which the facts of Scripture answer. The Sacred Writers acknowledge themselves men of like passions with ourselves, and we are pro mised illuminations from the Spirit which dwell in them. Hence, when we find our Prayer-book con structed on the idea of the Church being an in spired society, instead of objecting that every one of us is fallible, we should define inspiration con sistently with the facts of Scripture and of human nature. These would neither exclude the idea of fallibility among Israelites of old, nor teach us to quench the Spirit in true hearts for ever. But if any one prefers thinking the sacred writers pas sionless machines, and calling Luther and Milton uninspired,' let him co operate in researches by which his theory, if true, will be triumphantly con firmed." It i s charged that the defendant, in the passages quoted, maintained " that the Bible, or Holy Scripture, is an expression of devout reason, and the written voice of the congregation, nut the Word of God, nor containing any revelation of His truth or of His dealings with mankind, nor the rule of our faith ;" or that he maintained doctrines or opinions contrary to or inconsistent with the 6th, 7th, and 20th Articles of Religion, —to that part of the Nicene Creed which declares in substance that the Holy Ghost spake by the Prophets, —and con trary to and inconsistent with the teaching of the Church, as contained in the Ist Chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, appointed in the Book of Common Prayer to be read as the Epistle for Christmas-day ; to the Epistle to be read for the Epiphany (Ephesians iii., 1) ; and as contained in the proper preface appointed in the Book of Com mon Prayer upon Whit Sunday. Article 8 con tains passages selected from pages 65 to 74 inclu sive of the essay, which are objected to on the ground that the defendant did therein affirm that in the Books of the Old Testament there is, with the possible exception of one, two, or three doubtful passages, no element of divinely inspired prediction Or prOgnostica • ,oa of future persons or events, and that such 7th Articles of doctrine was contrary to the 6th and Religion, c to the Nicene Creed, and to the portions of ripture appointed to be read as the Gospel for theMonday,in Easter and the Epistle and Gospel for the Tpuasessadgayesi of f-taster week. Article 9 relates to the work contained in pages 76 and 77 Article 10 the passages at pages 83, 84, and 85 ; Article 11, to pag A es tt s i 6 el s9, and 61 ; p assage as inconsisteentl3 Article 12, to pages 81 and 87, objects first Christiansesith the to the followin g 27th Article of Religion—" The held that the heart was purified by faith ; et ie b y symbol, water, became accompanyingdegrees the instrument of purification. Holy baptism was at first preceded by a vow in which the young soldier expressed his consciousness of spi r it ua l truth ; but when it became twisted into a false analogy with circumcision the rite degenerated into a magical form, and the Augustinian notion of a curse inherited by infants was developed in con nexion with it." The 14th Article charges that, in the following passage—" Thus the incarnation be comes with our author as purely spiritual as it was with S. Paul ; the son of David by birth is the Son of God by the spirit of holiness," the defendant affirms that the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ was purely spiritual, and that the Son of God did not take man's nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, contrary to the second of the Articles of Religion. Article 15 charges the defendant with maintaining that justification by faith meant only peace of mind, or Divine approval, which comes of trust in a righteous God, and that justification is a verdict of forgiveness upon our repentance, and of acceptance upon the off er i ng o f our h earts, which dam or the m went is all ege d t o b e i nconsistent with the 11th Articles of Religion, Article 16 charges the defendant with having, in the passages contained in pages 92 and 93 of the volume, approved and assented in the substance, of all tie essay, "as well those parts and words of which other persons were the original writers as those written by the defendant." The whole of the charges are summed up in the 17th Article, as fol lows :—" That the manifest tendency, k cope, object, and design of the whole essay is to inculcate a dis belief in the Divine inspiration of the Holy Scrip tures contained in the Old and New Testaments; to reduce the said Holy:Scriptures to the level of a mere human composition, such as the writings of Luther end of Milton ; to deny that the Old Testa ment contains prophecies or predictions of our Sa viour, and other persons and events; to deny that the prophets, speaking under the special in spiration of the Holy Spirit, foretold human events; to deny altogether or greatly discredit the truth and genuineness of the historical portions of the Old Testament, and the truth and genuineness of certain parts of the New Testament, and the truth and reality of the miracles recorded as facts in the Old and New Testaments ; to deny, or interpret by a meaning at variance with that of the Church, the doctrines of original sin, of infant baptism, of jus tification by faith, atonement and propitiation by the death of our Saviour, and of the incarnation of our Saviour." Dr. Phillimore, having opened the case and read the articles, asked the Court to admit tilt m. Dr. Deane, Q.C., on behalf of the Rev. Dr. Wil liams, in opposition to the admission of the articles, said he had no doubt that the promoter, in institut ing these proceedings, had been influenced by pres sure from without. The defendant was no obscure or unknown man. For many years he had been known at the University of Cambridge not only as a man of learning, but as taking a deep interest in theological inquiry. He was known as the author a " History of Christianity and Hindooism," and of several sermons preached before the University of Cambridge, which had been for years before the public, and as a Hebrew scholar he was greatly distinguished. The volume in which :the essay complained of was published had been before the public for a considerable time before any particular notice was taken of it, Its history was somewhat singular, for it was not till, perhaps unfortunately, an article appeared in the " Westminster Review" —the pith of which was that it was a great pity the writers had not avowed themselves to be infidels —that the book attracted general attention. Then came the election at Oxford of a Professor of Sans crit, when members of the University from all parts of the kingdom met and discussed the " Essays and Reviews.' Then came an article in the "Quarterly Review," which, with an ignorance that was sin gular if not pretended, declared that everything in the volume was new, while it was well known by the reading public that the opinions there expressed were to be found in the floating literature of the day, which in cant phrase were termed " neology." Last came the speech of the right hon, member for Bucks. What was the object of the prosecution ? Not a sermon, but a review of a book written and published by another man, in which were set forth the opinions of the author in question. The com ments made were few, and where made were within the law of the Church of England. He had yet to learn that it was an offence against the law for clergymen to review the work of a learned man and comment upon it. The author of the book reviewed (Baron Bunsen) was a man of great natural talent, whe cultivated it with more than ordinary success, and with opportunities at his command which few ever possessed. He was the pupil of Niebuhr, the historian, and his secretary during his lengthened residence at Rome. He had spent a considerable time in Egypt, and afterwards resided in England for nearly a quarter of a century. He was the founder of the Bishopric of Jerusalem, which is in the gift of England and Prussia alternately. He had mixed with at least one religious party in this coun try, and he must be a bold man that would say that in works by Baron Bunsen would be found doctrines that supported infidelity. Some people might think that strange doctrines were unsafely advanced in the essays in question, and short sighted views might be taken in regard to it. He would instance the address of a very learne'l man, the Rev. Dr. Jelf, who in his address to Convocation expressed alarm because he had been informed that infidels were circulating extracts from the " Essays "at Leeds. He should have known that Atheists and sceptics published in parallel columns passages of Scripture for the same purpose—to show their an tagonism to each other and their inconsistency with science. The watchward of the Bible Society was, " The whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible"— that was, leaving the Divine Book to the people for the exercise of their private judgment. A clergyman by his ordination vow was bound to in struct others in the right understanding of Holy Writ. The learned counsel said that the objections he would state to the articles were threefold. The objection to Article 5 was applicable to it alone— those to Articles 6 to 17 upon grounds more or less applicable to all, and the objection to Article 17 was limited to it alone and to its form. With reference to Article 5, he remarked that any person reading that article by itself would conclude that the pre face to the book contained erroneous doctrine, or that, by what was contained in it, the defendant became responsible for all the " Essays ;" but the first proposition is that the writers are responsible for their respective articles only. The last sentence in quotation speaks of their mode of treatment of the subjects discussed, and he contended that no subject had suffered so much as religion from the use of con ventional language. The supposition that Dr. Wil liams was to be fixed with the responsibility of the other " Essays " was excluded by the terms of the 4th and 18th Articles. It was true that the work had passed through nine editions, and now they exceed that number, which could be accounted for by the manner in which it had been attacked. lie contrasted the extensive circulation of the " Essays" with the fate of " Strauss' Life of Christ," which was not made the subject of judicial proceeding, but was replied to by Neander, and the consequence was that Strauss' book was a dead loss to the pub. lisher. The article was wrong in substance, and inconsistent with the scope of the general charge. It was useless, as the court could not inflict punish ment. Dr. Deane repeated that it was no part of his instructions, nor was it his duty to shrink from the most thorough inquiry into all the passages cited. He would not adopt any legal subterfuge in dealing with them. He was not sent there to ex plain away or conceal the opinions of the defendant. The scheme of the articles appeared to be to ex tract certain passages, and to suggest a meaning, or a tendency to a meaning, repugnant to the doc trines of the Church. He contended that the pas sages selected should have been given with the context. But the framers of the articles had done worse; they had actually mixed up passages taken from different parts of the essay. His Lordship, in determining this case, would have to decide rather as a literary critic than as an eccksiastical judge. As an illustration of the progress of science he re fereed to the belief in a former age of quite a dif ferent movement of the heavenly bodies from that which'we now entertain, and he wished to know if there was no improvement to be made in the science of philology. Was there to be no progress in our knowledge of words P He complained that in the articles no distinction was made between the opinions of the author of the book reviewed and the sentiments of the reviewer. When the Court rose the learned counsel had entered upon his argument against the admissibility of the 7th Article, which charges the defendant with maintaining that Holy Scripture is "an expression of devout reason and the written voice of the congregation," not the word of God. The further hearing of the case will be proceeded with to-day. ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE. LIVERPOOL, DEC. 17. (Before Mr. Justice Crompton and a Special Jury.) LIBEL AND SEDUCTION —WHITE V. HOWARTH— HOWARTH V. WHITE. Mr. Edward James, Q.C., Mr. T. Jones, and Mr. Collingham appeared for Mr. White in both actions ; and Mr. Overend, Q.C., Mr. Kemplay, and Mr. Higgin for Howarth in both actions. The first is an action for libel, and the second an action for seducing the plaintiff's daughter, and, as both are in fact founded on the same transaction, they were proceeded with together at the same time. It appeared from Mr. James's opening statement that Mr. White is a dentist, carrying on business in Lever-street, Manchester, and that Mr. Howarth is a cotton spinner owning two mills at Middleton, six miles from Manchester, and is also a provision' by yealheirs i vv n i t fe he an s d am d e place, the shop being managed aughter. Mr. Howarth's eldest daughter, requiring. the assistance of a dentist last year, went with Lever-street, that without her White's professional skillmother, manc r , mother to Mr. White's, in was alleged that on the e l ll Bt estr, and several times after availing herself of Mr. each occeatsoiboenr; h b e ut pu it t ii her under choloform in order tooofreO.xtract a tooth, and that while in that condition coniduusteteredcovering himself towards from it Mr. White improperly towards her, and had connection with thegirl. ' is only 19 years of age, and was delivered of he child on the 16th of July ' last. Her father early a in October last met a Mr. Chadwick, and s t a t e d to him that his daughter had been delivered of a child; that he had been informed only that morning that Mr. White was the father of it, his daughter stat ing to him the circumstance of her being put under chloroform, and her belief on that ground that Mr. White had then abused her, as shehad never known living man unless it were on that occasion, when, she was unconscious. 'Phis statement gave tin to THE 'SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 20, 1861. the action for libel by Mr. White, and the alleged I transaction was on the ground of the action for seduction against him by Mr. Howarth. Thomas Chadwick, estate agent at Wilmstow and Manchester, said,—The plaintiff White is a dentist practising in Lever-street, Manchester, and has a private residence at Alderley, near my own, and Howarth is a cotton-spinner at Middleton, six miles from Manchester. Mr. Howarth called at my office in the end of July or the beginning of August last, and in the course of conversation with me said, speaking as if in very great trouble, that his daughter had been recently confined; that the father of her child, he had learnt only that morning, was Mr. White, the dentist, and that it had been begot ten when she was under chloroform; that the first time she went to see Mr. White was professionally with her mother; the next time she was alone, and was put under chloroform, and that must have been the time when the child was begotten ; and that the third time she went he attempted to take liberties with her, and she threatened thereupon to scream " Murder ;" that he desisted then, and she never saw him again. It was from that circum stance that she believed him to be the father, as she had never bad connexion with any living man un less it were with him when she was under chloro form. Before this statement of Mr. Howarth I had heard something to the same effect in the street, and I told Mr. Howarth that I had. I communicated the conversation to Mr. White on the 3d or 4th of October, in the street opposite the Manchester In firmary, while I was in company with Mr. Green, Mr. White's solicitor. Cross-examined—l have not written down the conversation, but I have it as literally as possible. I understood that all the information Mr. Howarth gave me was from his daughter, but I will pledge my oath whether it was the belief of the father or the belief of the daughter that events had happened as they were stated. I certainly understood it was the daughter's belief. Mr. White himself had told me that he had administered chloroform to a young woman, but he was not then speaking of Miss Howarth, and, in reply to a question by Mr. Ho warth, I 2 told him I heard Mr. White say so, but whether that question was put at the first in terview I cannot remember. Mr. White did not say that he was in the habit of administering chlo roform, but in the course of a conversation at my breakfast table, in presence of my wife and family, he mentioned one instance in which he had had considerable difficulty in recovering the patient from the effects. This closed the plaintiff's case in the action of " White v. Howarth" for libel, Mr. Overend then addressed the jury for Mr. Howarth as defendant in that action, and opened the case for the plaintiff in the action of " Howarth v. White" for seduction of the daughter, producing the following evidence. • Mary Howarth—l am daughter of Mr. Edmund Howarth, of Middleton, the eldest of seven children, and 19 years of age. My father is a cotton-spinner, and has a provision shop. Since I was at school I have been assisting in the shop. I had occasion for the assistance of a dentist, and therefore went with my mother to Mr. White's, in Manchester, early in September, 1860. I returned to him the week following by his appointment, because he was then engaged. My sister, and not my mother, was in company with me on that occasion. He filled one tooth, and prepared another, and I paid him for it then. By appointment I went again the following week alone, and had two teeth filled. I paid him on that occasion, and went by appointment again the following week alone. This was on Wednesday, I think, in September, but I cannot tell the day of the month. I was put into Mr. White's room and he came in afterwards and shook hands with me, asking how I was, He had not done so before. I had two teeth filled, and while he was doing so he addressed me as " love" and " dear," and by other words to soothe. We had conversation about Middleton and people there. I paid him that time and made no appointment to go again, but he said that if I wished to go again I must write and inform him a week before the time. Middleton Agricultural Show took place last year on the 4th of October, and the week after the show I appointed to go to him the following Thursday week, writing him on the Wednesday. I went accordingly on Thursday, Octo ber 18, alone. Mr. White came into the room, shook hands with me, asking how I was, and kissed me. I sat down on his operating chair, and had one tooth filled and another taken out. While he was operating he addressed me as before, " love" and " dear." " Don't be afraid ; it won't hurt you." Before he gave me the chloroform ho said the tooth would not be much good to fill, and that there would be violent pain for three or four hours. I said I dared not have it out. Ha wished me to have chloroform. I refused three or four times. He said it would do me no harm if my things were loose about me. He then asked me - whether I wore stays, and whether they were tight. I said I did wear stays, and he said that I had better loosen them. He left the room while I did so. He returned about five minutes after, and administered the chloroform on a white handkerchief. He got the chloroform from a bottle with a yellow cork to it that stood on a kind of sideboard. I was on the chair,ia large easy chair with a back rather reclining, and a footstool in front. I was leaning back, and my head in something that fixed the head. He held the hand kerchief to my mouth and nostrils, and I felt going to sleep very fast. I drew my breath very quickly, and he said, "Do not breathe so fast ; it will be better for you." When I came round I asked if my tooth was out, and he said it was, and was on the side table. At that time he was rubbing my feet, about my ankles. Afterwards he put his hand on my heart and said, "Your heart is beating all right now." He then slided his hands from my heart to my hands, which were on my chest, and kept them there. (The wan( ss then described the defendant's conduct before and while he had con nexion with her.) I denied him many a time ; I did so because some one might scc it from the window. I did not cry out, because my passion was great ; but I said if he ever did so again I would scream out. The defendant then left me alone in the room for half an hour. After he re turned he remarked upon the break out on my face, and wrote:out a prescription for me (put in evidence), and bade me take it to Standering's, in Piccadilly, to have it made up. He gave me also some brass metals to put round my wrists and ankles (said to be gal vanic chains), I paid him half a guinea just before I went out. He said he would not charge for ex tracting my tooth, 1 as k e d hi m if th ere was any discount, and he said " No." My mother bade me do so always, for having p a id rea d y money. H e said he did not allow any discount, but he would give me either ss. for the bazaar or three half-crown boxes of tooth powder, and I preferred the ss. He gave me the ss. and a half-crown box of tooth powder, and bade me get such a toothbrush as he showed me at Standering's. He then shook hands with me and kissed me, and I came away. I had been there in the room with him from about half past 2 o'clock to a quarter to 5 o'clock. He told me before leaving not to tell my mother that I had had chloroform. He urged me very hard about that. About a fortnight after this I found that I was not as I ought, and sent a note to Mr. White, stating I was distressed on account of it, and that I should be obliged to tell my mother of the proceedings that had occurred at his place the last time I was there. I asked him to write me by the bearer, but to say nothing in the letter except about my teeth. He wrote me by post next day, requesting me to go to him, and I went alone on the 9th Nov. When I saw him in the waiting-room he asked me how I came to write such a note as that by any person or a friend either, but I said he knew what it was for, and told him who brought it. He was angry with me, and said I should have sent it by post. I said I sent it by the girl because I wished to come on the following day, the Thursday. The letter, he said, looked as if it had been opened. In his room after this he scaled my teeth, calling me endearing names as he had before, and then began to take liberties with me again, but I would not allow him, and said I would scream out. He again worked at my teeth, and then attempted liberties again, using very low terms, and I cried "Oh," but I do not know whether any one heard me. He tried to have connection with me, but I would not allow him. He said, " We must set you right." He would not take payment, and I went away. I called on him again the day the Empress of the French was in Manchester. Miss Richardson was with me, but I was called alone into his room. He said the pain of my teeth and the cause of my not being right arose from cold. I left him on the 9th November without shaking hands, being rather angry, but bade him good bye. I was delivered of a child on the 16th July this year. Mr. White is the father of it. Cross-examined by Mr. James—l was seven times altogether at Mr. White's, and I think on four of these I paid him. The first call atter I had been with my mother I paid him for the first time 10s. 6d. ; the week following 21s. ; the week following that 21s. The fourth time was on the 18th October, and that would be after an interval of three weeks. I am sure of that. I am quite sure I did not pay two guineas the first time, nor one guinea and a half the second. I never saw him or wrote him after that day the Empress of the French was in Manchester. Witness was then examined as to her previous con duct, and especially with certain men, who were mentioned, one of them being a carter in her father's service. Her answers were not such as to give a high idea of her prudence or her morality. Mr. Lunn, one of the surgeons of the Manchester Infirmary, said—Chloroform is administered in an immense number of cases weekly. I have seen it administered to wo men . Before sleep comes on I hgYe liCOll it produce MiteMOUt. If y9ll figLOther the patient with chloroform there will be less ex citement. Afterwards, in coining out of the chloro form, persons ale differently affected. I have seen in women in that case a manner more than hysteri cal, what might be called an indecent manner, moving the arms as if to embrace and the lips as if kissing, and using lewd dirty language—the lan guage rarely, but I have heard it. Chloroform if given in a particular dose would have an effect on the sexual passion ; an over-dose would have quite an opposite effect and prostrate the patient's strength. Vomiting shows that chloroform has been over administered. The effect of chloroform would in time make a cork light yellow. A handkerchief more than an inhaler would have a sexual effect. ° Anything about the neck of the patient should be loose; it might be prudent to loose the stays, but I have never had occasion to require that. I never administer chloroform when alone with the patient. Cross-examined—Chloroform prevents the sensa tion of pain. I know Mr. Simeon, of Edinburgh, and his book on " Anaesthesia," and that he denies the sexual effect on women, but that is in obstetric practice, and there I agree with him. I speak of hysteria in two cases, and of the indecency in only one. That was the case in which chloroform was given at a dentist's house by myself, to a lady who was to have a tooth extracted ; that is the only case. T. M. Lall, assistant to Standering, chemist, in Piccadilly, Manchester, proved that the prescrip tion spoken of by Miss Howarth was made up on the 18th of October. He did not know of its being made up again till three weeks ago. There was no date to the prescription as it appeared in the book, but he had no doubt, from what preceded and went after, that it was the 18th of October. Mr. Manifold, of the Northern Hospital, Liver pool, spoke to the sexual effect of chloroform. Cross-examined—He spoke of only two cases, although his experience extended to 400 or 500 cases of chloroform being administered. He would not say that sleep had an erotic tendency, although the fancy might operate under sleep. Mrs. Anna Howarth, the mother of the young woman in question, said she thought it would be the beginning of September when she and her daughter went to Mr. White's. He could not see them then, but appointed for them to return a week after. Her daughter did go several times, and she always paid, but she could not tell how much money she had given her. She had spoken to her daugh ter about asking discount. She remembered her getting a prescription; it was on the 18th of Octo ber, about a fortnight alter the show. Eliza Howarth, the daughter of a publican at Middleton, proved the delivery of a letter from Miss Mary Howarth to Mr. White at Manchester on the 7th of November. She remembered the date, be cause Mrs. Whitehead was lying dead at the time. She waited for an answer, and Mr. White came down stairs and said he could not give her an an swer, but he would write. Robert Fielding, a corn merchant at Middleton, said he heard of Miss Howarth having a child in July. He knew Mr. White. He-went to him to his place of business in Lever-street before Christ mas, 1860, for the purpose of having something done to his teeth. Mr. White knew him, and knew where he came from. Mr. 0 verend—Did he draw your teeth out, or stop them, or clean them ? Witness—That's my business. (Laughter.) He did what was required. Mr. White asked him if he knew Miss Howarth, and he said he did. He asked him first if he came from Middleton, although he knew. He answered in the affirmative, and then Mr. White asked him if he knew Mr. Howarth. He said he did; and, after asking him about seve ral other persons, asked him if he thought Middle ton was a place which would pay if he went over and endeavoured to establish a practice there. He replied that it would. Mr. White then said he had a great many patients coming from there. He next asked how Mr. Howarth stood—if he was a respec table man, and if he was a wealthy man. Witness replied in the affirmative to both questions. He then asked if Miss Howarth was engaged to any person. Witness said two or three had paid their addresses to her, and that was all he knew about her. Mr. White also asked if she was respectable. To that question he gave no answer. White went to Mid dleton about six weeks or two months ago, and was making inquiries from witness about the eharacter of Miss Howarth. Frederick Andrew Taylor, assistant to his father, Mr. Edmund Taylor, a surgeon at Middleton, said he attended Miss Howarth during her confinement, and he heard a statement made by her. Susan Aldis, the keeper of a boarding school at Harrogate, said Miss Howarth was a pupil of hers. She kit school 12 mouths last Christmas. She re ceiN ed a letter from her last January. Mr. James at first strongly objected to the admis sibility of this letter, but afterwards consented, al though it was not evidence, that it should go before the jury. Another letter in reply to this was read from the witness, advising her former pupil to communicate the whole of the facts to her parents immediately. This was the evidence for the plaintiff in the action of "Howarth V. White" for seduction. Mr. James then put the defendant himself into the witness-box. John Haynes White said he had never any con nexion with Miss Howarth at all. He had been in business 15 years. A man and his wife named Sher ratt resided at his place of business in Lever-street, and took care of it. The wife or the man attended to the door. The man was an assistant in the mechanical part of the business. Witness himself resided at Alderley. His operating room in Lever street was on the first floor, to the front. He had as large a practice as any other dentist in Manches ter. eNas. Sherratt was in the habit of entering the names of people as they called. Ho himself had a book in which he entered the days for which he made engagements. That book would enable him to state on what days he had made engagements with Miss Howarth. The first engagement entered in the bJel.; for Miss Howarth was for the sth of September. By reference to Mrs. Sherratt's book it would be found that it was the 28th of August when they called. On the sth of September he filled some teeth for Miss Howarth, and received two guineas from her, which was entered in his cash book, produced. The next engagement was made for the 12th. In his cash-book there was an entry of .f.:l lls. 6d. received from Miss Howarth on that day. He filled two teeth on that day, and removed some teeth. He used chloroform. He had used chloroform for 12 years in extracting teeth, and had always used it by himself without assistance. On this occasion he used the same dose as on other occasions. Ho did not take the slightest liberty with her while she was under the influence of chloroform. She recovered almost immediately. That was the only instance in which he used chloroform to her. He always asked females if they laced at all tight. He asked her the same question, and her reply was that she did not think she was tight-laced. He told her she had better be cautious, and he would leave the room for five minutes. She was under his treatment altogether about an hour or an hour and a half. He never kissed her. He did not remember making use of en dearing expressions, such as "dear" and "love," to her, but it was not at all unusual for him when treating young persons and children to use the word " dear." He was a married man and had three chil dren. Immediately after Miss Howarth left he went to the station to go to his residence. The next en gagement was for Oct. 18. Referring to his cash book, he found that on Oct. 18th he received from Miss Howarth one guinea. He might have given ss. and a box of tooth-powder. He had given tooth powder on various occasions for bazaars. On Oct. 18th he filled two teeth for her. He did not extract teeth more than once. He never charged her or re ceived anything from her afterwards. He only re ceived money three times. He certainly did not take any liberties with her on that day nor on any other day. Referring to Mrs. Sherratt's book, he found she was there en Nov Ist. He removed some filling on that day, and scaled some teeth for her. He made no engagement on that day for the future. He remembered receiving a note from Eliza Howarth about Nov. 6th. He told her he could not give an answer then, but he would write an answer. He was very busy at the time, and that was the reason he did not give an answer then. He believed that letter was destroyed. He had looked for it and could not find it. As far as he could recollect—and he thought he could recollect it all—the letter com menced, " Mr. White, Sir,—ln accordance with your wish I write to say that I am not as comfortable as I could wish, and. I should be glad if you wouldsend me something to use, and direct it to the Post-office, Middleton." He thought that was about all. The learned counsel having read the girl's statement as to the contents of the letter, the witness said it was quite untrue. The letter contained no allusion to her being pregnant, or to anything improper having occurred. He wrote a reply on the 7th, and addressed it to her own house. He did not send it according to her request, because he did not wish to lend him self to any underhand proceeding. He was stating this with regard to the address to the best of his be lief. He wrote : " Mr. White's compliments to Miss Howarth, and he does not quite comprehend the meaning of her letter ; and if her teeth are at all uneasy, she had better come to Manchester." Ac cordingly, on the 9th she came to Manchester. Nothing of any moment took place. She said her teeth were less painful, and he told her he thought it was a slight cold, and in two or three weeks it might all pass away. He did not got to her and say, " Why did you send such a note by any per son ?" He denied the truth of the girl's evidence on that point. He did not on that occasion take any liberties with her or use any low terms to her. She calle I again on the 30th of November. She did not on that occasion pay anything about not Wing right. She never charged him with having had connexion with her. Mrs. Howarth called on the 18th Sept. and requested him to make some reduction in his charges. He said he would make no reduction, but he would do the best he could for her mouth. The prescription produced was in his handwriting. He had some conversation with her about a scorbutic affection before he gave her the prescription. Cross-examined by Mr. Overend—He saw she had some scurvy on her hands, and he suggested a remedy. He did not say " This will do you good, my dear." He charged sometimes half a guinea, and sometimes five guineas, according to who the patient was. The witness went on to say that he had no re collection of having administered chloroform to a young woman in the absence of a third party. The lady referred to having been brought into court, he said he had no recollection of her. He sometimes gave the ladies a kiss when they were young, but not strangers—sometimes when their mothers were not there. He had not kissed young women, stran gers, who had come to his place. He might have kissed a young woman who was his patient if she was not a stranger. Rebecca Sherratt verified the entries made by her in the register of visitors. She said she re membered Mr. White using chloroform to Miss Howarth. She did not remember the date. Mr. White went home soon after Miss Howarth went away. It was before the 18th Sept., the day on which Mrs. Howarth came. When Mrs. Howarth was talking with Mr. White on that day, she thought she was making a complaint about the chloroform having been used. Cross-examined—She did not know that there was any charge against Mr. White until after the child was born. This concluded the evidence on both actions. Mr. Overend this morning addressed the jury for Mr. Howarth, and Mr. James replied upon the whole for Mr. White. Mr. Justice Crompton having summed up the evidence, The jury retired to consider their verdict, and after being three hours and a-half in deliberation, returned a verdict for the plaintiff White in the action for slander, because they were satisfied that the alleged seduction did not take place while the young woman was under chloroform; they, there fore, gave one farthing damages. In the action for seduction they found for the plaintiff Howarth— Damages, 40s. WESTERN CIRCUIT.—EXETER, DEC. 18. (Before Mr. Justice Williams.) Sarah Sheppard was indicted for the wilful mur der of Mary Ann Ashton, at Stockland, on the 26th of October. Mr. Carter and Mr. Bere prosecuted; Mr. H. T. Cole defended the prisoner. This was a charge of wilful murder, but different in its details from most other cases. '1 he murder was said to have arisen from various acts of omis sion and commission. The prisoner was the wife of a labouring man. They had bath been married be fore. By her first husband the prisoner had a daugh ter, whose death was the subject of the present in quiry. The deceased was about 18 years of age. She occasionally went out to service, but was at various times at home with her mother. After 1 1 Midsummer last several persons had conversations with the prisoner, who was told that her daughter Mary Ann was in the family-way ; when the pri soner said, if it should prove to be so, no one should come near her until she was dead, that she would not put a finger near her, and no one else should so long as she was living. One person asked her if sl - e thought her (the prisoner's) husband was the father of the child. The prisoner replied " No," but she was afraid something was wrong, as she thought her husband had more feeling for her daughter than for her. The young woman then lived with Mrs. Turner, who suspecting something charged her with being pregnant. The girl admitted that she was so, and this fact Mrs. Turner after wards communicated to the prisoner, who replied that if she was in the familyway by her husband she would run the pick into her and kill her. The young woman left Mrs. Turner's and went to reside with her mother. On the 26th of October the pri soner went into Mr Stack's, a chemist at Honiton, about 4 o'clock in the afternoon, and asked for some smelling salts, and then asked for something for her daughter, who, she said, had just been confined. The chemist asked the prisoner where she lived. She said at Stockland, which was six miles from Honiton. The chemist aeked if she had left any one with her daughter. The prisoner replied that she had left four women and a midwife with her daughter, who had had a fainting fit. This was untrue, as no one was left with her daughter. The prisoner said the child was dead. The prisoner called in a midwife about 1 o'clock the next morn ing, as she said, to assist in the confinement, but upon going to the prisoner's house the midwife found the girl dead, and she had been so for several hours. It was therefore alleged that the prisoner had purposely allowed her daughter to die of ne glect, and that this, coupled with the prisoner's expressions, amounted to the crime of murder, be cause if see undertook a duty and by reason of want of skill or care she caused the death of another she would be guilty either of murder or manslaughter. After all the evidence had been gone through, the judge said he thought the prosecution ought to call the only person who was in the prisoner's house at the time. A girl of fifteen, who was the daughter of the prisoner's husband by his first wife, was then called, and she stated that the prisoner went to Honiton on the day in question about two o'clock, and did not return till seven. No one else was left in the house bat witness, Mary Ann Ashton, and two little children. The deceased was assist ing to clean the house; she was not in bed when the prisoner returned. They then had tea, and the witness went out to look after the geese. She re turned about 9 o'clock, and went out again to look for her father; the prisoner accompanied her. The prisoner came home again, and the witness went again to look for the geese. Witness came home again about 11 o'clock, and then found the prisoner helping deceased into bed. The prisoner went about 12 that night to fetch a woman (the midwife). The deceased was then alive, but died in about ten minutes after the prisoner went away. The pri sener returned about one o'clock. Cross-examined—The prisoner gave the deceased some brandy and water when she put her into bed, and asked ber how she felt, and she said " Better." The prisoner sent witness out to get assistance, but the woman refused to come, and then the prisoner went off after the other woman. The prisoner seemed kind to the deceased. On the previous Tues day the prisoner asked her if she was in the family way, and she said she was, but she had a long time yet. Re-examined—Nothing was said as to who the father was. The prisoner had often asked deceased if she was in the family-way. Deceased said," Time will make mention, and then you will see." The deceased was at home from the beginning of hay harvest until she died. The child was born when witness went to fetch the first woman the prisoner sent her for. The child was born while witness was out, but it died as soon as she returned, at 11 o'clock. Deceased went into the bedroom several times when the prisoner was at Honiton. By the Judge—The baby was born before the prisoner was trying to put deceased into bed ; she was standing on the floor. The baby was lying on a board on the floor, wrapped up in flannel. The father went away to market that morning at seven o'clock, and did not come back till after the baby was born. Mr. Gerard, the surgeon, stated that he made a post-mortem examination of the body of the de ceased and the child on the following day. The child bled to death. The umbilical cord was not pro perly tied. He then examined the body of the woman, and she had bled to death. Had a proper person attended in time, the life of the woman might have been saved. From what he had heard sworn to-day, the woman must have been dead seven or eight hours before the midwife came. The body was in a healthy condition. The witness was cross-examined at great length as to the progress of labour. Mr. Cole submitted that there was no case to go to the jury. The Judge said, of course he had considered it, and he should tell the jury that if they thought the daughter was living with her mother and was taken in labour, it was her duty to take all reasonable care to procure assistance, and if she omitted to do so it amounted to manslaughter; but if necessary he should reserve the point. Mr. Cole then urged that, as the deceased was emancipated, the mother was not obliged to render the assistance, but the husband's daughter had put the case out of court. The Judge said he should leave the whole case to the jury, and would reserve anything that might be requisite. He should put it to the jury how far they could believe the girl, because she was called by the prosecution under peculiar circumstances, as he had told the counsel for the prosecution that he ought to call her, as she was in the house at the time. Mr. Cole then addressed the jury for the prisoner. Mr. Justice Williams having summed up, The jury found the prisoner guilty of man slaughter. The Judge told the prisoner that he had reserved a point of law for the consideration of the Judges, and it would be argued at the earliest convenient opportunity, and he should therefore respite the sentence. Mr. Cole applied to the Court to allow the pri soner to be bailed. The Judge said it was not a case for bail. The prisoner WA then removed from the bar. I TILE LATE ATTEMPTED 711URDE1? OF A BROTHER AT ISLINGTON. Yesterday morning Mr. Inspector Cotter of the N Division of Police, accompanied by Sergeant Parsons 47 N, attended before Mr. Knox, the sit ting magistrate, at the Clerkenwell Police Court, and requested his attendance at St. Bartholomew's Hospital, for the purpose of taking the depositions of Christopher Crane, whose murder was brutally attempted on the 7th inst. by his brother, Walter Crane, now a prisoner in the House of Detention, a message having been forwarded t o the police by Mr. T. S. Ellis, the house surgeon to the above hos pital, to the effect that the demise of the unfortu nate man was expected within a few hours. A difficulty arose in the compliance of the above request, from the fact of the injured man having been conveyed to a city hospital, over which a metropolitan magistrate had no control. The offence however being committed in the county of Middlesex, the prisoner's examination took place at the above Court, and from thence he was sent on remand to the House of Detention. The magistrate consequently directed Inspector Cotter to proceed at once to the city, and request the attendance of an alderman to perform the requisite duty, and at the same time handed over a signed order for the liberation of the prisoner into his custody, in order to be present to hear the depositions and for identification. The inspector thereupon pro ceeded to Guildhall, where Mr. Alderman Abbiss, accompanied by Mr. Martin, chief clerk, and Mr. Davy, second clerk, went to the hospital, and took their seats in the accident ward, by the bedside of the unfortunate and suffering man. The prisoner was then placed between the inspector and sergeant, in view of his injured brother, and, during the melancholy proceedings, appeared to treat the mat ter with the greatest levity. The injured man having been sworn, said—My name is Christopher Crane. I reside at 23, Pre bend-street, Islington, and am a wholesale milliner. My brother's (the prisoner's) name is Walter Crane. I met him on the Tuesday evening prior to the Saturday on which this affair occurred. I met him accidentally close to Islington-green, and went with him at his request to a coffee-shop. Previously to that I had not seen him since I had been away to India. Mr. Alderman Abbiss—How long is it since you saw him before that evening ? Witness—About two years, I think. I have been to Australia, India, and other places since that time. Depositions continued—While I was in the coffee shop he asked me if I would lend him £2. I said I would see, but as I was short I would not promise. He then asked me if I would meet him on the fol lowing Thursday evening at seven o'clock; and, as I had no particular engagement, I promised to meet him at the corner of Northampton-street, Lower road, Islington. Mr. Alderman Abbiss—Are you certain that the prisoner is the person you promised to meet that evening ? Witness—Yes, certainly (with feeling) ; it's my brother. Depositions continued—l met him on the Thurs day, and he asked me to walk a little way and he would tell me what he wanted me for. I walked with him down the Lower-road and back. He said what he wanted me for was not convenient that night —it was to meet a friend of bisfin the Green-lanes on business. He asked me if 1 was engaged the following night at the same time. I agreed to go, but I did not, as I had a long way to go the next day. I did not get home till past. eight o'clock on the Friday evening. I went to King's cross on Saturday morning (the 7th) between nine and ten. I saw the prisoner at the corner of Caledonian-road and King's-cross. That was an accidental meeting. He said, " I met a friend of mine who told me that you came this way on Saturday." He then said, " You did not meet me last night." I said, " No, I did not get home in tin: e, or I should have done so." He said, "Never mind, meet me this evening at the same place at the same time, at the corner of North ampton-street." I got there at a quarter-past seven. The prisoner, my brother, was there. He had a parcel with him. No one was with him. He said, " I should like to leave this parcel. I know a coffee-shop in the Balls-pond-road." He then walked sharply up Northampton-street, and I went with him. We proceeded as far as the Islington and Ball's-pond Railway Station, or close to it. We turned to the right, and went down a turning which took us into the Ball's-pond-road. There was a coffee shop just facing this turning. He said, " Wait a minute, I'll run over with this parcel." This was the last he said. He went into the coffee shop and returned to me directly. He said, " Come on—it's all right." We then walked straight along Paul's-terrace. I then said to him, "If you want to go to the Green-lanes; what do you want to go all this roundabout way for ?" He said, "I have particular reasons ; I am well known about here." I said, " It don't matter to me, of course, which way I go, if I can oblige you." We then proceeded over the New River-bridge, and walked towards the Cock, at Highbury. We then turned up Highbury New Park till we came to the New River. He said, "We'll go up this side of the water." I said, "Why not cross the bridge, and go by the footpath ; it is not so muddy as here." He said, "06, never mind a little mud, you can soon wash that off." I said, "Oh, very well, you walk on first; you can see better, perhaps, than me." At this time it was about eight o'clock, and cicrk. I walked on first, and as I went on the clock struck eight. Prisoner said, " Make haste ; is that a man and a woman standieg there ?" / said, " No." He said, " Walk a little more in that direction," pointing from the water; "it is not so muddy." We got about three parts up the road, by the side of the river, and all at once I found a hard knock or blow on the head. I turned half round, when he (prisoner) struck me three or four more blows. I saw a life preserver in his hand. I then fell down. I halloacd out several times for mercy, and asked him what he was doing it for. He made no reply, but laid hold of me by the collar of my coat and waistcoat with one hand--the lite-preserver being in the other — and endeavoured to drive me into the water, tearing my waistcoat right away from me. I man .ged to get away again, and sat down by the side of the bank of the river. I was very much excited. I said, "Do let me alone." Ido not think he replied. He began beating me over the head a second time with the life-preserver. He then laid the life preserver down, and caught hold of me by the scarf which I was wearing round my neck, and tried to pull me towards the m jeer, but it being woollen it broke with the strain. He then looked after the life-preserver, and having picked it up began hitting me over the head and face with it again. My hat was off, it had been knocked off with the first blow. At this time I pulled the life-preserver from his hand and threw it from me. I then fell on my side from exhaustion. He then caught hold of me by the tails of my coat and nearly pulled them off. I felt it was nothing but a desperate effort that would save my life, and so I slid down the embankment, and made my way, walking and running as well as I could, to the first light I saw. The prisoner said " Don't go down there. Come along with me, and I will see you home," I kept running and walking, and he ran past me. I still followed on the same road as he went. I knew I could go no other—it was the nearest to the light. I saw him go towards some bricks, and take one or two in his hand. I thought he was going to strike me with them, but he did not, I ran as fast as I could to get from him, and fell into a pit. I did not see the pit till I fell into it. As I had got into it, I thought I would make the best use of it, and laid down, thinking he would miss me. He came to the mouth of the pit, and said, " Come out, what do you want down there for ?" I said, " You wicked villain, to get away from you; I know you mean to murder me, but it is too late now." I immediately rushed up the pit and saw a house, which was empty, at a short distance. It had a wall to it. I got to the wall, and was climbing over, when the prisoner caught hold of the tails of my coat and tried to pull me off the wall. I made a very desperate struggle and fell over the other side of the wall. I got on my feet again, and saw over the next wall the light I wanted. I climbed the second wall and got into the garden or yard. I got into the area, but cannot tell I whether I tumbled or not. I began knocking at the window, crying out " Murder." The prisoner was gone at that time. Other voices I also distinctly heard crying out " Murder." A middle-aged man came to my assistance. He appeared like a brick layer or builder. He helped me out of the area and took me towards the gate, when I saw a policeman running towards me. I asked him to take me to the nearest doctor, as I was very bad. He took me to a neighbouring doctor's, and afterwards to the hospital." Mr. Alderman Abbiss—You see this man before you, are you quite certain that he is the man ? Witnees—l see the prisoner before me. He is the man lam positive. He is the man who struck me with the life-preserver. Mr. Alderman Abbiss—Have you had any words, any quarrelling with him at any time ? Witness—No, Sir, never. I have not had any words with him for years. We were talking quite friendly. Mr. Alderman Abbiss—Was he quite sober at the time ? Witness—We were both quite sober. I never drink, nor he, to my knowledge, to any extent. The depositions were then ordered to be lead over to the prisoner, who sullenly said he had heard what had been said. Mr. Alderman Abbiss (to the prisoner)—Have you anything to say with respect to the statement which has been read to you and taken in your presence Prisoner—No, nothing, His evidence is not en tirely correct, but I shall leave my defersv- Until my •.. trial. I shall say nothing now. The injured man was then raised in bed and signed his statement, the prisoner in the meantime being handcuffed by the inspector, preparatory to his re turn to the House of Detention. It may be here stated that the parcel alluded to as having been left by the prisoner at the coffeeshop in the Ball's Pond-road, on exAmination by the police,was found to contain a number of stones and a quantity of wadding. The prisoner also was an associate of thieves of the worst description, and had been previously convicted of felony. PREP4RA7IONS FOR WAR. (From the Shipping and Mercantile Gazette) A very few days now will bring a reply to the demands of the British Government, and place the question of peace or war beyond the possibility of doubt. Bu; in the interval which must elapse before this great question is de cided, it is the duty of those who direct affairs, or who in fluence public opinion in this country, to urge the expediency of not relaxing for one hour those preparations which are being made as if with the expectation that war is inevitable. Her Majesty's Government have displayed of late a com mendable activity in strengthening our North American and West India squadrons and in despatching troops to Canada. A correspondent, whose acquaintance with our North Ame rican provinces entitles his opinions to respect, entirely supports the view we recently took of the feasibility of land ing troops either on the northern or southern shore of the St. Lawrence, and within railway distance of Quebec and Montreal. The apprehension therefore that the Canadians, in the event of an attack from the States, will be left without reinforcements of men and supplies of ammuni tion, or that our troops, in marching to their aid will be exposed to a renewal of the hardships which they endured in 1812, 1837, and 1843, is dispelled. The force on the North American and West India !gallons, and in the Gulf of Mexico, under the flags of Sir Alexander Milne and Admiral Dacres, will shortly number 1,000 guns, and will include some of the fastest and most efficient ships in the fleet; and the Government have given directions that the vessels carrying the Cape mails shall be armed—an order which will, no doubt, be extended to the ships of all our mail services in the Atlantic, the treaty of 1848 to the contrary notwithstanding. All these precautions are fully justified by the present aspect of affairs. The mari time commerce of this country cannot bo left to the chances of loss or interruption to which a want of forethought on the part of the Government would infallibly expose it. The standing navy at the disposal of the Federal Government is not a formidable armament, and, compared with the force which this country could in one month send to sea, is in significant ; but the reliance of America hitherto in a mari time war has been on her privateers, and there are abun dant indications that the Federal Government has not abandoned that reliance. It has come to our knowledge that an agent of the outhern Confederation, at present in this country, has in his possession letters of marque from the Southern President for distribution to the commanders of vesse sin the Southern interest. Who shall say that the American Minister here is not similarly provided by the Government he represents ? We know that President Lin coln has very recently announced his intention of issuing letters of marque and reprisal, and it is but rational to sup pose that those documents will be de distributed everywhere to the best advantage. It need not be concealed that in the event of war—though we do not expect to see the American privateering successes of 1812 repeated—a serious danger awaits our ccmmerce from the private armed vessels of the Federal States ; against this danger we must be prepared, and with that object our merchantmen must be armed, or a large number of our frigates, sloops of war, and gunboats must be told off for convoy. The latter is obviously the better precaution. Most of the required ships are in com missio.,, and the Admiralty—thanks to the success of the Naval Reserve, had never so many men at their disposal as at the present time. COUN2BY MARKL:L MANCHESTER-DEC. 19. At our market to-day there was not an extensive busi ness in either home or foreign wheat. English was at fully former rates, and foreign held at about 25 per cent. higher. Flour a moderate sale at extreme rates Indian corn is dearer. For beans, oats, and oatmeal quotations nominally unaltered. BIRMINGHAM-DEC. 19. At to-day's market there was a moderate supply of Eng. lish wheat from farmers, and the few sales made were at an advance of is on this day week. American is decline. Beans fold slowly. Barley and peas firm. Oats a short sale. NEWARK-DEC. 18. At to-day's corn market the quantity of wheat exhibited was again limited, and an inactive business was done at last week's rates. Other articles as before. White wheat, new, 60s to 63s Red do. 55s to 51s Old white 6oa to 63s Red do. 4Gs to 56s Barley, malting 328;t0 39a Peas, .... Barley, grinding 29s to 3ls Oats, old, oos to 35 I New do 23s to 27s Beans. 45s to 47s Beans, new 44s to —s .48s to Ms. EDINBURGH GRAIN—DEc. 18. Wheat on the top Gs Od down .average Os 2d down. Barley on the top 10d down average Os; 2d down. Oats on the top Os 3d down average Os 2d down. Beans on the top 2s 6d down. average Os 7d up. Total Supply and Sales. Wheat ...1032 qrs Sold 923 qrs 8ar1ey........ 2147 qrs Sold 1451 qrs Oats 1755 qrs Sold 1746 qrs Beans 176 qrs Sold 85 qrs Averages per Imperial quarter. Wheat.... New wheat ..., -12ths Barley 1 12 8 5-12ths Oats . 1 6 4 10-12ths Beans . 2 4 10 6-12ths CORK-DEC. 18. The following were the quotations this morning :—Ri d wheat, 22s Od to 29s 6d ; white, 2580 d to 32s Od; barley DA Od to 198 Gd ; oats, 8s Od to 14s Od. DERBY SMITH: 'IELD—DEc. 17. Beet 6d to 6id Veal . 7ld to 81 Mutton .. 7d to 8d Pork Lamb Od to Od Rough fat, 4s 8d per stone. Hides, 3d to 44d ; calf skins, 5d to 6d. FOREIGN MAIL PACKET L 182". MAILS DUE. Australia and Mauritius, via Southampton ..Dec. 19. ' via Marseille's Brazil and Cape Verds, by British packet. Jan. 4. Cape of Good Hope, Ascension, and Si. Helena.. Jan. 1. China, Penang, and Singapore, via Suuthanipton.Dec. 19- - via Marseilles ...Dec. 27. Falkland Islands Gibraltar, via Southampton .... Dec 19. India (Calcutta), and Ceylon, via Southampton Dec. 19. via Marseilles Dec. 27. India (Bombay), via Southampton Dec '.!.6. via Marseilles Dec. 20. Lisbon Dec. 21. Malta, Egypt, and Aden, via Southampton Dec. 19. via Marseilles Dec. 20. Newfoundland Dec. 25. Oporto and Vigo U. S. and British N. America, by Brit. packet Dec. 25. by U.S. packet by Canadian packet Dec. 18. W.C. of Africa, Madeira ' and Teneriffe Jan. 10. Bahamas, via New York Jan. 16. Mexico ....Dec. 30. All parts of West Indies, including Chili, Peru, } Dec. 30. California,and British Columbia.. [ADVERTISEMENT.] Holloway's Pills. Vigorous Health.—All diseases affecting the nervous system arise from impurities in the blood or vitiated secretions. Hollo way's Pills are invaluable for removing all poisonous ele ments from the body, and are famed:for curing indigestion, flatulency, and costiveness, as well as palpitation, pain in. the side, and other turbid feelings. The neuralgic pains attendant on the nervous class of diseases soon yield to these purifying Pills ; the sensations of anxiety and alarm daily diminish under their use; sound sleep supersedes nights of watching, and calm repose displaces hideous dreams. Holloway's Pills are the best correctives of tainted breath and disagreeable tastes in the mouth ; they soon clean the furred tongue, augment the app etite, and i nvigorate both body and mind. BIRTHS. CORNELL.—On the 17th inst., at Hampstead, the wife of Martin Cornell, Esq., ofd son. CONVIE.—On the 19th inst., at 12, Bridge-road, Finchley road, the wife of Hugh Cowie, Esq., of a daughter. PORTSMOUTH.—On the 18th inst., at Hurstboume-park, the Countess of Portsmouth, of a daughter. TIDY.—On the 19th inst., at 38, Ampthill-square, N.W., the wife of H. Edgar Tidy, of Clifford's-inn, solicitor, of a son. MARRIAGES. NIGHTINGALE—EDwARDs.—On the 19th inst., at Saint Bride's Ch urc h, John Nightingale, Esq., of Backheath, to Mary Ann, relict of the late James Ewards, Esq., of Rochester. NORMAN—ASTON.—On the 19th inst., at St. Pancras Church, William Norman, Esq., of 5, Stratford-place, to Ann Isabella, eldest daughter of the late Benjamin R. Aston, Esq. DEATHS. BLAXLAND.—On the 14th inst., Ann, wife of J. Blaxiand, Esq., Whitehill, Faversham. DEBENHAM.—On the 18th inst., at St. Albans, Herta, A. E. Debenham, Esq., aged 43. DESMOND —On the 18th inst., at 9, Regent-square, Lon don, Daniel Desmond, Esq., late of Ballinasloe, aged 72. EADON.—On the 15th inst., at Snaith, Yorkshire, Henry Eadon, Esq., aged 72. FAWKENER.—On tho 17th inst., at 12, Finsbury-square, John H. R. Fawkener, Esq. MANSEL,—On the 18th inst., at Meole Brace, near Shrews bury, the Rev. S. P. Manse!, M.A., aged 65. PORCIIER,—On the 16th inst., at 45, Bryanstone-square, the Rev. George Porcher, aged 70. LONDON : Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG; of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at TOE SUN Office, No. 112,Strat d, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the County of kliddletex, Friday, DeceraDer ;0, 1861. 4 ; I