The Sun. — London, England, 1861-12-06 00:00:00

MARYLEBONE AND ITS MEMBERS. Lord Fermoy and Mr. Harvey Lewis, the members for this metropolitan borough, met their constitu ents last evening in Hall's Riding School, Albany- street, Regent's Park, to give an account of their stewardship. There was not a very large attend ance. Sir James Duke, M.P., presided. The CHAIRMAN said he had felt some little hesi tation in acceding to the proposal that he should take the chair, since both Lord Fermoy and Mr. Lewis went further in their political opinions than h e did. He had always been a consistent Liberal, but recent events reminded him and others most strongly that Englishmen had the happiness of living under the best of Sovereigns, and enjoying the freest constitution in the world, besides which thoy possessed the most enlightened and indepen dent press in the world. He wished to hold fast these great advantages, and should be slow to sanc tion any interference with them. But, though his . . opinions on some points might not exactly accord with those of the two borough members, he had for many years known his noble friend (Lord Fermoy), of whose usefulness in the House of Commons he spoke highly. _ _ Lord FERMOY said an opinion had been industri ously circulated throughout the country by the Tory party that the session of 1861 was a do nothing session. Now, though on many important matters the short-comings of the Government had been blameable and serious, still in matters of prac tical and useful legislation the past session had been as rich as any which could be mentioned for the last 20 years. First, the country had obtained a recog nition of the fact that the privilege of imposing and continuing taxes on the people belonged to the people's house, and that the functions of the House of Lords consisted in registering the decisions of the House of Commons on financial matters. (Hear, hear.) Having in 1861 repealed the duty on paper they had, as far as men could do, reasserted and re covered the rights which had been invaded in 1860. By the consolidation and amendment of the crimi nal law a reform of the most useful character had been effected. In some seven bills more than 100 statutes had been repealed or altered, and the criminal law of the country had been placed upon a sounder and a better footing. Then they could point to the reform of the Bankruptcy law by which they had practically abolished imprisonment for debt, given to the creditors a speedy and cheap means of obtaining possession of the debtor's pro perty, and abolished all distinctions between traders and non-traders. (Hear.) Again, they had esta blished cheap and safe savings-banks for the people which would enable thrifty working men to deposit their savings securely when they were fortunate enough to have any. The Irremovable Poor Bill was a step in the right:direction, reducing as it did the term which gave :the poor man a right to a settlement from five years to three years. (Hear.) This was not a very flashy, but it was a practical and a useful measure. (Hear.) The Affirmation Bill allowed in criminal cases a man to make an affirmation if he had a conscientious objection to take an oath, thereby furthering the ends of justice while it also secured freedom of conscience to witnesses. (Hear, hear.) Of the three Indian Bills, one affected the Civil Service, and admitted the natives of India for the first time to employment in it; another changed the constitution of the Legislative Council, in which natives were also to be admitted ; and a third re ferred to the judicial tribunals of India. He only hoped that those who governed India would not allow those measures to remain dead letters, but would give due effect to them by allowing meritorious na tives to share in the public employments for which Parliament had thought them fitted. (Hear, hear.) Then came the Act regulating the voting at Uni- versity elections, which he had been at first inclined to oppose, but afterwards supported, in :the belief, as Mr. Henley declared, that it would lead to vote by ballot. If the University voters were allowed to exercise their franchise at Dublin, Cambridge, or Oxford, while sitting quietly at a desk in York shire or Essex, he did not see why the poor man was not equally entitled to consideration and protec tion, and why he should not be allowed to record his vote by the ballot, without the risk of incurring odium from his Tory customer or the frowns of some tyrannical employer. (Cheers.) After highly commending another of the measures of 1861— namely, the commercial treaty with France, the noble lord proceeded to handle the reform question. Mr. Layard had recently told his constituents that the Government had not given them a Reform Bill because the people did not appear to want one, and he said if they wanted reform why didn't they ask for it ? But it did not lie in the months of the pre sent Government, who were put in office specially to carry reform, now to turn round to say, "We really don't know whether the people want reform at all." (Hear, hear.) Mr. Layard would not have made this statement without authority, but it was an extraordinary argument to be used by the mem bers of any Government. They said in effect, "We believe reform to be necessary"—and this they must believe, because they had expressed this opinion in the Queen's speeches—" but we won't give it to you, though we believe you ought to have it, unless you kick up a row about it." Why, it was like holding a sugar plum before a child and saying, "My dear, you shan't have this unless you cry for it." (Cheers and laughter.) He had always thought that the statesmanlike maxim was to make political changes when men's minds were tranquil, and when therefore there was a greater chance of arriving at just conclusions. But the new maxim seemed to ho not to amend the re presentation unless there was general excitement throughout the country, unless there were tumul tuous meetings, and every constituency rose to carry a measure which had over and over again been promised from the throne. (Hear, hear.) Search history through, and no doctrine could be found so subversive of good order and good government as the doctrine thus enunciated before his constituents by a member of the present Government. (Hear.) But as the Government had thrown down the gauge, he advised the people to show the want of truth in the Tory assertion that they had changed their minds, and no longer wanted Reform. He advised all great constituencies like that of Mary lebone, which had in their population hundreds and thousands of non-electors well qualified to exercise the franchise, to take the Government at their word, and between this and the next session of Parliament to hold public meetings and agitate this question. When the Government abandoned the cause of Reform in the House of Commons a sort of Bull's Run was seen ; first the officers deserted, and then the men. (Laughter.) The motions of Mr. Baines and Mr. Locke King were rejected, along with Sir J. Trelawny's Church-rate Abolition Bill. There was a retrograde movement among the Liberal party, for when their leaders ran away the Liberal rank and file had not the pluck to fight. One sub ject of considerable importance had been mooted in the recess —be meant the Education Minute. li e believed that the vested interests of the teachers were not sufficiently regarded in that Minute. It was only right, however, that the Ministers who drew it up should have the opportunity of explaining their views upon the sub ject in Parliament. One comfortable reflection was that the Minute could not take effect until Marcb, and before that time there would be ample oppor tunities of obtaining an explanation from Mr. Lowe, and of pressing upon him any amendment s w hich were deemed necessary, (Hear, hear.) The noble lord then alluded to the Thames embankment, which he thought a work of sufficient national im portance to justify an application to defray some portion of the cost from the national Exchequer, He went on to say that there was one subject which pressed just now on everybody's mind—our rela tions with America. Now, he had always taken a deep interest in the well-being and success of the democratic institutions of America. His sympathies had always been enlisted on behalf of the attempt to govern a great country with as little pressure as possible upon the masses. And therefore, when he now unfortunately felt called upon to use strong language he did so most unwilingly. If, however, we were to believe what we saw and heard, the Northern States of America appeared to have lost t ina e any little sense which might have been left to them, ( 1 1 ear,hear, and a laugh.) Their attempt THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 6, 1861. to assail the right of asylum, which England had always preserved intact, was a gross outrage upon ,he law of nations. (" No !" and great cheering.) He was no jurist, but reason and common anse told him that the deck of every Queen's sh"p was as much an asylum for the oppressed a 3 any broad acre in this kingdom. (Loud cheers, and a voice —" The Trent was not a Queen's ship.") If it was not a Queen's ship, what was it ? It had a Queen's officer in charge of the mails. Every offi cer wore the British uniform, and the glorious meteor flag, which never waved save over the dis enthralled and the free, Ns as flying at the masthead. The Trent was a Queen's ship. (Cheers.) If the American . Ministry had been mad enough to direct and were mad enough to persist in this aggression, he could not but believe that the Congress now meeting would hurl them from power and would not drive this country to extremity. On the other hand, if redress were refused, we were prepared. Let no one say that the honour of the English flag was not dear to the heart of every Englishman. (Cheers.) We might hope that our erring cousins would consider their position, but if they refused redress, and drove us to take vengeance upon them, and sweep their navy from the sea, let the respon sibility be upon the aggressor, and not upon us. (Cheers, and partial interruption.) Englishmen, and Irishmen, too—(cheers)—would stand by their country. She had a history of which few nations could boast ; a constitution which, though it might be improved, was one of which every Briton must be proud; a national honour which they had main tained through long and arduous struggles, and which they would never allow to be sullied. (Cheers.) Whatever might be Lord Palmerston's short com- ings upon reform, every one must be glad that we had at the head of affairs in the present crisis a man who, for 50 years, had maintained the honour of this country unimpaired ; who was not only a thorough Englishman in heart and feeling, but had the temper, forbearance, and coolness of a long tried statesman ; and who, if any man could do so, . _ would bring England out of the present entangle ment without plunging us into war. (Cheers.) If, however, every effort failed to preserve peace, and we were driven to the dire alternative of war, he was sure that Lord Palmerston would carry the flag of England throughout that war with greater honour and safety than any statesman of the present day. (Cheers.) Mr. HARVEY LEWIS, in the course of his address, regretted that the proposal to give an additional member to Chelsea and Kensington had failed of effect, and attributed this failure to the lukewarm. ness of the Government in submitting the measure Passing over some of the questions touched by his noble colleague, the hon. gentleman strongly advocated the abolition of church rates, the ballot, and an additional measure of reform. Allusion had been made to Mr. Layard, but that gentleman, in his opinion, had given extremely good advice. Reform would be carried in the end outside the walls of Parliament, and it was there that the question should now be agitated and de bated. In a recent speech Lord Stanley said that reform could never die, adding that it was a fallacy to suppose that there was any Tory reaction: The hon. gentleman emphatically reiterated this opi nion, and quoted from a pamphlet written by Sir Eardley Wilmot, in 1858, enforcing the creation of a :new metropolitan constituency in Chelsea and Kensington, with two members, and declaring the necessity of an extended reform of the representa tion. Eulogising the Volunteer force, which he be lieved had done much to preserve the peace of Eng land and of the world, he said he was anxious that this force should be independent of the Government; but it might be a question whether the country should not provide rifle ranges, which at present pressed heavily upon the resources of the Volun teers. On the question of financial reform and economy, he advised the constituencies to regard brilliant speeches less than votes. But he would never give a vote which would have the effect of impairing the strength, the might, and the majesty of England. (Cheers.) They owed this duty not only to themselves but to those who had borne the name of Englishmen into every part of the world. If they permitted that sacred name and character to be violated, adieu to the honour and glory of England! His views were, he believed, in entire accordance with those of Marylebone; but even ' were they not, he would rather abandon the charge of representing Marylebone than compromise the honour of England. On the American question he expressed his deep and ;heartfelt indignation at the insult offered to the English flag. (Cheers.) There could hardly be a man in this country who, looking at the facts, could come to any other con clusion than that it was a wanton, unprovoked outrage upon our flag and upon the sacred right of asylum which England had always afforded, and which he believed she would always continue to afford. (Cheers.) The English Go vernment had carried out in good faith with regard to America the principle of non-intervention, At first the greatest sympathy was felt in this country for the Federal States, because it was thought that they were going to war for a principle—the extinc tion of slavery ; but that notion was soon found to be a mockery and a delusion. So far from wishing to extinguish slavery, the North were willing to rive the chains of the slave more firmly than ever, for they offered to give the South every material gua rantee which could be desired for the preservation of slave property. (Hear, hear.) What, too, was the condition of the negroes in the Northern States ? They were not admitted to the rights of freemen. They were not allowed to mix with the whites. In even the prisons they were kept apart and had the most loathsome cells ; in the hospitals they must not occupy the same wards ; in the churches they must not worship in the same pews with the whites. Did such a people deserve our sympathy on the ground of their regard for the slave ? No ; and if the South had come forward, and nobly freed their bondmen, they would have commanded British sympathy every where, (Hear, hear.) There had never been nobler conduct by one nation towards another than by the British Government and people towards America since this contest began. Our interests lay on the eide of the South and not of the North. Before a month elapsed from this time many a hardworking English man who sought for bread would find only a stone, just because the North had, according to their own version, illegally closed the Southern ports by a paper blockade, thus sealing up a great commercial outlet by which many of our starving fellow-countrymen would otherwise have been fed, (Hear.) Neverthe less, the British Government preserved an honourable neutrality, whereas from the first moment of the war the Federal States had treated us with the most marked insult and indignity. (Cheers.) A war with England was openly advocated as a means of extri cating the North from their difficul ties and a raid upon the peaceable inhabitants of Canada was recom mended. Was this the conduct of a friendly people ? While the Emperor of the French had been lauded and bedaubed with flattery for pursuing exactly the same course with ourselves, every species of insult had been heaped upon Great Britain. (Hear, hear.) Hitherto a noble consciousness of strength on her part had enabled her to resist every provocation, and he still trusted that peace would not be dis turbed. Bat the Federals had in the most brutal manner stopped a peaceable merchant vessel, carry ing the letters of all nations, trading from one neu tral port to another,and saiang at the time in neutral Spanish waters. It could hardly have been sup. pscooos outragedmedn t i h s s a i t on a et n rh a se ae t w i l on lrve of professedly civilized would have said to natio b n e s r . eb T el h s e . C ( o A n v fe o d ic e e.— rate "So they are.") Then, if so, they had a right to that asylum w hi c h the British flag had always ex tended to political offenders. (Cheers.) The una nimity of the English press upon this question had only been equalled by the unanimity of the English people, and while all pray e d t h at the inestimable blessings of peace might be preserved, he was sure that "peace at any price" was not the desire of the nation. (Cheers.) The Federal newspapers, not content with heaping indignities upon us, trusted much to party divisions in this country as a means of preventing any war ; but to show that they need not reckon on this, he would quote the words of Mr. Disraeli. "It is very true," said the right hon. gentleman, "that there may havebeenedboth bmoh ments when the spirit of p art y has allowed parties in the State to do things which they may have regretted. But this I will say for both par ties in the State, especially when the honour of the nation is concerned, that then there is no longer party spirit and personal competition; and that leading men on all sides, whoever may be the ser vants of Crown, are animated by one feeling and one object—namely, to maintain the greatness and the glory of their common country." (Cheers.) He agreed with his noble colleague that England was singularly fortunate in having just now at the helm of affairs one of the most ex perienced statesmen who ever guided our desti nies—one who had passed the greater part of his life in communicating with foreign Governments — who therefore well knew the feelings of those Go vernments, and who, moreover, was trusted by the people of England. (Cheers.) Lord Palmerston had as Foreign Secretary a nobleman who, if ho had not quite acted up to his old Liberal professions, had yet made for himself a place in the hearts and affec tions of the English people. In the difficult times which might be in store for us, Englishmen might feel certain that with Palmerston and Russell in the Government nothing would be done which did not comport with the dignity and honour of the country. (Cheers.) Mr. WYLD, M.P., in moving a vote of confidence in tho two members for Marylebone, expressed his regret that the men of the North—the countrymen of Franklin, Jefferson, and Washington, were pur suing in this country perhaps the most extensive system of espionage which the world had ever seen. Northern spies were infesting our public meetings, and he was told the agents of the Northern Go vernment had not been unmindful that the electors of Marylebone were holding a great meeting that night. Might not this account for some of the in terruptions which had been experienced ? The motion was seconded by Mr. P. GRAHAM, and was unanimously carried. A vote of thanks to the chairman concluded the proceedings, which were more than usually pro tracted. THE Y ELVERTON CASE. There arc two suits now pending in the Scotch Courts relating to the marriage, or alleged mar riage, of the parties in this case. One is a " deola rator of marriage" at the instance of Mrs. Teresa Lcngworth, or Yelverton, and the other is an action of " freedom, or putting to silence," insti tuted by Major Yelverton. These suits have been conjoined in one process, which is slowly dragging on before Lord Ardmillan, one of the Ordinaries of the Court of Session. A considerable time ago the case was remitted to proof before a commissioner, and in Edinburgh and in Dublin a great deal of evidence has been privately taken to form a record for the Court. By the Conjugal Rights (Scotland) Act passed last session, inquiries in cases of mar riage or divorce must now be made by the Lord Ordinary in open court, instead of by a commis sioner, the change being adopted with the ♦iew of facilitating the procedure, which was frequently re tarded by appeals taken before the commissioner to the Court. The proof for Mrs. Yelverton, pursuer in this case, had been completed before the end of the summer session, and the proof for Major Yel verton, the defender, had been partly taken. At this intermediate stage the case came before Lord Ardmillan on Wednesday, for the purpose of pro ceeding with the evidence. His Lordship had on the 16th of November granted diligence at the instance of both parties as against each other, to compel their personal attendance, for the purpose of identification by the witnesses, Accordingly, Major Yelverton was in attendance, but Mrs. Yelverton did not appear. The following certificate was read by counsel in her behalf:— Morrion-square, Dublin, Nov. 29. I beg to state that I have been for some in professional attendance on the Hon. Mrs, Yelverton. She is suffering from bronchitis of a severe kind, also from other ailments. I am of opinion that she could not go to Scotland during the winter season without the most grave risks to her health, and perhaps her life. WILLIAM STOKES, Regius Professor of Medicine in the University of Dublin. Mr. Gordon (who with Mr. Millar appeared for the defender) said, as he wished to avoid delay in the case, he proposed to proceed with the examina tion of witnesses, reserving his right, in the event of its being found necessary for the purpose of more complete identification, to move the court to give access to Mrs. Yelverton, or rather Miss Longworth, or require her personal presence, in order that she might be seen by any of the witnesses requiring to see her for the purpose of complete identification ; and that she should come to Scotland for that pur pose. It would lead to very great expense and trouble now to delay the examination of the wit nesses who had been brought from Ireland, and he therefore proposed that they should proceed under the reservation of his right, in the event of its being judged necessary in the interests of his client to move the court for an order to obtain access to her, or to require her personal presence; Mr. Fraser, who (with Mr. D. B. Hope) appeared for the pursuer, said that her counsel were very de sirous that she should be present, and they had communicated to her that desire; but she sent back word that she was lying in bed unwell. The pur suer's absence was a misfortune as much to her own as to the other side, and in her absence he could not press so strongly for identity as he should other wise have done. Lord Ardmillan said he did not think it was necessary for him to say anything on the point at the present stage. The first witness called was John Asky Brans field, proprietor of the Victoria Hotel, Newry, who was examined as to the occupancy of some rooms in his hotel from the 4th to the 6th of August, 1857, by a gentleman and lady, believed by him to have been married persons. They had a large drawing room, a large bedroom, and a small bedroom, or dressing-room entering from the large bedroom. There was only one door entering into the small bedroom. The gentleman asked for comfortable rooms, and I ordered him these rooms,—No. 4, which were generally given to a family. I would be very sorry to allow a lady and gentlemen to live in my house if I thought they were unmarried. I would certainly not give the rooms to unmarried persons, even though it was the best nobleman of the land. By Mr. Fraser—Did you notice how the lady's hair was dressed ? itness—Something like the fashion of your wig, sis. (Laughter.) Mr. Fraser—Do you mean that seriously, or as a good joke. Witness--No; I mean that it was turned up. Lord Ardmillan—Brushed back from th© fore head. Witness—Just that, my lord. (Laughter.) Anna Maria Bransfield, daughter of last witness, corroborated his evidence, and identified Major Yel verton. She thought there was something foreign in the lady's appearance. They remained in the house two nights, and were charged 4s. 6d. a night for the rooms they occupied. Cross-examined—By "something foreign in the lady's appearance " I mean the way in which she wore her hair and dress. llcr hair was brushed off her forehead. lam not sure her hair was brushed off her forehead when I saw her in Dublin, at the trial. Re-examined—l heard the servant say she was a foreign-looking lady. Margaret Fagan, formerly chambermaid in Brans field's Hotel. She deposed—l was in the large bed room once when the lady ani gentleman were pre sent. That was on the morning of the day on which they left. The lady was standing in the room. The gentleman was in bed. The lady was dressed. I think the gentleman was in his nightdress. He was leaning on his elbow in bed. The lady spoke to me at that time. I don't remember what she said. I w th a e s milootrnloinngg in . I the room. settle I down t and was b m a ak o about t 8 o'clock upthe be ds. I did so when that lady and gentleman were in the house. I only made one bed during the whole time they were in the house. I made up the bed in the large bedroom, and that only. The lady's dresses had been on the bed in the small bedroom. I never meddled with that bed during the two nights they were in the house. I never noticed whether it bad the appearance of being slept in. I was the only chambermaid that attended to the apartments No. 4. I should not know either the gentleman or the lady again. Cross-examined—The gentleman appeared to be in his nightdress, and was leaning on his elbows in bed, with his face towards me. I was in the small bedroom on both of the occasions on which the lady and gentleman were in the house. I think the lady wore curls brushed off her forehead. I have never seen her since. I was not examined as a witness at the Dublin trial. Re-examined—The lady was oddly dressed as I thought. Wm, Sangster, hotel-keeper, Rosstrevor, Ceponed —A gentleman and lady were in my house from the sth to the 15th of August, 1857. They occu pied rooms in my hotel during the whale of that period, except that the gentleman was away one or two nights. I would know the gentleman again. (Major Yelverton was here called into court, and identified by the witness as the gentleman who occupied his rooms along with the lady.) I did not know at the time the gentleman came to ray house that he was Major Yelverton, but Ido so now. I was at the trial of " Thirlwall v. Yelverton" last spring. I saw the lady at that trial. I saw her while she was giving her evidence, and she was asked to look at me. I was then satisfied that she was the person who had been in my house in August, 1857. To the best of my recollection, it was the first week of the trial that I saw the lady. The lady and gentleman occupied a sitting room; bed-room, and dressing-room. There was a bed in the dress ing-room. I charged 3s 6d a night on the footing of the two parties occupying the bedroom as a bed room, and the dressing-room as a dressing-room, and not a bedroom. I would certainly Rot have allowed them so to occupy the rooms if I bad thought them not married. During the time they were in my hotel, I drove the lady to Warrenpoint, and rather beyond it. Rosstrevor is seven miles from Newry, and an Irish mile is a good bit more than an ordinary mile. I believe the gentleman was away at that time. I cannot say how lady's hair was dressed, but I should say it was in the Eugenie style, frizzed back. Mrs. Catherine Sangster, wife of the last witness deposed to Major Yelverton coming on the 4th of August to take apartments, which he said he wanted for himself and his wife. She supplied sheets for only one bed. There were no sheets on the bed in the dressing-room that she knew of. She would not have let these rooms to a lady and gentleman but that she believed them to be married. Cross-examined—When Major Yelverton called on the 4th of August he saw the rooms. The bed was in the dressing-room when he saw them. I saw no lady's clothes in the bed in the dress ing-room when I was in it after the rooms were put in order. I distinctly recollect that Major Yelver- :on said it was for his wife and himself that he wanted the rooms. They walked out often. I could not say if they walked arm-in-arm. We did not ask their names. No letters came to them while at my house. Miss Sangster in part corroborated the evidence, and was examined as to an entry in her books, in whieh the name Fitzsimmons was erased and Lang worth substituted ; but she could not recollect when or how the name of Longworth was put in, but it must have been a good while after the parties were in the house, and after they had heard something of who they were. At this stage the case was adjourned till next day. The Court-room was largely attended during the day. LAW INTELLIGENCE.—Dec. 5. BAIL 'COURT. :Sittings at Nisi Prius at Westminster.—(Before Mr. Justice Blackburn and a Common Jury.) LYONS AND WIFE Y. K NOWLES. - DRAMATIC REPRESENTATIONS. The real plaintiff in this action was Miss Swan borough, now Mrs. Lyons, and formerly lessee of the Strand Theatre, against the defendant, who is the proprietor of the Theatre Royal, Manchester. The action was brought on behalf of the female plaintiff, who the declaration stated was the owner of two dramatic pieces as assignee of the author, viz., " The Bride of Abydos" and " Fra Diavolo," with the full right of representation in them, and it further stated that the defendant had wrongfully represented the pieces against the consent of the female plaintiff, whereby he had incurred the penalty of 40s. for each representation. The defendant pleaded, first, not guilty; secondly, he denied the plaintiff's right in the pieces; and, thirdly, he tra versed the assignment of the copyright. Mr. Huddleston, Q.C., Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., and Mr. Thompson were counsel for the plaintiff; Mr. Sergeant Pigott and Mr. Fonblanque were counsel for the defendant. Mr. W. H. Swanborough, the plaintiff's brother and present manager of the Strand Theatre, deposed that the two pieces in question, " The Bride of Aby dos" and " Fra Diavolo," were written by Mr. H. J. Byron, and purchased by his sister, who at the same time took an assignment of the right of representa tion from the author in writing, The document was missed when the alterations were made at the Strand Theatre about eighteen months ago, and had not been found since. The permission for representation was 10s. Gd. per night for first class theatres, 7s. for second-class, and ss. for third class. The defendant had on a former occasion paid 10s. Gd. per night, and on one occasion he chose to pay the penalties. Never made any arrangeement with Mr. Charles Dillon or his agent for the repre sentations in question at 7s. per night. When Mr. Knowles was applied to for payment, Mr. C. Dillon sent up £5, which was 7s. per night for the fourteen nights, but it was returned to him. Pro ceedings had been taken against Mr. Dillon for re presentations of the pieces at other provincial towns. That was before he left for America. Mr. H. J. Byron, the author, deposed that he sold the entire right of representation to Miss Swanborough, and regularly assigned it by writing. Mr. Levy, the plaintiff's solicitor, was called, and proved the correspondence in the case, and the nature of the proceedings that had been taken against Mr. Dillon. This was the plaintiffs case. Mr. Sergeant Pigott submitted that the plaintiff must be nonsuited. There was no proof of regis tration of assignment as required by the act. Mr Justice Blackburn said he would not stop the case, but give the learned sergeant leave to move on that point, Mr. Sergeant Pigott described this as a shabby action towards the defendant, and expressed an opinion that if the plaintiff had known the real facts of the case she would not have consented to the bringing of this action. The fact was that last summer Mr. Dillon entered into an arrangement with Mr. Knowles, whereby Mr. Knowles was to have one-half of the gross receipts for the theatre, lights, servants, properties, printing, advertising, &c. Mr. Dillon finding his own company, paying them, arranging with the authors, and selecting his own pieces. And in carrying out that arrange ment, Mr. Dillon agreed with Miss Swanborough for permission to represent these pieces at 7s. per night. The learned counsel called Mr. Stanislaus Calheam, a comedian, one of Mr. Dillon's company, who deposed that he made an agreement with Mr. Swanborough, for Mr. Dillon at 7s. per night. He corroborated the learned counsel's statement relative to the arrangement be tween Mr. Knowles and Mr. Dillon. Mr. Thomas Chambers, the defendant's manager and treasurer; Mr. H. M. Barret, Mr. Dillon's stage manager ; and Mr. John Shickle, the leader of the band, were called in support of defendant's case. Mr. Justice Blackburn said there could be no dispute about the facts. Mr. Dillon was to find the company, and pay them, select the pieces, and cause them to be performed, without any interference by Mr. Knowles. The latter was to find the theatre, servants, lights, and the band, the music being a necessary part of the entertainment, printing and advertising, the defendant's servants taking the money at the doors. The gross receipts were to be divided between Mr. Knowles and Mr. Dillon, and the question was whether upon those facts it amounted to a representation or causing to be represented within the meaning of the act of Parliament whereby Mr. Knowles was liable. He considered it was a question of law, and not of fact for the jury. He thought it would he better for him to direct a verdict for the plaintiff with leave to the defendant to move. Both the learned counsel assented, and The jury, by direction of his lordship, returned a verdict for the plaintiff for £2B, leave being re served to the defendant to move the court above on the points of law. omnibus having been frightened by one of Bray's traction engines. Mr. Lush and Mr. J. Browne appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Sergeant Parry and Mr. Pren tice for the defendant. The plaintiff was the proprietor of an omnibus running to Hampstead, and on the 19th June last he was riding outside another omnibus. When they were near Mornington-crescent one of the traction engines, which was drawing a train of trucks carry ing earth from the reservoir, which was being removed from the Hampstead-road, was coming along. The horses became uneasy, and when they got near the engine the steam blew off. This ren dered the horses unmanageable, one of them pressed upon the other, and the omnibus was overturned, The outside passengers were thrown into the road, and some of them would have been run over by the engine if it had not been stopped. The plaintiff was one of those persons, and the injury he sustained was dislocation of the right shoulder, and contu sions on various parts of the body. Ile was attended by a medical man down to October 29, and he was not down to the present time fit to act as a conduc tor to his omnibus, an employment which he had followed until the accident. A number of witnesses were examined to show that the engine was calculated to frighten horses ; and they also spoke to many instances in which horses had been frightened by it. The Lord Chief Justice directed the jury that the plaintiff was entitled to recover if the engine, by its noise and appearance, was accustomed to frighten horses. The jury expressed an opinion that the defendant knew that the engine was of this character, and they found a verdict for the plaintiff—damages £B7. COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE. (Before Sir C. Cresswell and a Common Jury.) SITGG V. SUGG AND MOORE. In this case the petitioner, who is a gas meter manufacturer, in business at Westminster, prayed for a dissolution of marriage, on the ground of his wife's adultery with the co-respondent, a brick layer, living at Finchley. There was no appearance on the part of the co respondent, but the respondent pleaded s denial of the charge, connivance, collusion, adultery, and cruelty on the part of the petitioner. Mr. Sergeant Shea and Dr. Spinks were counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Day and Mr. Martin for the respondent. Several witnesses were called on the part of the petitioner, from whose evidence it appeared that the parties were married in Jan., 1853, and that they cohabited until July, 1860, during which period the respondent gave birth to four children, three of whom are living. For some time prior to the sepa ration the respondent became addicted to intempe rance, and during the absence of her husband she conducted herself in a manner that induced him to separate from her, and she went to Totteridge, and subsequently to Whetstone, to live, taking her youngest child with her. The petitioner allowed her 15s. a week, in addition to paying her rent, and it was proved that he visited her and treated her with kindness whilst she was living at these places. However, he received information which satisfied him that since she left London the respondent had become more reckless than ever in her conduct, and that she had on several occasions had criminal in tercourse with the co-respondent, who is a brick layer, living at Finchley. According to the evidence of these witnesses the respondent behaved with the most open profligacy, and had improper intimacy with several other persons besides the co-respondent. As soon as the petitioner discovered his wife's mis conduct he discontinued the allowance, and took the child from her custody and adopted the present proceedings. For the defence, it was contended that the peti tioner had connived in the most disreputable manner in his wife's dishonour, and that he actually paid parties to entrap her into the commission of the adultery with the co-respondent, and that she had been made intoxicated for that purpose. In support of this grave charge, a person named Axford, a pot man at Griffin, at Whetstone, was called; but his evidence was merely to the effect that he had re ceived £5 from the family of Mr. Sugg to watch the conduct of the respondent, who was then resid ing at Whetstone, and that previously he was ac quainted with the fact of the connection subsisting between the respondent and Moore, and also to her being the associate of prostitutes, and being in the company of different men late at night and under most suspicious circumstances. Counsel having addressed the jury, the learned judge summed up. The jury found that the respondent had committed the adultery, and that the petitioner was not guilty of the charges pleaded against him. The Court then pronounced a decree nisi. HART V. HART AND FLEGG. This was a suit instituted by James Hart, a ser geant in the Royal Engineers, for a dissolution of marriage with his wife on thr- ground of her adul tery with the co-respondent, and there was no ap pearance on behalf of the respondent. The petitioner laid damages at £5OO. Mr. Inderwiek and Mr. Cutbill were counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Bridge attended to watch the case on behalf of the co-respondent. It appeared that the parties were married in September, 1851, and cohabited in different places in England, where the petitioner's regiment was stationed, apparently living on very affectionate terms. There was one child issue of the marriage. In 1853 the petitioner was ordered to the Mauritius, and went there, accompanied by his wife. The climate not suiting the health of the respondent she returned to England with the consent of her hus band, and took up her residence with her father at Gillingham, Kent. In 1855 she removed to lodg ings in Chatham, where she was visited by the co respondent, who is a pensioner, and had previously been a sergeant in the army. The respondent while living at Chatham went by the name of Steadman, while she represented the co-respondent, who as sumed the name of Kelly, as her uncle. The co respondent was in the habit of calling three or four times a week, and staling for hours in the room with the respondent, whom he had been frequently seen to kiss. In March, 1859, the respondent gave birth to a child, which was chriitened in the name of Fiegg, and which the co-respondent was heard to say that he would provide for, adding also that he would never desert the mother. The petitioner did not return to England unt O. 1860, and having become acquainted with what had occurred during his absence he instituted these proceedings. It was proved that the co-respondent had some houses in the neighbourhood of Brompton. Sir C. Cresswell, in summing up, observed that the Court was left entirely in ignorance as to any thing but the mere facts of the visits of the co respondent, and as to his being possessed of some ten or twelve houses. There was nothing to show whether the conduct of the respondent was good or bad before she met the co-respondent, or whether any peculiar opportunities were offered to the latter for the prosecution of the criminal intercourse. The Jury found for the petitioner, with £l2O damages, and the Court pronounced the decree nisi, with costs. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. Sittings at Nisi in Middlesex.—(Before Lord Chief Justice Erie and a Common Jury.) WATKINS V. REDDIN.-HORSES FRIGHTENED BY BRAY'S TRACTION ENGINE. _ . This was an action to recover damages for in juries sustained in consequence of the horses of an ASSIZE INXELLIGE.ArCE. HOME CIRCUIT.—MAIDSTONE, Dec. 5. (Before Mr. Justice Williams.) THE MURDER AT TOWN MALLINO. John Atkins, 42, labourer, was indicted for the wilful murder of his wife, Elizabeth Atkins. The prisoner, who is rather a good-looking man, and whose countenance did not exhibit the slightest indication of any ferocity of disposition, would have been tried at the last Summer Assizes, but the trial was postponed upon the application of his counsel, in order that evidence might be adduced to show the state of his mind at the time the act was com mitted. When he was called upon to plead, he for some time remained silent, but at length he said that he was not guilty. Mr. F. Russell and Mr. F. J. Smith conducted the prosecution ; Mr. Barrow was counsel for the prisoner. The learned counsel for the prosecution, in opening the case for the jury, said it was unnecessary for him to call their attention to the very serious character of the charge that was made against the prisoner, the offence imputed to him being that he had of his malice aforethought killed and murdered his wife. He said he was afraid that the evidence would make out that the act had been committed under the influence of jealousy, and that the only defence that would be at tempted would be that the prisoner was in such a state of mind at the time as not to be responsible for his actions ; but it was, he felt assured, needless for him to say that they ought.not to give any effect to such a defence, unless the evidence in support of it was clear and conclusive. The following witnesses were then examined : John Ridley said—l live at Malling, near Maid stone. I know the prisoner. He occupied a cottage next to me. There are three cottages together, and the prisoner occupied the end one. The partition walls between the cottages are very thin. I have known the prisoner about six months. The deceased lived with him, and they had three children. About a fortnight before the day this occurrence took place I heard a dreadful screaming in the prisoner's cot tage, and went to see what was the matter. I saw Mrs. Atkins sitting on the bottom of the stairs nearly naked. The prisoner was standing by her, and he appeared to have his wife's gown and shawl under his arm. The deceased was screaming. I called to the prisoner and asked what was the matter, and he said something, but I did not hear what it was. I went to _my own cottage, and about a quarter of an hour afterwards the prisoner came to me with a knife in his hand. He told me he could not live comfortably with his wife, and I advised him to part from her. He did not make any reply except that he had a great mind to run away, but did not like to leave his children. While we were together Mrs. Atkins came out of the back door with her bonnet on, as though she was going fora walk. When the prisoner saw her, he went up to her and dragged her back to the door of his cottage, and tore her dress off her down to the waist, and she then went away in that condition. After she was gone the prisoner put. the portion of the dress he had iu his hitnd in the fire and burned it. _ _ _ Cross-examined—l had only known the prisoner and his wife foe six months at this time. They quarrelled very frequently, hut I did not know what they quarrelled about, and I did not know the cause of the quarrel on this day. The prisoner gave as one reason for not living comfortably with his wife, that she kept him so barb) , on the money he gave her. He also said he was jealous of her about a man named George Barton, who lived at Town slalling. Mary Anne Atkins, a little girl, 11 years old, was then examined. She said—The prisoner is my faOier. I lived with him and my mother at Mal ling. I remember the day my mother died. I was in the cottage with my father and mother on that day. I was upstairs, and I heard my mother " squeak." Ido not know what time of the day it was, but it was after dinner. My father and mother had quarrelled before I heard my mother squeak. This was before Mr. Pope, the doctor, came. When I heard my mother squeak, I went downstairs into the washhouse, and I saw my mother in the kitchen, which adjoins the washhouse. My father was in the kitchen also, and my mother was stand ing up, and my father had hold of her hand. He had a knife in the other hand. The knife was shut. I went away to the cottage of Mr_ Ridley, and knocked at the door and hatloed to alarm Mr. Rid ley, but I was unable to get in. I went back to our own cottage, and s.aw my mother in the kitchen lying on the ground, and my father was by her side holding a knife in my mother's neck. I did not see any blood, because I did not stop to look. I went to the next cottage, to Mr. Willett, but there was • no one there but three children, and on my looking out I saw my mother in a field at the back of our cottage, and she told me to go and fetch Mrs, Woodyer. I noticed then that blood was running down the front of my mother's dress, and it ap peared to come out of her throat. Her hair was all hanging down. I went to Airs. Woodyer, and told her what had occurred, and she locked me in. The knife that my father was using was my knife, and I had had it this same morning, and my father asked me for it. He had asked me for it more than once on this morning, and he had returned it to me, and the last time I gave it to him was just before din ner. (The knife was here produced and identified. It was a common clasp-knife, about four inches long, and with a sharp point.) Cross-examined—My father had been away from home for a week a short time before this happened. I heard that he was at one of my uncle's. My mother and I were with him there one night, and came back leaving him there. Anne Smith said—l am housekeeper to John Ridley, one of the witnesses who has been examined. I remember on Friday, the 19th of July, hearing a great noise and screams of " Murder," and a scratch ing at my door, as though some ono was trying to open it. I went down and opened the door and saw the deceased. She was covered with blood, and she staggered away and the prisoner followed her, and I saw that his hand was bloody. I was about to follow Mrs. Atkins, and the prisoner jobbed the knife at me, and I was frightened and went into my cottage ag iin. When I saw the deceased again she was just on the point of dying. Richard Hulse, superintendent of police, said— The prisoner was given into my charge on the day the deceased was killed, and upon my going into his cell on the following morning he addressed me, and said " Good morning; is the woman dead ?" I told him she was, and us I saw he was about to make some statement, I cautioned him and reminded him that he was under a very serious charge, and that he had better be careful what he said. The prisoner thanked me and then said " I did it. I saw Barton locking in at the window, and if Barker had come in he would have prevented it from being done. Barton frequently visits my wife, and I have seen them in bed together. lam very sorry for it, and for what I have done, but'now it's too late." A statement made by the prisoner before the magistrate was then read. It was in the following terms :—" It's no good my saying anything more. The woman is dead ; let her rest in peace." Mr. Barrow then addressed the jury for the de fence, and in the course of a very able speech, he said they were already no doubt aware that he did not intend to deny that the prisoner had killed the de ceased ; but the answer he was instructed to make to the charge was that at the time the act was com mitted the prisoner was not in such a state of mind as to be criminally responsible for it. He then pro ceeded to argue that the evidence left no doubt that the prisoner was labouring under a delusion that his wife had boon unfaithful to him, and that he destroyed her while under the influence of that d elusion. _ _ Several witnesses, mostly relations of the pri soner, were then called on Lis behalf, and their evidence went to show that he had on many occa sions conducted himself iu a very extraordinary manner. Mr. Joy, the surgeon of the gaol, stated that the prisoner had maintained a sullen silence during the period he had been in confinement, but he had no reason to believe from his conduct that he was of unsound mind. He stated, however, that from the evidence that had been given, he was of opinion that at the time the act was committed by the prisoner he was hardly capable of distinguishing between right and wrong, and that he was undoubtedly labouring under insane delusions. He, at the same time, expressed his opinion that the silence of the prisoner was merely assumed, and that he was per fectly well aware of everything that was going on ; but he said this fact did not alter the opinion he had previously expressed with regard to him. Mr. Pope, surgeon, stated that ho attended the prisoner for congestion of the brain, the result of a severe cold ; and he also said that from the symp toms he observed in the prisoner previous to the act, if he had been aware that he was suffering under delusions, he should at once have ordered him to be removed to the lunatic asylum. This witness added that, in his opinion, the prisoner was not capable of distinguishing between right and wrong at the time the offence was committed. The learned Judge having summed up the whole case, the jury, after a short deliberation, returned a vet diet of Not Guilty, on the ground of insanity, and the prisoner was ordered to be detained during her Majesty's pleasure. The prisoner, who during the trial sat with his head leaning upon the front of the dock, appa rently nearly unconscious of what was going on, the moment the verdict was pronounced, jumped up and walked rapidly out of the dock, evidently highly pleased with the result. POLICE INTELLIgENCE, Dec. 5. MARLBOROUGH S'i`REET. Mr. William Harding. builder, appeared to a summons obtained by Mrs. Elizabet hl Harding, his wife, for threaten ing her life and assaulting her. There were three other summonses, all arising out of this case. Mr. Edward Lewis, of Great Marlborough-street, was for the complainant; Mr. Haynes for the defendant. _ _ The evidence, which extended to great length, was to the effect that the complainant, who had been married several years and had five children by the defendant, but never had a comfortable home made for her, was obliged to part from the defendant and take a lodging-house, No. 60, Charlotte-street, which her brother furnished for her, in order that she might find a subsistence for herself and children. Since she had got into this house her husband had constantly annoyed her by coming to the house and making a disturbance, under the pretence that he wanted to come back to her and live with her again. On Nov. 28 he came to the house and continued to annoy her by using vile language, threats, and assaults, and by refusing to leave the house. To prove the assault, several witnesses were called. Miss Naylor said she was at Mrs. Harding's house on the day and night of the assaults. The defendant struck his wife over the head with a stick lightly, then he pushed her off the chair, then he chased her round the table, and swore ho would dash out her brains. Later in the evening he struck her in the bedroom, dragged her into the drawing-room, threw her on the couch, and pulled her ear and bit her. One of the lodgers, who was alarmed by the screams of Mrs. Harding, came upstairs and laid hold of the defendant to restrain him. A policeman was also called in, but he refused to interfere, as the complainant had no protection order. Mr. Preston, the lodger referred to, spoke to the defendant's violent conduct. The cook and housemaid of the complainant also deposed to the violent language and acts of the defendant. Mr. Haynes, for the defendant, contended that his client only desired to obtain a restitution of con jugal rights, and that he might again have the solace of his wife and children. The assaults would be negatived, and the apparent violence explained satisfactorily by witnesses he should call. Mr. Tyrw - hiCt here remarked that it appeared to him the best way to dispose of the charge was to require both parties to find bail. Mr. Lewis said he would readily agree to this course, as the wife only desired to be protected anti! such time as she could make an application to the Divorce Court. Mr. Haynes said he could have no of jeetion to adopt the suggestion of the Court. Hit client en. tertained the greatest affection for his wife, and was moo, . a uxious that the unhappy a fiz.rences which hay arisen should be adjusted. The fatly er of the defendant tendered hi.mself as bail, and the summons was dismissed. The other ,iummonses were withdrawn. LAM BE Trf .---ALLEGED ABDUCTION.—A gen tleman, residing - in Church-street, Camberwell, ap pliea to the Hot , . U. C Norton for advice and assistance under to o following somewhat singular circumstances : The applicant $E id that on Sunday last, a girl, 14 years of age, the daughter of his wife by a former marriage, ha,i disappeared from his house, and after sonic diffict , lty he discovered that she had been taken away by a young fellow of 22 years of age, who took her tc the house of his parents. in Bedford-street, Coven\ ' - -garden. Applicant called on the father of the ycung man, and he admitted that his step-daughter ht.'d dined at his house when brought there by his song and that he had subso quently procured a respectable lodging for her, but refused to say where it was. Witness, in conse quence, procured the as:3istance of an officer at the Bow-street Station, and in a second interview with th e f at h er , h e a dmitted, in ti,e presence of that officer, he knew wh are the girl was, and after much hesitation, promised she should be at the residence of her mother, at Can:herwell, at two o'clock on that day (yesterday). l' his p romise he had not ful filled, and he (applicant) wished for a warrant to apprehend the young man. E ,•ngaged at Covent- Mr, Norton—What is ,lit) father of the young man ? Applicant—He is a earpenteY garden Theatre. Mr. Norton—And what is the sei. P Applicant—He is also a carpenter as I under , stand. Mr. Norton—Have you seen him? Applicant—Yes, sir, I saw him. Mr. Norton—And what does he say? Applicant—He admits taking away my step daughter. He owned to doing so in the presence of the inspector at Bow-street. Mr. Norton—That being the case, and this girl only 14 years of age, you do not require a warrant for his apprehension. The applicant here said it was as well he should mention that her mother had received a note from the girl to say she was quite comfortable, and as happy as she could wish, and requesting they would not be troubled about her as she - should call to see them some day or other. In answer to a question from the magistrate the applicant said this girl would be entitled to £4OO on becoming of age; and Mr. Norton having re peated that he did not think a warrant necessary, the applicant thanked him and left the court. HAMMERSMITH.—JEALOUSY AND REVENGE. THE Two WlVES.—Sarah Pearce, a married wo man, was brought before Mr. Ingham on a warrant, charged with violently assaulting Elizabeth East mead, of Rutland-street, Knightsbridge. The prisoner had failed to appear to a summons, and a warrant was granted for her apprehension. The complainant stated that on the 31st of • to ber last she was in her kitchen, when she heard the shop bell ring, and fancying there was a cus tomer she went up stairs, and opened the door, upon which the prisoner rushed in and knocked. her down with her fist. She then stamped with her feet upon her body, and beat her about the head and face in a cruel manner. She was like a raving mad woman, and attempted to throw a 71b. weight at her, but she was prevented by persons ho came to her assistance. The witness added that she had only seen the prisoner once before, and could not account for the attack made upon her. Her husband was a stonemason, and so was the pri soner's husband, and they had become acquainted since the lock-out. The prisoner, in defence, stated that the com plainant had enticed her husband to her house for the last two years, for the purpose of getting thick with him. She had watched him there. Be fore they were a very comfortable and industriotts couple. The complainant denied that she encouraged the prisoner's husband. The prisoner said the complainant had stated that she was dying for her husband. This the complainant also denied; and, in answer to questions from his worship, stated that she was 50 years of age. Mr. Ingham thought she was rather too old to have any wish for another woman's husband. At the request of his worship the two husbands were called into the court. The complainant's husband appeared to be the senior. Witnesses were called who proved the assault. Mr. Handley, who appeared for the prisoner, pleaded as an excuse tr,at the prisoner was jealous of the complainant. He also said that, if he could examine the prisoner, he should be able to show that they both fought together. Mr. Ingham ordered the prisoner to find two sureties to keep the peace towards the complainant, and to pay 10s. costs. COUNTRY 11,11-LEI-16. •4` MANCHESTER—DEc. 5. A slack attendance at market to-day, but there was an inactive business owing to the high demands of holders. English wheat is to 2s per 1001 b higher. Flour 6d to is per sack dearer. For oats quotations nominally unaltered, with a slow sale. Oatmeal in more demand, at full rates. Indian corn is to le 6d dearer. BIRMINGHAM—DEC. 4. At to-day's market there was a large supply of English wheat from farmers, which said slowly at is over the rates of this day week. More doing in barley, at former rates• Oats and bans as before, and peas rather dearer. NEWARK—DEC. 4. At to-day's corn market the quantity of wheat exhibited was limited, and an inactive business was done at is to 2s higher. Barley is to 2s lower in price. Other grain sold as before. White wheat, new, 60s to 63s Barley, grinding 29s to 31s Red do. 55s to 51s Oats, old, .. oos to 36; Old white 60s to 63s New do 23s to 27s Red do. 46s to 56s Beans.. 45s to 47s Barley, malting.... 328,t0 39s Beans, new.. 44s to —S Peas, ....488 to 548. CORK—DEC. 4. The following were the quotations this morning :-11.€ d wheat, 21s Od to 29s 6d ; white, 25s Od to 338 3d; barley 105 Gd to 18s Gd ; oats, 7s Od to 14s 6d. EDINBURGH GRAIN—DEc 4. Wheat on tho top 13s Od up ..average 3s 4d up. Barley the same on the top . average Os 3d up. Oats on the top is Od up— average is 8d up. Beans on the top 2s Od down average 2s 7d down. Total Supply and Sales. Wheat .. 730 qrs Sold 645 qrs 8ar1ey........1688 qrs Sold 1226 qrs Oats 1423 qrs Sold 1187 qrs Beans 43 qrs Sold 43 qrs Averages per Imperial quarter. Wheat.... New wheat Barley 1 13 2 9-12ths Oats 1 6 3 4-12ths Beans -12ths DERBY SMITHFIELD—DEc. 3. The supply of fat beasts to-day was moderate, and the best dibposed of at good prices. The supply of sheep w a s rather small, and the demand was good. Pigs were in average supply. Fat calves scarce. Beef 6d to 6id Veal 7id to 8 l Mutton .... ...... .7d to 8d Pork Lamb 7ld to 8d Rough fat, 4s 8d per stone. Hides, 3d to ilid ; calf skins, 6d to 6d. CBYSTAL PALACE COMPANY.—The directors of this company have resolved to recommend to the proprie tors at the forthcoming meeting to declare a dividend on the ordinary stock of 2 per cent., equivalent to 2s. per share. i BIRTHS. FOSTEIL—On the sth inst., at 79, Chester-square, Belgra via, the wife of - John V. Fitzgerald Foster, Esq., of a bon. HASTINGS.—On the 3d inst., at Hertingfordbury Rectory, Hertford, the wife of the Hon. and Rev. Godolphin Hastings, of a daughter. TILEFUSI;. — On the 4th inst., at Fettercairn House, N 331 the Hon. Mrs. Trefusis, of a daughter. MARRIAGES. OAKES—NEWSIIAIII.-011 the 3d inst., at Grasmere, Capt. J. C. Tuffnell Oakes, of Batterlies, to Mary Margaret, youngest daughter of Henry Newsham, Esq., of Beck Allan, Grasmere. SHUTTLEWORTH—ELLISON.-011 the 4th inst., at Saint George's, Hanover-square, Joseph Shuttleworth, Esq., of Elartsholme, near Lincoln, to Caroline Jane, younger daughter of Lieut.-Colonelßichard Ellison, of Boultham - Hall, near Lincoln. DEATHS. BELL.--On the 2d inst., at Finchamstead, Berks, Juliana, wife of John Thomas Bell, Esq., Gloucester-place, Hyde park-gardens, aged 77. COUSENS.—On the 4th inst., at Sydenham, James Cousens, _ Esq., aged 80. CROWE.—On the 2d inst., at his father's house, near De vizes, Fred. B. Crowe, Esq., recently appointed 1 - 1.3/I.'s Consul at Cairo, aged 34. CURREY.—On the 3d inst., at Bournemouth, Mary, wife of the Rev. George Currey, preacher at the Charterhouse, London. EYRE.—On the Ist inst., Henry Eyre, Esq., aged 82. lIENDERSON.—On the sth inst., at 24, Hyde-park-square Gilbert Henderson, Esq., Recorder of Liverpool. LAURIE.—On the 3d inst., Sir Peter Laurie, Senior Alder- man of London, aged M. PUTTFARCKEN.—On the 4th inst., at 14, Portland-place, Clapham-road, Julius Puttfareken, Esq. LONDON : Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG, of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at THE SUN Moe, No. 112,Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the County of Middlesex, Friday,' December 6, 1861.