The Sun. — London, England, 1861-09-11 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENIN(, S EPTEMBER 11, 1861. VP? TERRIBLE COLLISION ON TILE' LOADON AN_D BRIGHTON RAILWAY. BRIGHTON, TUESDAY NIGHT. The adjourned coroner's inquest upon the bodies of the 23 persons who lost their lives by the terrible catastrophe at the Clayton tunnel on Sunday, the 25th ult., was resumed and concluded this day at the Town-hall, before Mr. David Black, coroner for Brighton. Messrs. Slight, Hawkins, and Faithfull again attended the inquiry on behalf of the company. Mr. Coningham, M.P., was in attendance on the part of the directors. Messrs. Stuckey, Lamb, and Fryer again watched the case on the part of the friends and relatives of the deceased and injured parties. Capt. Tyler, Government inspector, Wa3 not in attendance to-day. At the commencement of the proceedings the Coroner reading the following letter, which he had received from Capt. Tyler Whitehall, Sept. 9, 1861. My dear Sir, --I am much obliged for your two notes, the former of which I had not received when Would you kindly ask the I wrote to you bef ore. reporters to morrow to c orrect an error which has been mad© in most o f the papers in regard to my el 'deuce on th e accident in the Clayton Tunnel, an . l d a y . hich has already led to to some misapprehen a I have been made say, in reply to Mr. -.F° a i t hfull, that there has never before been an acci dent on the Brighton Railway, except one in the Brighton station ; whereas, Mr. Faithfull's question on the subject and my reply had reference solely to that portion of the line which extends between Brighton and Hassock's-gate. I am not aware of any previous accident (with one exception) on that portion of the Brighton Railway, but if I had been asked about accidents on the whole of the line, my answer would have been very different. I believe this is correctly stated on your notes, and has only been an inadvertent error in reporting Mr. Faith fan cross•examination.—l remain, my dear Sir. very truly yours, " H. W. TYLER. " To D. Black, Esq." The Coroner then said—l will now ask you, Mr. Slight, if you are in a position to communicate the result of the decision at which the board arrived with reference to the documents mentioned on the last occasion ? Mr. Slight—l have been instructed to attend here by the Board of Directors in consequence of what took place on the last occasion in reference to cer tain documents then asked for. Mr. Scott, the De puty Chairman of the Company - , then promised to submit the question to the board at their next meet ing. This had especial reference to two documents, one called " A statement by Wm. Boynett, railway guard, taken down in writing by one Mr. Turner, travelling inspector, concerning the journey of the Brighton ordinary train on the morning of Aug. 25, 1861, and its collision with the Brighton ex cursion train in the Clayton tunnel, or some one of such matters ;" and " A statement made by one Wm. Butcher, railway guard, taken down in writ ing by one Mr. Turner, concerning the journey of the Brighton excursion train on the morning of Aug. 25th last." These are memoranda entered in a private pocketbook by Mr. Turner, and in pursu ance of Mr. Scott's promise the matter has been brought before the board, who have adopted the following course : "At a Board of Directors of the London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Company, in London, on the 9th of September, 1861, it was resolved : "'That the Board, while approving the course adopted by the solicitor of the company with refer ence to the production of certain specified documents to the coroner and jury, assumed to be statements of servants of the company on the subject of the recent collision, and which statements they are advised by counsel they are not bound to produce, nor which, if produced, could be legally received as evidence; yet, being desirous of assisting the investigation by every means in their power, they are unwilling to stand on the legal rights of the company, and there fore authorise their secretary to produce the docu ments required.' " There was a slight manifestation of applause after this resolution had been read. Mr. Slight then said—ln accordance with that resolution it is now my duty to produce to the Court that document, which is a memorandum in the pri vate pocketbook of Mr. Turner, a clerk in Mr. Craven's department. The Coroner—The two documents which you have mentioned are the only two which are referred to in the paper which I caused to be served upon you, but there is also a third, respecting which I wrote to Mr. Faithfull—namely, a statement made by Scott, the driver of the Brighton excursion, called by us, and as I have it on my notes, " Scott's report." Have you got that, Mr. Slight ? Mr. Slight—After the resolution which was passed by the Board yesterday, ant which I have read, Mr. Faithful! told us of your wish that that document should be produced, and I have to state that I in consequence have applied to the Board for and obtained their specific instructions to produce it, which I now do ; and this is the paper you referred to. The document was then handed in. The Coroner—l am very glad indeed, personally, at this decision of the Board of Directors, and which I may be permitted to say in my opinion re flects great credit on the company. I felt perfectly satisfied in my own mind from the first that such would be the result. Ido not want to prolong the discussion upon this matter, but in justice to myself I think it is right to make an observation upon one point, as it is referred to in the resolution of the Board of Directors. It is averred in that resolution, with regard to the statements in question, that they (the Board of Directors) are advised by counsel they are not bound to produce them, nor, if pro duced, could they be legally received in evidence, It is my opinion, and has been from the beginning. that these documents are not evidence in themselves, but the object for which I asked for them, and the reason why I ordered their production was, that though they were not evidence in themselves, still that they were important as en doling the jury to test the credibility of the witnesses as to the circum stances to which they had spoken, and I have yet to learn that in that way they are not evidence. I will now read from a book,which is Turner's pocket book, an entry, which is as follows " Aug. 25, 1861, 12 Noon. "Sunday—Collision in Clayton Tunnel—Wm. George Boynett, head guard; Wm. Webb, under guard ; W. Gregory, driver ; No. 122 engine. W. G. Boynett left Brighton at 8 36 with the 8 30 train for London, On reaching Clayton tunnel saw the All right ' signal. Killick was on duty. When we had got about 200 yards into the tunnel I heard the driver whistle very suddenly for the breaks. I applied mine immediately. Webb says he did so too. They were both very good breaks and brought the train to a less speed instantly, but been they had scarcely applied when a most fearful crash took place and found a . As soon as possible I got out, preceding . tr 'mu s break carriage of the with one end lodged on our engine, and its roof off, and the other end across the down ro t ad. I met B u t c h er , the under-guard of that ,train, an d d es i re d him to go further back i to protect our train while I went to assist the to t passengers. I also de sired the signalman to telegraph the . north end of the tunnel not to admit the down The Coroner, reading his n o t es,— And Webb says, 4 I got out of my break after the crash, and saw Butcher going back to protect th e down train, and assisted the passengers nut, and communicated with the stationmaster at Hassock's-gate." Here is the report of John Scott, the engine -driver of the Brighton excursion train, signed by him, and wit nessed by J. A. Molyneaux. It is as follows : " Brighton, Aug. 25, 1861. " John Scott, engine -driver, reports starting at 8 30 a.m. to-day with the Brighton excursion for London. On approaching Clayton tunnel, the dis tance signal was all right.' When we got to tha mouth of the tunnel the signalman gave us the red flag. I shut the steam off, and reversed the engine, and put the break on and stopped as soon as pos sible. The carriages bounded back three or four yards with our reversing. I w as standin g over the handrail, looking back for a signal, when the fol lowing train ca me into U 2. After stopping some time, I ran through the tunnel to the north end for assistance, and to pump water into the boiler, and then went on to London. "JOHN SCOTT. "witness J. A. MOLYNEAUX." The report made by Butcher is as follow s Butcher, under-guard of the Br ighto n excurioc. train. ---I left Brighton at 8 30 a.m. Th e _ signals were all right' at Clayton tunnel, but just as ithe engine approached I saw him wave a red flag. I applied the break, and de s stopped in a short time An the tunnel, kV 300 yards. When the train stop took off my break, and the train, as I thought, commenced moving back, so I applied my break again. I then opened the door and got my lamp and signal flags and fog signals in my hand, ready to jump out and go back and protect my tram. Before I had time to jump I saw the other train coming. I waved the red li g ht to them, but it was upon us in a moment, and I Jumped off to save my life. I helped a passenger, who had also jumped, clear of the tunnel, and went back to protect the up road. " It will be observed that this perfectly agrees with the statement given verbally to the Court, while Scott's statement differs in same respects from his evidence, inasmuch as he states that the train bounded back three or four yards before reversing the engine. Wm. Butcher, under•guard of the Brighton ex cursion (second) train, examined by Mr. Fryer—l had not time to go back to the month of the tun nel before the collision took place. We backed about 30 or 40 yards, to the best of my knowledge. I can't say for certain whether the train was in motion at the time of the collision. By Mr. Lamb—lt would have been very doubt ful whether I could have got back to the mouth of the tunnel. Some question having arisen as to the previous statement of the witness, the coroner referred to his notes, when it appeared the witness stated the train was very nearly but not quite still when the collision occurred. W. G. Boynett, head guard, who left Brighton at 8 36 with the 8 30 train (the third) for London, was then examined, but no discrepancy was elicited between his written statement and oral evidence. Mr Lamb said they had been fighting about docu ments that were not worth the paper on which they were written. Mr. Hawkins then produced a return he had pro mised to make of the time of departure from Brigh ton of the Portsmouth excursion (first) train on every Sunday it has run during the present year. The advertised hour of departure from Brighton was in each case 8 5. On June 2 the train left Brighton at 819 ; June 16, 815 ; June 30, 8 10 ; • July 14, 812 ; July 28, 810 ; Aug. 11, 810 ; Aug. 25 (day of accident), 8 28. Another return was handed in of the time of de parture of all the Brighton trains during the four Sundays preceding the accident. It appeared by this return that an interval of five minutes took place between the departure of each train. Another return was also produced of the number of passengers passing through the Clayton tunnel in the previous year. The number was 594,000 on the up-line and 550,000 on the down-line. Mr. White, chief officer of Brighton, said this was all the evidence he had to produce. The Coroner then summed up the evidence. The definition of manslaughter by negligence he con ceived to b 9 this—that when persons were employed in occupations from which danger might arise, if they neglected ordinary precautions, and if on ac count of such neglect loss of life occurred, it would be manslaughter. The degree of caution required must be measured by the necessity for caution,and if it should appear that neglect by any individual was the essential or chief cause of death, it would not excuse any such individual that other secondary causes in some degree contributed to the accident. With this explanation he would now call attention to the locality of the line of railway between Brighton and Hassock's-gate upon which the acci dent occurred. If 'there should be any conflict of evidence between the officers of this company and passengers whose statements were above suspicion, it would be only right to assume that the weight of evidence lay with the latter. The Coroner then pro ceeded to narrate the facts as they had been estab lished in evidence. The delay of the Portsmouth excursion (first) train was not very material, as if the rules of the company had been properly ob served the accident would not have occurred, not withstanding the delay in the arrival of the train. The Portsmouth train, according to the evidence of Mr. Legg, the stationmaster, left Brighton at 8.22, but that evidence was contradicted by all the other testimony. The other evidence proved that the train did not leave Brighton until 8.28 or 8.30. The ex cursion train was stated by the officers of the com pany to have left the station at 8.30 or 8.31, with the exception of Mr. Legg, who stated that this train left two or three minutes earlier. The evi dence of Holman, the pointsman at the junction, was that the trains passed him at 8.29, 8.32, and 8.3 G. The Coroner then read the evidence of Killick, the signalman at the south end of the tunnel. It appeared to him that Killick had a right to believe that the answer he received to his message, " Is she out ?" re ferred to the second train. The account given by the signalman at the north end of the tunnel varied somewhat from that of Killick, but he was of opinion that Killick's version was the more credible of the two. Brown admitted that he mis took the message, thinking it referred to the first train instead of to the second, which it actually did refer to, and his version of the affair was in other respects unintelligible. Killick appeared to have doue his duty as well as he was able under the try ing circumstances of the case—three trains follow ing each other in such rapid succession, and the distance signal failing to work. If the jury be lieved the evidence of the passengers respecting the time at which the trains left Brighton, the conduct of Legg in starting those trains clearly came within the definition he had given as to manslaughter by negligence. It was the neglect of ordinary pre cautions—precautions which, according to the evi dence of the company's officers, were clearly pointed out in the rule not to start a train until a sufficient interval had elapsed for safety. If they believed that the rapidity with which the trains were started by Legg materially contributed to the accident, the company's rule being binding on Legg, the breach of the rule came within the definition he had given of manslaughter by negligence— namely, the neglect of ordinary precautions, the necessity for the observance of which was apparent for the safety of the passengers. It would appear from the evidence that the rapidity of starting the trains did materially contribute to the accident— nor was it an answer to any neglect of proper pre cautions by Legg to say that if the signalmen had done their duty the accident would not have oc curred, it being the rule of law that the man could qualify his own wrong. A question might arise as to how the traffic manager (Mr. Hawkins) had contributed to the accident by the way in which the traffic was managed. There was no definite rule as to an interval of five minutes being allowed to elapse between two trains, but it appeared that the ordinary rule observed on the various railway lines in the kingdom was well known to railway officials, and he did not think that blame could be attributed to the traffic manager for adopting the general rule and ex pecting it to be generally acted upon, that rule being, except at terminal stations, to allow intervals of five minutes between the starting of the trains. A question might next arise as to the sufficiency or insufficiency of the precautions adopted at the tun nel. The jury must consider whether the railway by its traffic manager had fairly adopted all the ordi nary improved modes in common use for regulating traffic. If it had, it would be no charge against the company to say that there were other new modes partially adopted on some lines which might be better than those in use on the Brighton line. The jury would carefully examine and collate the evi dence. They would consider whether they believed that Legg started the trains ut more frequent inter vals than he ought to have dose. If he did so, and if, as it would seem, he thereby contributed in any essential degree t o th e acc i dent, then, to the best of hisjudgment, his neglect of duty would amount to manslaughter, and would be an offence which must be left to another jury to try. The next question was whether the jury believed the evidence of Kil- ' lick. If so, that person was merely guilty of a trifling error of judgment —hardly an error at all, in fact— arising from his hurry, and not from neglect of duty. It was not as if he were away from his post, nor was there any proof that in any other way he was guilty of negligence. The third point was as to the working of the distance signal—whether that in any way contributed to the accident, and whether, if it did not work properly, Killick, or any other person whose duty it was to oil and attend to it, had properly performed his work. Ii appeared that Killick had been a signalman for nine years, and Brown for a longer period. With regard to Scott, the driver of the Brighton excursion train, a question arose as to the duty of a driver under such circumstances in a tunnel. It was given in evidence that it was the duty of an engine driver to whom the red flag had been shown to come to a stand as soon as he could, and to send back his guard to see what was the matter, instead of going back with the train. Scott stated that he did not go back, that there was a slight recoil of the carriages, and that he might perhaps have gone back 30 or 40 yards. The evidence, however,showed that it was impossible to have stopped the train within 200 or 250 yards, as stated by Scott, but that it must have taken more than double that distance to have brought the train up. The jury had also heard the evidence of several passengers, who stated that the train did go back a considerable distance, and the under guard of the train said that the train had hardly stopped in its backward motion to the mouth of the tunnel when the collision occurred. The jury might therefore assume that Scott was mistaken, or that he misrepresented the fact when he asserted that he did not back the train. But, although that might be a breach of the company's rule, it did not follow that he had been guilty of gross negligence. Scott was on his engine, his life was in peril, like the rest, and it was to be supposed that he had done that which be thought best at the time. The jury had first to consider whether the general arrange ments of the company were such that the accident did not happen through them. If they were satis fied of that they would have to consider the con duct of Legg, and if they thought he had broken the company's rules, and that he had thereby con tributed essentially to the accident, he was respon sible for his conduct. If they thought that Killick and Brown had done the best they could, and that Brown had made a mistake, either from want of memory or otherwise, still that was not such gross negligence as would implicate them. Neither did it seem that Scott, although he had broken a rule, had been guilty of such gross negligence as to in duce the jury to find him guilty of manslaughter. It appeared to him that the, rule of five minutes' interval was quite a minimum for safety between Brighton and Hassock's-gate, and that, if time weie to he taken as the measurement, it would be better to take ten minutes instead of five, so as to allow a margin for the infirmities of human nature. With these observations he would now leave the matter in the hands of the jury. The jury then, at five minutes to 3 o'clock, re tired to consider their verdict. After four hours' deliberation the jury returned into court with a verdict of manslaughter against Mr. Legg, the assistant-stationmaster at Brighton, and the following special finding :—" That the per-. sons upon whom the inquest was holden being, on the 25th day of August, in Clayton tunnel, in the parish of Piecombe, in the county of Sussex, while being carried in a train by the London, Brigh ton and South Coast railway from Brighton to Lon don, were run into by a certain locomotive engine, and were thereby mortally injured, of which injuries they died; and that Chas. Legg, assistant station master at Brighton, by his negligence and want of common ordinary caution in starting three trains — one at 8 28, one at 8 31, and one at 8 35, in breach of one of the express rules of the company and of the usual practice, did in an essential degree contribute to and indirectly cause the deaths of the persons so killed. And that one John Scott, an engine -driver, by mistake, but not carelessly, contributed in some degree to the violence of the collision aforesaid, by backing the engine and train known as the Brigh ton excursion train for a distance of 100 yards at least in the said tunnel. And that by reason of the hurry arising from the arrival in unusually rapid succession at the south end of Clayton tunnel of the three trains mentioned, and the temporary failure of the distance signal to act on the arrival of the first of the said three trains, a mistake or misunder standing arose, but without negligence, in working the telegraph signals by Henry Killick and John Brown between the two ends of Clayton tunnel, which also materially contributed to the said colli sion. And that the system on the 25th of August, and for a considerable time previously thereto, in conducting the traffic of the said railway between Brighton and Hassock's-gate was defective in not bringing immediately to the knowledge of the traffic manager for the time being such departures as hap pened from the said rule as to the starting of trains. And the jurors aforesaid find that the said Charles Legg did, on the 25th day of August last, at the place aforesaid, feloniously kill and slay the persons upon whom the inquest was holden." The Coroner said that this was in effect a verdict of " Manslaughter" against Legg, with a special finding. He wished to thank the jury for the great patience they had displayed throughout this inquiry. He had had no opportunity of thanking Captain Tyler before he went away, but he must say that they would not have been able to conduct this inquiry so satisfactorily had he not been present and favoured them with his practical suggestions as to the working of the telegraphs and many other matters. The inquiry, which has extended over nine days, was then brought to a close. THE RAILWAY ACCIDENT AT KEN I'ISIT TOWN. A portion of the following appeared in our impression of yesterday evening : The inquiry was resumed this morning before Mr. Hum phreys, the name of the unfortunate man Benjamin Rush brooke being now classed amongst those who met their death on this occasion. The Coroner said the signalman Rayner was now in at • tendance, but he proposed to take all the evidence he could previous to examining him. For that reason he should take the evidence of the guard Bridges, and Scott the driver. The jury then proceeded to the University Hospital to take the evidence of Bridges, and to view the body of Rushbrooke. Alter this had been done the jury proceeded to Bow, and there took the evidence of Scott, which was to the effect that the signal " all right" was up at the Kentish town station when the train passed. Henry Rayner, the signalman at the Kentish-town sta tion, was examined and cautioned but not sworn. He said, I wish to be examined. On the 2d of September I was porter at Kentish-town station. On the arrival of the 6.35 p.m. train from Kew, Fessey went off duty. I do not remember whether 'I telegraphed to Hampstead "All clear." I know that a telegram was sent that the line was clear. The Coroner—Who sent that telegram ? Witness—l don't remember. The Coroner—Have you any doubt that Fessey had lei at that time ? Witness—l believe he had not left the station. Mr. Park—Fessey did not leave till after seven ? Witness—He did not. By the Coroner—Fessey's time for leaving was seven o'clock. The train did not leave till Ave minutes past, but Fessey stopped until the train left. I did not telegraph back that the line was clear. I do not know who did. Fessey having left it became my duty to attend to the telegraph. I don't remember receiving any communication from the driver of the ballast engine as to coming out. I did not answer him by giving hitla leave to come out. I don't remember giving any such permission. (The Coroner repeated his questions.) I don't remember any communi cation from the driver of the ballast engine. The Coroner—Be careful. Do you mean to say you gave no permission ? Witness—l don't remember. The Coroner—Did the ballast engine come out of the aid ing before the 6.35 train passed ? Witness—No. The Coroner—How long elapsed between the regular train passing and the ballast train coming out? Witness—lt came out directly afterwards. I saw it on the line directly after the train had passed. The Coroner—Did you in consequence put up the danger signal at the platform station. Witness—The danger signal was already on. The Coroner—When the 6.35 train passed, was the dan ger signal on the platform taken down? Witnees—No, it was not. The Coroner—ls it usual to put the auxiliary signal on when the train is in the station ? Witness—Before it arrives there. The Coroner—Was that taken down ? Witness—No. The Coroner—Did you continue them up ? Witness—Yes. The Coroner—Why? Witness—Because i had not got " Line clear" from the Kentish-town Junction. The Coroner—lf the ballast train hal left the siding without instructions, would it have been your duty as sig nalman to take notice of it? 'Witness—Yes. The Coroner —Did you take note of it? Witness—T don't recollect. The Coroner —Did you do anything to protect the line? Witness—No; because the line was protected by the danger signal, which was left up by my mate. The danger signals were on at the auxiliary and the station. By the Coroner—A little after seven—about 10 minutes, I received a telegram from Kentish -town Junction of the line being clear. I had a telegram from Hampstead of the approach of the excursion train. That was about 15 minutes past seven. I acknowledged it. I blocked over, "Train on line," and sent ii forward to the Kentish-town Junction immediately after the excursion train had passed. That was not acknowledged from Kentish-town; Before there was time for an answer the accident had occurred. I had not removed the up auxiliary danger signal at all, nor did I remove the up main danger signal. When the ex cursion train came through they both stood at " danger." The Foreman —You had aot touched the danger signals at all? Witness—No, not at all. By the Coroner—l have been in the employ of the Com pany since January last. I did not hear the excursion train whistle as it came through the station. A Juryman—Do you think you should have heard it whistle if it had been so ? Witness—l think I should. By the Coroner-4 have made a statement to the com pany's offices. It was on the right of the accident. I was asked how the accident happened, and made a statement which was taken down in writing. I did not make exactly the same statement then that I made now. The Coroner—Will you tell me why? Witness—At the time I made the statement the same evening I hardly knew what I was about. The Coroner—Which ie. the true one? Witness—This is the true one. By Mr. Miller—l did not sign the statement. lam 19 year of age. I was never in the employment of any com pany before. I don't remember whether in my former statement I said I gave permission to the ballast driver to come out. I was in the hit when the excursion train was corning. I had no light in my hand. I did not know what I was about when the accident occurred on account of the excitement. By Mr. Metcalfe—At io time between the time that Fessey left and the collision did I touch the signals. I cannot remember whether I stated in my former report that I pulled down the signals, and put them up just as they were before. (The statement of the report was read, in which the witness said that he took down the signals and put them up again.) I did not touch the signals. Mr. Metcalfe—Do you mean to say that the driver passed those signals while they were at danger? Witness—Yes, I do. Mr. Metcalfe—Have you not stated in your report that you pulled down the signals, and that seeing the ballast train on the line you put up the danger signals again ? Witness—l don't recollect. Mr. Metcalfe —Have you not said so ? Witness—lt is not true. Mr. Metcalfe—Be careful, and try to remember what you did say. Witness—l don't remember. Mr. Metcalfe—What is the difference between your for mer and your present statement ? - Witness—This is the true one. Mr. Metcalfe—ls the difference this—that in your former statement you said you took down the signals and put them up again, and that in this you state that you never touched them ? Witness—This is the true one. Mr. Metcalfe—But is what I have said what you said on a former occasion ? Witness—l don't recollect. Mr. Metcalfe—Did you say in your former statement that the excursion train was within but a few yards of the signal when you put it on again? 'Witness—l don't recollect. Mr. Metcalfe—Did you say you took off the danger signal ? Witness—l might have said so. A Juror—Were the danger signals on when the excur sion, train passed ? Witness—They were. Mr. Metcalfe—l ask you again whether on your former examination you said that you took down the danger sig nals ? Witness—l might have said so. Mr. Metcalfe—Have you told Mr. Walters (a gentleman in court) that you gave the ballast engine driver permission to come oat ? Witness—l don't know. He drew out of his own accord. Mr. Metcalfe—Did you tell any body next morning that you took the danger signals off and put them on again when it was too late ? Witness—l don't recollect. Mr. Metcalfe—Did you say so to Mr. Chubb, the secre tary of the North London Company ? Witness—l don't recollect having done so. , By Mr. Park (his counsel) —At the time I made my former statement I was in a great flurry. lam quite cer tain that at the time the excursion train passed I am quite sure the danger signals were up. When I received the tele gram of the excursion from the Hampstead station the bal- last train was on the line. As soon as the excursion train passed I came out of the hut to take off the danger signals, which were both up at the time. At the time of the pass ing of the excursion train the ballast train was on the crossing not on the siding. When I left my hut the excur sion train had passed my station, and the collision took place immediately afterwards. Although I went to take the danger-signals off, I did not, as the excursion train had passed the auxiliary. When I made a statement to the officers of the company I did not know it was to be used as evidence. The statement was made to the inspec tor of police. It was read over to nae, but I did not sign it. I was formerly in the office of the solicitor of the company, but retired from it on account of my deafness. A Juryman—What are your wages? Witness—Four teen shillings a week. A Juryman—And how long do you work ? Witness— Fifteen and a half hours one day, and 10 hours another. By Mr. Pack—l have to attend to the passengers and their luggage, and to the signals as well. A Jury-man—What is your duty when you get a tele% gram from Kentish-town Junction b say that the line is clear? Witness—To take the danger signals off. A Juryman—Did you take off the signals when you received a telegram that the ordinary 6.35 train bad passed ? Witness—No. A Juryman—Why? Witness—Because the ballast train was on the crossing, and I left the signals up to pro tect it. A Juryman—Did you expect the excursion train at all ? Witness—No. I had no intimation of it. A Juryman—But you knew that some excursion trains were coming ?—Witness—Yes; but not at that time. My information was that there were excursion trains to come between S and 9.30. The Coroner said this was all he had to adduce, and he would proceed to read the evidence, and then having made some cowmen's upon it he would ask the jury to consider their verdict. Having gone through the evidence, the Coroner said the responsibility rested either with the driver of the excursion train, who ran through in disregard of the danger signals, or Rayner, who failed to Rut up these sig nals of danger. The jury retired at a quarter to six o'clock, and after an absence of an hour and a half, returned into court with THE VERDICT. The Coroner—Gentlemen, are you agreed ? The Foreman of the Jury—We are. The Foreman then read the following verdict:— " The jury regret that there is no alternative, from the weight of evidence, but to return a verdict of guilty of manslaughter against Rayner. At the same time they can not separate without expressing a strong opinion that the directors and managers are much to be censured in not em • ploying wore experienced persons to fill important situations as signalmen." The Foreman added—There is this rider : "And it is highly improper for a station master to start any special train either before or after the specified time of his instructions from the secretary of the company. That when the line is obstructed by shunting or otherwise, the line should be blocked both by telegraph as well as by out door signals." The verdict of manslaughter caused considerable sensa tion amongst the auditory, and the censure passed on the railway companies met with a general approval. The Coroner then directed his warrant to issue for the committal of Rayner on the charge of manslaughter. He was not then present, and was therefore not apprehended, and we understand that bail for his appearance to stand his trial will be tendered to-day. The Coroner having then thanked the vestry for the use of their hall, which had afforded such excellent accommo dation, said as there were so many inquisitions to be signed he would not at that late hour detain the jury by requiring them to sign more thin one, and they could assemble to morrow to sign the remainder. Six o'clock this day was accordingly fixed for that pur pose, and the proceedings, with this exception, termi • nated. THE ALLEGED MURDER IN NEWTON STREET, HOLBORN: The following appeared in a portion of our impression of yesterday evening : The adjourned investigation into the circumstances at tending the death of the unfortunate woman Cogan was resumed this afternoon, at the Archer public-house, New ton -street. It will be recollected, when the inquiry was first opened, that Cogan, who stands charged with the murder of his wife, was in such a dangerous state, from the wounds in flicted on his neck, that he was obliged to be conveyed to the hospital, where he has remained, under the care of the police, until to-day. Cogan arrived from King's College Hospital a few minutes before two o'clock in custody of Inspector Mac kenzie, of the F division of police, and immediately had an audience with his solicitor, Mr. G. Lewis, of Ely-place. The Coroner said as Cogan was now present ho proposed that the evidence taken in his absence should be read over, in order that he might make any statement he thought proper. The evidence of Sarah Harwood, the deceased's sister, was then read over to her. In answer to questions from Mr. Lewis, she said her sister was rather of a hasty temper. She never knew that de ceased had been in custody for stabbing her husband. The deceased was very much attached to Cogan, and she never knew them to quarrel except when she had been taking drink with bim. Police-constable 144 P was next called. It will be recol lected that this was the constable who took the prisoner into custody in Holborn, on the morning of the ocaurrencte, and his evidence was to the effect that he saw Cogan and his wife quarrelling previous to the death of the woman, and also that afterwards he conveyed Cogan to King's College Hospital. In reply to questions put to him by Mr. Lewis, he said --When he first saw deceased with the prisoner she was wrangling with him. Would swear that when he saw Cogan in Holborn ho did not say «Has your wife cut your throat." He asked him if he had cut his wife's throat, and he nodded his heaU. Police-constables 36 and 82 F, said that Cogan was never asked by either of them if his wife had cut his throat. The question he was asked was, " Have you cut your wife's throat." Mr. Paynter, the surgeon, who examined the body of the deceased woman, yid the cuts on the deceased's throat could not have been inflicted by herself. The wound com menced at the centre of the back of the neck across the right side of the throat, and tailed off to a mere scratch on the left collar bone. If the deceased had inflicted the wound upon her neck herself she could not have thrown the razor where it was found. The effect of the injury would have rendered her immediately powerless, and she would have sunk down, and the instrument would have been found in her hand or very close to it. He had since he had given his evidence made a post mortem examina tion of the body and found other appearances, which forti fied him in the opinion that the deceased could not have inflicted the injuries by her own hand. In reply to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Paynter said he thought it quite impossible for the deceased to have severed what is vulgarly called " Adam's apple" in her throat, as in her case, which is by no means common in persons of the age of deceased, it had partly become bone, and was completely cut in half. To effect such a cut great violence must have been used. Inspector Mackenzie said in an interview with the pri soner, which he had on the 12th of August, he asked him what he (Mackenzie) was to do with his furniture. He said, " What'd become of my wife ; is she remanded ?" He told him she was dead, and he began to cry. Cogan went on to say that the day before the .murder he had been to a funeral, and on his arrival home he asked his wife to go up stairs. 'This she refused to do at the time, but afterwards she came up and inflicted the wound on his throat as he was lying on the hearth-rug. _ _ Mr: Lewis asked if the witness remembered that the de ceased had been charged with assaulting her husband with a knife. , Inspector Mackenzie said he recollected something of the kind, but he thought she was discharged, as the husband did not appear against her in the morning. The evidence of the other witnesses on the first examina tion, which contained nothing very material, having been read over, Mr. Fotteseue, house surgeon of King's College Hospi tal, described the wound on Cogan's neck when he was brought to the hospital. The injury could either have been inflicted by his own hand or by another person. It was in the position suicidal wounds generally are. Police-constable 50 F said, on the 3d of August he was on duty in the hospital. The chaplain was reading prayers to Cogan, who put both his hands together and said, " I did not do it ! I did not do it ! She done it. I've nothing to forgive, she done it." Cogan the next day said "I was lying on the hearthrug, and I found her drawing a razor or knife across my throat. Me and missus had words before we got up stairs. As soon as I found her cutting my throat I ran down stairs into Holborn and met a policeman there. I showed him my throat and he asked me who done it. I drew my hand across, and said I did it myself." On the following Wednesday Cogan said " I wish you to tell me the truth—is my wife dead, and am I charged with killing her?" Cogan has repeatedly said "As true as there's a God in Heaven, I did not do it. She must have done it herself." Cogan has also said his wife had been charged with stabbing him. A juror asked if Cogan had been cautioned by the police man before he made any of the statements that whatever he might say would be used against him ? The constable said he had not. The Coroner said nothing could have been more straight forward than the conduct of Inspector Mackenzie. He had acted throughout the proceedings with the greatest judg ment and prudence, and with a spirit of fairness that did him the greatest credit. Mr. Lewis said his client was anxious to give his evi dence ; and having taken the oath, the coroner duly cau tioned him. He then said—My name is William Cogan. On the 2d August I was living at 2, Newton-street. The deceased was my wife, and I had beeen married to her 11 years. On the 2d of August I had been to my godfather's funeral, and returned home about five. In the evening I went out, and on my return home I found my wife ab sent. She was out drinking. I met her about 1 o'clock in the morning. I met her at the door, which she slammed in my face. I pushed it open, and went into the passage, when she struck me more than once. I walked to the top of the street for quietness, I have no recollection of taking any ale that evening. When I returned home, after a short absence, my wife was not there ; and as the bed was not down, I threw myself on the floor near the fire place. I went to sleep. I don't recollect anything, but I found my - self down at the door. I have no recollection of feeling anything in the room. She must have done something to wake me up. I found, when I got into the street, that I was bleeding, and got very weak. I went to the policeman, and made motions to him to take my wife into custody for cutting me. I was then taken to the hospital. I never inflicted the slightest injury on my wife. We generally lived comfortably, but we have lived separate, and I allowed her 10s. a week. She once stabbed me with a knife in the arm and other places. I gave her into custody, but I did not appear against her. She has on previous occasions cut my head by throwing things at me. When my wife was sober there could not have been a kinder woman. An entry from the police charge book was then handed in. It was as follows : Mary Ann Stokes Cogan, aged 28—Violently assaulting her husband by cutting him with some blunt instrument, Oct. 3, 1860. Discharged, no complainant. The Coroner having summed up, The jury retired, and after nearly an hour's deliberation returned a verdict of wilful murder against Cogan. THE MURDER IN DEAN FOREST. W e (Western, Daily Press) stated on Wednesday that the four men, Thomas and George Cooper, Richard Roberts, and Thomas Gwilliam, charged with the murder of Sergeant Beard in Dean Forest, had been committed for trial for murder, but that the magistrates, for some unaccountable motive, had refused our reporter, in, common with the other representatives of the press, admission to the inquiry. The depositions have since been supplied, and from these it ap pears that the following are the most important parts of the additional evidence adduced : William Gunter—l am a blacksmith, living at Carter's place, near Berryhill. On the 17th August I went to the Speech-house. The prisoners came in about 8 o'clock. Thomas Jarrett deposed—l am an irodrefiner at Sinder ford. On the 17th August I was at the Speech-house inn. Thomas Gwilliam came in. My tools lay on a table near us. I had a flat file among them, used for filing metal, and I said to Thomas Gwilliam, " This may be of use to you to make a chisel." He thanked me, and I gave it to him. William Guest repeated the evidence he gave before the coroner, and added, as a reason why he did not first see Beard at the spot where he afterwards found him, that there were trees, and especially a felled one, between him and the place where Beard was lying. He added—l found the brceien stick now produced within a yard or two of Beard. There were pools of blood in several places near Beard, and the stick was bloody, and lay in one of them. I saw his staff partly out of his pocket. Mr. Coleman, of the Speech•house, also repeated his evidence as previously published, and added —ln the course of the morning several persons visited the spot of the affray. About 1 o'clock in the day the thick piece of oak cordwood now produced was brought to me by a man whose name I had not known. On the 17th of August there were, and still are, many such pieces of oak cordwood of different sizes lying about the spot. Elizabeth Rooke, charwoman at the Speech-house, re peated her former evidence. Mr. Hatton, surgeon, described the injuries the deceased had received. He added—On Sunday, August 18, when I first saw Sergeant Beard, he complained much of his head, and exclaimed frequently that he sh . ould die. On the same evening I attended Mr. J. F. F. Brickdale, on his visiting Sergeant Beard. I informed Beard that he was in great danger, and have no doubt that he heard and perfectly understood me. His deposition was then taken by Mr. Brickdale. I read it over to Beard in a distinct and careful manner, and I have no doubt that he clearly and correctly understood the deposition. Superintendent Taylor—l saw Sergeant Beard about 9 o'clock on the morning of the 18th of August at the speech house. He said to me " This is a bad job, sir." He then closed his eyes. About 7in the evening I was present when Mr. Brickdale and Dr. Hatton attended. He made his mark to his deposition, before the magistrates in my pre sence. Ile said when the pen was put into his hand he was too ill to write. On Monday, the 19th of August, I informed Beard that four persons accused by his deposition were in custody, and that, I was directed by Mr. Brickdale to bring them for him to see. He said " Don't do so, it will be more than I can bear." I told him it would be important in the event of his death, on which he consented. The four pri• sorters were then taken up two by two. He looked at each of them, and after they were removed he made a statement to me, which I took down in writing, and is as follows : " Thomas Cooper, George Cooper, Richard Roberts, and Thomas Gwilliam, whom I have just seen, are the four men who assaulted and b ea t me l as t Saturday night. I watched them leave the Speech-house about 11 that night. They went along the road toward s th e F anc y pit. 1 afterwards saw three of them near a gate leading into a small field near the Speech-house. I went to them. 1 met George Cooper a short distance from the gate.• I asked him what they were doing there. He replied, it was no odds to me. I told him I should search him. He then struck me with a stick. I struck him on the head with my staff. One of them called for the fourth man, who came. They all fell upon me. Roberts struck me a heavy blow on the head with a stick. I fell down. They then kicked me about the head and face when I was down. I became insensible, and knew nothing after till I was at the Speech-house on Sunday." After the statement I said to Beard, " Do you think you will die ?" He said, " I am very ill, but I hope I shall live." On the apprehension of Thomas Gwilliam there were a few small spots of blood on the right.leg of the corduroy trousers then worn by him. Police-constable Webber, who was in attendance on the deceased at the Spoech-house, stated—On Monday, the 19th, hesseenaed to be much worse. I had helped him out of bed, and on his attempting to walk he put his hands to his head, and said, " I caa't stand this, T shall die." He had a dis charge of blood from the ear, and he seemed relieved. At another time the same day he to me, "If Guest had come when I called him I shou'd not have been served so bad. I don't think I shall live, and I hope those fellows will be hung." On Tuesday he sail to me, " I shall not live ; want to be by myself; leave the room." I left the room but stood at the door, and I then heard him pray. On the following day William Guest and I were in the room, when the same thing again took place. Police-constable Sollis deposed—l apprehended the pri soner George Cooper, and charged him with assaulting Police-sergeant Beard. He said, " I have done nothing. I was coming to Coleford, but some policemen get themselves into more bother than they would out of being so fast." Police-sergeant Richard Rod way—Thomas Cooper, one of the prisoners, was at the second fair at the Speech-houge, and I and Sergeants Beard and Brown were there with others. A sort of contest seemed threatened between East and West Dean, and Sergeants Beard and Brown remon strated with the people. Thomas Cooper was one of the parties foremost on the West Dean side, and I saw him with others debating with the two sergeants because some one had broken his head. I have no doubt Thomas Cooper know Sergeant Beard. Thomas Cooper now says, " I know Sergeant Beard very well." I have charge of the prison at Little Dean. On Monday, Aug. 26, George Cooper sent for me, and said, " I wish to make a statement, as to what has happened to Sergeant Beard." I told him that what ever he might say I must take down in writing, and take it before the magistrates. He then said, " I don't care about that; I will tell you particulars, and how it hap•- pened." He then said as follows :—" On Saturday night, Aug. 17, we went to the Speech-house Inn and had seven or eight pints of beer. W e had nets and dogs with us. I am not certain what time we left the Speeci.house. As soon as we had the nets teeled' we put the dogs over and ' tongued' a hare. Another man ran down the road before him, then directly upon this Beard came down. He stood opposite the turnpike road. Richard Roberts was at the upper gate, and I was at the lower. He passed Richard Roberts, and I went round the corner of the hedge. He had caught hold of Thomas Gwilliam, and I went and told him to loose. He did not say anything for a bit. He put his hand in his coat pocket and took hold of his stick and struck me on the arm ; then I cut him two or three times with the stick ; then after he hit me on the head and knocked me down ; he stunned me for a minute or two. When I got up he was down. Thomas Gwilliam and my brother were together ; Richard Roberts never touched him, and I don't think that Thomas Gwilliam did. I was behind the hedge." On Friday, the 27th of August, while in the air ing-yard, Thomas Gwilliara, asked me when poor Beard would be buried, I said, "To-morrow." He then said, "We did not intend to kill him. It is a very bad job. I never touched him myself." I then told him that what ever ho might say to me I must take down in writing, and lay it before the magistrates. He then made a statement, which the officer gave in evidence, and which was similar in effect to that made by the prisoner when before the coroner. POLICE LIb'LELLI9ENC.E, Eept. 10. GUILDHALL.—WHOLESALE DEALING IN FIC TITIOUS CHEQUES.—Christopher Marriott, a young man, of respectable appearance, residing at 30, Bouverie-street, Fleet-street, was placed at the bar on remand, charged with uttering a cheque for £6, well knowing the same to be a forgery. Alderman Humpnrey presided. Mr. Buchanan appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Hockley F. Wood for prisoner. It will be in the recollection of our readers, that on the 23d of August the prisoner went to Mr. Sut terby, the landlord of the Welsh Harp public-house, Essex-street, Bouverie-street, and asked him to cash a cheque for £6. It was drawn by Josiah Evans, in favour of C. B. Bennett, Esq., C.E., and endorsed by that individual. The cheque was on Sir B. Hayward, Bart., and Co., of Manchester, but when sent down to be cashed,it was returned with a note, stating that no such person had an account there, and they did not know any of the names. Upon that the prisoner was given into custody. The depositions previously taken having been read over by Mr. Martin, the chief clerk, Mr. Wood said—Mr. Hincks was present to watch the case on behalf of the family of the pri soner, but that he (Mr. Wood) was conducting the defence. Mr. Richard Taylor was then called, and said he was cashier to Hayward Brothers, bankers, at Man chester. The firm was not of the style named in the cheque. He had been for the last 25 years in the establishment, and for the last 10 or 14 years cashier. Within the last 25 years they had not had a cashier named Josiah Evans. He knew nothing of the sig nature to the cheque. He received the cheque from Mr. Sutterby by post, and returned it to him with a letter of explanation. He did not know any per son in Manchester by the name of Josiah Evans, a cotton spinner. By Mr. Wood—There was no other firm in Man chester carrying on the business of bankers by the name of Hayward Brothers and Co. He had beard of the name of Josiah Evans in connection with similar cheques that had been presented both before and since the one in question. He knew a family in Manchester of the name of Sleaden, but he never knew that Evans had any connection with them. They had no monetary transactions with the bank. Mr. Buchanan here stated that this evidence would close the case for the prosecution. Alderman Humphrey asked where Evans and Bennett were. Mr. Wood said Bennett was in court, and if Mr, Buchanan liked he could put him in the witness box. Mr. Buchanan said he had closed his case, and if Mr. Wood wished to call him for the defence he could, but he would certainly not call him for the prosecution. Considerable discussion ensued as to who should call this witness, when Mr. Hincks insisted that he should be called for the defence. Charles Bowler Bennett was then called and said,—l slept last night at 29, Park-place, Upper Park-road, Peckham. That house is in the occupa• tion of Mr. Emmerson. He is a friend of mine, and is a commission agent. I have been stopping there for a month with my family. Previous to that I had a place at 4, Hatcham New-terrace, Hatcharn New Town, Old Kent-road. It is now in my pos session, and I hold the key. I hare a trial on about it now. I have since agreed to take a place at 31, St. George's-road, Peckham. I am a civil engi neer and surveyor. The endorsement on the cheque produced, " C. B, Bennett," is mine. I know the cheque. I gave it to the prisoner on the 23d August. I received it from Mr. Josiah Evans, who was originally a partner in the firm of Sleaden and Co., of Manchester, cotton-spinners. They carried on business in Salford-road, but I never was there. I have known Mr. Evans since 1854. He lives at Oakenfells, Acton, in Middlesex. It is on the road to Arleston - bridge. I do not know whether it is his own house, or whether he only lodges there, but I believe it is his own house. I have been there myself, and seen Mr. Evans there. I saw Mr. Evans on the evening before Mr. Marriott was given into custody, and once since. On both occasions I saw him at the Pineapple, in Hungerford-market. I told him on the last occasion that Marriott had been given into custody, and he said he was ex tremely sorry, but he should be able to set all right. I gave Marriott the cheque, and I had the whole of the £6. I requested him to cash the cheque, and he did so, and handed me the money. He did not tell me at the time where he got the money. I gave him no portion of it. Mr. Evans did not have any of it. I have had other cheques of Evans's besides this, and got the money partly for them. They have been returned, but I have not been sued upon any of them. Mr. Evans is a re tired cotton spinner, aud, I believe, a man worth £37,000. I have mentioned to him that his cheques have been returned as having been drawn upon a bank with which he had no account, and he said it was a mistake, for he had no securities in the hands of the bankers, and he had been in the habit of drawing against those securities. I have been working on my own account since I have been oat of my articles, and have worked for Stephenson, Bidder, Brunell, and other eng.neers. The cheque in question was given to me in payment for work done in surveying a mine in Carnarvin. This (an account produced) is my account, and the cheques given to me by Evans are in part payment of that account. By Mr. Buchanan—Mr. Evans was never a part ner of mine, neither in Lombard-street nor in Bush lane. By Mr. Wood-14rom information I received I believed Mr. Evans would be at Kew-green, and I went there with you to try and serve this summons on him to secure his attendance here to-day. By Mr. Martin—l did not go as far as Oaken fells, because my information was that he would not be at home until he was in a position to settle this matter, and come into court and explain it. By Alderman Humphery—l do not know where the cheque was drawn ; it was given to me by Evans already drawn. Mr. Marriott was not with me when it was given to me. He was in Bouverie street when I gave it to him. When I gave him the cheque to get the £6 I knew that the four or five cheques I had received before from the same person had never been paid. I asked Evans when he gave me the cheque if it would be all right, and he said " Yes ; I have made everything all right with my bankers. and you need have no fear whatever." I saw Mr. . Evans on the 2d of Sept., and he told me the cheque was returned, and said there had been some difficulty about the securities, in consequence of the change in partnership. I have had four or five cheques on the same bankers by Evans, and they have all been dishonoured, but he said he would make it all right with them. The gip four or five cheques that have been dishonoured is £B5. They are out of my handsiunt otth e until the matters are seftl,3. I have borrowed money upon them from different people. The holders of the cheques are waiting for the money to be paid by Evans. Alderman Humphery said there was no doubt Evans was in existence, and that he drew these cheques knowing he had no funds to meet them, and that they were issued by Bennett, he knowing there were no funds, and they had either made a tool of Marriott, or it was a conspiracy an the part of the three of them to defraud parties of their Mr. White said he had a cheque for £3O, of a precisely similar kind. , A gentleman in court said he could produce several. Alderman Humphery said he should like to hear Mr. White's evidence. Mr. Edward White was then sworn, and said—l live at 6, Essex-street, Strand, and am articled clerk to an attorney. I had a cheque presented to me by Mr. Hockley Wood for £3O. It is dated the 27th of August. He said a client of his wanted to bor row £5 upon it--that his name was Bennett, and that he was a highly respectable man. It is a cheque drawn by Josiah Evans. I got a friend to lend rue £5, and handed it to Mr. Wood. He told me I had only to send the cheque to Manchester, and get the money by return. I asked him for references, and he gave me these two addresses (produced). Officer—They are both false. Mr. White—On Mr. Wood's representations I gave him the money. I sent the cheque down to. Manchester, and it was returned with a note saying they did not know such a person, and that no such. person banked there. Mr. Hincks said that he as solicitor to the family of Capt. Marriott had attended on behalf of that family to watch the case for the young man ; but that as Mr. ; Wood had attended the first two exa minations, and knew all about it, he' thought it better to leave it in his hands. After what had just taken place, however, he thought it right to stand forward and take the case into his own hands, and, with the permission of the Bench, he would. now represent the prisoner. Alderman Humphrey asked the prisoner if that were his desire, and he answered in the affirmative. The worthy magistrate then told Mr. Bennet that he should call upon him to give two substantial sureties in £lOO each, and himself in £2OO, to ap pear here on a future day. Mr. Hincks said he had no knowledge of any of the people present; but as a summons had been taken out at his instance against Evans, and it had. not had the effect of producing him, he asked that a warrant should be granted, and he would send one of his clerks to assist in the execution of it. Alderman Humphrey said he would certainly grant a warrant for the apprehension of Evans. Mr. Wood, before he withdrew from his client's case, wished to ask that his client should be ad mitted to bail. Mr. Hincks said either Mr. Wood must conduct the case or he would. He should not make such a request. Alderman Humphrey said he should admit the prisoner to bsil ; for he was quite sure, from what he saw of the case, that he would appear at the next examination. The case was then remanded, and Capt. Marriott was bailed out in two sureties of £lOO each, and himself in £2OO ; but Bennet, not being prepared with his sureties, had to descend to the cells below the court. THE CIVIL WAR IN AMERICA. (Front the Gazette of last evening.) EXTRACT OF A DESPATCH FROM LORD LYONS TO EARL RUSSELL, DATED WASHINGTON, AUG. 19, 1861. I have the honour to transmit to your lordship herewith a copy of a notice from the state Department which has appeared in the newspapers this morning. It declares that no person will be allowed to go abroad from a port in the United States without a passport from the State Depart ment, or a passport countersigned by the Secretary of State ; and that no person will be allowed to land in the United States without a passport from a Minister or Consul of the United States, or (if a foreigner) from his own Government, countersigned by a United States' Minister or Consul. This notice has been issued without any previous com munication on the part of the Secretary of State, either with me, or, so far as I know, with any of my colleagues, nor has it as yet been officially communicated to me. "To ALL WHOM IT MAY CONCERN. "Department of State, Washington, Aug. 19, 1861. " Until further notice, no person will be allowed to go abroad from a port of the United States without a pass port either from this department or countersigned by the Secretary of State; nor will any person be allowed to land in the United States without a passport fro m a Minister or . Consul of the United States, or, if a foreigner, from his own Government, countersigned by such Minister or Con sul. This regulation, however, is not to take effect in re gard to persons coming from abroad until a reasonable time shall have elapsed for it to become known in the country from which they may proceed." COUNTRY MARKETS. BRISTOL-SETT, 10. At our market to-day there was a good attendance of millers, but little business was done in wheat, at late cur rencies. Barley was in active request, at an advance of is per qr. Oats quiet. Other articles as before. LEEDS-SEPT. 10. We have moderate arrivals of grain. The business done to-day was limited in both old and new wheat, at last week's currencies, In other articles no change. MELTON MOWBRAY—SETT. 10.' There was a better show of wheat to-day, which sold firmly at an advance of is to 2s over the prices of last week. Barley a middling show, but maintaining late rates. For oats quotations were higher. Prices :—White wheat, 56s Od to 61s Od; red, 46s Od to 58s per 36 stone; beans firm, at 44s to 54s for old ; new sorts, 548 per 38 st. ; barley, 35s to 39s for malting, and 30s to 32s per qr. for grinding; oats, 24s to 30s Od per 24 stone. LYNN—SErr. 10. Our market thiS morning was fairly attended, and the wheat was in average supply. Several samples of new wheat of fine quality brought is to 2s per qr more money. Business steady. Oats a moderate show, and fully as high as last week. Beans in request, at high prices. Old white 58s to 62s I Ncw.. .......... 54s to 56s Barley. 32 s t o 38s Oats.. .......... .22s to 26s Beans .42s to 46s J Peas ............ 48s to 540 NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYNE—SEPT. 9. At this corn market there was an average show of wheat. Buyers operated freely, and prices were is to 2s over the rates of last week—white making 59s to 665, red 480 to 60s. The demand for barley was very firm, and un changed in value. Oats were in fair supply, with a steady sale, from 24s to 32s per 24 stone. Beans met with a firm sale, from 40s to 48s per qr. NORWICH CATTLE. The show of store cattle to-day consisted of a good supply of Scots, Devons, shorthorns, and Irish. A large attendance of buyers, and a brisk business done, at about last week's prices. Scots, 4s to 4s 6d ; shorthorns, 3s 6d to 4s 6d ; Irish, 30 Od to 3s 6d ; Devons, 3s 6d to 4s (estimated weight when fat). Fat beasts a small show and sales firm, at 8s Od to 8s 6d per 141 b. Sheep—There was a middling supply of sheep in the pew and a fair sale. Fat sheep, 8s Od to 8s Gd per stone; prime, Gs Od , with out a clearance. Pigs—A fair supply. Store pigs, 15s to 18s ; fat pork, 7s Gd to 8s Od per stone. (ADVERTISEMENT.]—HoIIoway's Ointment and Pills.— Physical Exhaustion.—At no time of the year are preven tives to disease more imperatively demanded thanat this season. The heat causes the decoreposition of animal and vegetable matter, whence exhalations arise, and mi x i n g with the atmosphere, enter the blood through the medium of the lungs. Holloway's ointment, well rubbed upon the chest twice a day, penetrate to those vital organs and th sbvyiad o snt r tet o aam u gi n g e, t h aos d‘ty which 181. e cv a hee n xwr s t ieesoreutnhltr thence hte r a re ei n nao d cems t h be eeemdtcaii maladies. de u i ilm l el a si t n.b i oaent The f dph r p o e rmege throughr a iae l l ta etmd ad vantage f y invalids suffering from irritability of the bowels or excessive weakness where the slightest aperient medicine cannot be safely administered. BIRTHS. FonsTEß.—On the 9th inst., at St. Margaret's, Twicken ham, the wife of J o h n T . Foster, R.N,, of a daughter: Hour.—On the 9th inst Es., at 30, W arwick-square, the wife of Vesey IV. Holt, q., of a d aug h ter. STANLEY.—On the sth inst., at Hendon, Middlesex, the wife of Rear-Admiral Stanley, of a son. MARRIAGES. lIIIIVETT—AWROTT.—On the 9th inst., at St. George's, Ramsgate, Captain Charles B ewett, of 23d Fusiliers, son of Captain Hewett, R.N., to Fanny Maria, daught er o f T. T. Abb ott, Esq., Nenagh, co. Tipperary. SEY3IOI;R—HosTE.—On the 4th inst., at St. Peter's, Pim lico, Captain George Henry Seymour, R.N., C 8., the second son of Admiral Sir George Seymour, G.C.8., to Sophi a M argaret, the eldest daughter of the late Derick HostQ, Esq., of Barwick House, Norfolk. DEATHS. B ENTHAM.—On the 9th inst., at Canterbury, Mrs. Ben tham, widow of the late Lieut.-General Bentham, Royal Artillery. Du VERNET.—On the Bth inst., at Brighton, William Du Vernet, Esq., late Captain 84th Regt., aged 36. COLLINS.—On the Bth inst., at Hampstead, Mr. Frederick William Collins, son of the late Mr. William Collins, aged 27. WlNsou.—On the 9th inst., at Beaulah Lodge, Thornton heath, Croydon, George Winsor, E sq., l ate of Bermond sey, aged 67. PARILY.—On tbz 2d inst., at Claughl on, Chas. Ellis Parry, Esq., aged 60. PitiLLlps.—On the Bth inst., at Weymouth, Edward W. Phillips, Esq., of Melksham, Wilts. SHAWE.—On the 7th inst., Laurence Robert Shawe, Esq., late sth Dragoon Guards. LONDON : Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG, at No. 112, Strand, Printer, at TUE Sur; Office, No. 112:Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the County of MiddleieSo Wednesday, September 11, 1861. E