The Sun. — London, England, 1861-03-07 00:00:00

TILE SOUTB'EBN CONFEDER2ITION. INAUGURATION OF MR. JEFFERSON DAVIS. 1 : MONTGOMERY, FEB.IB. The inaugural ceremonies to-day were the grandest pageant ever witnessed in the South. J There was an immense crowd on Capitol-hill, con sisting of a great array of the beauty, military, and citizens of the different States. Mr. DAVIS commenced precisely at 1 o'clock. He said—Gentlemen of the Congress of the Confede rate States of America, friends, and fellow-citizens, —Called to the difficult and responsible station of chief executive of the Provisional Government which you have instituted, I approach the dis charge of the duties assigned me with an humble distrust of my abilities, but with a sustaining con fidence in the wisdom of those who are to guide and aid me in the administration of public affairs, and an abiding faith in the virtue and patriotism of the people. Looking forward to the speedy estab lishment of a permanent Government to take the place of this, and which, by its greater moral and physical power, will be better able to combat with the many difficulties which arise from the conflict ing interests of separate nations, I enter upon the duties of the office to which I have been chosen with the hope that the beginning of our career as a confederacy may not be obstructed by hostile oppo sition to our enjoyment of the separate existence and independence which we have asserted, and which, with the blessing of Providence, we intend to maintain. Our present condition, achieved in a manner unprecedented in the history of nations, illustrates the American idea that Governments rest upon the consent of the governed, and that it is the right of the people to alter and abolish Governments whenever they become destructive to the ends for which they were established. The declared compact of the Union from which we have withdrawn was to establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the gene ral welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, and when, in the judg ment of the sovereign States now composing this Confederacy, it has been perverted from the pur poses for which it was ordained, and ceased to answer the ends for which it was established, a peaceful appeal to the ballot box declared that so far as they were concerned the Government created by that compact should cease to exist. In this they merely asserted the right the Declaration of Inde pendence of 17'76 defined to be inalienable. Of the time and occasion of its exercise they as sovereigns were the final judges, each for itself. The impartial enlightened verdict of mankind will vindicate the rectitude of our conduct, and He who knows the hearts of men will judge of the sincerity with which we laboured to preserve the Government of our fathers in its spirit. The right solemnly pro claimed at the birth of the States, and which has been affirmed and re-affirmed in the Bills of Rights of the States subsequently admitted into the Union of 1189, undeniably recognises in the people the power to resume the authority delegated for the pur poses of government. Thus the sovereign States here represented proceeded to form this confederacy, and it is by the abuse of language that their act has been denominated revolution. They formed a new alliance, but within each State its government has remained; the rights of person and property have not been disturbed. The agent through whom they communicated with foreign nations is changed, but this does not necessarily interrupt their interna tional relations. Sustained by the consciousness that the transition from the former Union to pre sent confederacy has not proceeded from a disregard on our part, of our just obligations, or any failure to perform every constitutional duty; moved by no interest or passion to invade the rights of others ; anxious to cultivate peace and commerce with all nations ; if we may not hope to avoid war, we may, et least, expect that posterity will acquit us of hav ing needlessly engaged in it. Doubly justified by the absence of wrong on our part, and by wanton aggression on the part of others, there can be no cause to dcubt that the courage and patriotism of the people of the Confederate States will be found equal to anv measures of defence, which soon their security may require. An agricultural people, whose chief interest is the export of a commodity required in every manufacturing country, our true policy is peace and the freest trade which our necessities will permit. It is alike our interest and that of all those to whom we would sell and from whom we would buy, that there should be the fewest practicable re strictions upon the interchange of commodities. There can be but little rivalry between our and any manufacturing or navigation community such as the north-eastern States of the American Union. It must follow, therefore, that mutual interest would invite good will and kind offices. If, however, passion or lust of dominion should cloud the judg ment or inflame the ambition of those States, we must prepare to meet the emergency, and maintain, by the final arbitrament of the sword, the position which we have assumed among the nations of the earth. We have entered upon a career of independence, which must be inflexibly pursued through many years of controversy with our late associates of the Northern States. We have vainly endeavoured to secure tranquillity and ob tain respect for the rights to which we were en titled. As a necessity, not a choice, we have re sorted to the remedy of separation, and henceforth our energies must be directed to the conduct of our own affairs and the perpetuity of the confederacy which we have formed. If a just perception of mutual interests shall permit us peaceably to pur sue our separate political career, my most earnest desire will have been fulfilled. But if this be denied us, and the integrity of our territory and jurisdiction be assailed, it will but remain for us, with firm resolve, to appeal to arms, and invoke the blessing of Providence on a just cause. As a consequence of our new condition, and with a view to meet anticipated wants, it will be necessary to provide a speedy and efficient organisation of the branches of the Executive Department having special charge of foreign intercourse, finance, mili tary affairs, and postal service. For purposes of defence the Confederate States may, under ordinary circumstances, rely mainly on their militia, but it is deemed advisable, in the present condition of affairs, that there should be a well-instructed, dis ciplined army, more numerous than would usually be required on a peace establishment. I also sug gest that, for the protection of our harbours and commerce on the high seas, a navy adapted to these objects will be required. These necessities have doubtless engaged the attention of Congress. With a constitution differing only from that of our fathers in so far as it is explanatory of their well known intent, freed from sectional conflicts, which have interfered with the pursuit of the general welfare, it is not unusual to expect that the States from which we have recently parted may seek to unite their fortunes with ours under the Govern ment we have instituted. Fur this your constitu tion makes adequate provision ; but beyond this, if I mistake not, the judgment and will of the people are that union with the States from which they have separated is neither practicable nor desirable. To increase the power, develope the waources, and promote the happiness of a con fedes a' it is requisite there should be so much of horn n • generty that the welfare of every portion would be the aim of the whole. Where this does not exist antagonisms are eng endered which must and should r esult in separation. Actuated solely by a desire to preserve our own rights and to promote our own welfare, the separation of the Confederate States has been marked by no aggression upon others, and followed by no domestic convulsion. I • Our industrial pursuits have received no check, the cultivation of our fields pro g r esses as heretofore, and even should we be involve d in war there would be no considerable diminution in the production of the staples which have constituted our exports, in whieb the commercial world has an interest scarcely less than our own. This common interest of pro ducer and consumer can only be intercepted by an exterior force which should obstruct its transmis sion to foreign markets—a course of conduct which would be d e t r imental to manufacturing and ems maercial interests abroad. Should reason guid e th e ,Netion of the Government from which we have siftrated, a policy so detrimental to the eivilisec;. w o ri, 1 . the Northern States included, could not 134 cl--irc Efiet injur:, dictate,' Iv even a st"P3er i upon us ; but, if t be otherwise, a terrible respon sibility will rest upon it, and the sufferings of mil lions will bear testimony to the policy and wicked_ ness of our aggressors. In the meantime there will remain to us, besides the ordinary rem. dies before suggested, the well known resources i't r retaliation upon the commerce of an enemy. F xperienee in public stations of a subordinate grade to this which your kindness has conferred has taught me that care and toil and disappointments are the price of official elevation. You will see many errors to for give—many deficiencies to tolerate ; but you shall not find in me either want of zeal or fidelity to the cause that is to me the highest in hope and of most enduring affection. Your generosity has bestowed upon me an undeserved distinction—one which I neither sought nor desired. Upon the continuance of that sentiment and on your wisdom and patriotism I rely to support me in the performance of the duty required at my hands. We have changed the con stituent parts, but not the system of our Govern ment. The constitution formed by our fathers is that of these confederate States in their exposition of it, and in the judicial construction it has received we have a light which reveals its true meaning. 1 Thus instructed as to the just interpretation of that instrument, and ever remembering that all offices are but trusts held for the people, and that delegated powers are to be strictly construed, I will hope, by due diligence in the performance of my duties, though I may disappoint your expectations, yet to retain, when :retiring, something of the good will and confidence which will welcome my entrance into office. It is joyous in the midst of perilous times to look around upon a people united in heart, where one purpose of high resolve animates and actuates the whole ; where the sacrifices to be made are not weighed in the balance against honour, right, liberty, and equality. Obstacles may retard, but they cannot long prevent, the progress of a movement sanctioned by its justice, and sustained by a virtuous people. Reverently let us invoke the God of our fathers to guide, and provide, and pro tect us in our efforts to perpetuate the principles which, by His blessing, they were able to vindicate, establish, and transmit to their posterity, and, with a continuance of his favour, ever gratefully ac knowledged, we may hopefully look forward to success, to peace, to posterity. THE ESSAYS AND _REVIEWS. (From the Dispatch) We scarcely expected, when we called attention to the five authors who hare so heroically leaped into the yawning chasm of orthodoxy, that the public would have responded with such eager alacrity. The fifth large edition of the arch-victim of the Index Expurgatorius of Anglican Protes tantism is already sold out—Dr. M'Caul's cheeping penny trumpet has been a book-selling success— and the Quarterly Review is running through its third edition. We seem to be on the threshold of our second Reformation. Every bishop in Eng land, High Church, Low Church, Broad-bottomed Church, has signed a requisition to the Archbishop of Canterbury to put the Essayists on their trial. From Heretic Hampden and Orthodox Oxford to the saints and the Tractarians, the whole pack turns out to worry the common sacrifice to offended sacerdotalism. Every diocese has its sub-remon strance; every deanery musters its petition. Dis tricts "get up" their protest; and, shortly, every parish will launch the thunderbolt of its anathema. The cry of the mob is," Why need we hear more Away with him !" 'Well, that is the free-and-easy short cut to the solution of spiritual difficulties—the " real old ori ginal" recipe of the Church as by law established for secuying uniformity. The time-honoured toast of roaring and ranting Tories was "The land we live in ; let those who don't like it leave it." So long as the majority was not openly arrayed against them, and they could persuade themselves and society that they were too powerful to be sue• cessfully withstood, their bluster and dictation answered its purpose, and overawed the voice of liberty. But men began to murmur, "'We don't like the land we live in, and we won't leave it. It is as much our land as yours. It is oppressed. and 'misgoverned ; we shall expose the rotten ness of your pretensions, and the dishonesty of your professions ; the truth shall be told, and the people shall have their own." The political logic of the Tories, which has so egregiously failed, is exactly imitated by the theological casuistry of the clergy. If thoughtful, earnest and free-souled men ,Hake wry faces at the Articles, and cannot swallow the creeds, and are squeamish about the services— if they don't, in short, like the Church, let them leave it and resign their offices. The answer cf the schismatic is equally to the point. 'When " the world is out of joint," ought men to commit suicide or to "set it right ?" I discover abuses, errors, untenable absurdities in my Church, what is mv duty ? To reform the evil or to abandon the Church? If by reason of these very defects the ranks of Dis sent are daily recruited, and the army of the Devil made stronger than the Church militant, is the best way to save the Establishment to abandon it to its fate, or to redress its defects, purge it of its foul blots, cut the cankers out of it, and conform its spirit to the spirit of the age The reply of the Archbishop to the requisition of the right reverend bench is exactly in the style of the " good old times when George the Third was King." "Whether the language in which these views are expressed is such a 3 to make their publi cation an act which could be visited in the Eccle siastical Courts, or to justify the synodical con demnation of the book which contains them, is still under oxr gravest consideration." " But our main hope is our reliance on the blessing of God." He will " take the law" of them if his attorney advises that an action would lie; if not, he will trust to Providence—that venerable refuge for the clerical destitute. "We cannot understand," he groans, " how their opinions can be held consistently with an honest subscription to the formularies of our Church." Don't talk about the abstract dictates of justice, and such romantic stuff. The point has been settled ; see here are a dozen precedents, there is the leading case. The law is my justice. I won't argue with you ; here are the term reports, and there is Doctor Fust's opinion that you have not a leg to stand on. Free discussion ! Why you might as well ask Lord Palmerston to go back to the fundamental principles of the social compact. The interests of truth ! 'Why not tell me at once, " Sell all thou hast and give to the poor," or to go back to the pre-fig-leaf period, or discuss the eter nal fitness of things, the origin of society, or the doctrine of a community of goods. We must draw the line somewhere. The law says at the Articles. As to going back to what are called " first princi ples," that would be "extremely inconvenient." We shall stick by the law as the fathers of the Church did before us. These are the standards— if you can bolt them whole it will be the better for you—if not, you are to us as " an heathen man and publican," and the short cut to the close of the controversy is to pronounce the "anathema niara• nailut." That is the parson's way of doing business, and so long as the priests alone were the Church the expedient might serve the purpose. But we live, not in the fourteenth but in the nineteenth cen tury, and the second half of it too.' We have found out that " the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath "—the fold :is for the sheep, not for the shepherd—the Church is the property of the State—the patrimony of the people, and of all the people. if the great majority dissent from it, that is a reason, not for excluding non-conformity from the Church, but of widening the Church, so as to include non-conformity. Will the commu nity " grossly gape on " and see the champions of their spiritual liberty not openly confronted in the lists of fair argument, but stabbed in the back by an action on the case ? Is an attorney to fix the faith of man's immortal soul, and the " glorious Gospel of the blessed God" to be tumbled into a proctor's brief bag : or to rot in the charnel-house of tradition ? Is religion to be fashioned for the dead or the living ? Is it, to be made for us or by us ? Is it the individual concern of each one of us now and here, or is it a spiritual entail that we are to inherit with the dirty acres of our ancestors? It is three hundred years Eince one of the greatest scoundrels that ever set conscience at defiance settled of his own motion " the formu larks of our Church." That fact alone is decisive of the question of their pretensions. Are we not so much as to be allowed to look into them ? Is this, the vital concern of the immortal spirit of a great people, to be determined by class interests—tbe same authority on which we found the powers of secular legislation ? Our case is that, out of thirty millions of British subjects, only five millions even nominally give so mu3h as a mere negative assent to these formularies. Because there is a bench of Bishops—because a House of Lords would still re fuse to repeal the statutes requiring subscription, and the laws which fix these formularies—are twenty-five millions of accountable creatures to yield acquiescence as to an income-tax or a prohi bitory duty on the importation of brandy ? This is a question in which " De Lolme on the Constitu f science, e n: o o n r fi t t i n ° n: will help us but a little way. Queen, Lords, s e a ,E r t e er °mt.; noi; determining account in settling men's religious belief th an i n xinir the principles Tracinw, their is the canons of art. history, it probable that thew formularies are perfect ?—is it possible that they' should be free of grave and even cardinal errors ? Does anybody, in point of fact, accept them sim pliciter ? Have not the very Bishops who have signed this Address, and the Archbishop who has answered it, openly and even officially preached exceptions to them—charged their clergy so as to challenge them by implication—nay, owned in their places in Parliament that the 4,000 par sons, the lay Churchmen, the Peers who had all demanded their revision, were justified in the criti cisms they made on them, and that they were to be retained, not because they were true, but because change was impolitic ? If Churchmen claim infal libility for their formularies, we have no more to say, except that Protestantism is a gross swindle, and that the Pope and the Catholics should have their own again. To insist upon squaring the pre dication of our living teachers with the effete for mularies of a long superannuated Act of Parliament or the dicta of 300 dead Popes, can only be so much as excused upon the hardy assumption that they are infallible, and that " The Bible" is not " the sole religion of Protestants." Why, even the Vatican, Popery itself, does not pretend to such an " imma culate conception" of "absolute wisdom." Papists themselves, the slaves of authority, have, at least, taken care that their infallibility shall always be capable of changing with the spirit of the age, and shall centre, not in dead dogmas, but in the soul of a living man. They even enunciate thenew doctrine of development—argue that religion is a subject of human progress—is to be gradually unfolded, re. vealed bit by bit, modified and expanded as intel ligence, civilisation, and spiritual attainment per mit or prompt. We are utterly amazed at the judicial blindness which prefers such pretensions as are at present arrogated by orthodox Churchmen. Let them twist and turn, and quirk and quibble as they will, what does their casuistry come to at last but that their doctrines are to be assumed, not exa mined—that their articles are to be implicitly tic• cepted, not freely argued—that their canons and services are not to be so much as questioned, or one tittle of them subjected to discussion. If they are liable to error, if they are confessedly htkman, and, therefore, imperfect, it must be the interest and right of every succeeding generation to vindicate to themselves the same liberty of private judgment which must have bees asserted by those who differed from Rome and made the new theological dispensation—to debate and argue every point, and to form and express each his own opinion, as those did who, in a more bigoted and ignorant age, tainted with the prejudices of an early Popish education, and oscillating for many years between new priest and old presbyter, pre sumed to dictate to all posterity what they were to affirm and deny. Is it to be tolerated for a moment that the mere ipse dixit of the half-faced Vicars of Bray of the sixteenth century is to be crammed down the throats of the generation whose very ploughmen know more than did their ancestors' priests ? It is high time that Protestants should protest— that the Reformation should be reformed. It has in reality gone back. Luther was far freer-souled, far less trammelled, much further removed from Popery than our Archbishop of Canterbury. He " saw this day afar off, and was glad." The age is ripe for a second Reformation. We cannot afford to deprecate recourse to the Ecclesiastical Courts or to synodical action. It was better for liberty that Hampden was prosecuted for ship-money than that he should have been " excused his rates." We avow the wish and hope that the Church will bring this controversy to an issue by a formal prosecution for heresy, and the reinstitution of an Index .Expurga torius. " Let us have it out." A ring ! A ring ! Let the laity, the people of England, really see the combatants stripped to the naked truth. This bat tle is emphatically their concern. Snug rectors, snug deans, oily bishops, would fain huddle it through their Ecclesiastical Courts snuffled up in technical subterfuge, and smothered in formal pleas. This nation must no longer suffer the concerns of man's higher life to be made the sport of proctorial attorneyship. It demands free inquiry and open discussion. It insists upon going to the root of the whole matter. It will not be fobbed off and bamboozled with the old clerical dodge of an appeal to the formularies. The very question at issue is whether these canons are wrong. The world has long survived enslavement to pie tensions to infallibility. Even Italy casts off her fetters. Germany revolts from tradition, the very Reformation she consummated. Is England alone, the champion of civil liberty, to remain the thrall of sacerdotal dictation ? The issue is not whether the Essayists and Reviewers conform to the formu laries, but whether they teach what is true ; and upon the result of that inquest must the verdict turn. Not the whole bench of Bishops, not the Peers and their Privy Council, nor the Record with the Evangelical Alliance at its back —no, not Queen, Lords and Commons, can any longer c. warf this controversy to a subterfuge of the rubric. There are thirty millions of souls in this realm each with its immortal longings. In this the meanest has a voice potential as the greatest. They will know the rights of it. They will have the truth, and the " truth shall make them free." Let the people gird up their loins for the coming struggle. We tell them now that they have the glorious opportunity of exchanging the dogmas of a sect for the enlight ened and unfettered religion of a nation—the drones of moral hexagons hived in the holes of creeds for open-souled seminal thinkers of their age, who dare not abdicate the high prerogative of their minds to think what is true and to speak what they think those prophets whom every era gives to mankind, and whose era is blessed in the proportion in which they are heard and accepted. If they come to their own, and their own know them not, then is the time not worthy of them, and will sink in the slough of the Devil, the world, and the flesh, as the sow to her wallowing in the mire. (From the Examiner.) The Bishops do not appear to advantage gregari ously. As a correspondent of the Times points out, upon three occasions within a few years the Bishops have collectively dealt in protests, denunciations, and censures, which have been utterly ineffectual except in the consequence of some discredit to themselves. The whole Bench, twenty-six of these Prelates, now come forward with the Archbishop of Canterbury at their head to pass judgment upon the Oxford _Essays and Reviews. . : . . . Quisnam Delator ? Quibus indiciis ? Quo teste probav it ? Nil horurn. Verbosa et grandis epistola venit. The Bishops can dispense with charge, evidence, proof. Nay, they can condemn without specifying offence, as appears from this reply of the Primate to a clergyman who had conveyed some address to him : Lambeth, Feb. 12. Rev. Sir,—l have taken the opportunity of meeting many of my episcopal brethren in London, to lay your address before them. They unanimously agree with me in expressing the pain it has given them that any clergyman of our Church should have published such opinions as those concerning which you have addressed us. _ We cannot understand how these opinions can he held consistently with an 'honest subscription to the formu laries of our Church, with many of the fundamental doc tilnes of which they appear to us essentially at variance. Whether the language in which these views are expressed is such as to make their publication an act which could be visited in the ecclesiastical courts, or to justify the synodi cal condemnation of the book which contains them is still under our gravest consideration. But our main hope is our reliance on the blessing of God in the continued and increas ing earnestness with which we trust that we and the clergy of our several dioceses may be enabled to teach and preach that good deposit of sound doctrine which our Church has received in its fullness, and which we pray that she may, through God's grace, ever set forth as the uncorrupted Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, I remain, Rev. Sir, your faithful servant, Rev. IV. Fremantle. J. B. CANTUAR. I am authorised to append the following names J. Ebor, A. C. London, H. M. Dunelm, C. R. Winton, H. Exeter, C. Peterborough, C. St. David's, A. T. Chichester, J. Lichfield, S. Oxon, T. Ely, T. V. St. Asaph, J. I'. Man chester, R. D. Hereford, J. Chester, ,A. Llandaff, R. J. Bath and aVells, J. Lincoln, C. Gloucester and Bristol, W. Sarum, R. Ripon, J. T. Norwich, J. C. Bangor, J. Roches ter, S. Carlisle. What the opinions are, and why they are cen sured, the prelates do not vouchsafe to state. They think it enough to assert that "such opinions" have given them pain, and that they cannot be held con sistently with an honest subscription to the formu laries of the Church. But what formularies are contravened, and how contravened, these extraor dinary judges do not state. They know that they do not like the opinions as the epigrammatist knew that he did not like Dr. Fell, but they cannot tell the reason why. The Holy men are not sure whether the language in which the views they con demn are expressed is such as to make them punish able in the ecclesiastical courts—that is to say, they are at least not certain that there is any offence committed, but that is no reason with them for not passing to judgment. They confess, indeed, with their brother of Durham, that they may be unable to make out any case against the seven, but that does not prevent their coming to a conclusion of guilt. Seven reputations are thus forthsith de stroyed, so far as it is in the power of the twenty six Bishops to defame by pastoral authority. Surely there must at least be different degrees of offence amongst these writers, and all cannot have given the same pain to the orthodox hearts, nor deserved the one sweeping censure in which we see them confounded. Amongst the Bishops we observe the name of Hereford, who has had some practical personal experience of the fallibility of episcopal judgments. His promotion was the subject of protest, as the Oford "Essays and Reviews" now are of denun tchiaetlicosns,;anbduth h a s e ntooowk his hi turn n ce o o f n eo t n li d e e ß m e n n i n ch g , hneerveesry without proof. We: arc no champions of the " Essays and Re- W.... , THE SUN, LONDON,. THURSDAY EVENING, MARCH 7, 1861. views, no apologists for any errors or indiscretion which may fairly be imputable to them, but we have all an interest in justice, and in making a stand against the ruin of reputations upon grounds not only unproved but absolutely unstated. The correspondent of the Times to whom we have before referred justly remarks of the denunciation : It intimates that the gravest doubt exists as to the possi bility of visiting the publication of those opinions in the ecclesiastical courts ; and yet, notwithstanding this doubt, it ventures, without a trial, to pronounce a condemnation which nothing but the clearest legal proof could justify. It gives no indication of the opinions of any one of the sub scribing Bishops on any one of the points at issue, although it is perfectly well known that on these points many of the Bishops are widely at variance with each other, and that some of them have published opinions coincident with those contained in the book which is condemned. In South America there is known amongst the cattle what is called a stampado. They are un accountably seized with a sudden fury, and rush blindly to an attack in which their own violence is often fatal to them. What we now see is the stampado of the Episcopal Bench. A whole herd of Bishops make a rush against seven gentlemen, some of them distinguished members of the Church, others of the Universities. To trample them under foot or gore them with the butted mitre is the object of the onslaught, and it is one against which common justice and humanity should enlist the public. Men are not to be ruined in fame and fortune upon a vague charge of heresy not only without a specification of offence, but accompanied with a confession that the case cannot be brought within the category of cognisable offence. What would be thought of a charge of murder against any one without the corpus delicti, without naming the slain, or a tittle of evidence to show that any one had been killed ? What defence could there be against such a charge at once so in definite and so malignant, which would be in the eye of the law nothing better than a gross libel ? A Holy Inquisition will certainly not be tolerated in the Church of this Protestant country, and Bishops must be taught that they have no right to charge what they cannot prove, and that their duty is to confute errors which do not amount to offences and not to seek the social and professional ruin of the authors whom they admit they cannot hope to punish legally. Let them, as they propose, apply themselves with new zeal to the inculcation of the truths of religion, but surely they could have set about this blessed work without raising the cry of infidelity against some of their brethren in the Church more eminent in scholarship though less exalted in position than themselves. To condemn first and try afterwards is the abomination of injustice, but our Holy men will not proceed to trial even after condemnation. The Bench sends forth its fulmination with a hoc volo sic jubeo, and there an end. There is palpable injustice in this, but more will be suspected. It will be thought that our Bishops are not strong enough to do battle with the errors they arbitrarily censure, to some of which, as the correspondent of the Times observes, certain Prelates are indeed believed to have a leaning. Croker in the comedy says he is always ready to listen to reason when he has made up his mind, because then it can do no harm. And the public seeing the resolution of the bishops not to hear the cause they proceed to prejudge, will have its suspicions that some of their body are not in the comfortable state of Croker with his mind made up. In our notice of the Bishop of Durham's letter on this subject we quoted kis exhortation to redoubled exertion to improve the efficiency of the Church. An instance of the Holy man's sincerity has since appeared. The rectory of Haughton-le-Skeine was vacant. Its income is £1,300 a year for the cure of 1,000 souls, and in the immediate neighbourhood are three parishes of St. Cuthbert's, Holy Trinity, and St. John's, Darlington, with an aggregate population of 15,000, the emoluments of the three incumbencies being respectively £225, £2OO, and £175. The churchwardens of these insufficiently served districts memorialised the bishop to allot some part of the excessive income of Haughton to the spiritual aid of the parishes with large popu lations and scanty ministration. The bishop's an swer is, that he has given the living to a gentleman whose talents, piety, and patient activity will con vinse the parishioners that their interests have been attended to. But the interest of the thousand parishioners would have been equally attended to by a rector with the qualifications recited if his emoluments had been fixed at half £1,300 a year, and the re mainder of that sum appropriated to the wants of the 15,000 who are so inadequately supplied with pastoral care. The favoured gentleman, however, was the bishop's chaplain, some say his siziwin-law, and what were the claims of 15,000 people weighed against personal favour or connection ? And this is the Bishop of Durham's method of exemplifying the redoubled exertions he counsels to propagate the Gospel of Christ, and thus counteract the false teaching of the Oxford heretics. It may be interesting to some of our readers to know the names and positions of these much-reviled writers of the " Essays and Reviews." They are the Rev. Dr. Temple, Chaplain to the Queen, and Master of Rugby ; the Rev. Dr. Williams, Vice- Principal, and Professor of Hebrew, St. David's College, Lanapeter ; Baden Powell, Savilian Pro fessor of Geometry in the University of Oxford; the Rev. H. B. Wilson, Vicar of Great Staughton, Hants; C. W. Godwin, DMA.; the Rev. Mark Pattison ; and B. Jowett, Regius Professor of Greek in the University of Oxford. Of these seven Mr. Baden Powell has died since the publication of the " Essays and Reviews," and Mr. Pattison has been promoted to the Rectorship of Lincoln. As all the writers have been included in one sweeping censure dealt out as equally applicable to each, it may be as well to mention that in a notice to the reader it is distinctly stated that the authors are responsible for their respective articles only. LA w INTELLIGENCE, March 6. EQUITY COURTS. (Before Vice-Chancellor Sir J. Stuart.) THE EMPEROR OF AUSTRIA V. DAY. It will be remembered that a few days since an injunction was granted by Vice-Chancellor Stuart restraining Messrs. Day from lithographing or printing from plates, documents purporting to be bank notes of the National Bank of Hungary, and also restraining them from delivering a ny of suc h notes to Louis Kossuth, who was one of the defen dants to the suit. Mr. Wickens, on behalf of the defendants Messrs. Day, and Mr. C. T. Simpson for Louis Kossuth, now applied for'leave to serve short notice of mo tion for an order for the plaintiff, the Emperor of Austria, to find security for costs in the suit. It ap• peared that the defendants' solicitors had applied to the plaintiff's solicitor for security for costs, but there had not been sufficient time for them to re ceive an answer to the application. The Vice-Chancellor gave the defendants leave to serve short notice of motion for Friday next. (Before Vice-Chancellor Sir W. P. Wood.) THE LORD MAYOR, &C., OF LONDON, AS GOVERNORS OF ST. THOMAS HOSPITAL, Y. THE CHARING CROSS RAILWAY COMPANY. The Attorney-General moved this morning in this suit to restrain the defendants, the railway company, from taking proceedings for the summon ing of a jury to assess the value of a piece of land and premises forming a portion of St. Thomas's Hospital, adjacent to the railway terminus at Lon don-bridge. The object of this motion was to pre vent the carrying out of the Charing-cross Rail way scheme so far as it interfered with the hos pital and so far as its promoters proposed to take a portion of the land or property thereof, unless the company should take the entire hospital. It appeared that the company had given the com mon notice requiring the hospital to treat for the sale of a portion of land and premises situate at the corner of the hospital property. Upon this the hospital governors gave a counter-notice requiring the court to take the whole of the pro perty. The plaintiffs' case was based upon the well-known class of cases resting upon the section requiring a railway company taking part of a house or premises to take the whole, if the owners were desirous that such be done. The governors had opposed the company's bill before the committee of the House of Commons, and in consequence of that opposition clauses had been inserted in the bill binding the company's trains to pass the hospital at a rate of not more than his miles an hour, and also binding them not to use the whistle within certain fixed limits. The value of the entire 'hos pital was put by the plaintiffs at £750,000. Mr. Rolt, Mr. Gifford, Mr. Baggallay, and Mr. Macnaughten were with the Attorney-General. Sir H. Cairns and Mr. Osborne on the other side contended that the governors of St. Thomas's Hos pital were not able, even if willing, to convey to the company. The contention on the other side that they were able to convey was illusory, because the Charity Commissioners, upon whose consent they relied, had not any authority to give an as sent to the sale. The Vice Chancellor said that the first point to which he would advert was the question whether the land and building with which the company now proposed to interfere formed a portion of the hospital within the meaning of the cases relied on by the plaintiffs. It appeared that a wing, not built at the time when the hospital received its charter, would be affected by the proposed railway. This wing was connected by a wall with the rest of the building ; taking the whole as an hospital it formed an integral part of the establishment ; pa tients were liable to be moved there if convenient from the other portion of the building. It seemed to flow from this that the wing must form a por Lion of the blildino viewed as a hospital, and must • therefore bring the case within those decisions binding a company taking a part to take the whole of any " house, &c.," required by them. Then came the question whether the charity was able to sell. With regard to this it certainly was a ques tion as yet, so far as his Honour believed, unde termined, whether a charity, upon a clear case of necessity shown, could part with its land. In a case in which he bad been counsel on an applica tion for a private bill it was held by Lord Cram worth that no private bill was necessary to enable a charity to dispose of its land, but on reference to Lord Cottenham, who was then Lord Chancellor, that learned lord thought the matter so far doubt ful that the bill had best be allowed to pass. Cer tainly the point was too doubtful a case to be de cided on an interlocutory application like the present. But he thought that upon the true con struction of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, it did not arise, and that the governors of the hos pital were in a sufficient position to require the purchase of the entire hospital by the plaintiffs. The remaining argument was this, that a grant of this injunction would in fact amount to the stoppage of the entire scheme of the railway, and therefore to a virtual repeal of the act of Parliament incor porating the company. But such did not appear to his Honour necessarily to be the result of the success of this motion ; for the company might sell the land not required by them, and thus avoid the difficulty in which they considered they etood by reason of the great price asked by the governors of the hospital. Upon the whole, therefore, he was of opinion that the plaintiffs were entitled to the injunction which they sought. ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE. MIDLAND CIRCUIT.—LEICESTER, March 6. CROWN COURT. (Before Mr. Justice Crompton.) Elizabeth Goddard, aged 45, described as a mid wife, was charged with the wilful murder of Sarah Kellam. The deceased, a woman of about 40, who had been married for about 20 years, and had been the mother of nine children, was, at the time of her death, cohabiting with a man named Harrison. The hus band and two grown up daughters of the deceased, who were examined as witnesses for the prosecu tion, were apparently persons of respectability, and the man Harrison, who was also examined as a witness, seemed to occupy a very respectable position. In the year 1859 the deceased, accompanied by her daughters Sophia and Mary, had visited the prisoner. The object of the visit was that the deceased might have "her fortune told" by the prisoner. During the interview the prisoner told the deceased that if ever she was in trouble she (the prisoner) would get her out of it. There was no evidence of any further communica tion between the deceased and the prisoner until Dec. 26 last, on which day the deceased and her daughter Sophia (a young woman of about 18 years of age) went to the prisoner's house in Wharf-street. The deceased then, in the presence of her daughter, told the prisoner that she (deceased) was in the family way. "Never mind," was the prisoner's reply, "I'll make it all right ;" and, on being asked by the deceased whether there was anything to take, the prisoner replied "Nothing," adding that the charge would be £l, and that she had had £5 from many people. After being cautioned by the prisoner against mentioning the matter, the deceased and her daughter left. About 7 o'clock on the evening of the Friday after Christmas-day Sophia Kellam, her mother (the deceased) and Harrison went out to gether, and, parting with Sophia, the two latter went in the direction of the prisoner's house. On the next day (Saturday) Harrison and the deceased were out together from about 7 to 8 in the evening, and the deceased was again traced to the direction of the prisoner's house. On her return home the deceased seemed ill, and when in bed was attacked with a fit of shivering. On the next day (Sunday) she took to her bed, which she never afterwards quitted. The symptoms becoming more alarming, medical assistance was sought ; and on Thursday, Jan. 3, Mr. Crossley, the surgeon who was sent for to the deceased woman in Fullmoon-yard, where she was living with Harrison, found .her suffering from peritonitis. On the morning of Friday, January 4, Mr. Crossley found her worse, and told her first that she would not, and afterwards that she could not, get better. On Saturday, January 5, at about 11 a.m., Mr. Crossley found her much worse. She asked him whether he could alter the unfavourable opinion which he had expressed on the previous day. He told her that he could not, " for," said he, " you are dying." She seemed shocked, and afterwards told her daughter Sophia of the opinion which Mr. Crossley had given. Some discussion having taken place on the point, the learned judge decided upon receiving evidence of the dying declarations made by the deceased subsequent to the comnlunication made to her by Mr. Crossley. Sophia Kellam then proved that her mother said that the prisoner had killed her, and that the prisoner had done it all, and that her mother repeated this statement from time to time up to the time of her death, which took place on the same day. During the Friday and Saturday the deceased was delirious at intervals, but less so on the day of her death than on the preceding day. It was also stated by Sophia that on the Tuesday she saw traces of blood in her mother's bed and elsewhere in the room. On the ensuing day (Sun day) Mr. Crossley, assisted by Mr. Sibley, another surgeon, made a post-mortem examination of the deceased's body, and found the omentum consider ably inflamed. Besides inflammation of the peri toneum (chiefly on the right side) the surgeons observed that the upper part of the womb was inflamed, and on removing it there was found a clot of blood in the centre, inflammation of its substance, and a spongy mass adhering to its upper part. They also found three small wounds in the posterior wall of the womb, the largest of which was a third of an inch in length. The lower third of the womb, especially near these wounds, was of a dark colour and injected, The lower part was, in fact, almost gangrenous. Both gentlemen attributed death to peritonitis, arising from inflammation of the womb. They stated that the inflammation of the womb was caused by the wounds already mentioned. Some instruments which were found in the pri soner's house were produced in court. It was sug gested that the wounds were produced by one of them, which resembled a skewer. Mr. O'Brien having commented on the disre putable conduct of the witnesses, the discrepancies in their testimony, and the want of evidence to show connection between the prisoner and the criminal act which caused the deceased's death, The learned Judge snmmed up the evidence, and The jury, after an absence of half-an-hour, re turned a verdict of guilty. Mr. Justice Crompton then put on the black cap, and, after expressing his fears that the prisoner had for some time been carrying on the fearful trade, the pursuit of which had led her into her present position, said that, although the prisoner had no intention of killing the deceased, yet death having ensued from her felonious act, she was guilty of murder. The learned judge added that he trusted the result of this trial would be to deter others from pursuing so fearful a calling. His lordship then passed sentence of death in the usual form. OXFORD CIRCUIT.—OXFORD, March 6. CROWN COURT. (Before Mr. Justice Blackburn.) CHARGE OF STARVING A SERVANT GIRL. Robert Durno Mitchell, a retired navy surgeon, was charged with feloniously killing and slaying Henrietta Clarke, at Henley-on-Thames, on the 9th of January last. The defendant, who :is upwards of 60 years of age and of gentlemanly appearance, pleaded not guilty. Mr. Cripps and Mr. Rowden conducted the prosecution ; Mr. Huddleston and Mr. Griffits appeared for the defendant. The trial commenced at nine o'clock, and the court was crowded to excess. Mr. Cripps briefly opened the case by nar rating the facts given in the following evidence : Elizabeth Clarke, widow, of Reading—Knew Henrietta Clarke. She was my niece, and lived with me 15 years. She left me four years ago. She would have been 25 next May. She was a very cheerful, healthy girl. She had no illness of any importance while she lived with me. When she left me she went into the service of Mr. Sharp, of Reading, and lived there a year. She then went to her father's. She could read a letter, but not write. I put her to school, but they said they could not make her learn. After she left Mr. Sharpe's I only saw her once, and that was about three years ago. She looked very well, and said she was very well. Martha Clarke—l am stepmother to the deceased. She came beck to me after she left Mr. Sharp's. She was very weak in her inside, and very unwell after she left Mr. Sharp's service. She used to eat sharp, and always appeared hungry. She had a fit once, but I do not know what it was. She re quired two or three persons to hold her. She used to put bits of bread in her pocket. She wanted to go to service ; but I wished her to bide at home. I did not see her while she was at Mr. Mitchell's. I received some letters from Mr. Ilitchell before the girl died. Ann Godley, wife of Wm. Godley—l live at West Hill, Henley. I carry letters every morning from the post-office to Bolingcourt ; I also take milk to Mr. Mitchell's every morning. His house is close to the road side, with a wall in front with a door in it. I do not know the height of the wall, but I could reach to the top of it with my hand. Hen rietta Clarke used tom, take the milk of me over the wall, as the door was locked. I have bought penny loaves for her five times. The first time was about three months before she left Mr. Mitchell's. She asked me to buy the loaves for her. The last time was Friday morning after Christmas when I saw her, for the door had been left unlocked the previ ous night. She appeared in a ver y bad state and very thin. That w as th e l as t time I ever saw her. By the Judge—The girl gave me the money to pay for the loaves. Arthur D'Oyley Brooks—l am a surgeon, and on the 4th of January when to Mr. Mitchell's to see Henrietta Clarke. She was in bed, and I was struck with her ghastly appearance. I went into her room with Mr. and Mrs. Mitchell. Her eyes were sunk, her cheek bones prominent, and generally speaking she was very much emaciated. Mr. Mit chell told me she had had fits. 1 remarked a peculia rity in the shape of her head. I afterwards asked him if she was half-witted. I did so in consequence of her childish manner. He said they had to drum the work into her. I examined more particularly, and found her very feeble and emaciated. but could find no disease upon her. She was suffering from exhaustion. I asked her if she had any com plaint to make. She said "No ; but suffered from weakness." I felt her pulse, and remarked to her that her hands were cold. I asked her if she felt the cold. She said " No." I asked her if she had warm covering on her bed. She said she had. I asked her if she could eat, or had any appetite. She said " she could have plenty to eat of anything she liked, but could not take it." I told Mr. Mitchell she appeared to have been exposed to severe wea ther, and had not had en oug h t o ea t. H e sa id he should like to have her moved to the workhouse if she was in a fit state. He said she wanted beef-tea and stimulants. I knew at that time that the pri soner was a medical man. I was one of the per sons who examined the body after death. Hen rietta Clarke died on Jan. 9, and the post mortem examination took place on the 11th. I have been in practice about three years with my father at Henley. I was not able from the post mortem examination to find any disease which would account for the death of the deceased. The other surgeons who examined the body were Mr. Jeston and Mr. Brown. Mr. Jeston is a surgeon of long standing. The appearances of the body after death were general emaciation, the absence of fat o n th e surface of the body and in the abdomen, thinness and transparency of the intestines, and the right lung was adhering to the walls of the chest. I attribute death to wasting away, but I cannot speak positively as to the cause of it. I know from read ing what would be the ordinary appearance after death from starvation, and the appearance in this case was consistent s ith that account, and led me to think it arose from that cause. Samuel Mortlock, master of the Henley Union workhouse for upwards of two years—l have been master of workhouses for about 27 years, and am well acquainted with the appearances of idiots. The deceased was brought to the workhouse on Jan. 4. The next day Mr. and Mrs. Mitchell came to the workhouse. Mrs. Mitchell was in a very ex cited state. Mrs. Mitchell met me at the door and told me Mrs. Mortlock, the matron, had made some observations respecting the state of the girl which she thought were very unjust, and was very much hurt about it. I asked Mr. Mitchell how long the deceased had been in his service, and he said four or five months. I asked him what wages she received, and his answer was about £4 or £5 per year. I then went upstairs and saw the deceased for the first time. Mrs. Mitchell was standing by the side of the bed, and as soon as I entered the room Mrs. Mitchell said, " Now, Jane, dear, this is the master of the workhouse; they say you have been starved, now tell him all about it. Have you not always had plenty of food ?" The girl's answer was, " Oh, yes, plenty of food--meat, wine, arrowroot, plenty of wine and everything I liked." I was struck by the shocking appearance of the girl's face ; it was very much emaciated, and had a very vacant appearance. I took hold of her hand, asked her what was the matter with her, and how long she hid been ill. She replied, " Since Sunday," when she had e. fit. I said, " You have been ill much longer than that, and you are ill now. Are you in pain ?" She said, " I am in no pain now, and slim' be better to-mor row ; lam only ill from a fit." I examined her and found her in an extremely emaciated state. Her fingers had the appearance of having been washed in a strong solution of soda and water. The girl was five feet high, and 48 hours after death the body weighed only 50lbs. Kate Norman—l am one of the nurses at the Henley Union, and have been so two years. I re member the deceased being brought to the work house in a fly. She looked very emaciated, but I did not think she was in a dangerous state. She was carried into the house. She said she hoped her papa would be allowed to see her. I asked her if she was the daughter of Mr. Mitchell, and she said " No, she was his servant." She was put to bed on her arrival at the workhouse, and had hot water for her feet. She had tea and bread-and-butter given her. She partook of it very heartily. On the following morning, about half-past seven, she had tea and bread-and-butter for breakfast, and ate very hear tily. After breakfast I washed her ; from that time to her death I saw her at every meal. She ate them all with great zest. She had a glass of wine at 11 o'clock, and mutton broth and bread at dinner. On Tuesday, the day before she died, she ate her dinner and tea very heartily, and afterwards be came delirious, and continued so until her death. Mr. Jeston, surgeon and medical officer to the Henley Union, detailed the nature of the post mortem examination, and gave it as his opinion that, from the appearance of the body, the girl's statement that she had had sufficient food was not true. The body did not present any appearance of want of assimilation of food. He, Mr. Brooks, and Mr. Brown formed their opinion that the de ceased died from a want of food from the result of the post-mortem examination. They found no traces which could lead them to attribute death to any other cause. By the Judge—Had he known nothing of the previous circumstances of the deceased, the body itself would have created an impression that death arose from want of food. George Brown, surgeon at Henley, said that on Friday, the 11th January, he assisted Mr. Jeston and Mr. Brooks in making a post-mortem exami nation of the body of Henrietta Clarke. Mr. Brown corroborated the testimony of the two previous medical witnesses. This was the case for the prosPtution. Mr. Huddleston then addressed the jury on behalf of the prisoner, and, having called several witnesses for the ddence, Mr. Cripps replied on the whole case. The Judge then summed up, and read through the greater part of the evidence, commenting on it as he proceeded, but had not concluded when our parcel left at nine o'clock. POLICB INTELLIGENCE:: March 6. MANSION -HOUSE. STRANGE AFFAIR. -- Sarah Rose Terrey, a young woman of about 30 years of age, was brought before Mr. Alderman Rose, charged with feloniously attempting to destroy herself. The prisoner appeared to be very weak and faint, and was allowed to sit in the dock during the pro ceedings. The following evidence was adduced : Mrs. Mary Ann Hall said,---I keep the Union Coffee-house, No. 2, Bishopsgate. On Wednesday night, between ten and eleven o'clock, the prisoner came to my house with a soldier, who asked if they could be accommodated with a bed. I told them yes, and they sat together in the coffee-room for about half an hour before they Nc , ent upstairs. I asked the soldier if the prisoner was his wife, and he an swered, in a very abrupt manner, " Most un doubtedly she is." I said she seems rather lame. I would rather she would not go upstairs. I do not think you will e ver b e a bl e to get her up four pair of stairs ; and he replied, " Oh yes I can," and took hold of her hand an d t oo k h er upstairs. He paid for the bed before g o i ng upsta i rs. I met the prisoner on the next morning, about eleven o'clock as she was coming downstairs, and asked her how her ankle was. She replied, " It is very bad, but not equal to a broken heart." They both bad break fast together in the coffee-room; but before that the soldier asked me if I would buy some Jewellery of him, and I declined. He asked me if I could tell him where he could part with it, and I directed him to a jeweller's in Bishopsgate-street. He said he only wanted money to carry him over that day, and to return home by the train the next morning, He left apparently to sell them. He returned shortly and took breakfast with the prisoner, which he paid for. After breakfast they both went out, and returned between six and seven in the evening. They had no refreshment, but sat in the coffee-room until ten, when they went to bed in the same room they had occupied the night before. The soldier , paid for the bed. The next morning (Friday, March 1) I saw the soldier at about eleven o'clock and asked him h ow bi s wife ' s ankle was, and he replied that it was worse of the two, and her head was very bad. He a s k e d f or a pipe, which was given to him, and he went upstairs smoking it. In about twenty minutes he came down and asked me to prepare a chop for breakfast. I said would his good lady take her breakfast upstairs, and he said yes, she would not get up that day. He went out, and returned in ab ou t a quarter of an hour with a bottle in bis hand. I believe it was one that he had borrowed the previous night from one of the ser vants. I think it was a little larger than the one produced. I t o ld hi m the breakfast was sent up stairs, and he said he was givinl me a great deal of trouble, and paid me 114 d. for the breakfast, and Went upstairs. At about two o'clock I sent up for the tray, and the waiter came down and said the pri soner h a d to l d him to fetch a policeman. I I said I supposed they had been quarrelling, so I did not send for one then. Shortly after that she came down and asked me to go upstairs, I asked her what for, and she said, " Come up and see." She then went up, and I followed shortly after. The man was then lying on the bed, on his left side. The prisoner was sitting opposite the man. I said, " What do you want with me ?" and she said, " You see that man lying there," and I replied " Yes." She said, " He's dead." I said, " What !" and she said, "He is dead. We have both taken poison, and each au equal dose." She said he was her brother. I asked her if she knew what she was saying, and she said, "Yes, perfectly well ; he is my brother. Poor Tom! I want to be beside him." She said she had vomited, and supposed she was not to die. I asked her if she meant to say that she had slept in that bed with her own brother, and she said, " Yes, it is too true." She then pointed to a penknife, the one produced, and said, "Do you see that knife ?" I replied that I did, and she said, " That has been three times in my side." ',There were marks of blood on the knife. I went to the man and laid my hand on his face, and found that he was dead. I then sent for a policeman. I went upstairs again with the officer, and he called for some salt and water for the prisoner, but I sent for some brandy, which was given to her. She appeared to be in great agony at the time. A doctor came, and gave her an emetic and strapped up the wounds, and she was taken to the hospital. John Nash, waiter, and Anne Percival, waitress at the Union Coffeehouse, having given confirmatory. evidence Mr. Leonard Lewis Hackman said—l am s chemist, and reside at 41, Union-street, Bishops gate. On Friday, the Ist of March, about one o'clock, a soldier, in the uniform of the 7th Regi ment of the line, came to my shop and asked for two pennyworth of opium. I asked him if it was for himself, and if he was in the habit of taking it." He said "Yes, he was obliged to take it now and then." Having sold it to other soldiers who had been abroad, I served him. I gave him half a drachm,- and he asked me how many doses I had given him. I then asked him if he knew how many grains he usually took. He replied that he did not know the weight, but that it was generally a piece about the size of a small pea. I told him he might take that, but not more, and there were several doses there. Mr. Robert Fowler, surgeon, Bishopsgate-street —About half-past th ree on Friday, the Isi March, on returning to my shop I saw my assistant going in, and he said he had been called to a case of poi soning, and had returned for the remedies. He had a bottle with him, which smelt of prussic acid. I took the remedies myself, and went to the Union Coffee-house. I found the man dead, and the pri soner in the custody of the officer. The room smelt strongly of prussic acid, and on smelling the man's mouth I found the same smell proceeding from it. I also found some liquid in a cup, which proved to be prussic acid. I examined the body, and found great lividity upon certain portions of it, and it is my opinion that he died from prussic acid. The prisoner was remanded, in order to procure the attendance of the corporal of the deceased's regiment. GUILDHALL.—CAUTION TO PRINTER'S BOYS. —Alfred Rogers, a lad about 16 years of age, was placed at the bar before Alderman Dakin charged. with wilfully damaging a form of type belonging to his employers, under the following circumstances : Mr. George Levey, a printer, of Great New street, Fetter-lane, said the prisoner was in his employ as a machine-feeder. About four o'clock on Tuesday afternoon the prisoner was at work at the machine as usual, when it appeared he took the paper cap from his head and passed it through the machine, but as it followed the sheet of paper it came in contact only with the blank part of the cylinder, and caused not the slightest injury, but on his passing his cap a second time through the machine, it came in contact with the type, and entirely destroyed the face of nearly the whole of the form. He felt bound to press the case against the prisoner. In one house in the trade s boy battered the face of the type so as to stop the working of the machine, simply for the purpose of getting a holiday. In his own establishment, the repairs to machinery alone had cost £2OO in twelve months, and he had not the slightest doubt that more than half of that was for wilful, damage by boys in his own employ. The type only was damaged to the extent of 55., but the machine might have been strained, and thereby injured to the amount of about £5O. The prisoner here said he did not know that the cap would have injured the type or the machine.. At the same time he had no particular reason for doing it; Ar':l. erman Dakin fined the prisoner ss. for the ''Lamage, or in default seven days' imprisonment. The prisoner was sent to prison in default. COUNTRY MARKETS. —MARCH 6. a, but late rates were for the qualities. A moderate show i doing. Barley, grinding 32s to 35e Oats, old, .. 32s to 37s New do 231 to 29s Beans. 56s to 583 Beans, new 38s to 433 40s to 50s. NEWARK. The trade in wheat still slog most part realised for all fine , of barley, but hardly so much White wheat, new, 58s to 76s Red do. sos to 70s Old white sBs to 76s Red do. 50s to 70s f Barley, malting 38s t o 44s f Peas, ...., SHEFFIELD—.MARCH 5. There was a moderate attendance. Good sorts of wheat realised former rates. Beans and peas unchanged. Red wheat, per load of 3 imperial bushels 24s Od to 28s Od White I) )1 258 Od to 288 Od New red 71 2os Od to 22s Od New white „ » 22s Od to 268 Od Beans ~ 77 l6s Od to 22 s 6d Peas, per qr 545 Od to 55s Od Grinding barley, per qr 338 Od to 35s Od Malting ditto, ~ ..... 3ss Od to 438 Oil Oats 7/ 2ss 6d to 34s Od Milivat' prices for flour-2s 3d, 2s sd, and 2s 8d per Ih. HULL—MARCH 5. A moderate supply of English wheat to-day, which sold at fully the prices of last week. Foreign in more general demand. Barley progressed slowly, at is decline on for mer quotations. Beans and peas somewhat slow. Oats in very little request. Wheat.... Old white per qr. s2s Od to 66s Od Old red New white .. „ New red .... „ Dantzie, Konb , &c. old white 62s Od to 66s Od. Dutch, Belgian, and French. 60s Od to 62s Od Baltic and Hamburg., red 6OB Od to 62s Od St. Petersburg and Riga, old s2s Od to 55s Od Barley.... English malting 4ls Od to 42s Od Grinding 348 Od to 36s Od Saal and Oderbruck Holstein and Danish 3Bs Od to 40s Od. Grinding 32s Od to 34s Od. Oats English, old Archangel and Riga, per st Os 14d to 1401 Friesland and Dutch osl4ld to 081.5 d Swedish and Danish o Bl4d to 08140 Beans ....English, old, per qr New pigeon 445 Od to 45s Od New tick Egyptian Peas Foreign breakers Grinding Tares .. Spring. —s Od to —s Od Indian Corn Linseed, feeding crushing Linseed cakes (Hull) • £lO 10 oto £lO 10 0 Foreign BlO oto 9 0 0 Rape cakes 5 0 oto 6 0 0 Bones 5 0 oto 5 0 0 [ADVERTISEMENT.]—HoIIoway's Ointment and Pills.— Dropsical Swellings.—Whatever may be the remote cause of collections of water in the human body, it must be , prudent to disperse them as soon as possible. The readiest means of accomplishing this end are supplied by usin g Holloway's Ointment to increase the activity of the absor bents. When this Ointment is well rubbed upon the skin it removes all venous congestion ; overcomes all mechani cal obstruction to the free return of the blood, and prevents. the deposit of serum or water. Holloway's Pills likewise: augment this absorbing power ; they act more circuitous' y on the capillaries through the circulation, while his Oint ment acts directly through the skin. Both should be em ployed in dropsies and diseases of the kidneys. BIRTHS. BERESFORD.—On the sth inst., at York, the wife of G. D. Beresford, Esq., of a daughter. OrrsLow.--On the 6th inst., at 10, Westbourne-terrace road, the wife of C. Hamilton Onslow, Esq., of a daughter. ST. JOHN.—On the 3d inst., at Stokefield, Thornbury, the wife of Lieutenant Henry Craven St. Jotn, R.N., of a daughter. MARRIAGE „. HiwroN—FIELD.--On the 6th inst., at St. Saviour's, Southwark, Thomas Alexandor, Hinton, Esq., of Old Broad-street, city, to Mary, eldest daughter of the late Wm. Field, Esq., of Brixton. KNIGHT—HARRISON.-013 the sth inst., 5.E the parish church, St. Marylebono, J. W. Knight, Esq., son of V. Knight, Esq., of Colnwall-terrace, Regent's park, to Mary, only child of Thomas 0. Harrison, Esq., of Glou cester-terrace, Regent's park. D F.A`r II S. CHILD.—On the 6th inst., at Arundel-street, Strand, Mr. Robert Child, aged 38. CLAY.—On the 2d inst,, at 2, Regent's-park-terrace, Glou cester-gate, Robert Thomas Clay, Esq., aged 44. GARDNER.-9n the 6th inst., Thos. Gardner 14 Assem bly-row, Mile-e n d- road, aged 70. , , LINDSAY. — On the 3d inst., Ralph Lindsay, Esq., M.A., F.S.A., of Durham Lodge, Norwood, aged 79. MADDOX.—On the sth inst., at No. 7, Pelham .crescent,, Brompton, J. M . M addox, Esq., many years lessee of tbi Princess's-theatre, aged 72. PENRHYN.—On the Gth inst., at East Sheen, Surrey, Eavr. Penrhyn, Esq., aged 66. LONDON : Printed and Published by 11.1.0RD0 Yr JUN G, at No. 112, Strand, Printer, at THE Sur/ Office, No.' i n,Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the County 9f , mildleseX, Thursday, Match 7, 1861.