The Sun. — London, England, 1863-11-18 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 18, ISM The Court Martial on Colonel Crawley, ALDERSHOT SOUTH CAMP, Tuesday. The proceedings of this long-talked-of court mar tial. commenced to-day, at the Club, Aldershot, which had been extensively prepared for the event. The court was opened at eleven o'clock precisely. The president, Sir G. Wetherell, G.C.8., having taken his seat, the members of the Court were first sworn by the officiating judge, advocate, Colonel Pipon. 'fables were arranged on each side of that at -which the members of the court martial eat, that on the right being occupied by the official prosecutor Sir A. Horsford, assisted by Mr. - Denison, the deputy judge advocate. The jadge advocate was also present. At the table on the left the prisoner sat with his legal advisers, Mr. W. Vernon Har court, and sir. Waller, of the Chancery bar. At the Name table sat Colonel James Crawley, the brother of the prisoner. A number of officers occu pied sr.lats at the upper end of the room. Tk.o Court having been sworn and the warrant read, The officiating Judge Advocate read the charges, and asked the prisoner whether he pleaded guilty or not guilty. Colonel Crawley—Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Court—l humbly submit myself to the judg ment of the Court whether I ought to be called upon to plead to the charges as they are at present framed. I protest against the charges on two grounds—FiAt, because the charges are so limited in their na'cure that they do not admit of my going into the substantial merits of the whole case with respect to the grievous imputations which have been made on my character as an officer and a gentleman. And while lam charged with certain acts, I a m, at the same time pre cluded from showing the circumstances out of which those acts arose, and the condition of things, which constituted the true justification of my condur:t. Secondly, as to the first charge, I have an objection to offer of a different character. The first charge, while it does not deny but explicitly adr nits that the order for the close arrest under w'aich Regimental Sergeant Major Lilley was con. fined was proper and justifiable, does not allege in what the unnecessary and undue severity of which I am accused is supposed to consist. lam, therefore, left in ignorance of the particular acts with which I am charged, and am much embarrassed in not knowing with what evidence I ought to be prepared to meet them. In this respect I am advised, that the framing of the first charge differs altogether from the course pursued in any other tribunal, criminal or civil. In a criminal proceeding the prisoner is in formed by the indictment and the depositions of the details of the case he is called upon to meet. In a civil cause the court will always take care that the defendant be supplied with the particulars of the charge brought against him. It has been laid down on the .highest authority that vagueness in the charge is as objectionable in proceedings before military as before civil tribunals. I have applied to the prose cution to be allowed to inspect and have copies of the depos itions of the witnesses taken in India, which Would have informed me of the particulers to which the first charge is pointed. This request has, how ever, been refused. I beg leave to read to the court the, correspondence which has passed between me and the authorities on the subject : " 5, Sanlk-street, Pall-mall East, London, Oct. 14, 1863. " Sir,—l have the honour to request that you will be pleased to bring to the notice of his Royal Highness the Field Marshal Commanding in Chief the following state ment with reference to the charges which, as I am officially informed, are to be preferred against me at my approach.. ing trial. Nearly two years have now elapsed since I first became the subject of attack from the press in India, and for upwards of a twelvemonth past my character as a gentleman and my conduct as a commanding officer have seen assailed and impugned by the press at home in a planner which I believe to be almost unprecedented. I have been branded as a murderer and a tyrant, threatened 'with an indictment for manslaughter, as well as with pro ceedings in the civil courts of this country, and learned that on my arrival in England I should be hooted and pelted by the mob, and that the fate of Governor 'Wall awaited me. In fact, I believe that within living memory the character of no man has suffered more from public in dignation and execration than has mine. I admit, however, that the statements of interested and unscrupulous parties, which have been too hastily believed, may have justified expressions of public opinion against me. If I were really guilty of the accusations which have been brought against me I should justly deserve the measure of punishment with which I have been threatened. I have the consolation of knowing that before I left India the more respectable por tion of the Indian press ha l honourably and candidly ad mitted that it was grossly misled by the misstatements and misrepresentations of .parties hostile to me, and that in making the acknowledgment it has done me all the justice in its power. I did hope that the court martial by which I am about to be tried would have afforded me the opportu nity of meeting, not only the very limited and narrow charges on which it is at present proposed to try me, but of satisfying my countrymen how unjustly my character and conduct have been assailed. I have hitherto, in deference to the well-recognised rule of both naval and military ser vices, which in matters of duty and discipline enjoins that no officer shall enter into a controversy with the public press, persistently abstained from, in any manner, noticing the attack to which I have been subjected ; consequently I have heretofore been unable to offer any explanation of my conduct, or to vindicate my character in any way what ever. Under these circumstances the perusal of the charges on which I am to be arraigned has produced in me a feeling of cruel disappointment, inasmuch as I am satisfied that the present charges will not en able me to give that account of my conduct which t he justice of the case so imperatively demands. Indepen (lj4t of my own wishes, too, I was led to believe from the i en '''r of the debates in both houses of Parliament that an ; 1 4 44 7 of the very fullest description would on my return slic :. 4, ad be made, and it is my earnest entreaty that inquiry shall now be ordered. I therefore, confident) appeal to his y Royal Highness the Field Marshal Command afford C hlef m e to cause the charges to be so extended as to limited acne opportunity of publicly meeting not only the tried, but at.o l o olaa on whi c h I am i n f orme d I am t o b e reference to het death the allegations affecting me with sion into hospital ofa s t hof Sergeant-Major Liffey, the admis maniac, and all the ergeant.Major Wakefield as a raving c ulated respecti n infamousgenie, slanders so pertinaciously cir - obediolt, humble_al have the honour to be yuur (Signed) 4 • H . CRAWLEY, Lieut.-Colonel, nor 13th Dragoons.' to Your Guards, Oct. 17 1863, Sir,—With reference concluding with the following v r o l t e d t s ter of the 14th inst., dently appeal to his Royal Hightess I therefore confi- Commanding in Chief to cause th e eh r the Feld Marshal tended as to afford me the opportunity a oi g i e 3 lto icl b e so ex not only the limited accusations on which I bl am y . meeting be tried, but also of refuting the informed I am to with reference to the death e t s allegations affecting me ergeant-Major into hospital of Ser e Lilley, the admission c,' and all the g ant-Nlajor Wake field as a raving mania respecting inComeos slanders. so pertinaciously circulated 'ou that he doe? des , lre ' l by his Royal Highness to inforr addition to the charge„ which to make any alteration in or the charges upon which have been already notified to you as about "'which martial to you will be arraigned at the court be Yield for your trial.—l have the honour to be , Sir, y o ur twist obedient servant, idjutant General. " J. YORKE SCARLE TT, " P.S. lam desired to take thi s opportu n ity of askin g on what date after the 4th proximo you w ill be prepared to meet the said charges, "J. Y. SCARLETT, A,G.).3" "b Suffolk-stree Oct. • have had the honour to receive your letter tt theer of the 17th inst. acquainting me that his Royal Highness Field Marshal Commanding in Chief does not propose to make any alteration in or addition to the charge notified to me as those upon which I ant to be arraigned ats already the court martial about to be held for my trial. "In reply I must express my exceeding great regret at this intimation, but I am very hopeful that his Royal High ness will be graciously pleased to reconsider the matter, for the reasons which I shall lay before him, as I am quite sure i t is his wish that substantial justice shall be done to all the parties implicated in these transactions, and that the gene ral Public shall be satisfied by means of the impending in quiry that nothing is held back either on the part of the prosecution or the defendant which is essential to be made known for their clear and impartial judgment. I am ad vised by my solicitor, who has carefully studied and consi. tiered all the documents submitted to him, together with the charges as they are now framed, with a view to preparing m y defence, that the first charge is too vague in its nature to enable him satisfactorily to meet it. He informs me that in civil actions in like cases of supposed injury the judges would co mpel the prosecuting party to state in NI riting, as near l y as he could, the specific injuries complained of, and the dates when they were committed, and as he believes there is no different law or practice prevailing in courts martial, he thinks that upon a proper application the same justification that before it is essential to my privilege will now be granted to me by his Royal Highness. Again, my solicitor advises complete defence and ic e public that the a le me to put in charges should be further enlarged, to enable evidence ail the official correspondence concerning th e course and the ir,rtieulars of the arrest of Sergeant Major Lilley and his two companions, because this correspondence discloses every material circumstance connected with the procedure, and will, as he advises me, prove to the public that I only discharged my duty in the steps I took on that occasion. I feel persuaded that the advice my solicitor has gives me is based upon his long experience ; and as I have the fullest reliance ou his judgment, and in his desire to see substantial justice done both to me and to all who are concerned in the pending court martial. I submit his matured suggestion with confidence to hie Royal High ness, and venture to believe they will be graciously ac cepted. lam most anxious that the court martial should be proceeded with as soon as possible, and after I shall have received your reply to this application I shall be able to name on what date after the 4th proximo I shall be pre pared to meet the charges in accordance with the request contained in the postcript to your letter of the 17th inst.— I am, &c. " T. R. CRAWLEY. "To the Adjutant General, Horse Guards," Horse Guards, Oct. 31, 1863. " Sir,—Having had the honour to lay before the Field Marshal Commanding in Chief your letter of the 28d, I am directed to acquaint you in reply that his Royal Highness dyes not find therein any sufficient cause for deviating from the decision communicated to you in my letter of the 17th inst., and I am to add, with reference to your suggestion, that the specific injuries complained of, and the dates when they were committed, should be stated in writing, that his Royal Highness is informed by his responsible legal adviser i n matters of this nature that he sees no sufficient reason why that should be done.—l have the honour to be, sir, your obedient humble servant, "J. YORKE SCARLETT. " To Lieut. Colonel Crawley, 6th Dragoons." " South Camp, Aldershot, Nov. 5, 1863, " Sir,—l have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your communication dated 31st ult., in reply to my letter of the 23d, informing me that his Royal Highness does not find therein any sufficient cause for deviating from the de cision communicated to me in your letter of the 17th Octo ber—and with reference to my suggestion that the specific injuries complained of, and the dates when they were com mitted, should be stated in writing, his Royal Highness is informed by his responsible legal adviser that he sees no reason why that should be done. I hope I shall be par doned by his Royal Highness for expressing how much I lament his final decision on this point, as I cannot but feel that I shall have no opportunity on my trial to repel or to refute the terrible calumnies with which I have been assailed, nor to give that straightforward and full explana tion of my conduct which is essential to its being properly understood by the public, and it will still be open to the unscrupulous men who have traduced me to persevere, as I understand is their disclosed intention, in their efforts to injure me in public estimation. I bow, however, in all humility to his Royal Highness's decision, and have merely to add that I shall be prepared for the assembling of the court martial on any day that may be named." With these remarks I humbly submit to the judg ment of the Court. Sir A. Ilorsford, in reply, said that Colonel Crawley desired to be tried on other charges. It has been decided, however, that the prisoner shall be tried upon the charges submitted to the Court, and which the judge advocate general has decided are sufficient in law. The members of the Court then retired for delibe ration, and on re-entering the chamber, The President said that the Court had considered the matters adduced before them by the prisoner, and saw no reason why it should not at once pro ceed with the trial. He now begged to ask Colonel Crawley whether he pleaded guilty or not to the charges. Colonel Crawley—l plead not guilty to both the one charge and the other. Sir A. Horsford, as official prosecutor, then pro ceeded to address the Court as folio ws :—I appear before you, with the deputy judge advocate, gen tlemen, on the part of the prosecution, and I think it my duty both towards the Court and the pri soner to state at the outset, with as much pre cision and clearness as I can, what are the issues which we consider to be raised by the charges on which the prisoner is arraigned, and to give the general outline and bearing of the evidence by which those issues will be supported. The charges are two in number. The first charge alleges in sub stance that Sergeant Major Lilley and his wife were subjected to great and grievous hardships and suffer ings, by reason of the .unnecessary and undue severity with which the order for close arrest of Serjeant Major Lilley woe carried into effect, and that for this unnecessary and undue severity the prisoner was alone responsible. To substantiate this charge it will be necessary to prove the follow ing matters :—First, That Sergeant Major Lilley and his wife were subjected to great and grievous hardships and sufferings. Secondly, That those hardships and sufferings were caused by the unneces sary and undue severity with which the order for the close arrest of Sergeant Major Lilley was carried into effect. Thirdly, That for this unnecessary and undue severity the prisoner must be deemed respon sible. That part of the issue which is comprised in the words" great and grievous hardships and suffer ings," involves several consideration.), and will be supported by several distinct kinds of proof. Your attention will first be directed to what may be termed the mere physical incidents of the case. And with reference to these will be produced before you models of the buildings in which the sergeant major was confined; and you will be enabled to judge how far the place of confinement tended to produce the hardships and sufferings in question. Secondly, your attention will be directed to the constitution and habits of the sergeant major, and to the state of his wife's health, in order that you may judge how far a man so circumstanced was likely to be affected by such confinement. Thirdly, you will have brought before you medical evidence of the actual consequences of the confinement ; this will comprise generally the evidence respecting the hardships and sufferings sustained by Sergeant Major Lilley and his wife, and will enable you to determine whether those hardships and sufferings were great and grievous. The next consideration will be whether those hardships and sufferings were caused by the unnecessary and undue severity with which the order for close arrest was carried into effect. With reference to this part of the case, the models of the buildings and position of the sentry will have a direct and obvious bearing, and you will be enabled readily to determine whether even assuming it to have been right that the close arrest was to be strictly enforced for the length of time during which it was enforced, it was necessary, or even reasonable or proper, that the sentry should have been placed where he was placed, and if not, whether the placing him in such a position did not show undue and unnecessary severity on the part of the authority, whomsoever you fled him to be, who caused the sentry to be so placed. With regard to the length of time during which the confinement lasted, it is important that I should show at the outset, with as much precision as the matter admits, the mode and degree in which I cousider it to be a bearing on the case, and I think it my duty to let it be distinctly understood that I do not consider blame to be attributable to the prisoner for the du ration of the confinement, except in the manner and to the precise extent which I am now about to in dicate. It is to be borne in the mind that the pri soner received an order from the commander in at Bombay to keep Sergeant Major Lilley Za ti e' r r , arrest until the trial of Paymaster Smeles arrest, t ao l on 'flatly adjourned. Therefore, for the mere cir curostmee of . Cr est, vg ley cannot of timekeeping the sergeant major in close RS the order was in force, Lieut. Col. daringot be held responsible. But the length the imprisonment actuatiy lasted, and th which indefinite duration which was as signed to it by te eo : o n Which and to have a matters for yo ur coz : l id " , appear to me to become itnheitsstrdanugraetion,it t bear ing on the first char ge rem embered the prisoner stands fermiered that as the con arraigned, when it is to g its t to have been ought order) was to officer entrusted as possible from its very x c eeution as ence ment ; and as the course of events littlem bfi ena con finement le grievous e b n y t uncertain t ( h b e y seemed to be ren dering the confin ement one of a %emere;protraetec s character than could h ave been intended , ei be as signed to it by the com mander in chie f , it will b e for you to consider whether some steps Ought not to have been taken either to ascertain whether any definite limit was intended t o be assigned to it, or to represen t to the auth or i ty who gave the order that the duration of the confin e . mont seemed to be becoming great er than he could have intended it to be. I therefore propose to sub mit for your consideration whether, both in what the prisoner did do in this matter, and in what he failed to do in the matter in respect to the duration of the confinement, undue severity was not shown towards Sergeant Major Lilley. The evidence that will be brought before you in support of the alle gation that thez)rder for the cloqc nrrest 7%1 , 3 clrried into effect with undue severity, will have at the same time furnished proof that will enable you to determine the third point which I mentioned to you as requiring proof, viz., whether for the undue seve rity w ot i hi t e ll e t p w lr h iws i o c i h nll nr t h oi e ts ttoca takes e ud a pe r e rynie your u t dr w r eats time en a s r ib ri b y e t e d g. o i inc On o gn o e i t n hff t ies o ctp details of evidence, for you will have clear statements mt a sc b th o t as u rr t gf i eo t rforynoomwu four e ie v h er l a I consideration wi witnesses. shto mw ai tkh T e r h as e g r f e aerw i d s o to ne t fe vv l i l h b a s v e s u s b a m i t t t h e a d t t one n y e o b u r i a n n s c u h p o p f o r t t n o e f that o ev b i s d e e r n a ce tion that part of the issue that relates to the words "gorn hietvoeussehrgaerdansht major sand sufferings," would be evi dence of th e actual consequences of the confinement u ‘ p in respect of his health. I think it my duty to state with precision what I con sider to be the bearing of that evidence, and what limits seem properly assignable to it, so as to c infine it strictly to the issue. It will be proved to you that in the opinion of the medical gentlemen who made a post-mortem examination of the body the death was not traceable to any excess in drinking brandy or other spirituous liquors of any kind, but to apo plexy caused by the confinement, and that the an noyances to which Lilley was subjected during his confinement contributed to the breaeing-down of his health, and that had he not been in confinement there were no medical reasons to suppose that he would not have been in perfect health at the time when he died. Their opinion, therefore (which you will learn from their own months), is that the annoyances to which he was subjected, combined with the length of the confinement, were the sole known and assignable causes of his death. In this view of the case it is manifest that those annoy ances in some degree contributed to cause his death, and that they did so by in some degree tending to break down his health, and so to accelerate his end. That is a matter which will be submitted for your consideration, and it will be for you to determine whether so far as the evidence of the medical gen men is not of weight as bearing on that part of the issue which is comprised in the words " great and grievous hardships and sufferings." For hardships and sufferings that in any appreciable degree con tribute to kill a very strong man in so short a space of time, seem to be fitly characterised as great and grievous. The evidence of the medical gentlemen will, therefore, be lail before you, not as showing that the prisoner is chargeable as having caused the death of Sergeant Major Lilley, but only as evi dence that so far as that death is in any degree (be that degree what it may) attributable to the hard ships and sufferings he sustained, so far is it evidence that those hardships and sufferings were " great and grievous." The circumstance that the length of the confinement itself might have been far more instrumental in causing the death than the hard ships and sufferings to which he was subjected dur ing the confinement, becomes in this point of view, and to that exact extent, immaterial to the issue ' which you have to determine. For if it be granted that the death was mainly attribatable to the length of the confinement, it still leaves as much operation to the hardships and sufferings as you may think the evidence warrants you in assigning to those causes, and therefore just to that extent, and no more, will the hardships and sufferings be proved to have been great and grievous. I believe that, so far as regards the first charge, I have now shown sufficiently the nature and limits of the issues which I propose to support in evidence. With regard to the second charge, the issue thereby raised is shortly this : whether the prisoner's statement that "it was Lieutenant and Adju tant Fitzsimon's fault if Major Lilley's wife had been incommoded or annoyed by the precaution taken for the sergeant major's safe cus tody," is correct, and if it be not correct, whe ther, at the time when the prisoner made the statement, he knew that Lieutenant and Adjutant Fitzsimon had acted in the matter by his (the pri soner's) express order and directions. It may be of service here to call your attention to one or two dates. The prisoner made this statement to the court-martial on June 7, 1862. Sergeant Major Lilley gave his evidence to that court on May 7, 1862, so that the inconvenience and annoyance to his wife then spoken of by Sergeant Major Lilley must have occurred between April 26, on which day he was placed in arrest, and Mly 7. It will be proved to you that up to the time of Lilley's giving his evidence the prisoner's orders about the position of the sentry had been most positive and precise, and issued in a manner that made it unlikely that they would not be attended to ; that these orders were given by the prisoner himself in the orderly-room to Lieutenant Fitzsimon, in the presence and hearing of several witnesses, a very few days before May 7, notwithstanding ob jections being raised to them by Lieutenant and Adjutant Fitzsimon himself, and Sergeant Major Cotton at the time of their being given, on the ground that they would, if enforced, cause incon venience to Mrs. Lilley and annoyance to her hus band. If this be proved to the satisfaction of the Court it will be for you to consider whether Lieu tenant and Adjutant Fitzsimou could have been to blame for what took place with regard to the post ing of the sentries, and whether the prisoner on June 7, when he made this statement, could have really thought that Lieut. Fitzsimon was to blame for it. I think it right, in conc,usion, to state that so far as the prisoner is concerned the legality of the order for the confinement of Sergeant Major Lilley will not be called in question. I shall now proceed to call my witnesses. _ _ Mr. J. Skollicy, chief clerk in the judge advocates office, handed in the official proceedings of the Mhow court martial. Col. Crawley said that it must be taken subject to any inaccuracies. Major J. Hyde Champion, of the Bombay Staff, proved the accuracy of the models produced of the two bungalows in which Sergeant Mujor Liltey wa s confined, but added that one of the models was not taken from the actual bungalow, which had subse quently been pulled down, but from a similar one. Col. Crawley applied to postpone the cross-exa mination of this and the subsequent witness to the following day. The official prosecutor made no objection, and the application was allowed. Lieut. and Adjutant Fitzsimon sworn—l was adjutant of the regiment on the 26th of April, 1862, at Mhow. I had a conversation with Colonel Crawley that day on the sub ject of the arrest of Sergeant Major Lilley. I was sent for to Colonel Crawley's house. He asked me if I knew who was in the conspiracy going on against him. I said I was not aware of it. He said, then I did not do my duty as adjutant, for I should know everything. He told me that Regimental Sergeant Major Lulu, and Troop Sergeant Majors Wakefield and Duval were in a conspiracy against him. He ordered me to place them under arrest, which I did. I asked if sentries were to be placed over them. He told me he would let me know, because to the best of my recollection he wished to speak to the general about it. Sub sequently he gave me a written order to place sentries over the quarters of the prisoners. The order now produced by the prosecutor is the one I received. The order was that each of the parties mentioned should be placed under close arrest with a sentry over each, and that no person was to hold communication with either of them. It was signed by Col. Crawley, dated April 28, 1862. When I received it I gave it to the acting sergeant major, Cotton, and told him to have the sentries posted. I did not see them posted, but went afterwards and inspected them. The sentry was in the ve randah outside the building. I cannot say that the first sentry I visited was the first posted. I had some sub sequent conversation with Colonel Crawley a few days after in the regimental orderly room in the barracks. Colonel Crawley said to me that persons held intercourse with the prisoners, and asked me if I knew what close arrest meant. He said that it meant that a sentry wag not to lose sight of his prisoner night or day, and gave me the order that a sentry should be placed inside so as not to lose sight of the prisoner. The acting regimental serjeant major, Cotton, made a remark to Colonel Crawley that Serjeant Major Lilley was a married man. The answer of the colonel was to the effect, officer or soldier, married or single, he did not care. I am not sure whether the words "a damn," were added, but I rather think they were "duty shall be done," and he or d ered the acting serjeant major to see it done. I also made a remark (to the best of my recollection it was on tbband"" si") that M rs . Lill ey was s i c k , an d that her, hus• was obliged to rub some liniment on her chest every day. Major Swullake wa s p resen t on th at occas i on, a l so Cott n. Captai n Weer,s ergeant I Major Woodin, an d S ergean t M a j or When m a received the order from Colonel Crawley I laid befor e hi writteni order for the posting of the sen tries for his approval.gaveeathdded to it one or two words, and then signed it. I i major that he might p l ace the the order to the acting sergeant entries. I have not got that about order or a copy of it. I was ill that ti me , an d C orne t Snell became acting adjutant, That was about the 4th or sth of May. I resumed my duties on the 16th of May. I was suspended from the adjutancy on the 22d of May. I had known Sergeant Major Lille) , ever since I had been in the regiment, at the commencement of 1859. I always heard the highest character of him. I never saw him in the least intoxicated. He had never been reduced to my knowledge, and I believe his name had never appeared in the defaulters' book. I never visited the sentries posted over him as orderly officer. I never received any order from Colonel Crawley to remove the sentry from inside Sergeant Major Lilley's quarters. There was au order given about his having exercise some time after the arrest. After the proceedings of the Mhow court martial the witness proceeded to state that he had leave of absence. On his return from leave of absence he wrote a letter to the acting adjutant of the regiment for the information of Sir Hugh Rose. He wrote that in consequence of remarks made by his excel lency with regard to him on the court martial at Mhow, and also in consequence of certain remarks made by Colonel Crawley with regard to him on the court martial. On the day after, on the same day that he forwarded the letter, Colonel Crawley sent for him to his house, made several remarks on his letter, and gave it back to him, saying that if witness wished he would forward it, or that ho might make any changes in it he might wish. He took the letter, and after considering the matter he sent it back, with a request that it might be sent ou to the commander in chief. About a fortnight afterwards Colonel Crawley again sent for him, and read out a letter from Major Champion, who wrote it, he was told, by direction of General Farrell. He had not got a copy of the letter, which was simply read out to him. Sir A. Tiorsford said if tho letter could be produced it should be. Colonel Crawley objected to the purport of the letter being stated. The President said the evidence might be compared with the letter when it was produced. Colonel Crawley said it might not be produced at all. The President—What becam e of the letter ? IVitness said that Major General Farrell read the letter, and on stating that it was insubordinate, he withdrew it. (The letter was put in.) On the request of Colonel Crawley the letter was read, and contained a reprimand of the witness on account of his appeal, and permitting him to withdraw it. Witness—He held in his hand a letter, which he forwarded for the information of the commander in chief, and which the major general considered insubordinate. The President thought that the letter had nothing to do with the case, When an officer withdrew a letter it ought to become a nullity. Sir A. Horsfordsaid the object was to show that when he heard what Colonel Crawley had said about him he was anxious as soon as he could to state what had really occurred, The President thought it would be bottter not to put in those letters. The evidence already disclosed that Mr. Fitzsimon received certain orders, and that he carried them out. The letters were useless. After some conversation the letters were admitted and read. The original letter expressed the regret of the writer that Sir Hugh Rose had considered his evidence unsatis factory, and hal animadverted on his conduct in placing the sentries, explaining that all that had been done under the direction of Colonel Crawley. On being recommended to withdraw that letter he wrote a conditional letter of withdrawal. lie was again sent for to Colonel Crawley's house. Colonel Crawley read out a letter from Major Champion, in which it was stated that he was to assign no reason for withdrawing his letter. His (witness's) present position in the regiment was that of lieutenant and adju tant, but not doing duty. The President—ln what year did all this happen that you have stated ? Witness—ln 1862, The conversations between himself and Colonel Crawley might not have been what he had stated, but he had given the substance of them. The cross-examination of the witness was postponed until to-morrow. Colonel Crawley said he did not wish that there should be any delay with regard to the letters, The letters which had been produced he admitted. Private Cuthbert Blake, of the 6th Dragoons, being sworn, said he was corporal of the guard on the let of May on Sergeant Major Lilley, at Mhow. Ho posted thesentries outside the doors. He was confined in consequence on a charge of neglect of duty—for not posting the sentry inside. No such order had been given. After he had been placed under arrest ho was tried by a regimental court martial, the charge against him being neglect of duty to a regimental order. The cross-examination was postponed till to-morrow. Edward Griffith Sims, confidential clerk in the judge advocate general's office, produced the original of the court martial on the last witness on the sth of May. The charge against hun was for not posting the sentries as had been directed. The court martial found him guilty of breach of orders. ( rho proceedings of the court martial were read, and he was sentenced to 12 days' imprisonment. The Court recommended him to mercy, and Colonel Crawley, attribut ing his conduct to stupidity, remitted the punishment, and allowed him to rejoin his regiment as a private dragoon, depriving him of his office of corporal.) Edward Mills, serjeant of the 6th Dragoons, said he first mounted guard on Sergeant Major Lilley on the Ist May, 1862. On visiting the sentry about 20 minutes before 12, he found the sentry outside of Sergeant Major Lilley's bungalow, He asked him the reason, and he said that was where the corporal placed him. He went to the guard room and called the corporal out, asking him the reason why he placed the sentry outside. He gave no reason, but asked witness not to report him. He immediately went and reported him to the acting regimental sergeant major, who ordered hint to be placed under arrest. Hs went into his room and got another corporal. The offending corporal (the last witness) was brought before a court martial and sen tenced to 42 days' imprisonment, which Colonel Crawley forgave him. Sergeant Major Lilley was allowed to take an hour's exercise twice a-day by the doctor's order. He was always accompanied. At first they went jogging and trotting all round the race course together. The second time the sergeant in charge was to walk in the rear of Lilley, so that there might be no conversation between them. Lilley was a man who consumed a great deal of drink: he was a great, coarse, ignorant man; he drank very heavily, mad could carry a great deal. He had many times seen him in drink, but never drunk on duty. He used to ride about a great deal on a pony. Ho could not walk much, as he had bad feet. Witness mounted guard a second time on the 19th of the same month of May, and all day on the 20th. On the first time no one was allowed to see Lilley. On the second occasion the rule was relaxed in favour of the medical officer. On the second occasion the sentry was posted in the servants' room, on the first occasion outside. Ou the 19th the sentries were in the troop bungalow, in the verandah, where Sergeant Major Lilley slept that night, The order to the sentry was that he should never lose sight of the prisoner, day or night. He was to allow no one but the medical officer and the na tive servant to hold communication with him, and he was to search the native servant when he went in and out, and take from him any letter or scrap of paper, and hand it to the sergeant of the guard, to be by him taken to the adjutant, and submitted to the commanding officer. These orders were written and posted up in the guard room, and signed by the adjutant, Lieut. Fitz,imon, and the acting adjutant. He did not know what had become of those orders. Sergeant Major Lilley was taken from his room to the troop bungalow, because the former was taken down for barracks to be built on the same spot. At this period the court martial was adjourned. A POACHER SHOT.—On Friday evening last a keeper named Henry Hill, in the employ of Lord Rivers, of Rushmore, Wilts, encountered Alfred Dicker, a notorious poacher, who had just left a wood and entered the high road. The keeper collared him, and attempted to search his pockets. Dicker made a determined resistance, and beat the keeper most severely over the head and breast with the barrel of a gun which he had about him. A gun which the keaper carried accidentally went off in the struggle, and the charge was lodged in the poacher's left thigh. This had the effect of disabling him, and other keepers hearing the re• port came to Hill's assistance. Dicker was at once taken to a publichouse at Ludwell, where he was promptly at tended to by Mr. Gregg, surgeon. The wound was n..it so serious as to pr event his being taken before the magistrates at Hindon on the following day. He was there committed for trial at the assizes on a charge of unlawfully wounding Hill, who has been seriously hurt. On Saturday evening the prisoner was conveyed to Salisbury by Superintendent Dann, and there lodged in gaol. A hare was found upon him when he was taken, and also a gun, with powder, shot, and bullets. 'ry [ADVERTISEMENT:I—HoIIoway's Ointment and Pills. — It is admitted by eve on e who has personally tried these noble remedies for any eruptions, sores, ulcers, &c., or who have witnessed their purifying and healing effects on others suffering from such maladies, that nothing more can be de sired than those medicaments possess. The ointment relaxes the swollen muscles, diminishes both redness and inflam mation, assuages pain, and alleviates even danger which may have lasted for months or even years. Holloway's excellent preparations are stated to be effective singly—re sistless in combination, and have been recommended by grateful patients to be sought as the alternatives when all other means of regaining health have faired. Their act ion is temperate, not violent or reducing. [ADVERTISEMENT.]—COWRIMptiOR, all nervous, bilious, liver, and stomach complaints, in every stage, are only ag gravated and accelerated by drugs of every description, but perfectly curable by Du Barry's health restoring Revalenta Arabica Food, as proved by thousands of cases which had been considered hopeless. We quote a few.—Cure No. 62,914. Miss Lange, 18 years of age, cured after the medical men had abandoned all hopes of her recovery from the last stage of Pulmonary consumption, with fearful cough, expectoration, exhaustion, spitting of blood, perspirations, hollow cheeks, emaciated to a skeleton. She is now, thank God, a perfectly healthy, blooming, fleshy girl.—N. Lange, Commissaire de Police. Cure, No. 46,270. Mr. James Roberts, of Frimley Surrey, of thirty years' diseased lungs, spitting of blood, liver derangement, and partial deafness. —Cure, No. 47,121. Min Elizabeth Jacobs, of extreme nervousness, indigestion, gatherings, low spirits, and nervous fancies.—Cure, No. 54,816. The Rev. James T. Campbell, Fakenham, Norfolk, of indigestion and torpidity of the liver, which had resisted all medical treatment. In tins, 11b, 28 9d; 21b, 48 6d; 51b, 11x; 121 b, 225; 241 b, 40s. Barry du Barry and Co., No. 77, Regent-street, London ; also Fortnum and Mason; and all grocers and chemists in every town of the Wilted Kingdom, COURT OF ALDERMEN. A Court of Aldermen was holden yesterday at Guildhall. The Right Hun. the Lord Mayor (W. Lawrence, Esq.) presided for the first time in his official capacity, and, as is usual on such occasions, every member present was attired in his scarlet robes. The LORD MAYOR, at the commencement of the proceedings, made a few observations to his brother aldermen, and said he felt assured that he should always receive from them thesame cordial and kind assistance that had been accorded to his predeces sors, and that th© officers of the Court would also do the same in their respective capacities. (dear, hear.) THE CITY GAOLS. Mr. Sheriff NISSEN made a report of the condi tion of the gaols within the jurisdiction of the Court, by which it appeared that there are at pre sent in Newgate 113, in the Debtors' Prison, White cross-street, 87, and at the Holloway House of Correction 338 prisoners ; out of the number it ap peared that only 18 prisoners were in the infirma- ries or under medical treatment. TIIE LATE LORD MAYOR. Alderman COPELAND, \I.P., the senior member of the Court, proposed a vote of thanks to Alderman Rose, M.P., the late Lord Mayor, for the manner in which he had performed the duties of his office during the past year. He said it might not appear quite becoming for an Alderman of the City of London to speak in terms of eulogy of one of his brethren, but still he had no difficulty in expressing the opinion that Alderman Rose, during the period he had filled the high and important office of Lord Mayor of the City of London, had conducted him self with the strictest honour and integrity and that he had acted not only in a manner to give satisfac tion to his brethren of the Court of Aldermen, but also to the citizens and the public at large. (Hear.) The worthy alderman then referred to the important incidents that had taken place during the late mayoralty—the coming of age of the Prince of Wales, his marriage, and the banquet given to him and his bride by the Corporation of London; and said that in reference to all these matters the late Lord Mayor had acted in a manner that was most honourable to himself personally, and reflected great credit upon the Corporation of which he was the head. (Hear, hear.) Alderman Copeland con cluded by stating that he had not prepared a formal resolution on the present occasion, but he should take as a precedent the resolution agreed to by the Court in 1861, which he read and proposed for the adoption of the Court, the necessary alterations as to name, &c., being left to be made in the Town Clerk's office. Alderman WILSON seconded the motion. it is usual upon these occasions for such a resolu tion to be at once agreed to, but on the present occasion, Alderman SIDNEY, M.P., rose, and said that un less resolutions like the one now before the Court were to be taken as mere matters of form and courtesy, and to be treated as such, he thought that every member of the Court had an undoubted right to criticise the conduct of the chief magistrate dur ing his year of office, and, while disclaiming the least intention of detracting from the honour that the late Lord Mayor was duly entitled to for the able manner in which he had performed the duties of his office, he still claimed the right of expressing his opinion with regard to some important matters that had occurred during his mayoralty. (Hear, hear.) He could not forget that at the commence ment of the present year the Corporation of London had been placed in a position of extreme peril, owing to the accidents that had occurred in the City upon the occasion of the procession of the Prince and Princess of Wales through Lon den—(hear, hear)—and he believed that if the late Lord Mayor—had consulted hie brethren of the Court of Aldermen with regard to the arrange ments to be made, and had not taken so much upon himself—(hear, hear)—this would not have occurred. (Hear.) He had no hesitation in saying that if the Lord Mayor had asked for any advice from his brethren of the Court of Aldermen, he would have been told that a Lord Mayor of the City of London had quire enough to do to attend to the duties of his office without going out of his way to provide for the arrangements to be made to keep order in the streets upon such an occasion. (Hear.) In his (Alderman Sidney's) opinion the privileges and rights of the city of London had never been more endangered than they were by the break-down last March, (Hear, hear.) There was another point upon which he felt called upon to make a few re marks, and this was the withholding of the usual honours accorded by the Crown to the chief magis trate of the city of London upon such extraordinary and important incidents as had recently occurred. (Hear.) The hon. alderman who had proposed the motion had not touched upon this subject, and had not alluded in any manner to the reasons that had induced the Government to decline to accord these honours ; but he felt called upon to say a few words upon the subject. He had carefully read the reasons that had been stated by Lord Palmerston for the course that had been adopted; but it appeared to him that they were untenable. If the Lord Mayor of the time was granted a baronetcy and the sheriffs were knighted upon the occasion of the-visit of a foreign potentate to this country, surely it might be thought that the coming of age of the Prince of Wales, his marriage, and the affectionate reception he had met with from the citizens of London, might be considered an equal justification for a similar course being taken. This, however, had not been done, and he must express his opinion that the course that was taken by the late Lord Mayor, of going in person to solicit the Premier to grant him the honour of a baronetcy was one that he ought not to have taken. (Hear.) Ile believed if he had asked one or two of the old and discreet brethren of the Court, and a few of the more important members of the other branch of the Corporation, they would have given him better advice, and the city of Lon don would not have been slighted in the manner it had been, and that the honours to which it was so justly entitled would have been accorded to the Cor poration. (Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") He men tioned this because he believed that the public were misinformed upon the subject. He had heard many persons say that the only object the Corporation of London had in view in the reception they had given to the Prince of Wales, and the City banquet, was to get a baronetcy for the Lord Mayor, and a knighthood for each of the sheriffs, and that they had spent £50,000 or £60,000 for those purposes. (Hear, hear.) He thought it right t hat this Court should disclaim any such motives, as he was well assured that no other object was sought to be at tained than to express that loyalty which had ever been shown by the city of London to the Royal Family. (Hear.) He would only observe that he desired by these observations to express his opinion that in the course he had adopted the late Lord Mayor had made a very great mistake—(hear) — and that all he had done had served to defeat the object he had in view. He should not, of course, object to the motion, but at the same time he felt it his duty to make the observations he had done in reference to these matters. Alderman PHILLIPS said he had no desire to pro long the discussion ; but he thought it right to state that, in his opinion, the Court of Aldermen gene rally were quite as much responsible for the police arrangements that were made upon the occasion of the entry of the Prince and Princess of Wales into London as the Lord Mayor. (Loud cries of " No, no.") He repeated that this Court sanctioned the arrangements that were made, and authorised Capt. Hodgson, the superintendeni: of police, to carry them out. Alderman COI'ELAND rose and made a brief re ply in support of his motion. He said that he could not deny that the city of Lovdon had been slighted on the present occasion, but as the Prime Minister and the Government had not felt it right to award spontaneously to the Corporation of Lon don, in the person of their chief magistrate, those honours to which ho might be considered entitled, he thought it better, in moving the present resolu tion, to make no allusion to the matter. (Hear.) The resolution was then put and carried unani mously, with the addition that it should be adver tised in the usual manner SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS, PosT,—The Court of Exchequer was engaged the whole of yesterday in hearing Sir Hugh Cairns show cause why the verdict already pronounced in the case of the Alexandra should not be disturbed, As the arguments of the defendant's conneel, toge ther with the reply of the Attorney-General, will doubtless occupy some days, and as the decision of the court may not improbably be postponed for some time after their termination, we will, without at tempting to prejudge the case, briefly acquaint the public with the nature of the point which is now at issue. In the course of last summer the Government having reason to suspect that a vessel, at that time in course of construction in the docks of a private shipbuilder in the port of Liverpool, was intended to be employed as a privateer against the Federal Government, took possession of, or as the phrase is, exchequered her, They did so by virtue of an Act of Parliament known as the Foreign Enlistment Act, which forbids any British subject within her Majesty's don inions to arm, equip, furnish, or fit out, or attempt to arm, &c., any vessel with intent that such vessel shall be employed against a friendly State Offenders against the act are by its terms adjudged guilty of misde meanour, and the vessels so constructed in contra vention of its provisions are declared forfeited to the Crown. Having taucn possession of the vessel above referred to, the Crown, instead of proceeding against the builders for misdemeanour, was content to de mand the forfeiture of the ship. The cause accord • ingly came on for trial in the Court of Exchequer, when the issue raised between the Crown and those who alleged themselves to be the owners of the ship was simply whether the latter had contravened the provisions of the Foreign Enlistment Act in reference to the ship whose forfeiture was claimed. After a long and patient trial a special jury gave a verdict to the effect that the Act had not been violated, and that, consequently, the Crown was not entitled to claim the vessel. To the directors of the learned judge in his summing up to the jury the counsel for the Crown, however, took exceptions. A misunder standing arose as to what the directions of the Chief Baron really were, and when the bill of ex ceptions were tendered to him he refused to sign it. At the commencement of the present term an at tempt was made by the present Attorney-General to obtain the sanction of the Chief Baron to the bill which he tendered, and subsequently failing to do so, the law officers of the Crown decided on aban doning the bill of exceptions and simply moving the Court of Exchequer for a new trial upon various grounds. The effect of the latter mode of proceed ing will be that both the Crown and the defendants must rest contented with the decision of the Court. On a bill of exceptions either might go to the Exchequer Chamber or the House of Lords, but on the motion for a new trial, under existing cir cumstances, no appeal will lie from the judgment of the Court to whom tete application is made. A few days since the Attorney-General moved for and obtained a conditional rule for a new trial, on the grounds that the verdict was against the weight of evidence, and that the Lord Chief Baron had mis directed the jury. Against this rule being made absolute the defendant's counsel now show cause. If the rule is made absolute, the cause of the Alexandra will be reheard before another jury; if the rule is discharged, the seizure of the vessel by the Crown will be declared illegal, and her property will vest in the reputed owners. It is not, however, the right of possession to a particular ship which is in reality at issue. It is virtually the trial of a right of consider able magnitude and which deeply interests not only a section of the mercantile community of this country but the nation at large. The adequacy of an Act of Parliament to fulfil certain international require ments is being now submitted to a legal test, and, if it should be shown to be inadequate, the friendly relations which have hitherto subsisted between two of the most important Powers in the world may be seriously disturbed. Nor is it the immediate consequences of the decision which in the course of a few days will be pronounced by the Court of Exchequer, which alone possess an interest for ns. The great maxim which inculcates the propriety of doing to others as you expect others to do to you obtains between nations as well as between individuals. If we affirm by the solemn judgment of one of our highest tribunals that it is perfectly legitimate for the subjects of a neutral State in which such an enactment as the Foreign Enlist ment Act forms a portion of the municipal law to build vessels in every respect adapted to conversion into ships of war, by simply supplying a suitable armament, we preclude ourselves from advancing any complaints should a neutral State at any future time supply similar vessels to a Power with which we might be at war. With this question, which was one of pure expediency, the Court of Ex chequer has of course nothing to do. It has simply to construe an Act of Parliament. But we allude to the circumstance to show the magnitude of the interests involved in the nominal issue of the right of possession in an unfinished vessel, at most worth but a few thousand pounds. Although the rule for a new trial has been obtained, inter alia, on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of evidence, the chief point which the Court will have to determine will be whether the interpretation put upon the Foreign Enlistment Act by the Chief Baron was correct or otherwise. The illustration offered by the latter of the case of the Alabama will tifford to the non-professional reader the most in telligible view of construction put by the learned judge on the operation of the Foreign Enlistment Act. That vessel was, as the public are aware, built in an English dockyard. She sailed from an English port unequipped ; but at Terceira, that is to say in Portuguese waters, she took on board a complete armament of guns and other muni tions of war, which had been despatched from England in a steamer specially chartered to con vey them. She then became a perfectly armed and fully equipped ship of war, and, after hoist ing the Confederate flag, and without having ever entered a Southern port, she proceeded to inflict all the damage she could on the merchant navy of the North. In illustrating the application of the Foreign Enlistment Act the Chief Bann stated to the jury that in his opinion the departure of the Alabama from these shores constituted no in fringement of the statute. Between the case of the Alabama and that of the Alexandra, however, the only distinction consisted in the fact that the latter vessel was seized before she was in a condi tion to leave the shipbuilder's dock. It may fairly be assumed that, had not the Government inter posed, she would, like the Alabama, have put to sea in an unarmed state and taken her armament on board in some foreign port or on the high seas. fhe gist of the offence, according to the Chief Baron's ruling, consists in the arming, equipping, &c., or attempting to arm, equip, &c., a vessel within her Majesty's dominions with the intent that such vessel shall be employed against a friendly Power, In support of the application for a new trial the law officers of the Crown contend that the construction of a vessel especially adapted to carry guns is in itself a violation of the statute, although her armament is not actually supplied until after she has left the United Kingdom ; and consequently as the Alexandra was manifestly adapted for con version to the purposes of a ship of war, that the verdict was against the evidence. They also con tend that the Chief Baron misdirected the jury in telling them that they should find a verdict for the defendants unless they considered that they had armed, or intended to arm, the Alexandra in a port in her Majesty's dominions. These are the principal issues raised for the consideration of the full court ; and on the decision at which it may arrive will de pend whether the case of the Alexandra will be tried de none, or the vessel be forthwith restored to the possession of the original owners. HERALD.—" From the North-west," says the In dian ad vices, " the news received is of a somewhat cheering character." This announcement is then explained, and we are invited to be of better cheer, as the new Ameer of Cabool, Shir Ali Khan, has been reconciled to his rebel brother Azim, has en tered the capital in state, and been there acknow ledged by the Sardars as the legitimate successor of Dost Mohammed. It is further intimated that the reconciliation between Shir Ali and Azim Khan was owing to the latter having been disappointed in receiving reinforcements from his brother Afzal. This last piece of intelligence, however, does not harmonise very well with the inference which we are asked to draw from this fortnight's budget of news, viz., that there is likely to be peace in Afghanistan—for a reconciliation which s prang less from returning good-will than from the inability of one of the parties to fight is not very likely to l be to lasting. On the contrary, it is only reason :b elf in suppose that if Afzal Kh an shows strength t at Shir the A troopslwoi will findAzim it will difficult hasten t t e o l i 7 O k e in e p h i h m i 8 , and h Butthrone be i t n h f e e c a e s o t t na h e a oyp, pand t i o w n b o e f t b e his r t t w b o eA b A r o f g t h h e a r n s 8 . tranquilly r nett h equestion su i t n o ruletwhhe bwe ef arethe new pre e n e e e n r t o i bmit i n t e rested, as regards this frontier of our Erstern dominions, appe ars to be nearer solution. Of course, in the first plaee, for the sake of humanity, and in the second, because turbulence is catching, it is desirable that Afghanistan should not be the scene of bloodshed and disorder; but something more is required before the news from the North west can be looked upon as satisfactory. The real object of our policy as regards Afghanistan, and the point ;o which we must attach the chief im portance, is that the ruler of the Afghans, be be who he may, should be friendly to England. Indeed, if we are to take only a selfish view of the matter, it dees not by any means necessarily follow that our interests will be served by the interval trarqu;llit Y and flourishing state of th e Afghan kingdom. Whether that is to be au advantage t o us or not mu~ sst depend on the disposition of the rule. lii fact, under an ambitious chief, hostile to us, the prosperity of Afghanistan, and its being united under one head, might become a source of consider able danger. Even Lord Auckland, great as were his blunders, judged rightly on this point. Tim object which he had in view in that memorable and lamentable Afghan war was by no means unworthy of great sacrifices. Lord A uckland fault lay in net adopting the means to the end, or rather in seeking a wise end by means utterly irreconcilable with it. His wish was that the Afghan sceptre should be in friend l y hands, and he wrested it from Dost Mohammed a man of great ability, whom it would have been easy to con ciliate, and who would have carried the hearts .0f the people with him, and gave it to Shah Shujet, whose pride could not stomach a benefit, and es h n o was unable to purchase popularity eve n by treaso to his English benefactors. This grievous mistake stamped the whole policy of 1837 with its i m p ress. The fact, however, remained that it could n ot be a matter of indifference to us who ruled at Cabool, and held the key of those terrible passes front which so many turbulent hordes have so often ensued for the plunder and devastation of Hindustan, and who, in case of a Europe in war, might again b e pushed forward on the same errand. But if, when the Punjaub intervened between our Indian frontier and the Afghans friendly relations with the ruler of Cabool were of importance to the Indian Gove.rn ment, how much more is that the case now. Ihe mutual hatred of the Sikhs and Affghans was too bitter for the two nations ever to combine ; and, 8° far from being able to cross the Punjaub to invad o India, the Afghans had enough to do to hold their own against the sword of the Khalsa. But things have altered very materially since the occupation of Lahore and Peshawur by the English. On the one hand, the Anglo-Indian territory has been e l y tended right up to the foot of the mountain fast nesses of the Afghans. On the other, the Afgha n power has been immensely increased and consoli dated by the union of Candahar and Herat with Cabool, and by the conquest of the greatest part of the kingdom of Bokara and other provinces. If the dominions of Dost Mahommed should remain united under Afzal Khan, or any other enterprising" chief, there is no denying that Persia at least, and our ally the .Khan of Knelat, will be in very con siderable danger ; and though the Indian Govern' tent may be quite strong enough to repel any aggression on its own frontier, it is not unlikely that there will be constant disquietude. We have a foreshadowing of this in the assemblage of an army of observation at Lahore. The maintenanc e of such an army would be an enormous expense-- an expense due to the supineness of the Whig Go' vernment, who, it seems, have taken no steps inaugurate friendly relations with the Bons of Pos t Mohammed. COUNTRY MARKETS. LEEDS—TUESDAY. The arrivals of grain both by water and rail have bee% fair. The business transacted in wheat to-day has not been extensive, but last Tuesday's full prices were supported 01 the sales made. The demand for fine barley was good, 1311 ,. quite as dear ; other sorts neglected. Oats and beans WO' at Tuesday's rates. MARKET HARBOROUGH—TUESDAY. White wheat, 40s to 43s ; red, 38s to 40s per 3G stotls Malting barley at 34s to 38s, per qr. ; grinding, 28 s to 3, 4 per 30 st. Oats, old, 24s to 275; new, 21s to 23s per " st. ; beans, 34s to 428 per qr. LIVERPOOL—TUESDAY. There was a good attendance at market to-day both of tl3e4 town and c,untry trade, and more disposition to buy w' of evinced. Wheat was in good demand, and an advanc e be 2d per 100113 on fine white and Id to 2d on fine red ntaY st quoted on the week. Fine descriptions of flour saleob ms full prices; but little business done in other sorts. 1/ o s and oatmeal a moderate trade. Barley, beans, and P e quite as dear. Indian corn in retail. SHEFFIELD—TUESDAY. The market was fairly attended, and there was an ave rrjge f show of grain. Holders of tine wheats asked an advance 0 ls per load, per and 1 9 oah this checked sales. Od Iced wheat, ld of 3 imperial bushels...lss Od to 176 White ...17s 6 d to os 0 0a ) New red ..15s 6d to 17s 4 ''',- ild to 18s° New white ft _..17s Beans ...15s Od to 17s 7) f) Peas, per qr .. 2OS Od to 44s Oci. Grindinr , barley, per qr •••• Malting b ditto, 7) Oats Flour, ls sd, is 7d, and is 9d per 32310244s8sl°°°bddd. to 32385: CORK—TUESDAY. od The following were the quotations this morning wheat, 8s Od to 8s 8d ; white, 7s 8d to Os 5d , barley, Od to 8s Od ; oats, 3s 9d to 65 Od ; bla ck do., 35 9dt°' 5s 6d. DUBLIN — A steady market for all kin last Friday's prices. s. d. s. d. 1 Wheat, white 23 0 to 25 0 Do., red 2O 0 to 23 0 Do., new 0 to Barley Oats Do., black — 0 to 0 ids of grain, and we re-quote s. d. s. d. Oatmeal.. •... 10 0 to 13 0 Beans.. 0 to Bere 0 to 0 Rapeseed 21 0 to 25 0 0 Bakers' flour 14 oto 20 Indian corn .. 27 0 to 26 0 Foreign Mail Packet List. MAILS DUE. ,vnstralia and Mauritius, via Southampton..... .' N „„ 13 „ via Marseilles ......... 4 .Brazil and Cape Verds, by British packet. ...... . pee. 3. Cape of Good Hope, Ascension, and St. Helena..l l. °* Is t China, Penang, and Singapore, via Southaniptou.Nov. via Marseilles ...NO' ov- IS' Falkland Islands Gibraltar, via Southampton ..... 1 . 4, (3, _. iiQ s, India (Calcutta), and Ceylon, via Southampon..P4 Nov , l b ' India (Bombay), via Southampton . .............Nov.— via Marseilles ....... 4, Portuga1.... via Marseilles Novv: f 2,1,. Nov , 15. Malta, Egypt, and Aden, via Southampton 2O. via Marseilles N°v* NOV. 25, Newfoundland .. Oporto and Vigo U. S. and British N. America, by Brit. packet.... l'i 0 % ' by U.S. packet • • 2 0, W.C. of Africa, Madeira and I b ' Nov. ov• 2° ' Bahamas, via New York ' .... 0. Mexico.. by Canadian N dian packet. Nov...... All parts of West Indies, including Chili, Peru, j D e c, 2 5 . California. and British Columbia. Full benefit of reduced duty obtained by P ur i . chasing Ilorniman's pure Tea ; very choice at 3s. 4d. an 49. "High Standard" at 4s. 4d. (formerly 4s. Bd.), iS the strongest and most delicious imported. Agents in every town supply it in packets. A CLASSIC TOlLETTE.—According to te stimony, which is scarcely to be disputed, the sun could never have shone upon a less lovely object than a Roman lady in the days of the Cassars, when she opened her . eyes in the morning—or rather let us say , as she appeared n morning, for before she opened her eyes a great deal had to be done, When she retired to rest her face had been covered with a plaster composed of bread and ass's milk, which had dried during the night, and consequently presented in the morning an appearance of cracked chalk. The purpose of the ass's milk was not only to preserve the delicacy of the skin, but to renovate the lungs, and so strong was the be' lief in the efficacy of the specific, that some energetic ladies bathed themselves in it 70 times in the course of a single daY. As for Poppce3, the favourite wife of Nero, she never set out on a journey without taking in her train whole herds of she-asses, that she might bathe whenever she pleased or so n t ° do. The plaster of Paris bust having wak ened in the m ing in a cracked condition, it was the office of a hest of female slaves to matut ait into perfect beauty. To clear the field for further operations, the first of these gently washea away with lukewarm ass's milk the alre ad y cruet mask, mask, and left a smooth face, to be coloured by more recondite artists. The slave, whose vocation it was to paint the cheeks, delicately laid on the red and white, having moistened the pigment with her own saliva. The appare nt nastiness of this operation was diminished by the con stnar tion of a certain number of sce nted lozen g es, which, if the slave neglected to take, she suffered corporeal punishment . —Dickens's " All the Year Round," just published. Births. ATTLEE--On the 16th inst., at Dorking, the wife of Dit 15th inst., the Count ess o f Strad stillborn. s broke,TNi V t A . D A t iot t 01 of a ,op d i ir a e u tn ih g a h e t u e r r e . y WALFonn.—On the 16th inst., at Troago, Herefordshi re, the wife of John H. N. Walford, Esq., of a son. WooDwAltD.—On the 15th inst., at Ealing, Mrs. Herb ert Woodward, of a daughter. Marriages. HORSFALL—LEEKE.—On the 12th inst., at Ilolbrooktg Church, Derbyshire, T. B. Il ors f all, Esq., M.P . ' j a- Sophia, eldest daught er o f th e R ev. William L ec ke, cumbent of llolbrooke. 01 3 LENNOX—MOLYNEUX.—O n the 17th inst., at the to Parish Church, Kensington, Lord William Lenne l ' Maria Jane, eld es t d aughter of the Rev.CapellllolP3co, incumbent of St. Paul's, Onslow-square. in D st e ;, a a t t h t s h . ANGER.—On the 15the Parsonage, the Rev. Th omas Ainge, a , ed 64. rri psteall BEST. —On the 14th inst.,6 at 6, Gay-street, Bath, 1\1(5. Na Best, aged 76. DYNE.—On the 13th i ns t ., su dd en l y, Ed war d Dyne) etij of 61, Lincoln's-inn-fields, aged 61. St. MADAM,—On the 17th inst ,at 5, Northwick-terrace, 0 John's-wood, Captain Frederick Madan, 11.C.5., t 'g 67. MAEYN,—On the 16th in s t. ,at Old Bond - stre et, Bath. Mr ' George Mabyn, aged 49. EicHARDs.---On the 14th inst., at Woolwich, Capt. 115111 Lord Richards, R N., aed 78. e ar WALTER.—On the 15th g inst a t Oldbury Lodg e, Taunton, Somerset, Wm. Walter, Esq., aged 87. _ London : Priraed and Put,llshed by Aqua-int AND,IOI,' No , of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at THE SUN Office *ll-i Strand, in the Precinct of the flavoy, .n the CoaltY kliddiclex.—"Fircdneaciay,_NoveMber 18, 1801. _-~'~' Der Inter( eurrei pe and desire Tli in Lo abio i The Sc., a Lot E: no. 12 Ntreet near be coy Comp] ll' Conc Chail ,par eio nj (to John ‘Vi Cot Robe Jl. /e c a nin Zdwa gtre .11711.1, Alber CeOrp, t of Com e Thorn Zotic ITA N , Cur and a Int( cont. belo Whet allow ]i l 3 street When. E , street therei E. appui for co Pit El tenure churc: NI Amur Annu Ins , oh tlai I , :v c Ni t on th Th( Pot on. ap Love r 1 Corp( Th. raged Eqi ay al An Life. Tin Pol the 31 186,5, T' espec to 3s. Ilucec to 3s. So] Five REA An • offic Way