The Sun. — London, England, 1863-01-06 00:00:00

Prison Discipline and the Hampshire County Magistrates. WINCHESTER, MONDAY. The Epiphany Sessions for the county of Hants were opened to-day at Winchester Castle, when, it being known that the Earl of Carnarvon was going to bring forward a motion opening up the whole question of prison discipline, an unusually large number of magistrates were in attendance. Viscount Eversley presided, and among the more prominent members of the county Bench present were the Earl of Carnarvon, Lord H. Cholmondeley, Lord Cal thorpe, Sir J. C. Jervoise, M.P., Mr. B. Carter, M.P., Mr. Beach, M.P., the Hon. J. F. Dutton, M.P., Mr. J. S. Booth, M.P., the Hon. J. Carnegie, Mr. W. Long, Mr. M. Portal, The business relating to the county rates having been disposed of, Lord H. Cholmondeley brought up the Visiting Justices' Report, which having been adopted, The Earl of CARNARVON said,—My Lords and Gentlemen, I rise to move for a select committee to consider the system of prison discipline in this county and the expediency of any changes therein. Considering the extreme importance of questions referring to the penal system at all times, and par ticularly at the present moment, it would be a mere waste of time upon my part if I attempted to im press upon you the deep interest -which the country at large feels in this question of prison discipline, nor will it be necessary to r emind my noble friend who has just read the report of the Visiting Justices that I am in no way desirous of usurp ing the province which he so ably fill s , nor do I desire in reference to this quest i on to act in any spirit antagonistic to that committee. 11 , 4 noble friend will see that these duties of the committee of which he is a member, and the duties of the one I move for, are quite distinct. The committee over which my noble friend presides is intrusted with the duty of maintaining continually the prison discipline on the system on which it has been established, while the duty of the committee for which I move will be to take a broader view of the question, and the members of it will address themselves to the principles rather than to the de tails of the penal system upon which the discipline of prisoners in this county is based. I am therefore quite sure that my noble friend will not consider that any personal slight is intended either towards him or the Committee of Visiting Justices, when I ask the Court to consider a question to which the whole attention of England is at the present moment directed. Putting aside all personal considerations, the question of the present system of prison disci pline and its mode of administration is of the greatest possible importance to the welfare of the country at large. It is not my intention to enter into any ques tions which have referencelto sentences exceeding two years' imprisonment, because they all come under the term of penal servitude, and Parliament next session will be called on to decide what course the central Government shall pursue with regard to them. It is rather with reference to a class of sen tences much more numerous, bat in which the per sons sentenced are, I am afraid, just as criminal as those sentenced to a longer term, and with which sentences this Court has to deal, that I wish an in quiry should be instituted ; for I think it is the duty of each county from time to time to examine the basis of its prison discipline, and the principles upon which that prison discipline should be carried out—(hear, hear)—and I think that on this general ground there is quite enough to justify me in asking the Court to agree with my motion for the appointment of a committee to inquire into the whole subject of prison discipline in this county. It is now about 16 years—nearly half the lifetime of the present generation—since a committee, of which your lordship was the chairman, laid down the sys tem upon which prison discipline in this county should be based. It was established at a time when the question of prison discipline was much dis cussed, and when its principles could hardly be said to be settled. Since that time committees of both Houses of Parliament have sat, commissions issued, reports published, and a very abundant and volu minous flood of evidence has been brought forward upon this particular subject; and therefore it would be preposterous to jump to the conclusion that, however well the subject was deliberated by the committee to which I have alluded, its conclusions ought to be it vested with any degree of finality, so as to preclude the idea of a reinvestigation at the present day. During these 15 years various changes have been made in the mode of administering pri son discipline, and although it may be true that in themselves none of these changes have been great revolutionary changes, yet taken in the aggregate they really do, in consequence of their uniform ten dency and operation being all in one direction, constitute a very considerable change in our prison discipline. If the present committee is granted, I shall be prepared to show you that there has been a very considerable departure from the conclusions of the committee of 1847, and that the various changes made have exercised very considerable in fluence upon the amount of hard labour, and the dietary of our county gaol, which the Court will remember is just as much a part of the sentence as the hard labour itself. To bring the matter shortly and clearly before the Court, I will addrese myself to three points. In the first place, hard labour as a part of the punishment of offenders was intro duced here in 1848. After considerable discussion by the committee of which your lordship was chair man, it was decided to make hard labour an into. gral part of the prison system ; but the only method of carrying that system into effect was by means of certain cranks let into the walls of the cells, and it was required that each prisoner should perform a certain number of revolutions. It was soon found that, owing to the construction of the cranks and the small spaces in which they were worked, they were open to objection, and very soon afterwards a series of cranks were constructed on improved prin ciples and set up in an open shed in which the convicts worked. About the year 1853 great diffi culty began to be felt in carrying out the sentences. I do not think there were more than 50 cranks in the shed I have described, and at the Michaelmas session in 1854 the question was brought before this Court, and an order was obtained for the erection of two tread wheels, so that prisoners might ful fil their sentence of hard labour. I am sorry to say that, from that time down to November, 1861, this order of the Court remained a dead letter, for it was not till November, 1861, that the com mittee of which my noble friend was chairman en tered into a contract for a tread-wheel, which ought to have been in full working order in the middle of 1862. It was, however, found that, owing to the faulty construction of the machinery, there volutions of the wheel were so unequal that it was quite impossible to apply it to the ordinary pur poses of prison punishment. I importance of the s u bj ect that at t hefelt sogr eatly Midsummer the Sessions I pressed my noble friend upon the matteer as earnestly as I could; but no step jam was-taken in it till within the lust fortoi.ht, very glad to hear by the report of the noble lordtha that steps are now being taken to render this o perati ve for the purpose of inflicting punishment. It is true that the wheel is not wholly operative; it may be par tially applied for the purpose of grinding corn , but as it is only used for the prison supply it would, if continuously worked for that purpose give two hours labour to the men a day, and if you compare that amount of work per day with the original rule laid down by the committee you will find a very great relaxation in the labour of convicts. That commit. tee laid down most distinctly that while all proper means of moral reformation ought to be tried, yet that it was esQenti,:i that every prisoner should un dergo a certain amount of penal discipline before those moral m?ans of reclamation were to be used. For this purpose the prisoners were divided into four classes —those serving their first month, to whom was allotted a minimum of eight hours' hard labour a day, it being provided that over and above that they were to receive what instruction they could obtain from the s choolmasters and chaplains; the second class, those serving the second month, were to be employed six hours a-day in hard labour; the third class, serving their third month, where to be employed four hours a day in hard lahnure, n d the fourth class, wlia had served three months, a were to be employed three hours in each day. What is , the case now ? The first class, instead of receiving a minimum of eighthours hard labour a day,rreceive a maximum of 3 hours ; the second, the third and fourth classes, instead of receiving respectively a minimum of six, four, and three hours, receive a maximum of about two hours a-day. Well, then, I ask is it not idle to talk of sentencing a prisoner to hard labour if this is to be the state of things in the prison ? What is the result ? Look at it in any light you please—either as respects the prisoner, or as regards the judges—it must have a bad e ffect. With respect to the prisoner, the sentences of har d labour now passed are a perfect mockery ! for no hard labour is inflicted ; and, notwithstanding that the sentences may be passed with all the solemnity and formality which the Court canmport into i them, they go for nothing in the mind of the pri soners who have been committed —like those I had last before me-18, 20, and 25 times. (Hear.) The sentence of hard labour has, indeed, become a mere absurdity. Then look at it as regards the jadge. It is the duty of the judge to make his sentence, as commensurate with the offence which h fa a r s a b s e h en e can, coinutted ; but, knowing the extraordi nary modifications which have taken place in prison discipline, he is compelled to extend the time, and where he would, under a stringent system, have sentenced a prisoner to 12 months, he now sentences him to 18, which, of course , i n fli c t s upon th e county an additional expense to the extent of half a year's maintenance of the prisoner. Take it in another point as regards :the judge. All offences which come before him are placed, according to their gravity, in different categories ; if he does (not choose to sentence a man to penal servitude he is limited to a maximum of two years' imprisonment, and, therefore, when he sentences a man to two years, on the principle that practically his sentence is remitted by the prison discipline, and that if it had not been he would have only sentenced him to 18 months, he is compelled to put him in the same category as a man who had committed a, in a moral point: of view, much graver and more dangerous offence to society. Well, then, as respects the prisoners, you must remember that jest as you diminish the amount of hard labour you must find some substitute for it, because you cannot take a man in the prime of life, as the majority of the prisoners are, possessing full bodily vigour, and clap him into a cell, however warm and comfortable, for the best part of 24 hours every day, without absolutely endangering his life; consequently, it has been found necessary to give the prisoners open-air exercise to such an extent that not only is it no punishment at all, but it tends greatly to aggravate the difficulties of carrying on the prison discipline. You have either to increase the number of warders or make them do double, duty; in either ease an injustice to the men and an increase of expenses to the country. Let me now say a few words upon the diet, which is, as I have said, just as much a part of the sentence as the hard labour. lam not one of those who are in favour of harsh and cruel measures towards criminals. I am not in favour of a starvation diet, but I think that what has hitherto been forgotten or practically ignored in these discussions is that there is a me dium between a starvation and an excessive diet. While I would give such a dietary as would sustain fairly the bodily vigour of prisoners I would studi ously refrain from giving anything like a luxurious diet. I certainly think that the scale of dietary laid down in 1848 did not err on the side of starva tion, but even if it did that dietary has been re vised, and you will find that all the changes have been on the side of relaxation, and there has been a considerable increase in the amount of the meat given to the prisoners, who now have meat five days out of the seven. But this is not all, for there exists a system of extra diet, and that has grown to such an extent that, out of 300 or 320 prisoners, the number on extra diet is no less than 59. I do not say :that extra diet is wrongly given, but I do say that we ought thoroughly to understand the principle upon which it is given, for I assure this Court that if they compare the prison diet with the workhouse diet it will be found that the comparison is far from being in favour of the workhouse diet; and I must say that when a poor man, without a blot on his repu tation, who has, perhaps, lived a long life without the slightest shadow of suspicion attaching to him, is at last obliged, either through misfortune or old age, to resort to the workhouse, and receives hardly sufficient to keep body and soul together, while the sturdy felon, who has been committed and recom mitted over and over again, is well fed and comfort ably cared for, it is dealing with guilt and innocence in a most unsatisfactory manner. (Hear.) I now come to the general changes affecting prison disci pline, and I am sorry to say that I can number se veral cases in whioh the relaxation of prison disci pline has led to increased evils. In the first place, the extension of theopen-air exercise has been un satisfactory. As I have said, where open-air exer cise ispermitted to excess, imprisonment is no longer a punishment; but you have stripped it of the very semblance of punishment by removing those re straints which prevented large numbers of prisoners being brought together for open-air exercise, be cause by enlarging the space you have rendered it almost impossible for the warders to prevent that which is subversive of all prison discipline—namely, a free communication between the prisoners. You allow the prisoners now to be employed in agri cultural operations, especially in spade labour. If your prison system had been one of the soundest, I should not have been disposed to complain of that ; but, in fact, your prison system is almost entirely made up of recreation and relaxation, not only out of doors, but in doors. Quite recently there has been an extra allowance of pudding. By the old rules a prisoner was allowed a rug, a sheet, and a blanket, which latter, being large, could be doubled down. He is placed, remember, in a cell only 12 feet by 8 feet in width, which is warmed by hot air, and which he himself has the power of ventilating as much as he pleases. You have now allowed him in the day time an additional waistcoat and at night an additional blanket, and not 'only that, but, in order to keep his feet off , the asphalt floor, and save him from any draughts that may creep through the exceedingly well-fitting door of his cell, I perceived on a recent visit to the gaol that you have actually accommodated him with a footstool. (Laughter.) Then, again, in order to provide for his amusement and instruction I observe you have a very admirable library, one-half of which is composed of works of purely religious instruction and of a serious character, and the other half is made up of works of fiction and works of entertaining, in teresting, instructive, and amusing knowledge— (laughter) —such books, certainly, as are far beyond the reach of the p oor . I do not wish to throw any slight on the system of having a prison library; on the contrary, I think there ought to be one, but I certainly did not expect to find such books in it as those I saw in the county gao l. I f i nd works on kis tory, on ancient Egypt and Greece, t reatises on mo dern astronomy and astro-theology— (laughter) books of fiction, such as " Frank Leve r t on " and the "Dairyman 's Daughter"—books of travels, such a s Dr. Li v iegstone's ``Travels in Africa ;" a n d l astly, popular poems an d p rize essa y s. (Lau g hter. ) Now, I do not want to cut off from these unfortunate per sons anything which I think might be f a i rly allowed • t e nce more miserable than them, or to make their ex is tence crime has made it, but I think it very questionable the libra r y wor k s o f t h e description ave named how faryou should allow prisoners to withdraw from for the p ur p ose o f re li ev i ng the te di um of the prison, which, with the sin g l e except i on o f th e res traint on _ their perso na l lib er t y , now rema i ns the on l y part of their p un i s h men t l e f t , and thus render their condi tion far better than the poor, but honest, labourer. (Hear.) Why, my lord, I saw in several cells such books as " Livingstone's Travels," and works of that character, and in ono a publication certainly in the nature of a newspaper, though it might not have been of so interesting a character as the Tenses or the Saturday Renew. Lastly, you have afforded an indulgence which I consider subversive of all prison discipline, by pulling down the partitions in the chapel and the walls in the exercise ground, thus allowing the prisoners means of communication with each other, and you have so altered the distribution - - - of the hours within the gaol that prisoners are con- ti ng ally passing and repassing alon g th e corr id ors of _ . _ the gaol, rendering it almost impossible for the war ders to maintain an Acicnc discipline, What has been the result ? Why, that within the last two weeks we have been on the brink of a most serious conspiracy among the prisoners, which might have led to a violent outbreak, which outbreak must have led to bloodshed if not to loss of life. That conspi racy first originated in chapel, in consequence of t h e unrestricted communication of the men, and the very first step the Governor took was to dis continue the open-air exercise, thus proving con clusively that he thought it a source of danger. This has not been an easy task for me to undertake. t l o fe b e e l sionrryopepvoesnitiinon to the inginthe slighes t degree Visiting J ust ices, but when I find a hardened felon, who has perhaps committed some brutal outrage, and who has by some mere technicality only escaped from penal ser vitude, or, as in time past, transportation, enjoying his ten hours of sleep and two hours of labour a day—and we cannot even call it hard labour, con sidering the amount of open-air exercise and the recreation he has—l cannot forbear from noticing what I conceive to be a weak and dangerous point in oar present prison system. (Hear.) When I find him comfortably wrapt up in his warm cell, with an extra waistcoat, with his feet on a footstool, when I find him enjoying the luxury of reading Livingstone's " Travels," or deeply engaged in the study of astro- theology—(laughter)—and compare his condition with that of the poor, but honest labourer, who, after a long life struggle, goes at length to the workhouse, I say that the present system is most unjust in every part of it as regards him, and most unsatisfactory in a moral point of view. (Hear, hear.) No doubt my noble friend will tell us that the laxity permitted here is no greater than is permitted in other county gaols, but I cannot say that I care whether it is or not. I am aware that Sir Joshua Jebb, in his last report, alluding to the moral efforts at reformation in Pen• tonville, says, "The period of imprisonment had been reduced from eighteen months to twelve, the daily amount of open-air exercise had been in creased, and a more healthy and exhilarating kind of exercise had been substituted for the listless walk in separate yards." . . . " Since this was written other important alterations have been attempted, having for their object the moral improvement of the prisoners. The term of imprisonment in separation has been re duced to nine months, the separate stalls used for chapel and school purposes have been abandoned, and the prisoners consequently are associated in chapel and at school time." No doubt Sir J. Jebb congratulates himself upon that state of things, but I have read that passage in his report with great pain, because I conceive it to be a perfect subversion of prison discipline, and I cannot doubt that what we see in Winchester Gaol is a perfect reflex of what has taken place in every other county gaol, as the result of a system which at all events the good sense of the public is at length determined to ques tion. By all means keep the reformatory element in your prison discipline, and make good use of it, but do not let it subvert everything else; do not abandon that straightforward rule of right for what is at best but a theory, what I believe to be of no real service to the prisoners themselves, but is in flicting a grievous mischief and a great wrong upon society at large. Ido not advocate the adoption of harsh or cruel measures, but I want to see the sys tem of prison discipline brought down to that level to which it ought to be. I blame no one for the present state of things, because I believe we have all been carrying out a system which has grown up year after year. We have rushed, as it were, from a system of excessive severity into one of excessive lenity and indulgence. I ask this Court not to pre judge the question, not wholly to depart from a system which may be a good one if carried out in a properly modified form, and I ask for this committee with a view to inquire into the general principles upon which prison discipline is now based, and for the purpose of inquiring how far it is answering the purposes for which it is intended. (Hear, hear.) Lord H. CHOLMONDELEY acknowledged the cour tesy with which Lord Carnarvon had brought that, in question forward, but he could not help feeling in plain English, it amounted to nothing more nor less than this—that the Visiting Justices were an earnest and well-intentioned set of gentlemen, but that it was perfectly clear they did not understand the management of prison discipline. He did not complain of the noble lord, but this motion was a vote of censure, and as such he accepted it, If the noble earl was animated with a desire to make any alteration in the prison discipline, why did he not make a representation to the Visiting Justices on the subject before coming to this court ? They might then have gone into the whole question of prison discipline, and have had the advantage of the assist ance of their noble chairman. The noble earl might then have investigated the whole subject, but by coming forward with this motion he had placed the Visiting Justices in a very unpleasant predicament. In a speech of so general a kind it was impossible to make an answer to every point, but he thought the noble earl had fsllen into some errors. In the first place, the committee of 1848 did not introduce hard labour into the gaol with a view to prison dis cipline at all, and it was only in cases where, from the shortness of the imprisonment or other causes, reformation through moral means was hopeless, that they recommended the punishment of hard labour, and it was with that view that they classi fied the prisoners. It was clear that that committee were in favour of a distinction between the treatmen of those sentenced to long terms and those sentenced to short terms of imprisonment. At the time the rules were drawn up the whole management of the gaol was new to magistrates, and it was found that many of the original rules would not work and had to be modified. The magistrates were not to be blamed because the treadwheel did not work as well as it ought, and their successive reports showed that they had been eonstanty using the best means they could to make it. With respect to the hard labour power of the gaol, they must remember that • - within the last two years they had had a great number of military and naval prisoners, which it was to be hoped they would not have again. He did not agree with the noble earl that they ought to look at their position, and compare it with other gaols. They had now hard labour power to em- ploy 100 prisoners, their average number being about 220. He had taken the trouble to ascertain what was the hard-labour power in several other gaols, and he found that while in Coldbath-fields prison they had 1,500 prisoners they had only treadwheels for 160, or 1 in 9. At Wakefield, another considerable . prison, they had neither treadwheel nor crank, but employed the prisoners in picking oakum. At Stafford they had 400 pri soners, and they only had treadwheels for 88 and cranks for 57. In Kent, where there were 328 prisoners, there was a treadwheel for 100. At Durham, where there were 229 prisoners, no ma- chinery of any kind was employed. At Glocester, where there were 200 prisoners, there was a tread- wheel for 60 only. At Worcester, with 200 pri- Boners, there was a treadwheel only for 58, and cranks for 14. So that it would seem that at Win- Chester there was really more hard labour power than in other gaols. With respect to the dietary, the short answer was, that the extra diet was ordered invariably by the surgeon, and that it was ordered was a proof that the prisoners were not overfed. So far from their being worse treated than people in the union, he had found on inquiry that the cost of a prisoner per week was only ls. 91d. per head, while for each person in the workhouse it was 2s. tild. The surgeon had also, on the ground of health, ordered the extra open air exercise, and had stated that if he had not done so he must have ordered an increase of diet. With regard to the extra clothing he reminded the Court that most of the prisoners had guernseys when they came into gaol, an d it was felt as a se r i ous deprivation to take away without any sub s ti tute. There fore, the them extra ( ) thing had been allow e d. H e con trasted the number o f recommittals in Hampshire with those in other southern counties, and he de- fended the general discipline of the gaol, observing that the report of the intended conspiracy alluded to rested solely on the unsupported testimony of two or three of the prisoners. Mr. DOVERELL said that the fact could not be doubted that publie attention had been called to prison discipline, and that an impression existed that it was far too indulgent. He certainly thought that the adoption of the noble earl's motion as it THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, JANUARY 6, 1863. stood would imply a censure on the visiting jus tice', which the noble lord expressly repudiated, aad he therefore moved as an amendment that a committee of magistrates be appointed to confer with the visiting justices. A lengthened debate ensued, in the course of which, Sir W. HEATHCOTE, M.P., said that the speech of Lord Cholmondeley was an entire defence of the present system and a justification of the in quiry. No censure was intended whatever on the Visiting Justices, the object of the noble earl being to call attention to the present lax system which had grown up in every county in England, and which was fraught with evil. For his part he thought that the prison discipline of the country was in so deplorable a state that its operation as a punishment was entirely delusive. He therefore supported his noble friend's motion for a committee of inquiry, which he hoped would not be refused. Mr. ESDAIL opposed both the motion and the amendment, on the ground that the adoption of either must necessarily imply a censure upon the Visiting Justices. Mr. BONHAM CARTER supported the motion for a committee, and pointed to the fact that so serious had the question become in an imperial sense, that a Royal commission had been appointed on the sub ject. His belief was that the sense of the severity of punishment was gradually decreasing in the mind of the criminal class, and that the plan of in flicting a long term of imprisonment, instead of a shorter and more severe one, was pernicious in principle and non-effective as a deterring agent. After some farther discussion, in which Mr. Chute, Mr. Stanley, and Mr. Sclater took part, The Earl of CARNARVON expressed his willing ness to adopt the terms of the amendment, and again expressed in the most emphatic manner that he had no intention of casting the slightest slur on the Visiting Magistrates, his motion being entirely aimed at the system. Lord H. CHOLMONDELEY expressed his intention of dividing, because, disguise it in what way they might, it would be considered by the county a vote of censure. The Court then divided, when the numbers were For the appointment of the Committee .. 22 Against .... .... .. . Majority The committee were accordingly appointed, and a quorum of three constituted, after which the Court passed to the ordinary business of the session. Mr. J. W. Henley, M.P., and Colonel North, M.P., at Oxford. At the Quarter Session; held at the County-hall in Oxford, yesterday afternoon, before the chair man, the Right Hon, I. W. Henley, M.P., and a large number of magistrates, among whom were the other representatives of the county, Col. North and Col. Pane, Lord Churchill, Sir H. W. Dashwood, Capt. Fane, the Hon. J, F. T. W. Fiennes, Mr. H. Hamersley, vice-chairman, the Warden of Merton College, Oxford (Dr. Marsham), Col. the Hon. R. C. H. Spencer, &c., a letter was read to the Court from the Mayor of Oxford, proposing to place the two Sebastopol guns now in the possession of the corporation of that city within the enclosure in front of the County-hall. It may be recollected that on the capitulation of Sebastopol a large number of guns were sent to England. Lord Panmure, who was then Secretary at War, offered them for distribution throughout the country, and among many other places Oxford became a recipient. Two of the guns were sent there on the application of the alderman who was then mayor, but from the date of their arrival a series of mishaps and delays have been their fate. At first there was a dispute about the payment of the cost of their carriage, the guns being directed to the Mayor of Oxford, while the applicant for them had relinquished that office. Subsequently the Town Council refused to go to the expense of mounting them, and the guns were cast into a small shed in the Town-hall yard, generally known by the name of the City Coal-hole. A penny sub scription was started in order to defray the expense of mounting, and a considerable sum was collected, though not sufficient for the purpose. The guns have remained in their seclusion until a few weeks ago, when the newly elected Mayor of Oxford sent them to a foundry in the city, and now asked the Court of Quarter Sessions to allow them to be placed in front of the County-hall. The right hon. chairman explained to the Court that the present Mayor of Oxford, soon after his election, addressed to him (the chairman) a letter, asking a question about placing the Russian guns, which, until then, had not been in a very dignified position, in front of the County-hall. He gave no opinion about it, but directed his Worship to make a formal application through the Clerk of the Peace. He added that the site in question was not within the city, but actually in the county. It would be for the Court to deal with the application as they thought fit. The chief question, however, which they would have to consider was whether they thought it desirable that such things should be placed anywhere. (Laughter.) That was a very large question. Col. NORTH, M.P., said that he understood from the Mayor's speech the other night at the Druids' dinner that 4,000 inhabitants of Oxford had sub scribed for the purpose of putting up these guns. He felt that it would be uncourteous in him, and he should regret excessively to say one word which should prevent the wishes of the inhabitants of this fromcity abnedi being the e special purpose of the Mayor hi mse lf gratified. But at the same time he could not help expressing to the Quarter Sessions what he knew to be the feeling of the army and navy at large with regard to those Russian guns. There was but one feeling, and he (Col. North), as a mem ber of the United Service Club, had had every op portunity of ascertaining that feeling. That feel ing was one of disgust at the manner in which those guns had been scattered over this country. (Hear., It was perfectly without precedent. Notwithstanct ing the war carried on by the Duke of Wellington in the Peninsula there was not a F renc h gun to be seen in this country. They saw on the H orse G uards ' parade a gnn which was placed there after the cam paign in Egypt. That gun, however, was placed there as a work of art and a great curiosity. If it was a thing of which they ought to feel proud no portion of her Majesty's subjects ought to feel a greater pride in the possession of those Russian guns than those branches of our fellow countrymen, the army and navy. But, without exception, every one to whom be had spoken had expressed the greatest contempt and disgust at their exhibi tion. (Hear, hear.) In the first place, the Russian army, which was opposed to them, was as fine an army as the world ever saw. They did their duty gloriously towards their own Sovereign and coun try, and he believed that there was not a man in either the army or the navy who embarked to re turn to this country who was not impressed with feelings of the greatest admiration for the Russian army and for the manner in which they had upheld the honour of their country. If those guns had been melted down and formed into something to be erected in some sueh public place as the Place Ven dome, he could have understood the thing. They had named a metropolitan bridge and other places after their great victories. But now no Russian gentleman could go to shoot grouse in Scotland but whose feelings were insulted by seeing Russian guns. The feeling of the army was that it was against the feelings of Englishmen and brave men The army above all were always ready and anxious when the battle was over to shake hands with the enemy and forget that a battle had been fought. (Rear, hear, and cheers.) Now, with regard to . _ Russia, in the very first month of the war the Tiger .. . frigate was taker. Where were the guns of the Tiger? Were they so scattered over Russia that an Englishman could not go to that country without seeing th em ? S o f ar f rom t h a t being the case, within the last six months the Emperor of Russia had forbidden the anniversary of any great battle, and he had done so for this reason —that, the battle over, he wa s anx i ous that everything that had taken pl ace s h ould be forgotten. (Hear, hear.) Only ab ou t a month ago a friend of his (Colonel North), and a p erson, too, of high military rank, had returned from Russia. He asked that person what was the feeling in Russia with regard to Eng land, especially after our campaign. He said, "11 give you my word that the fact of an officer wear ing a Crimean medal is made an excuse for show ing every possible civility to him." And the Court should remember another thing. The circumstances of the case were not now as they were when, in the heat of the moment, those Rus sian guns were first scattered broadcast over the country. The war then was going on. Our countrymen had since felt proud and glad to see the termination of the war. But several years had since elapsed, and he only asked whether it was English like that those guns, at the end of seven years, should be dragged out of a coalhole and mounted as a sort of insult to a great nation. He mentioned this subject in the House of Commons at the end of last session. He took upon himself to do it be cause, in the first place, the army felt that those guns were their property. It the army had been consulted upon the matter, not a single gun would ever have been sent to this country. It must be borne in mind also that these were not guns which had been taken on the field of battle, but they had been obtained by capitulation. (Hear, hear.) His gallant friend (Colonel Fane) knew that a gun with the Artillery was as the colours with a regiment. There was not a single precedent ; he had made in quiries in every way, and was not aw •re that such a thing had ever yet been done. There never yet had been a war in which we had unnecessarily in sulted a great country and an army in such a way as had been done during the last five or six years. Ile could only say that the kindness he had received in all parts of the country (and particularly in the city in which he was then speaking) made him re gret the necessity of having to say one word in op position to the wishes of the citizens of that great University city. He would only ask the court, if those guns were placed in front of that hall, what would be the feeling of the Emperor of Russia if ever he should come over to this country ? Tbat city was one of the greatest in the world in the es timation of foreigners. Go whi.re they would fo reigners were always making inquiries aboat the University and the old city of Oxford. Foreigners on coming to that city then would not be able to get into the town without having those guns paraded before them. He put it to the court whether that would be dignified. He knew that there was a considerable feeling of contempt at the manner in which the guns had been treated. He had re ceived letters from people whom he did not know from Adam thanking him for having mentioned this circumstance in the House c..inmons. It was one which was quite unworthy of this country. Of course, the question was one for the Court's decision; but, feeling as he did the wretched, contemptible character of the proceeding, he could not refrain from expressing himself as he had done. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) The CHAIRMAN said he apprehended that as they were only trustees for the county property they could not entertain the question. He agreed with his gallant friend in opinion that, the battle being over, the sooner they shook hands and forgot it the better. He had no fondness for things of that kind. (Hear, hear.) Some conversation ensued, but the Court were unanimous in refusing to allow the guns to be placed in front of the County Hall. --- --- Suspected Poisoning at Mareham-le-Pen, Lincolnshire. Various rumours having been afloat for some time past respecting the death of Jemima, mother of John Garner, grocer, &c., of Moorhouses, in the parish of Mareham-le- Fen, near Horncastle, whose death occurred in December, 1861, the coroner (Dr. Clegg, of Boston), at length issued his warrant for the exhumation of the body. It had been buried in the churchyard of the adjoining parish of Revesby, and was exhumed on Thursday, the 27th of November last. A post mortem examination having been made by Dr. Boulton, of Horncastle, and Mt. George, surgeon, of Revesby, and the body identified by the sexton of the parish and the joiner who made the coffin, the coroner ordered the stomach, &c., to be placed in sealed jars, and conveyed by Police-Sergeant Lampton toProfessor Tay lor, the celebrated analytical chemist, at Guy's Hospital, London, and then adjourned the inquest, which was re opened on Tuesday, the 16th of December, at the Red Lion Inn, Reversby, before Dr Clegg, coroner. The evi dence of William Taylor, sexton, and William Weldon, carpenter (taken. on the 27th of November), proving the identity of the body exhumed, was read over, and the fol. lowing additional witnesses called : William Lampton—l am sergeant of police. On the 27th of November I received three jars, sealed, and took them to London. I delivered them to Professor Taylor on the 29th, with the seals unbroken, and he gave me a receipt t'or them. Dr. Boulton—On the 27th of November I saw a coffin opened containing the body of a woman, and made a post mortem examination. I removed the viscera of the chest and abdomen, some of the blood, and a portion of the spine. The tissues of the spine were deeply tinged and saturated with a bright yellow colouring matter. I placed the whole in jars, which I sealed, and gave them to Sergeant Lampton to convey to Professor Taylor. There was some difficulty in removing the lid of the coffin. There was no earth in the coffin. The outer part of the body was in an advanced state of decomposition. Hugh George—l am a surgeon residing at Revesby, and was present on the 27th of November when a coffin contain ing the body of a woman was opened. I can corroborate the evidence of Dr. Boulton. Yellow stains were also on the coat of the stomach and muscles of the abdomen. The jars were sealed and delivered in my presence. The last time I attended deceased professionally was on the 18th of December, 1861. She was suffering from vomiting. Did not see her next day, but sent some medicine. Saw her again on the 20th. Had often attended her before. The symptoms were consistent with death from irritant poison. Ido not know on what day she died. I sent in a medical certificate of death "after six days' diarrheas." I did not see her between August and December 18. The medicine then sent was for purging only. Dr. Taylor—l am a Fellow of the Royal College of Phy sicians, and Professor of Chemistry and Medical Jurispru dence at Guy's Hospital. On Saturday, Nov. 29, I received at the chemical laboratory, Guy's Hospital, from Sergeant Lampton, three jars well secured and sealed. These were kept locked up until the analysis was made. I have em. bodied the results in the following report : " Small Jar-7oz of bloody liquid in a putrescent state. It was tested for mineral poison, but none could be found in it. Large Jar (containing viscera of deceased) —On open ing this jar there was found in it the liver, heart, lungs, spleen, kidneys, stomach, and intestines, with a portion of the bones of the spinal column (lumbar vertebrae). These organs were in a good state of preservation, so that all the structures would be easily recognised. The heart and in testines were so preserved that they appeared as if they had been taken from a person recently dead. The liver was shrunk, small, and of a dark slate colour. It weighed about 11b. Its structure appeared healthy. The heart was of the usual size, scarcely altered by putrefaction. Its cavi- ties were examined as well as the valves. There was no ap pearance of disease in any part. The lungs were more de oon3posed than the other organs. They presented no unusual appearance. The stomach and intestines presented on the external coat or membrane patches of a deep yellow colour. The most extensive patches were on the stomach, and chiefly on its under or posterior surface (that part which is nearest the spinal column) ; one of these, covering about five square inches, was found in the fat of the mesentery, surrounding the intestines. The stomach was more decom posed than the intestines. The stained portion was firm, but other portions had given way in one or two planes. The interior was then laid open. There was no fluid contents in it, but the inner coat or lining membrane was covered with a thin dark substance, in which wore numerous small particles of a bright yellow colour. This substance when placed in water gave to the liquid a reddish brown colour resembling that of decomposed blood. It was examined by the microscope, but presented no other appearance calling for remark. The coats of the stomach were thinner than natural. This is the usual condition when bodies have been buried for many months. The coats of the intestines were thinner than natural (a result of changes in the dead body). In addition to the ellow stains, they presented a well marked redness in the upper portion, such as would be caused by inflammation, &c., taking place during lifo. They were quite empty, and entirely decomposed at the lower part, but at the upper part they were fresh and firm. The por tion of the spinal column in the jar presented a remarkable appearance. There were in the soft parts which covered the bones in front several patches of deep yellow colour, re sembling those found in the stomach and intestines. These stains were firmly incorporated with the membrane and li g aments covering the bones of the spine, and some were found dyeing the flesh still attached to the vertebitc. The fish was red and firm, and had undergone but very little change from putrefaction. "Analysis.--The first was to determine the chemical na ture of the yellow stains or patches of colour on the stomach, intestines, and spine. Portions of the colouring matter were removed from these different structures, and separat e l y examined. They did not contain any bile or biliary matter, but consisted of orpiment of yellow sulphate of arsenic,:mixed with arsenic in, a soluble form. This is a mineral poison. All the stains examined were due to this substance, which had penetrated into and had become in corporated with the soft structures of the body. A small portion of the yellow colouring matter was removed from the front of the spine and reserved. An unstained portion of the coats of thc stomach was submitted to chemical ana lysis, and was found to contain arsenic in a form in which it was soluble in water—that is white arsenic, All parted _ the stomach examined contained arsenic. Portions of the intestines were examined and were found to contain. arsenic. The quantity of orpiment found in or upon the stomach, intestines, and spine was estimated at from six to eight grains, corresponding to five or six grains of white arsenio of the shops. Two analyses were made of portions of the liver, and arsenic was found in each case. It was present in corresponding large proportions. The conclusions, the results of the analyses, are-1. That arsenic was present in the stomach, intestines, liver, and heart of the deceased, in all the parts of these organs submitted for examination. 2. That the arsenic was contained in the stomach, intestines, and in the flesh and ligaments of the spine, partly in a soluble sad partly in an insoluble form, that is—as orpi ment or yellow arsenic. 3. That the orpiment or yellow arsenic which causes the patches of colour in the stomach. bowels, and the spine has probably,been produced by a cho• micalchange in the white arsenic contained in the stomach and bowels at the time of death. 4. That the yellow stains found on the spine were pro ?need by arsenic escaping through the coats of the stomach after death, and the yellow stains on the mesentery were caused by arsenic escaping through the coats of ths intestines. 5. That the quantity of yellow arsenic altogether was probably not less than six or eight grains, equivalent to from five to six grains of white arsenic. 6. That the discovery of arsenic in the substance of the liver and heart renders it probable that the deceased !had taken the poison some time—that is, one or two days before death. 7. That the quantity found in the body would be fatal to a human being, and in the absence of any other apparent cause, would be quite sufficient to account for death. The third jar contained earth from the grave, and in this a small quantity of arsenic was found, but the arsenic here was in a form perfectly insoluble in water, and it could not in any way account for the arsenic found in the body of deceased. It was not in the state of orpiment or yellow arsenic." The symptoms described by Mr. George would be those of poisoning by arsenic. I should say that deceased must have had arsenic in several doses for two days or more prior to death. Susan Jenkinson—l have known deceased for many years. She died on a Friday, and I saw her the Saturday before. She complained of sickness and purging, with groat pain in the back and cramp in the stomach. She said she had never suffered so much before. I did not do anything for her then. I saw her about occasionally afterwards, but she said she was very sick and much purged. I next saw her about noon on the day she died. The servant Elizabeth Whittaker (since married to Mr. Garner, called me in to sit with the deceased. I went in and found hor very bad. She said she was dying. Mrs. Metcalf and Mrs. Roberts, two neighbours, afterwards came in to see her. Whittaker asked her if she would have some fried potatoes, but I ob jected to her having any, and she also refused them. Some arrowroot was then made for her. She asked for some brandy, thinking it would prevent her sickness, and I sent for Mr. Garner, but he refused to let her have any, saying he believed she was drunk then, adding, " You have troubled me about dying these thirty years, and are afraid because your Wesleyanism is giving way. She re• plied, "My dear boy, lam comfortable now, I am dying. My Wesleyanism has stood by me all my days." After some further conversation he left the room, and I re mained with her. I sent again to the beerhouse for him twice, because she was (13 ing, but he refused to come. Whittaker came to the chamber door, but said she was afraid to see her. There was no one in the house but deceased, Mr. Garner, myself, Whittaker, and her mother. Mrs. Garner complained of thirst, and drank a quantity of cold water. Mr. Garner and Whittaker mixed the arrowroot between them. It was fetched out of a box or drawer in the shop. When it was ready Whittaker gave it to me and I fed her. She was very sick afterwards, and her retching could be heard all over the house. She could not lift up her hands. The second time I sent for Mr. Garner he said, " She may die and be —, I must go and weigh some coals." , She was dependent upon her son after she left the Revesby bedehouses. I have heard her complain of being illused. She said she da re d not say her soul was her own —also that her son beat her, and Whittaker helped him to turn her out of doors. The latter told her to go into the Union, for they would not have her. She then stayed with her granddaughter three or four weeks. This was in Sept., 1861, They frequently had words, and the servant (Whit taker) said she wished her mouth was full of mould. My son's wife was with me when she died. She had had two quarter-pints of brandy during the week, but it was refused her that day. It was brown sugar Mr. Garner put into the arrowroot. Ann Shepherd—l live at Marehan-le-Fen, and have known Jemima Garner 13 or 14 years. I was ill in bed when she died. She was in my house the Tuesday night previous. Have heard her complain of the girl abusing her, and was present once. I heard deceased tell her son that the servant had some muslin and other things secreted in a churn, and heard a disturbance about it in their own house afterwards. Eleanor Lightfoot—•l live at Moorhouses, and have known Mrs. Garner two or three years, I saw her about 14 days before her death. She was then very ill from vio lent sickness, with pains in the back and kidneys, and told me she was often ill in that way. I was mending sacks for Mr; Garner. She told me he ran her out of the house and kicked her, telling her to go to the union, for he would not keep her. I saw him kick her. I heard the servant say she would stop her going to Mrs. Shepherd's and telling tales, but do not know what was alluded to. I did not see her use any violence to Jemima Garner. About 10 or 12 days before she died I had some pudding at Garner's, with Mrs. Garner, William Weldon, and his son, Mr. Garner was from home, and Whittaker did not eat any pudding that day. All who did eat of the pudding were taken violently sick very soon after. I took my own dinner with me, but they gave me some pudding. I went to work in the after noon, although I was very unwell. William Weldon—l am a carpenter residing at Mare bam-le-Fen. I knew Jemima Garner nine or ten years, and last saw her alive about three or four weeks before she died. She was then in her usual health. I know nothing about the cause of her death. She said to me, "I am sadly in the road for them." I said I was sorry to have to move her from her own home at Revesby bedehouses. John Garner wished her to take care of his house when his wife died. I dined at Mr. Garner's when I worked there, and had some rice pudding one day. I have heard that Mrs. Lightfoot was sick after dinner. I had a strange burning sensation in the throat and stomach before I was sick. I could not eat any more dinner. Elizabeth Whittaker did not eat any pudding. I heard no abuse. John Garner said to me he was surprised she had died in the same way his wife had, but he could not account for it. Susan Forman—l lived with Mrs. Shepherd at the beer house next door to Garner's, I knew Jemima Garner from July, 1861. I saw her on the Tuesday night before she died. She came in to ask if Mr. Shepherd was going to Revesby to fetch some medicine for Mrs. Shepherd, as she was very ill herself. I never saw her ill-treated. Ido not know that Mr. Garner broke a bottle against the house wall. I did not hear any complaint about a white powder. I have heard people say that Whittaker said she would be " out of the old woman." John Stennett, nephew of the deceased—l live at Moor houses, and have known Jemima Garner all my life. I last saw her alive within about a month of her death. Her health was failing fast She made no complaint except of being very poorly, and said she thought she should not live long. On the 16th September, 1861, I had some words with John Garner, and when he went home he kicked his mother out of the house. I heard her complain about three weeks before she died of being very uncomfortable, and wish she had not given up her home. She did not tell me she had been turned out of the house in the middle of the night, She complained of Whittaker, but said she did not wish to make any disturbance. John Garner and she had some words, and she told him to look into the churn for himself if he were not satisfied. John Thorsby—l am superintendent of police. last Saturday evening, about 8 o'clock, I apprehended John and Elizabeth Garner at their own house. Wher, I read over to him, downstairs, the warrant chargi,:g. him and his wife with administering poison to. br causing it to be taken by the deceased, Jemima Garner, he said, " I am innocent. My wife that novi: is and Mrs. Jenkinson waited upon granny in bf,-; last illness, and if we are taken she ought to be taken too. She would be as likely to poison her as any one else. It's a strange thing; I can't think she was poisoned; if she was it was between my wife and Mrs. Jenkinson. If I thought she had been capable of doing so I should not have married her, as I should expect she might serve me the same." I want into the room where Garner was in custody last night about 12, and he then said, "Pro fessor Taylor may say what he likes; I do not believe granny was poisoned. Poison makes things struggle when they die, the same as my three horses did last year, but she died like a lamb." The woman was in bed upstairs, and when I read the warrant to her she said, " Thank God, I am innocent, the Lord be praised." Superintendent Thorsby now applied for the inquest to be adjourned, in order to procure other important evidence, and Friday, the 2d of January, at 11 a.m., was named as the time for re-opening the inquiry. The adjournedinquest was accordingly re -opened on that day, at the Red Lion Inn, Revesby, before Dr. Clegg, coro ner. Mr. C. Dee, of norncastle, appeared on behalf of the prosecution. Similar evidence to the above having been given, The Coroner addressed the jury, remarking upon the most important parts of the evidence in a clear and impres sive manner, and then left the issue in their hands. After about half an hour's consultation, they returned a verdict of wilful murder against John Garner and Elizabeth his wife. The coroner then made out his warrant, committing by y is t t h r e a m tes also a t them b o th to take their trial at the next Lincoln Assizes. liThe°rnYcwa s o t u l e l d y€ l? s o t t e y (Monday, hrdabebrought the ef" b e t h t ) an h , em d a be committed to the next Lincoln Assizes. Both prisoners exhibit the greatest coolness and apathy. EXHUMATION OF A SECOND BODY. A warrant having been received by the Horneastle super intendent of police from the Secretary of State, authorising the exhumation of the body of Hannah Garner (first wife of the male prisoner, John Garner), on Monday morning, December 29, the body was removed from the churchyard at Mareham-l-Fen to a i adjacent building, where a post mortem examination was made by Drs. Boulton, of Horn castle, and Clegg, of Beaton. Ihe var ous internal parts were placed in jars and sealed, and forwarded to Dr. Alfred Swaim) Taylor, Professor of Chemistry at Guy's Hospital, London, The result of the analysis by that gentleman has since been received, and a considerable quantity of arsenic found in the stomach, although not so much as in the body of J0D2i1314 Garner, SPORTING INTELLIGENCE. TAT TE R SALL' .9—YESTERDAY. Although the attendance was somewhat numerous for the period of the year, the transactions were not of an im portant nature. The leading favourites were not strongly supported, but no more than 13 to 2 could be obtained about Lord Clifden, layers seeming disinclined to spring half a point about Lord St. Vincent's colt. Saccharometer was occasionally inquired after during the afternoon, and towards the close 900 to 100 was booked about him. Hos podar's nominal price was 100 to 8. Business, however, lay chiefly with the favourites; and, independently of those quoted below, arrivals hitherto unheard of in connection with the Derby—Moorcock, Onesander, &c., for instance-- were inquired after, and offers made to accept 10,000's to 5, and I,ooo's to 3. Automaton was in demand, one well known "commissioner" booking 22 to 1 to £9O, and offer ing to go on at that figure, but no more than 20 to 1 was subsequently offered. Carnival was supported, but to no considerable amounts, at 25 to 1. His stable companion Pratique, was also re-introduced into the market, and backed at a price which represented in the aggregate 45, to 1. Another of Mr. Naylor's, Maccaroni, was also backed—in the I,ooo's to 10 division—and 1,000 to 70 was taken about Godding's three, Carnival, Pratique, and Maccaroni. 600 to 20 each was taken about National Guard and King of Utopia. Blue Mantle was inquired after towards the close of business, and offers made to take 30 to I, but that price not being obtainable, 25 to 1 to a "century'' was at last accepted. Tom Fool had two or three firm friends, and 25 to 1 was backed for close upon £2OO. Giles the First, Tambour Major, and Woldga were backed for small amounts. Among the 50 to 1 lot an en tirely fresh candidate was introduced in the colt by Tadmor —Glenochty, about whom 5,000 to 50 was taken. 1000 to 400 was taken about the three first favourites, Lord Clifden, Saccharometer, and Hospodar. The Two Thousand was barely mentioned. 4 to 1 was currently offered on the field, these odds being booked once to £4O about Hospodar. Clcs ing prices : TWO THOUSAND GUINEAS. 4to 1 agst Count F. de Lagrange's Hospodar (t & Off) DERBY. 13 to 2 agst Lord St. Vincent's Lord Clifden (off) 9to 1 agst Lord Stra.thmore's Saccharometer (t & off) 100 to 8 agst Count F. de Lagrange's Hospodar (off) 22 to 1 agst Lord Stamford's Automaton (t freely) 25 to 1 agst Mr. E. Brayley's Toom Fool (t freely) 25 to 1 agst Captain Lane's Blue Mantle (t) 25 to 1 agst Mr. Naylor's Carnival (t) 30 to 1 agst Mr. Watts's National Guard (t) 30 to 1 agst Mr. Whittaker's King of 'Utopia, (t) 50 to 1 agst Sir J. Hawley's Woldga (t) 60 to 1 agst Count Batthyaity's Tambour Major (t) 50 to 1 agst Mr. Naylor's Praique (t) 50 to 1 agst Mr. John Scott's Michael Scott (t) 50 to 1 agst Count Henckel's Giles the First (t) 50 to 1 agst Sir H. Des Vceux's Taje (off ) 1000 to 10 agst Mr. W. Day's Tadmor c—Glenochty (t) 1000 to 10 agst Mr, Capel's Bright Cloud (t) 1000 to 10 agst Mr. Naylor's Maccaroni (t) GAINSBOROUGH STEEPLECIIASES.—.MONDAY. The United Handicap of 5 soya each, 2 ft, with 40 added. Winners extra. Three miles and a half. (29 subs.) Mr. H. Frances's Corkscrew, aged, 10st 81b (Mr. Wood) 1 Mr. Colton's Canteen, aged, lOst 31b (W. Marson) 2 Joe Maley, Multum in Parvo, and Victress also ran. Betting--6 to 4 agst Corkscrew, sto 2 agst Multum in Parvo, 3 to 1 agst Joe Maley, 5 to 1 agst Canteen, and 6 to 1 agst Victress. With the exception of Canteen, the lot alternately held the lead, and on passing the stand the third time, Joe Maley ran from the rear to the front, was never afterwards headed, and won by a length and a half, a neck separated the second and Corkscrew, Canteen was fourth. An objection against the first and second, on the ground of having gone on the wrong side of a post, was heard by the Stewards, who disqualified Joe Ma]ey and Mul tum in Parvo, and awarded the Handicap to Corkscrew; Canteen being placed second. The Union Hunt Cup of £5O in specie, by subscription of 5 sovs each ; 12st each ; gentlemen riders, professionals extra. About 2 miles and a half, 12 subs. Mr. C. Coburn's Joe Maley (late North Lancashire) 6 yrs, 11st 91b (Mr. C. Arden) 1 Mr. H. Frances's Corkscrew, aged, 12st ....( Ur. Wood) 2 Mr. Colton's Canteen, agad, 12st (Mr. Hornby) 3 Betting—Even on Joe Maley, who took the lead half a mile from home, and won in a canter by ten lengths. Two lengths between second and third. The Stand Plate Handicap of 20 soya for all ages. About 2 miles. 14 subs. Mr. S. Wain's Miss Taft, 4 yrs, Bst 71b ...... (Weston) 1 Mr. Ward's Holdersyhe (late Crinoline) 5 yrs, 9st 131 b (Berkel 2 Mr. Spafford'9, sporting Jenny, 5 y rs, 9 st 121 b .. (Pears) ey) 3 The race was run in the dark, and no betting took place upon Miss Taft made nearly all the running, and won in a canter by five lengths. COUNTRY MARKETS. - - 11, Best sampl es of wheat may be quoted about is above last week's quotations ; other sorts were dull. Fine barley W as scarce, and is over last week's rates. Beans and peas are not in demand. Wheat, white. 46s red ...42s Barley ;33s Oats 52s Beans, Mazagan 34s 3 6 ° 48s middle & small 36s 42s 39s Peas, white 42s 44s 26s gray 38s 42$ GLOUCESTER—JAN. 3. To-day there was a fair supply of English wheat, which advanced is per qr on last week's rates for best qualities. Foreign and American wheat in brisk request. Malt was up. Barley rather firmer. Oats and beans remain much the same as last week. CHELMSFORD—X.4m 2. he trade in wheat to-day at our market was very slack► although the prices assumed an upward tendency, and may be noted is per qr advance. All other articles were about the same. Wheat, old white 37s 53s new 37s 50s old red 42s 49s new 38s 47s Barley 2tis 35a Chevalier 2Bs 38s Grinding 22s 30s Malt.... 61s 67s Chevalier 64s 69s Oats 20s 2881 Yeas, Partidge 37s 400 White 39s 400 ng 4os 43s Dun 358 39 Ditto new --s Beans, Tick, old 348 390 new —s --- 0 Harrow Ticks 3ss 409 new —s Mazagan 3OO 389 KIRKCALDY GRAIN—JAN. 3. A good supply of grain at market, and the trade ra ther brisk ; wheat and barley sold at n , arly ls per quarter advance, and oats much the same as last week. Wheat. Barley. Oats. First....2Bs Od I 19s Od I 17s Od Second ..40 s Od 24s Od 2040 d Third....—s Od --s Od —s Od COAL N cerloes of Coal per Ton al [ARKET. the close of the market. s. d. Ball's Primrose l3 6 Carway and Duffryn Malting ...... 22 0 Do. Anthracite-20 0 Tanfield Moor 13 6 l'anfield Moor Butes 13 6 Craighead Steam 14 0 Cowpen Hartley 14 9 Bate's West Hartley 14 6 Eden Main 16 6 Hartlepool West Hart ley ...14 3 Ships at market B. d . Buddle's West H ar tl e y 14 8 Walls End. lietton . . lB 00 Cassop . . 17 n South Hartlepool... ..17 6 u Tx imd on Hartlepool . l7 Heugh Hall 16 9 Stewart's 17 6 Tunstall South Kelloe. Whitworth It, 60 ; so ld, 37. ....111676 3 Foreign Mail Packet List. MAILS' DUE. AuKralia and Mauritius, via Southampton ~Jan. 18. M l 2. .3razil and Cap e V er d s, by British packet. Jan Jan. . 4. Cape of Good H o p e , A scension, and St. Helena.. Feb. 1. China, Penang, and Singapore, via Southampt on . J an . 18. via Marseilles ...Jan. 12' Falkland Island s ........... Gibraltar, via Southampton Jan. 10. India (Calcutta), and Ceylon, via Southampton J an . 18. via Marseilles J an . 12. India (Bombay), via Southampton Jan. 10. via Marseilles Jan. 4. Portugal.... Jan. 4. Malta, Egypt, and Aden, via Southampton Jan. 10. via Marseilles Newfoundland Oporto and Vigo C. S. and British N. America, by Brit. p ac k et.... Jan. 7. by U.S. packet.... b C-- - • W.C. of Africa, M a d e i ra, and Ty eneriffe anadian packet.J an. Jan. 10. Bahamas, via New Y or k Jan. 16. Mexico .................................. Jan. 28. All parts of West Indies, including Chili, Peru, California, and B r iti s h Columbia.. Jan. 28. Births. TEMPEST. —On the 4th inst., at 33, Chester square, Lodi Susan Vane Tempest, of a son. VERNON.—On the 4th inst., Lady Harriet Vernon, of a daughter. WEB - HEIL—On the sth inst., at East Dulwich, Mrs. R. P. Webber, of a son. Marriages. DEELEY—NORTON.—On the 2d inst., at St. Mark's, Ken nington, Arthur Charles M e l ton, third son of Richer " Deeley, Esq., of Vauxhall, to Ann Jane, the y oun gest daughter of the late John Norton, Esq., of Wandsworth road. RUSSELL—WILSON, —On the Ist inst., at Hove Church , Brighton, Si r Wil l i am Russell, Bart., to Margaret, only child of the late R. Wilson, Esq. Deaths: OARY.—On the 2d inst., at Norwood, Surrey, Mary Ann' the beloved wife of Roar-Admiral the Hon. P. P. Carl, aged 44. HIGGS —On the I s t i ns t., a t I ns t ow , N orth Devon, Coro' jo m H a N n s t .— Jo A se t p h h is H r i e g s g id s, en t e N aged 74. , ew - street, Hanley, Rober t Johnson, late of Crowgutter, Ipstones, aged 83. JONES.—On the 4th inst., at Fartherwell House, near TO° Mailing, Kent, Thomas Jones, Esq., aged 94. MARSHAM.—On the sth inst., at 2, Grosvenor .place, Lad , ' Amelia Charlotte Marsham, aged 81. WINmILL.—On the Ist inst., at Sellindge Vicarage, bil l * Sarah aged 85. London : Printed and Published by WILLIAM ANDREVO' of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at THE SUN Office, N°: 112, Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the count , of M iddlesex—Tuesday, January 6,1863. I Panto Lan Shoe arra simi Pri' and Box xi/ Con Nev con( lesqi CM cc , j Zleai Sho e , eb ow Tw o Two Tb (her • Little Jo] Tho Da Rum] Vi] bacon "T large, her lc Of thi The Ho how t to gel THE w v ten s e little 1 and ti The ] 131 u Speed Colvo ease, host ( Pas Pas Woo CEL] OUT The E T he I Th( The T 1 Th( and h ceeds Hai Colun Clown 8 0 4 3710 Panto io as M 4.. /