The Sun. — London, England, 1863-07-28 00:00:00

TEE RIOTS IN NEW YORK. (From the Times' Correspondent.) NEW YORK, July 13. Tht) enforcement of the conscription has fallen with the suddenness of a surprise upon the people of New York. So lately as a fortnight ago no one believed that the Government would dare to resort to it ; but, emboldened by the check which General Meado was enabled to offer to the advancing armies of General Lee, and still more by the surrender of Vicksburg, Mr. Lincoln and his advisers have plucked up heart, and taken astep that may yet prove to be the most momentous of the war. They calculated upon the good temper of the people consequent upon the first promise of success that has rewarded them for "pegging away." A few days will show whether or cot toeir confidence has been misplaced. The drzught commenced on Saturday, and will be con tinued during the present week in all the congres sional districts of the city. Fearful, apparently, of the resistance of the working classes, especially of those of foreign birth, the Government has adopted the precaution of taking each di,ttict separately, and of sending a military guard of 400 men to plc side ores the turning o the wheel, to see fair play and to preserve order. The Republican papers and all the supporters of the Administration take especial pains to spread abroad the impression that the draught is a mere formality, that the rebellion is all but sup pressed,that the existing armies are more than ample to give it the coup tie grace, and that none of the enforced levies will ever be required to do other than militia duty in the towns and cities where they will be drawn, and that they will under no circumstances be incorporated with the armies now in the field. It is much too early to ascertain to what extent these representations are believed by the people most interested. There is no question that the conscription is in itself intensely un popular, and that among the Irish and Germans, and to a smaller extent among the native-born Americans, Trades' Unions, and other societies have been organised in opposition to enforced military service, and that many valiant resolutions have been adopted, on paper, in assertion of the determi nation of the Americans, like Britons, " never to be slaves." The doubt is whether the opposition will take the shape of armed resistanceff doubt which among the native - born America ns is justified by the well•known civic cowardice—or, if that epithet be considered too strong, the respect for law, or what appears to be law—that characterises the Americans as a people. They wil l fi g ht obstinately against a foreign or a domestic foe, as their past and present history proves ; but they are reluctant to take up arms in the street against their own Govern ment, however great the provocation, as French men, Italians, Poles, or Germans would do, and have often done. It would not, therefore, be sur prising if the only resistance to the draught should come from the turbulent foreign element that abounds in this city, or if the Government should, in case of its assuming any large proportions, re solve to overpower it by force of arms. It does not seem, however, as if any army or portion of an army to be raised by this means could be of much service to the Government. The conscription an. swers its purpose in the South, and is cheerfully submitted to because the conscripts are inspired with a burning hatred against the Northern people, whom they consider tyrants, oppressors, "Yankees," and " worse than hyenas" who desire to overrun their country, exterminate the people, and confis cate the property of all classes. But no such danger affronts the North, and no such passions, either of hatred or patriotism, exist. In the minority of cases, where such passions find play they are to be dis covered among the non-fighting classes, the pugna cious disputants of the pulpit and the lecture-rooms, and the strong-minded women, whose type is Anna Dickinson, and whose model gentleman is General Butler. Whatever these people and the war con tractors may think or say, there is a growing feel ing throughout the North that the Southerners are as right in their assertion of the principle of inde pendence as they are gallant in defending it, and a growing disinclination to fight for the emancipa tion of negroes and the destruction of the Constitu tion, under the protection of which both North and South had attained so high a pitch of greatness and prosperity. The feeling is too strong and too widely diffused to be mistaken. it has not been weakened by the temporary success of General Meade, nor would the defeat of the Army of the Potomac, which the present disposition and strength of the contending forces do not render at all impro bable, have any perceptible effect in diminishing it. These persons say that if the Union cannot be preserved by the willing arms of volunteer soldiers, the Union is dead, and would not be worth the trouble of resuscitation, if resuscitation were pos sible. JULY 14. I had written thus far yesterday, when the report reached me that the most serious riot that had ever occurred in America had broken out in the upper congressional district of the city, where the draught had first commenced, and that a mob of men and women variously estimated at from 20,000 t 040,000, had suddenly appeared, acting without concert or known leaders, and were committing havoc that, unless speedily checked, might lead to awful loss of life and immense destruction of property. The report, though possibly exaggerated as to the numbers of the rioters, was in other respects true. The pent-up passions of the multitude had broken loose, and there was imminent peril of a catas trophe that might have delivered the city to the unrestrained possession of a populace that had tasted blood and grown furious on the diet. The readers of this correspondenco have been from time to time informed that the working classes _were oot only disgusted with the war a nd all re lating.ic to it ; that they did not sympathise wit h or e any interest in the abolition of slavery, exc e p t to condemn it ; that they looked upon the negroes with mistrust and dislike ; that they felt the bur den of the war in the enhancement of the price of food and clothing, and of every article of comfort and necessity; and that, above _all, they were op- Posed to the principle of a conscription and had band ed All these themselves into secret societies to resist it. motives of action c am e i n t o play yester day' and Wei_ intensified of th e L' by the sympathy and sup portin immense :men, who turned ou t i n t o th e s treets nmbers to incite their sons , b r others, fathers, husbands lovers to the wor k o f de struction. The or lists i of those who w ere d raug ht e d i n the Ninth Di strict Were published in the evenin papers on g a t arday g i•epeated 'in the Sunday journals. This their doom that the u n s tlee was the only notice of all day on Sanday theortunates had received; and excited groups of lists were studied working ' by street corners, at church or men, gathered at less tranquil resorts of e aPel doors, and at the ager-h ee shops, and hotel bars, The,crh r saloons, grog draught was loud and universal, l 1 opposition to the to be illegal, unfair in its mode It was declared of operations, exempting from personal service the na as rich enough to pay 300 dollars, and a ina - - " a was tion of power on the part of the Fedean Govern.ho ment which could not be submitted to irnal that still claimed to be free. It was allegeda country in one of the Sunday journals that no less a person than Mr. Horatio Seymour, Governor of the State, had declared his opinion that the act of Congress w as unconstitutional and could not be enforced; and that its legality would be tested before the recognised tri bunals of New York. This statement, which ought to have allayed the agitation of the people, produced a contrary effect. Early in the day gangs of workmen went from workshop to workshop to call upon their fellows to leave their labour and proceed to the building in the Third-avenue where the formalities of the draught were to be resumed. By 11 o'clock slTtneihousands of persons had collected. They com menced by throwing stones at the windows. They next rushed into the office, seized the wheel by which the lots were drawn and broke it into fragments, got hold of the enrolment lists and tore them into shreds, thus rendering the prosecution of the draught im possible until a new enrolment had been completed —assaulted and severely ill-treated the functionaries employed, and were debating what was next to be done, when a man suddenly appeared on the plat form with a pail of turpentine, which he deliberately poured upon the floor. A lucifer match was imme diately applied, the turpentine blazed up furiously, and in less than half an hour afterwards the whole edifice was in a blaze from the basement to the roof. The firemen arrived to extinguish the con t. ration. I' hey were received by the mob with 1 d cheers, hut were not permitted to throw water o he flames. The fire spread rapidly until eight co uous houses were enveloped in one common destr ction. The crowd assisted the terrified inmates to escape, but otherwise manifested a stern resolution to suffer no interference with their vengeance. Their next business was to tear up the iron of the street rail ways, to prevent the passage of cars with troops or police to the rescue, and to provide themselves with weapons. This done, they cut the telegraphic wires in all directions, and broke up into several separate mobs, each bent on its own purpose, or going wherever chance conducted it. • Of course, such a riot became the holiday of all the rowdies, black guards, and thieves of this city, who, scenting plunder as the crow scents carrion, turned out in large numbers to swell the volume and disgrace the character of the crowd. Hitherto no blood had been shed. A detachment of the Provost Guard that had been hastily sent from the Park Barracks, to prevent further destruction, if they could not re store order, arrived at Forty-fit st-street, in the very heart and focus of the riot, and found their further progress impeded by a dense mass of people, and pelted sup posed to amount to 5,00 0 or 6,000, who received them with shouts and yells of execration, them with stones and brickbats. Thus hemmed in and surrounded, and in danger of being to r n to pieces, they fired a dead l y volle y into the crowd, knows whether or not they r eceived orders to fire, and about 20 people fell mortall y wounded. No one ted and unauthorised act of their own fear; but or whether the fatal di schar g e was the unpremedi ta the as might have been expected, was only to the fur y of the multitude. Th e consequence,add to Provost Guard no sooner fired than it retreated, pur sued by the crowd. The men threw away theirfire arms-to facilitate their escape, and these being picked up by their pursuers seemed to suggest to the mob that in a future conflict with the troops it would be necessary they should have muskets and rifles. Seve• ral soldiers and policemen—it is not yet known how many—were killed, and the crowd, growing larger nd more furious as it rolled, invaded an armoury on the Second-avenue, belonging to Mr. Opdyke, the Mayor of New York, where a large store of arms and ammunition for which this gentleman and his brother had contracted to supply the Government was known to exist. It was defended for a short time by the servants and workpeople of Mr. Opdyke. But all resistance was vain. The people overflowed into the building like an advancing sea, and in a few minutes the musketry and ammunition, were seized and distributed among the insurgents. Whatever was not of a nature to be made available as a weapon was destroyed. This done the torch was applied to every corner of the edifice, which in a short time was in such a blaze as would have defied all the efforts of all the firemen of New York to extinguish. While this scene was being enacted another body of rioters, who had chased an obnoxious soldier or po liceman into a large stone house at the corner of Lexington-avenue, surrounded the building, and demanded that he should be given up. The cry was raised that the house belonged to a " shoddy contractor," who had made a fortune out of the war. The allegation, true or false, was fatal to the house. The mob burst into it, tore down the pictures from the walls, cut them to pieces with their knives, or dug holes in them with railroad iron, demo lished a large and costly pianoforte, threw the fragments out of the windows, took the books from the library and set fire to them in the street, broke open pantry and larder, wine cellar, and plate chest, closet and wardrobe, and carried off every portable article of value and the wearing apparel of the male and female members of the household as trophies of their achievement. Finally they set fire to the building ; and, watching the progress of the flames until they were quite assured that the work of destruction would be complete, marched off to commit new outrages. The next place that received a visit was the splendid house of Mr. Opdyke, the Mayor, in the Fifth-avenue, a gentleman, particularly noted for the fervour of his war sentiments, the richness of his contracts, and the vehemence of his Black Re publicanism, or philanthropic love for the negroes. Cries were raised to gut and fire the house, and in one moment more the thing would have been done had it not been for the opportune presence and judicious speech of one of the city judges, Mr. Barnard, who endeavoured to calm the fury of the mob. Having obtained a hearing, from a doorstep, 1 1 he bade them remember that Mr. Opdyke was the legally elected chief magistrate of the city, and as such entitled to their respect and obedience. He entreated them not to sully their just cause by acts of violence. He declared that, in his opinion, as a lawyer and a judge, the Conscription Act was ille gal and unconstitutional, and added that, if any citizen, taken from his home in pursuance of that act, applied by his counsel for a writ of habeas corpus before him, he would grant the writ, and bring the question to a test in the state and city of New York. This restored the crowd to good humour, and with three cheers for the judge they proceeded on their way, leaving Mr. Opdyke's mansion unmolested. But, although opposition to the draught was the main motive that impelled the people to these law less deeds, another passion took possession of them as the day wore on. In their hatred of the war and the draught which had grown out of- it, they re membered that Mr. Lincoln by his Proclamation of Emancipation had so embittered the South as to render a restoration of the Union impossible. Hatred of the war, and hatred of the negro, whom they supposed to be the cause of it, were equally strong in their minds. No negro could venture into the crowd without insult or danger. One un fortunate man of, colour, being hooted and pelted with brickbats and brought to bay by a furious gang of assailants, drew a revolver from his breast and shot the foremost man,dead. He was immediately pursued by a mob of hundreds of excited ruffians, seized, thrown to the ground, beaten on the head ' w ith clubs and pieces of iron, stamped and spat upon, and next, after every shred of clothing had been stripped from his back, hung stark naked from a lamp-post, and pelted with stones and mu d b y an assemblage of juvenile ruffians, from th e a ge o f 12 upwards. After dangling for a few minutes all the available combustible rubbish of the neighbourhood was piled under his feet and set fire to, the maniac crowd dancing around in a frenzy of blood and hor ror. In another part of the city a second negro met a similar fate ; and towards 6in the evening a body of ev persons, breathing vengeanc e er against a race—most of whom this day in New York would have been glad to exchange the s i that thousand unhappy peril of liberty in the North for the security of Southern slavery and protection—marched up to a large building, called the " Co loured Or p han Home," an institution, as its name implies, devoted to the maintenance and education of orphan negro children. Giving the inmates an hour to escape, they declared their intention to set fire to the build ing, which intention theyruthlessly carried into exe cution at the appointed time. One life only appears to have been lost—that of a poor negro child, who was accidentally trampled to death in the rush of the inmates to escape destruction. Amid scenes like these, the loc a l aut h or i ties being almost i f not en tirely powerless t o res i st the progress of t h e insur gents, th e night darkened down upon . would have leadership Was a city that been doomed to destruction if the mob ion. l l n t g s had h a d as much leadership Want as it had ferocity. But t n a o n r e douirseec°terudb.ulsft.they had been there • prevent it from seizing *actions a Wee m neither planned spo n providing every arsenal and armoury 100,000 the city, 100,000 men, Fortunmaitnedlytn, was nothing to arms and ammunition for the local authority had and • despatch troops to the vulnerable t n p er r a es b e l n e coefotfhese stool. m su o ffi st ci v e o'clock at night, the sky—„e: mischief. At 11 mist, as hot almost as a vapour bath bY a dens e hot the lurid glare of a dozen fires ianthrewas lit up by the town, and 40,000 or 50,000 riotersierent parts of disturbed possession of t h e streets. There before i d s n y o break if it had not been for th e sudden down e fft - a drenching rain-storm that cleared the thorou hot fares in a few minutes. The fain continued gfor several hours,—a better conservator of the public peace than ten thousand soldiers might have proved in fine weather. This morning the riots were resumed at daybreak. ,~: _~ --~.. THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY „EVENING, JULY 28, . 1863 The lower part of the town towards Wall-street and the Exchange was but little affected ; but up beyond Grace Church and Union-square the whole region lying between those points and the Central Park thatwas a b t y t h s o e m m e e m r c e y of a ns t t h h e e p e c o r w l e d b . a d I na t a w n a a s g e a d s s t e o rt ed np Broadway and ob tainallthpeososmesnsiibonusoesf and d ve o r a a r l s p p l i y e i c n e g s o f artillery ; that the railroad avenues were seized as coon as they . that came within the lines of th e ur the carriages were converte d barricades,iineetogentsand and the horses impressed for the serv ice of artiller y. Bat the statement does not app ear to have been true. The mob, however, had abundance of small arms, and when these were wantin g made up for clubs, brick-bats, and the deficiency of bludgeo ns, ing a feeling of veng canes aeainst Mayor Opdyk e , a fragments of iron rail. The rioters still entertain gentleman who has made himself conspicuous, not alone for his uncompromising and unconditional sup port of the Emancipation policy of the Government, but also for his assertion that war has its " noble side," betook themselves about 11 in the morning to his mansion, in Fifth-avenue, and manifested a dis position to devote it to the fate which it yesterday escaped at the intercession of Judge Bernard. To day the neighbours formed themselves into a gourd for its protection, and were sufficiently powerful to save it from the crowd of small boys and young men who wished to commit it to the flames, with all its luxurious furniture and trappings. The house of the postmaster of New York, Mr. Wakeman, was less fortunate, and, after having been plundered of its contents, was burnt to the ground. The houses of scores of other persons who by their action in the war and their support of the Government had rendered themselves obnoxious to the working classes have shared a similar fate. The offices of the Tribune newspaper have been barricaded during the day with piles of wet printing paper ; and all the banks in Wall-street and the neigh bourhood have been closely guarded. The lead ing citizens have enrolled themselves into a special constabulary to assist in the restoration of order; but as yet the crowd is all but undisputed mas ter of the situation, and no one knows what the night may bring forth. Governor Seymour, having been summoned by telegraph from Long Branch, a watering-place on the coast of New Jersey, whither he had gone last week for health and recreation, ar rived in the forenoon, and after a hasty consulta tion with the civic authorities at the City-hall appeared at the balcony and addressed a crowd of about 12,000 persons. His speech was temperate and judicious. lie denounced the rioters, but at the same time declared his belief that the State authori rities were able to preserve or restore order without the aid of the Federal Government, and added that he had sent a special messenger to the President on Saturday last to urge upon him the expediency of countermanding the draught, at least until time had been allowed to bring authoritatively before the Courts the constitutionality of the Act of Con gress upon which it was founded, and by which alone it was justified. To this message he had re ceived no reply. Great confidence seams to be generally entertained in the wisdom of Governor Seymour in bringing this unhappy business to a safe issue, though he is greatly hampered by some inju dicious and timid fools in high station in the city, who clamour for the establishment of martial law as the only possible means of preventing anarchy. Martial law in New York is what the Federal Go vernment desires above all things. If such a State cannot preserve order within its own boundaries without the aid of Federal troops, the abrogation of public liberty and the substitution:of the law of the drumhead and the Dragoon officer for that of the or dinary courts of justice, liberty in America is as dead as the Union, and will not be again restored until this generation shall have gone through a probation of tears and blood such as shall make it alike sadder and wiser and more worthy of freedom in the future than it has ever been in the past. Those who oppose the draught on the ground of its unconstitutionality—among the most conspicu ous of whom is Governor Seymour—make out a strong case. The 15th and 16th sections of the Federal Canstitution, which alone apply to the sub ject, declare that the Federal Government " may call out the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions," and that it may " provide for organising, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such of them as may be employed in the service of the United States—reserving to the States respectively the appointment of the officers and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline pre scribed by Congress." It follows from this that Mr. Lincoln may call upon the Governors of the States for the aid of militia, to be raised in accordance with State laws, and officered by men appointed by the State Governors. It does not follow that he can raise an army by conscription, and appoint its offi cers himself. Those who contend that he can base their argument upon the express act of Congress passed in March last for this especial purpose ; but, as Congress itself is bound by the Constitution, and can pass no law which that document does not ex pressly sanction, all other rights of the States except those mentioned in that instrument having been solemnlyreserved,the question for the SupremeCour t as the interpreter of the Constitution, to decide is that very question which is at issue between the work ing men and the State of New York on the ono side, and President Lincoln, his Administration, and his s cwtß C t hhu o uaeam n rtt gepucmtr under n s rdn B. Nay,ces el:c o sr n isi ?oup t e h et ohi w e ol Without n o nhe t iwa h r te e i lurbl Act . meb cse ot T atamao h ndne e cvesbe p iwses r coe o woadf b mrh a mt iaeo b t ytii yield,l under becomes t ne y e ddc, cannot arma a o nden w ansdno e yo v tae f e ltl r ett oe , ihwrr i pro tracte the struggle ; and a new army, it appears, he cannot raise, either by means of a conscription or without it. JULY 15. The night passed over more quietly than was anticipated. An announcement made in the even ing, as if by authority, that the Federal Govern ment had consented to forego the draught through. out the whole State of New York tended to allay the agitation, It did not, however, completely satisfy the mob. Too many thieves and assassins had mingled themselves in its proceedings to accept any promise on the part of the Govern ment as a warrant for their laying down their arms, and these persons kept the city in terror until daybreak. It is this morning announced that 5,000 troops are in position to quell all further disturbance, and that the Militia regi ments ordered to the relief of Pennsylvania at the first alarm in that State, consequent upon the late Confederate invasion, are on their way home and expected during the day. The principal merchants, bankers, and other householders have formed them selves into an armed special constabulary, and guard all the principal posts of danger. Business is al most wholly suspended, but there is a general im pression that the worst is over, and that New York will be saved the primary disgrace of further mob law, as well as the secondary disgrace of being in debted to the Federal Government for the restora tion of order. It seems to be conceded on all hands that the draught must be abandoned. The con tagion of opposition has communicated itself to other towns and cities in the North. There have been riots in Hartford, in Connecticut, and even sober Boston, where negrophilism reigns trium phant and supreme, has seen in its streets since yesterday a mob of upwards of a th ousand people, declaring against the draught, pronouncing it to be unconstitutional and oppressive, and expressing their determination to resist it. A few fanatics o f h the press in this city pe rsist in urging the Govern men maintain tohueg to follow their counsel, the indications are that it w i ll speedily have a new civil eonscription. If the Govern wentt b t to unwise enough outh S. war on its hands, in addition to w hat it technicall y calls the "rebellion" of the S 's Ointment and Pills.— [ADVERTISEMENT.] —Holloway to produce occurring during . the autumn are prone of the nerves rheu matism, neuralgia, and other painful disor d ers Holloway's Sudden Changes.—Changes of temperature constantly and muscles. For upwards of 20 years have been particularly celebrated for curing this cla ss aar freedo m ofin warm water, complaints; the parts, previously fomented soothing have only to be well rubbed twice a day with this Ointment to be relieved from all pain. By still spina' affectionperseverin with the fomentation and rubbing, the swelling is reduced _Pp o ls f lia t v !deptrta cease to trouble. Holloway's remedies relieve motion weakness perfectly aft restored, heli b w a h n e d n r the a d l u a i t o e u l y • affections, glandular obstructions and enlargements, s swellings, LAW INTELLIGENCE,---July 27. WESTMINSTER COUNTY COURT. (Before Mr. Francis Bayley.) THE HON. CAROLINE NORTON V. SIBLEY. This was an application for a new trial by the llor. Mrs. Norton, of 3, Chesterfield-street, Mayfair, in the case wherein she was sued by Miss Mary Sibley, of 54, Doughty street, for the education of the applicants' two grandchildren. Mr. Macdonald appeared for the Hon. Mrs. Norton, and Mr. Francis opposed the application. On the case being called on, • Mr. Francis said that in the case of Sibley v. Norton, which was tried on the 14th inst., an application was about to be made for a new trial, and he submitted f hat his friend Mr. Macdonald, who appeared for the Hon, Mrs. Horton, had no locus standi, because the rule of practice requires that seven clear days' notice should be given to the registrar, which had not been dono ; and the service was only made at the office on Monday last, which put the plaintiff com pletely out of court. Mr. Macdonald had heard that the notice was served on Saturday wick. Mr. Francis thought it could be found out by the endorse ment at the office. A copy being produced, the judge ob served that it had been served on the Monday. Mr. Macdonald repeated that he had been told that it was nrved on Saturday week, and if necessary he would send for the party who personally served it, Mr. Farrow, the seniur usher of the court, stated that the service was on Monday morning, Mr. Macdonald, looking at the paper, said it was inevi t ably consistent with what had been stated as to the service of the notice; however, they were willing to put up with the consequences, but he would ask his learned friend if he intended to take advantage of that which was a mere slip. Mr. Francis thought it his duty to take every advantage in a case when a lady like the lion. Mrs. Norton had thought proper to send letters to the newspapers, and throw a slur upon a lady's character, as she has done upon Miss Sibley's. Mr. Mac donald—Well, will you name the objection ? Mr. Francis—Certainly not, Mr. Macdonald suggested that the Court had the power to put the defendant in such a position that she should not snffer by the mere slip of not having served the notice in the prescribed time. . . . The ..'udge—l have the power, I believe, to listen to the application for a new trial. . _ Mr. Macdonald—Will you say Wednesday? The Judge— Well, we must have some grounds for giv ing leave. Mr. Francis—Let ns see what they are. Mr. Macdonald asked if his friends would allew Mr. Wilkinson, the solicitor for Mrs. Norton, the favour of bringing down the person who served the notice, to ascertain from him why it was not delivered within the proper time, The Judge—Here is the order, and that seems conclusive. You can't get out of that. Another discussion hero arose between the two learned counsel, and at length Mr. Francis said he would waive the objection, as it was the wish of his client. Mr. Macdonald, then addressing the Bench, said that when he came into court in the morning ho found that Mr, Wilkinson, who had the management of the case, had come there without some important papers, and he, Mr. Mac donald, had applied to Mr. Francis to permit him to go in a cab and fetch them. Mr. Wilkinson had not yet returned, so that he wished to apply for a . short postponement of the application. Mr. Francis objected, on the ground that it was unfair to his client, who had been brought there unnecessarily at ten o'clock, whereas the hearing of the application was not fixed until eleven, and they now asked for another half-hour. The application was at length proceeded with. Mr. Macdonald said that he moved for a new trial in the case of " Sibley v. the Hon. Mrs. Norton," upon the follow • ing grounds :—lst. That the judge misdirected the jury in telling them if their minds were in doubt they must find for the plaintiff. He, the learned counsel, had not had the honour of appearing before his Honour when the case was tried ; but he had no doubt that what had appeared in the different newspapers was a very correct report of the proceedings. The plaintiff was then represented by a solicitoi (her own father), and Mr. Francis was the counsel. The jury, after they had heard the case, found the following verdict :—" The jury say they find a verdict for the plaintiff for her salary and expenses, but there seems to be so much doubt respecting the payment of £l5, that they think Mrs. Norton is en titled to the benefit of the doubt, and they therefore find a verdict upon that part in her favour." Miss Sibley, the plaintiff, was examined in chief by Mr. Francis, and she had been cross 'examined, and when the jury gave their verdict, she was recalled and examined afresh, and Mr. Francis said that it was for Mrs Norton to make out the payment of the £l5 if the jury h a d any dou b t , This was said rather to the Court, and no d ou bt f or the pur p o se of letting the jury hear it, and with th a t k nowledge t h e j u ry again consulted, and they returned the same verdict still, namely, " that Miss Sibley is entitled to her salary and expenses, but we think that Mrs. Norton is entitled to the benefit of the doubt as to the £15." His Honour then stated that if the minds of the jury were so much in doubt they must find for the plaintiff. Now, he apprehended that, after the intimation thrown out by his learned friend as to the payment of this sum, the jury were fully alive as to what was specifically going on between the judge and jury, and nstwithstanding that, they found the verdict the same, and, when they had so found, there was misdirection. The learned Judge--That is not according to my recol lection of what took place. I said more than that. If they had so much doubt that they could not satisfy their minds either way, then they must give a verdict for the plaintiff, &c. thate s e cond e ground Mr. M ac d ona ld—And the jury then said they must find a saa y s whether the money was paid or n o t. T verdict for the plaintiff, b ecause th ey were so far doubtful h t 1y C l d no t was tc that the terms of the finding of the verdict, though nominally for the plaintiff, amounted in point of law, to a verdict for the defendant, and should have been so recorded?' Supposing that the finding of the verdict had been in these words—" We find a verdict for the plaintiff for her salary and expenses, and £l5 we find also for the defendant," that is, "we find a verdict for plaintiff's salary and expenses, less the £15," would there have been any objection, in point of law, to such a finding ? Again, the jury were not bound to give their reasons for their find ing, and if a verdict be coupled, if he might so speak, with an argumentative mode of giving that verdict, it would be no part of the duty of the Court to inquire upon what grounds they arrived at a conclusion so long as the verdict was recorded by the jury in substance. If that were correct, and applied to the pres ent findin g , it mi g ht b e read thus— that the jury retired, an d on returnin g th ey found a verdict for salary and expense s less the £l5, whi ch they find for Mrs. Norton. jury The learned ad thought that there ra ust have been a mistake on the part of Miss Sibley. It w as stated that sh e had paid for various said; either Judge—That the foreman or some o f th e j ury said they is not the w h o l e of what the things, but she could not have paid for them unless she had received the £l5, for she admitted she had only £1 of her own, and it was with the view of clearing up that £l5 that she was recalled. Mr. Macdonald then submitted the third reason for grant ing a new trial, namely, that the verdict was against the weight of evidence, inasmuch as the plaintiff stated in her evidence that from the 13th Sept. to the 6th Nov. she had received nothing, and produced a book containing the en tries of sums received and also ent r i es o f di s b ursements, .and it appeared from that book that on the 12th September plaintiff received £25, and a fow days later one £5 for another distinct purpose, whilst on the 11th October it was clear that Miss Sibley had expended about £l3, which showed that she had actually expended a few shillings more than the two sums received, the £25 on the 12th September, and the £5 later in the month, and the plaintiff swore that from the 12th Sept. to the 6th November she did not receive one farthing. Miss Sibley—No, no, that is not right. The Judge—Except the £5 on the 28th. Mr. Macdonald —In her own hand writing and by her own book it appeared that, on the 11th October, there had been a few shillings more spent than those two sums; and on the 6th November there had been expended by her £l3 12s, over and above the two sums of £25 and £5, in September. An obvious question arose here : if, from September to November, she did not, to use her own words, receive a farthing ; and if, according to her own written document, it would seem that in October the disbursements were more than she received money for, and that from the 6th Nov. the disbursements were also in excess to the amount of £l3 125., he thought the Court would agree with him in adapt ing the expression, that it was an error, and that the defen dant ought not to be prejudiced by it, and that the defen dant was upon this ground entitled to a new trial—unless it could be shown that this sum of £13125. had bsen accounted for by the plaintiff. Mrs. Norton stated upon oath that from the 23th September to the 6th Nov. she was not asked for a farthing. Next, there was the fourth ground of surprise. The hon. Mrs. Norton said that the plaintiff kept the book in which were entered the sums of money. They left in December at Edinburgh, when Mrs. Norton asked Miss Sibley to let her have the book, which the latter declined to do until three weeks had elapsed, and then the plaintiff sent the book, and consequently Mrs. Norton says she . was taken by surprise, for although there is an entry of £l5, which she swears was paid on 14th Oct„ and admitted to have been received in the plaintiff's writing, the plaintiff, on being recalled by Mr. Francis, gave in explanation that she intended the entry of £l5, which was next the date of the 14th Oct., to have been put down under the date of Nov. 6. Under these circumstances Mrs. Norton might well be taken by surprise when the plaintiff stated that she did not receive that £l5, when it was proved that she had ; and when it was further considered that the plaintiff and Mrs, Norton had had some angry words in December last, it might be regarded with importance the circumstance of her keeping the book three weeks before she returned it, for it was but reasonable to suppose, knowing the position in which they left each other, that every possible care had been taken not to make a mistake in the account, and not • withstanding that the book was returned with this entry, so that Mrs. Norton was taken by surprise in the plaintiff not admitting what was regarded as an error. The lion Mrs. Norton had made an affidavit in which she stated that she was utterly taken by surprise by the plaintiffpersisting in the statement that she had not received from her the on the 14th Oct., on which day the plaintiff had been sup plied with the money, consisting of a £5 Bank of England note, and £25. Deponent further stated that she had a pri vate pocket book of entries made by her on 14th Oct., in which appeared the Xl5 supplied to plaintiff on that day. After some further statements as to the accounts, the learned counsel continued that he had sent for the docu ments and memoranda papers to inform the Court of the bona _Ales of Mrs. Norton's position, and under these cir cumstances he believed she had a really good and tenable case for a new trial. Some of this was obleeted to as evi dence, but a memorandum wade by the defendant, el•en on the very ground of refreshing the memory of the witness, made it valuable evidence. He would now ask the Court to say whether or not he had made out a strong case for the application being granted ? Mr. Francis, in opposing the application of the Court, would recollect that, although Mrs. Norton conducted her own case, she had all the advantage of learned counsel ap pearing, for she made her statements and proceeded as she pleased in cross-examining the plaintiff; and although the Court did all it could to stop her, she would go on, and that being the case, he (Mr. Francis) submitted it would be a cruel injustice to the plaintiff to grant a new trial. It was a case of wrongful dismissal, and he had opened it as a case in which plaintiff was entitled to the full claim for salary and expenses, unless the defendant could show that she (the plaintiff) had disobeyed the lawful commands of her mis tress. They had succeeded in getting the verdict of the jury, and he thought the verdict of the jury could not now be disturbed. It the defendant really wanted to try the case again, a fresh plaint could th, issued and the case tried as to the £ls. Now, the jury had found that Miss Sibley was wrongfully dismissed by Mrs. Norton, and that she was en titled to her salary and expenses. This verdict was conclu sive; but, independently of that, there was a perfect answer to all the objections raised. And as to the first and second grounds for granting a new trial, they appearad to him to be one and the same thing, because if his Honour were wrong in directing thejury that if they had a doubt on their minds, they must find for the plaintiff. The learned Judge—l have no doubt of that. If was not a conclusive finding ; it was accompanied by a doubt at the time. Mr. Francis said at the trial he had ventured to raise the objection that tho defence as to the £l5 could not be gone into, for it was a matter of set-off, which had not been pleaded. He confessed that he had considered the subject since, and had arrived at the same conclusion, with all deference to the Court. It could not be said well that the verdict was against evidence, inasmuch as the two ladies were in court and gave their evidence before the jury; and touching the evidence as to the book, he did not suppose his Honour would disturb the verdict of the jury unless it could be shown that the evidence really preponderated one way or the other. The learned judges in the superior courts did not do so unless from some special reason, such as he had already mentioned—the balance of testimony. Lastly, came the question of surprise. The learned Judge thought that if there had been sur prise on either side, there had been surprise on both sides. Mr. Francis certainly thought there had been on the plain tiff's side, fir at the time of the dismissal in December his client marked dewn £5 in the account, when Mrs. Norton requested her to put down £l5, and it was on that the diffe rence took place between them, which was not contradicted by the Hon. Mrs. Norton ; and she had made some mistakes in dates which did not agree in the affidavit she now sent forth with her evidence at the trial. Between Sept. 28th and Nov. 6th all the Papers were shown to the jury, and the explanation given by this young lady was that she did not get that amount till Nov. 6th, when she entered it as part of the running account she had commenced from the last balance. The Judge thought the only thing in the case was whe ther the vouchers were made before Nov. 6th. Mr. Francis —The Hon. M rs. Norton had herself said that she did not dispute any item charged against her was paid. Although he did not mean to contend that the accounts had been kept as they would have been by an accountant, yet it was certainly the account that any young lady would be ex pected to keep. Then as to surprise, they would recollect that Mrs. Norton would not let him (the learned counsel) have the book for a long while—she kept it back, and all of a sudden she threw it down. She was rather clever, and would not even let him look at it, although in •a moment she thrust it in plaintiff's hands, and said, " Don't you see it here ?" The affidavit, however, shows that Mrs. Norton was not very careful —certainly not so careful as she might be, for she swears positively to the 14th for the 15th Oct. And if a new trial were granted, the Court would have to allow the question of wrongful dismissal to be gone into again, no defence at all having been made as to that. Mr. Macdonald begged to be allowed to go on with the application, and produce the papers for the guidance of the Court, and showing the bona fides of Mrs. Norton's position. After some discussion the Court refused, and, in giving judgment, his Honour said that he did not feel justified in this case in granting a new trial. There were four grounds for it advanced—the first was misdirection, and on that point he considered that the direction was right, and the jury delivered a conclusive verdict. The vouchers and books were put in the hands of the jury, and then they found a verdict for the plaintiff, upon the ground that the matter was in so much doubt that they were unable to satisfy their minds as to the payment of the £l5; and that being so, and the onus of proof being on the defendant, it was proper to enter a verdict for the plaintiff. As to the two last points, there was nothing in the point of surprise, because the de fendant came to that court to prove her case; and the verdict could not be said to be against evidence, because the chief testimony in the case was simply the evidence of the de fendant against the evidence of the plaintiff; and as the onus was upon the defendant, his Honour thought the jury had done right in returning the verdict they did, for he would have done the same himself had he been in the jury's place. It was very unsatisfactory the way in which the de fendant had brought the matter forward, and it was exceed ingly difficult for a judge to deal with such a case where the party conducted it herself in the manner that this case was. Application refused, with the usual costs. THE RUSSIAN NAVY. ST. PETERSBURG, July 20. The following is a statement of the existing naval forces of Russia. It should be understood that this list includes only those vessels which are seaworthy and fit for active service. The Russian fleet comprises six divisions, as fol lows:-1, the Baltic fleet; 2, the Black Sea fleet; 3, the naval force stationed in the Amour ; 4, the fleet in the White Sea; 5, the fleet in the Caspian Sea ; 6, the naval force on the Lake of Aral. This last force is, of course, the smallest of all, and con sists, indeed, of only two small steamers of respec tively 40 and 12 horse power; the fleet in the White Sea is somewhat more powerful, since it includes two war steamers carrying eight guns each and fitted with engines of 240 horse power, and three smaller steamers. The next most important fleet is that in the Caspian, comprising ten steamers of 850 horse power, and 10 steam transports, four of which latter are armed with eight guns, and the other six with six guns each. 'The naval force in the Amour River is at the present time rather large. It is composed of six corvettes, mounting 11 guns each; seven schooners, six of six guns each, the other car rying four guns ; and 11 steam transports, three of them screws, and carrying collectively 37 guns. The fleet of the Black Sea, is, of course, much more powerful than those just mentioned. The Black Sea is composed of 42 war steamers, six of which carry 11 guns each ; three nine guns each ; and the remainder two or four guns. The Baltic fleet in cludes no less than nine ships of the line, of 135, 131, 111, 84, three of 83, 78, and 68 guns; 14 fri_ gates, one of which mounts 70 guns, and four others carrying from 45 to 60; six corvettes, armed with 11 to 17 guns each ; two gun-boats, of three guns each ; nine steamers of various sizes, carrying toge geth 68 guns ; 19 small steamers and five transports, making a total of 64 sail. The greater number of these vessels were built in England, and fitted with English engines, between the years 1851 and 1861. This list does not include the recently-built ironclads. AN UNINTENTIONAL GHOST !—Care apparently should be taken in the exhibition of Professor Pepper's ghost, if it is wished to preserve a proper respect for the supernatural. It is awkward when the wrong sub ject is reflected, as was the case at a theatre the other even ing, when, in one of the scenes, instead of the haunted man appearing before the eyes of the audience, the figure of a carpenter in his shirt sleeves, drinking a pint of ale, was but too faithfully shadowed forth. The utter unconscious ness of the man, who was below the stage, as to what was passing, made the scene excessively ludicrous. [ADVERTISEMENT.)—Avoid medicines: they always aggra vate chronic complaints, but Du Barry's Delicious Health Restoring Revalenta Arabica Food, which saves fifty times its cost in other remedies, invariably cures them, restoring perfect digestion, strong nerves, sound lungs. healthy liver, pure blood, refreshing sleep, functional regularity, and energy to the most disordered or enfeebled. We extract a few out of 60,000 Cures :—Cure No. 58,216 of the Marchioness de Bram, Paris, of a liver complaint, wasting away for seven years, debility, with a nervous palpitation all over, bad digestion, constant sleeplessness, the most intolerable nervous agitation, and dreadfully low spirited.—Cure No. 1,771. Lord Stuart de Decies, Lord Lieut. of Waterford, of many years' dyspepsia.—Ne. 49,832. "Fifty years' indescribable agony from dyspepsia, nervousness, asthma, cough, constipation, flatulency, spasms, sickness, and vomiting.—Maria Jolly." —Cure No. 16,270. Mr. James Roberts, of Frimley, Surrey, of thirty years' diseased lungs, *Ming of blood, liver derange. ment, and partial deafness.—Cure No. 47,121. Miss Elizabeth Jacobs, of extreme nervousness, indigestion, gatherings, low spirits, and nervous fancies.—Cure No. 54,816. The Rev. Jas. T. Campbell, Fakenham, Norfolk, " of indigestion and torpi dity or the liver, which had resisted all medical treatment." In tins. 1 lb., 2s. 9d. ; 21b., 4s. 6d ; 51b., lls. ; 225. ; 241 b• 40 s.—Barry D u Barry and Co., No. 77, Regent-street, London ; also Fortnum and Mason ; and all Grocers and Chemists in every town of the United Kingdom. SPIRIT OP THE PUBLIC JOURNALS. DAILY NEWS.—it is to be feared that, notwith standing the eight days spent by Mr. Baron Chan neil at Chelmsford, more time and more money must he spent before the many cases arising out of the frauds and forgeries of the ex-M.P. for Lambeth can be settled. It is difficult to perceive how any more satisfactory evidence can be produced in future than has been produced in the case which has just been heard. At the same time it is difficult to find any fault with the jury for hesitating to form shy ,„-'elusion on the extraordinary evidence submitted to them. It is clear that without the confession of family would have found it of the suspected deeds William Roupell to ' .2 victims from the hopeless to prove that any Only few were forged, or to oust his innocena ‘ ens to property which they had purchased. years ago this man would have been incompes appear in a witness box, and the persons whose fat' . tunes are now endangered would have been safe at least from his attacks. It is impossible to doubt that the change of the law by which. William Roupell has been admitted as a witnese, is an improvement. The only true principle in such matters is that no witness or evidence ought to be excluded. The jury or the judge should have everything before them. The value to be attached to any particular evidence should be left to their discretion. But, on the other hand, in such a case as this, when a man conies boldly forward to proclaim his own iniquities, to explain the manner in which he cheated, not only his relations but a number of innocent persons, and to tender evidence, the necessary result of which must be to get back for his own family the property out of which he has swindled them, it is absolutely essential that the confessed forger should be con firmed in every particular. The practical result which followed from the situation occupied by Wm. Roupell was singular enough. During a whole week this man waited anxiously in court, and eagerly watched the trial in dread lest the jury should come to the conclusion that he had been innocent of the frauds of which he had confessed himself guilty. The result of the trial which has just been closed is so peculiar, and has so important a bearing upon the cave arising out of the same transactions, that it may be interesting shortly to allude to it. It was not until half-past 10 o'clock on Friday night that the jury were discharged, although they had been in deliberation since half-past 2 o'clock in the afternoon, and although the judge had done all he could to bring them to an agreement on the sub ject. It will be remembered that Richard Roupell was the plaintiff in an action of ejectment against Messrs. Freeman, who had lent £12,000 on two farms in Warley, the action having been brought in order to recover this property. It was established beyond doubt that old Roupell, the father of Rich ard and of William, died in receipt of the rent of this estate, and that Richard Roupell was his heir at-law. Now it is a maxim of English law that the heir-at-law is entitled to succeed to all the real estate of which his ancestor dies seised or possessed unless the deceased person has disposed of it either by a wilt or by a valid deed executed during his life. In this case it was said by Messrs. Freeman that the old man had disposed of it by a certain deed, dated the 9th of January, 1856. But this fact• Messrs. Freeman were bound to prove. They were required to show affirmatively that the deed of gift in question had been signed, sealed, and delivered by old Roupell. The Judge, therefore, put this question to them—" Was the deed of the 9th of January, 1856, executed at all by the testator, Richard Palmer Roupell ?" Upon this, however, the jury could not agree ; but the view which they adopted, curiously enough, seems to have differed from that of both parties in the cause. Richard .Roupell, the plaintif f , insisted that the deed was a simple forgery, and William Roupell gave a de tailed and elaborate explanation of the manner in which his father's signature had been forged. On the other hand, the counsel for Messrs. Freeman insisted that the signature was a genuine signa ture, and that, as the old man had often expressed his intention of leaving his son William the pro perty in question, there was nothing extraordinary in his having executed a deed of gif; by which his long expressed intentions were carried into effect. In answer to the confessed forger and his brother, Rich ard, it did undoubtedly appear that the signature of the old man was exceedingly like his genuine signa ture—indeed so like theta banker's clerk declared he would have paid a cheque signed in the same way. 11 was doubtful, therefore, whether there was in fact any forgery. And in answer to the views of Messrs. Freeman, it was said that no one had ever heard of the execution of the deed of gift, and that the two attesting witnesses had never seen the old man sign his name upon any occasion. It was doubt ful, therefore, whether any such deed could have been executed by old Roupell. Under these circum stances the jury adopted an ingenious and perhaps true conciusion. They said, " Here is a deed which bears a signature so extremely like that of the per son by whom it purports to be signed, namely, old Roupell, that we believe the old man did write the letters of which it is composed." This was the opinion of some at least of the jury. In other words, the signature is genuine. But, on the other hand, they said, and said unanimously, that the old man never intended to execute any such deed ; in other words, that his signature had been obtained by fraud. Whether his theory be true or false, it un doubtedly reconciles the apparent contradictions of the ease. There are ways in which William Rou pell might have managed to obtain his father's sig nature to a document as to the contents of which he may have known nothing; or, it is just possible that his father may have signed a blank parchment. This being granted, the difficulty as to the marvel lous similarity between the signature of the deed of gift and the ordinary signature of the old man vanishes. And the difficulty of accounting for the existence of the deed of gift at all vanishes also. But if the jury were unanimously of opinion that the old man never did intend to execute any deed of gift, and if even those of the jury who maintain the genaiueness of the signature are of opinion that it was obtained by fraud, they affirm that substan tially the deed of gift is not the deed of the old man, and that therefore the plaintiff and heir-at law is entitled to a verdict. This is a point which may probably give rise to future discussion. Ac cording to Mr. Sergeant Shee the jury did substan tially give a verdict for the plaintiff; according to his rival, Mr. Bovill, they did not. The judge tried in vain to compel the jury to draw the conclusion which they were entitled to draw from the fact found that they old man never intended to execute any deed of the sort, but he failed in his attempt ; for the jury boldly declared that if he were to have them looked up until Domesday they never could come to an agreement. PosT.—A question reappeared on Friday evening in the House of Commons which, although its dis cussion led to no immediate results, is destined, if we mistake not, to force itself, in one shape o r another, before long, upon the attention of the Le gislature. It is seldom that we are fortunate enough to find ourselves in accord with the opinions of the member for Finsbury, and still less often that we are able to approve of the tone and manner in which they are advocated. Mr. Cox's speech in the debate to which we allude was, however, an exception to the general rule. In calling attention to the sub ject of infanticide in England and Wales, he struck a chord that will vibrate to the touch in the heart of every lover of his country. The tables of infant mortality, in the abstract, form the most delicate gauge which is accessible to us of the state of the public health. The mephitic exhalations, the poisonous miasma, or the low type of vitality which crowd our hospitals and workhouses with the adult poor, can be detected instantly in the, returns of the infantile death-rate. If the natural ratio of this be high, we may be quite sure that influences pernici ous to the public health are unnecessarily rite. Where no disturbing causes, such as the employ ment of young mothers in the manufacturing dis tricts as mill hands, and their consequent separation from their babies, are at work, a more infallible test of the health of any particular locality can hardly be applied than the average number of deaths re gistered among that part of the population between their birth and the age of two years. Latterly, however, it has been shrewdly suspected that, espe cially in certain localities, there have been influences at work which tend materially to diminish the value of such data. It is roundly asserted that the number of untimely deaths among children of tender years is enormously augmented by the effects of violence, or of a wilful neglect, which answers the purpose quite as effectually. In other words, it is stated that a large proportion of the infant mortality through out the country can only be properly classed under the ugly heading of murder. Mr. Cox has moved for a return, extending over 18 months, of the number of verdicts i n th e case of infant i le d eat h s brought in by coroners' juries. The results thus elicited are sufficiently startling. In that compara tively short space of time upwards of 5,500 children under the age of two years met with untimely deaths. Of these, 224 are returned as the victims of wilful murder; 697 were found dead, a mere euphemism for murder, to which juries would appear to be partial, while in 956 cases the helpless little creatures had been suffocated. At the head of this ill-omened list stands unfortunately the metropolis, in which close upon 300 children have had their short space of existence suddenly abridged under circumstances which leave but little doubt as to the causes which have been et work. Now, it may rea sonably perhaps be doubted whether the increased prominence which this particular crime has of late undoubtedly obtained be not due, as Sir Geo. Grey suggested, t o th e g reater vigilance of the p o li ce, and not to ary augmentation in the frequency of the crime itself. Many cases may now be subjected to scrutiny which formerly escaped the light, so that, especially when the enormous increase of our pope- , lation is taken into account, the offence itself aid bear no greater ratio to its numbers than it • some time ago. On' the other hand, we must free, y admit that the v.eigh t of evidence is all on the 3.1t1t • of the reluctance which exists among juries to bring in a verdict of murder such a verdict can poeeihir be escaped. Dr. Lan2teseer, the Coroner for Middle sex, bears express testi'llta - "DY upon this point, and'. a more competent authority it: n a professional point of view could hardly be quotet `I upon the subject. When, however, we turn from a fact which virtu ally admits of no denial, to the c, fuses which axe said to have produced it, we are at once involved in a maze of contradictions. Mr. Col: blames 1/ e'c' bastardy laws, and complains that the insufficient , allowance of half a crown aweck as a maxi..mum acts . as a direct provocative to the lletty Sorrelo of the present day to get rid at once of their disgrace nun of the burden vvhieLt they have entailed upien them selves by it. We pass over the somewhat athsurcT uggestion of Mr. Huvt that crinoline is at the hottem of the loose morals of our domestic servaertal but it is notorious that a - Vast difference exists up ii the causes which are diraletly productive of child'. murder. Some are dt e p ee ,ed to attribute its fre-• quency to the comparative .immunity enjoyed by the mother, under the present t ailings or the, judges with respect to the evidence which can be -keg'illY received as the original vitality of the child. Others would attach more weight to the .cefluence of the expenhe of the maintenance of the child, when thrown into the balance against its life, than to the impulses of shame resulting in an attempt to escape detection. In support of the latter theory there is, at least, the argument that in a large proportion of the cases of wilful murder the infants were of the age of 12 months and upwards, and the notorious, fact that, especially among' our agricultural popu lation, but a very small =mint of stigma attaches to the mother of a°‘ love child." But the very dis crepancy of opinion proves the .extreme difficulties which we have to encounter when we come to deal practically with the evil. If we increase the allow ance paid to the mother of an illegitimate child, it is; argued very naturally that there must be a corre sponding diminution in the incentives' to chastity. The present style of chess is most unquestionably within the province of paterfamilias in .his private capacity,but can hardly he brought under .his notice as a member of the Legislature. As to the rules of evidence in cases of infanticide r they must clearly be left to the discretion of the judges, who are' not merely the most competent but the only proper authorities upon questions of such a character. In short, after ail the suggestions which have been made, we are driven back pretty. much upon Sir George Grey's conclusion, " that the best means of checking the crime of infanticide is to improve the morals of the people, for no law which Parliament could frame would be so effectual to prevent it." Some beneficial effect might pos sibly be produced by the infliction upon a reputed father in easy circumstances of a pecuniary mulct in addition to the present weekly payment, which might be available at its cessation as a premium for the apprenticeship or other advancement in life, of the child. It is questionable also whether the , present weekly stipend is adequate in towns to pro vide for the child at nurse so to enable its mother to gain her own living. So long as this is the case its chances of surviving must obviously be but small, when its removal will be so great a relief. Still, all such provisions as these can operate only as palliatives of the evil. Beyondl the extreme difficulty of acting otherwise there is really no reason for imposing upon one , party to a delinquency nine-tenths of the burden when both are, morally speaking, at least equally guilty. It is high time that public attention should be specially directed to the prevalence of infanti cide ; since in the publicity of the crime and in the abhorrence which it creates in the minds of the community in general lies, as it would seem at pre sent, the beet chance of the gradual disappearance from among uie of so foul a stain upon the national character. COUNTRY MARKETS. ,--,6,- GLOUCESTER-JULY 25. The show of wheat to-day was very good, with a small attendance of farmers. English and foreign wheat sold at previous rates. In barley, oats, and beans there was no alteration. COLCHESTER-JuLy 25. There was a firm trade in wheat to-day, and on some samples about is per qr advance on last week was made. Spring corn very dull, at late rates. Wheat, white 46s 56s Beans, Mazagan .. 30s 339 red ..42s 52s middle & small.3ss 42s Barley .—s —s Peas, white ..40s 42s Oats CHELMSFORD-JULY 24. At this corn exchange to-day there was a fair attend ance, and a little more eagerness was evinced by buyers, at the full prices of last week. Other ar ticles dull. W heat, old white 30s 52s new 34s 49s old red 36s 47s new 34s 44s Barley .. 2t's 36s Chevalier 2Bs 40s Grinding 22s 31s Malt.... 61s 67s Chevalier . Oats 20s 28s F eas, Partridge 37s 40s White 39s 40s Boiling . 4os 43s Dun 3ss 38s Ditto new —B —s Beans, Tick, old 34s 39s new —s —s Harrow Ticks 3ss 40s new —s —8 Mazagan ..30s 38s KIRKCALDY GRAIN-JULY 25. To-day we had small supplies of oats, only one parcel of barley, but rather a large supply of wheat. Sales ready, and prices were in favour of sellers. Wheat. Barley. Oats. Fir5t....348 Od I Od I 24s Od Second ..40s Od —s Od 26s Od Third....—s Od —s Od —s Od COAL A Prime of Coal per Ton Si ARKET. the close of the market. s. d. Cowpen Hartley 15 3 Carway and Duffryn Malting . 19 6 Eden Main l6 3 North Felton Gas, l3 3 Hastings Hartley l5 3 Holywell 16 3 West Hartley 15 3 Wylam 16 0 Norton's Anthracite 22 0 a, 82 ; sold. 62. s. d. Walls End. Heugh Hall 16 6 Hartlepool 16 3 Trimdon Hartlepool 17 6 South Hartlepool 16 0 East Hartlepool 17 6 elloe ..16 3 South Kelloe l6 6 Hetton lB 0 Tunstall South Hetton.. . . 17 9 Wharncliffe ....16 3 Russel's Hetton 16 6 Cassop l7 6 Brsddyll's Hetton 16 6 Walls End. Haswell . Riddell l6 0 Burn Framwellgate.. l6 0 Ships at mark°. Foreign. Mail Packet List. MAILS DUE. Australia and Mauritius, via Southampton. Aug. 18. via 31 arseillcs Aug. 13. Brazil and Cape Verds, by British packet . Aug. 4. Cape of Good Hope, Ascension, and St. Helena July 29. China, Penang, and Singapore, via Southampton. Aug. 2. via Marseilles ...July 27. Falkland Islands .. Gibraltar, via Southampton July 26. India (Calcutta), and Ceylon, via Southampton Aug. 2 India (Bombay), via July 26. Southamptonvia Marseilles July 27. via Marseilles Aug. 4. Portugal.... Aug. 4. ,talta, Egypt, and Aden, via Southampton July 26. •-•. v ia Mar se ill es July 27. Newfoundland ..................Aug. 5. Oporto and Vigo .. U. S. and British N. America, by Brit. packet.... July 30, by U.S. packet.... by Canadian packet. July 24. W.C. of Africa, Madeira, and Teneriffe Aug. 11.1 Bahamas, via New York July 3C. Mexico.. All parts of West Indies, including Chili, Peru, ( July 29 California. and British Columbia.. ...... .... 1 Full benefit of reduced duty obtained by pur chasing Horniman's pure Tea; very choice at 3s 4d. and 4s. " High Standard "at 4s. 4d. (formerly 46. Bd.), is the strongest and most delicious imported. Agents in every town supply it in packets. Births. BATITURST.—On the 25th Last., at 27, Hertford. street, Mayfair, the Hon. Mrs. Allen Bathurst, of a daughter. PerlLLoN.—On the 24th inst., at 17, Susscx•gardens, Hyde-park, the wife of Philip 0. Papillon, Esq., M.P., of Leaden Manor, Essex, of a daughter. wy N N.—On the 26th inst., at 2, Lower Berkeley-street, the Lady Annora Williams Wynn, of a son. Marriages. BuLwErt—BUXTON..—On the 24th inst., at All Souls' Church, London, b y t h e Rev. F. A. anter rector of Brettenham, Norf o lk , Li eut.-Colonel E. G. Bulwer, C. 8., 23d Fusiliers. sec nd son of W. E. Lytton Bulwer, Esq., of Heydon Hall, Norfolk, to Isabella Anne, youngest daughter of the late Sir John Jacob Buxton, Bart., of Shadwoll Court, Norfolk. TRANZRS—GREEN.—On the 25th inst., at Wroxham, Eaton Travers, Captain Royal Artillery, second son of the late Sir Eaton Travers, K.H , to Henrietta, youngest daughter of James Green, Esq., Wroxham. Deaths. ANDERSON.—On the 26th inst., at Islington, James Anderson, Es t a , of 168, Fenchurch-street, aged 29. Coox.—On the 22d inst.. at 75, Guilford-street, Russell square, William John Howell Cook, Esq., aged 39. GASKELL.—On the 23d inst., at St. Nicholas, isle of Tha- net, John Gaskell, Esq., aged 69. GRANT.—On the 19th inst., at Spring Bank, Aberdeen, Sir Isaac Grant, Bart., of Monyinusk, Aberdeenshire, aged 71. GOLDSMID.—On the 24th inst., at the Hague, Henry Goldsmid, Esq., aged 7 3 . HAURIE.—On the 25th inst., Calixto Haurie, Esq.. York chambers, St. James's-street, Piccadilly, aged 56. JErrumrs.—On the 24th inst., at Lowestoft, Suffolk, Cap tain G. B. Jeffreys, R.N. London : Printed and Published by WILLIAM ANDREWS. of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at THE SUN Office, No. Ilz Strand, in the Precinct of the bavoy, in the CountY ot Middlesex,--•Tuesday, July 28, 1863, I I ~~