The Sun. — London, England, 1863-12-19 00:00:00

rouired to k enc!). circurnt,t,„te THE StIN, LONDON, SAPUHbAY EV.ENING, DECEMBER 10, 1863. THE CRAWLEY COUET-MARTIAL. The proceedings in this protraeled case were brought to a close yesterday by the reply of the pro secution. As might have been expected, it did not excite the same degree of interest as that which was manifested in Col, Crawley's statement. The long rows of reserved seats, which were crowded on the preceding day, were nearly deserted, and amon gs t the visitors of distinction we noticed Lord and Lady Chelmsford and Mr. and Mrs. Headlam. The Court having been formally opened, Lieut.-Col. Crawley requested and was allowed to make an unimportant correction in his address of s the preerious day. Sir A. Horeford, official prosecutor, then rose, and proceeded to read his reply to the defence. He said —Mr. President and gentlemen, —I propose in my reply to confine myself as closely as possible to a plain comment on the evidence; for in a case like this a speech appears to me to be of no value; ex cept when it serves as a clue to guide through a labyrinth of evidence. I should wish, ho',vever, to, . take this opportunity of expressing my concurrence with what has fallen from the prisoner as to the misstatements and exaggerations that have appeared in print respecting him. Such misstatements and exaggerations are extremely to be regretted, not only for the sake of the prisoner, to whom they are most unfair, but also because they render the admi nistration of justice difficult by raising prejudices and causing misapprehensions, which, when cor rected, by a knowledge of the actual facts, make those facts seem less important and serious than they really are. In dealing with these facts it will be well to begin with the orders for the arrest, which the prisoner is charged with having car ried into effect with unnecessary and undue severity These crders were two in number ; first, that of Major-General Ferrell, ElL:ted 26th April, 1862, the material words of which were these — You are to keep regimental Sergeant Major Lilley and Troop Sergeant Majors Waktfi•eid and Duval in close arrest under sentries, and to forbid any one to have access to them except under your own express permission. The other order was that of Sir `William Mansfield, dated 6th May, 1862, of which the material words are these : The sergeant majors are not to be released from arrest until the proceedings in the trial of Captain Smales aro en tirely closed, and the cou rt of which Lieutenant. Colonel Payn is president has been finally adjourned. The proper mode of carrying into effect these two orders appears to me to be the main question which the Court will have to determine with reference to the first charge. It has, I think, been correctly stated by the prisoner, "That the n a t ure o f the charges on which sergeant Major Lilley was arrested, and the nature of the orders the prisoner received from his superiors relative to the arrest, are necessary ele ments in explaining and justifying the manner in which he thought it necessary to carry out that ar rest ;" and for that reason the prisoner put in evi dence Lieut.-Col. Theeiger's letter of May 6, 1862, in which is conveyed Sir Wm. Mansfield's opinion that the prisoner " might fairly interpret the acts of the three sergeant mjors into a conepiracy against his authority, and wan amply justified in taking the stringent measures he did for the obstruction of the further progress of such conspiracy, and that it was his undoubted duty to do so." The date of this letter shows that Sir William Mansfield could not have meant more than that the prisoner was justified, in the first instance, in ordering the arrest of the ser geant majors, for Sir William Mansfield could not then have known anything more than the mere fact of the arrest. It may seem strange that at the com mencement of the same letter Sir William Mansfield remarked that " Tl:ece did not appear, as ehown by the documents which had been sent to him by li‘rlejor-General Farrell, uny sufficient grounds for bringing the non-commissioned officers concerned to trial for conspiracy," and yet that the prisoner was not only deemed by Sir William Mansfield to have acted rightly in ordering them into arrest upon a charge for conspiracy, but was further (in Colonel Thesiger's letter of the same date) ordered " not to release them till the court of which Col. Payn was president had been finally adjcurned." But, strange as this may serm, the express terms of the order make it clear that, as far as the arrest itself is concerned, the pri soner was acting under the orders or his military superiors, and cannot therefore ba held responsible fee t. It is also clear that Sergeant Major Lilley had ?0 e n originally placed in arrest on a charge for con spi racy ; that, from the 26th April, 1862, to the 6th , 1862, Major General Farrell waa responsible for that arrest; end that, after the &h May, 1862, until the final adjournmeit of the Mhow court martial, Sir Williatu Mansfield .tras respn sible for it. It further appears from a letter by the prisclAr to Mojor Champion, elated 2Lh adere3s , 1532, that the alleged grounda for Reeping two of the sergeant m&jers—namely, Lilies and Daval—in close arrest, with sentries , over them, were different from the alleged ground for keeping Sergeant Major Wakefield in close arrest with a sentry over him. For, with regard to Sergeant Major Wakefield, the prisoner says, "The threat that he would poison or otherwise make away with the men who gave information about the defence being read is still to be guarded against.'' It seems important to note this distinc tion, because it shows, by the best possible evidence, tamely, the prisoner's own statement, that although there mi might. in the first instance have been some colo ur . ler severity in enforcing the arrest in the C p a r s e e t :Vtoop Sergeant Major Wakefield, no such la existed the case of Sergeant Major Lilley, as e had never been even charged with threatenin to do violence to any one. I believe that I have ig la oe7 relati ve laid before the Court all the ma terial facts r to the orders for the arrest t' and the e eo e of those orders ; and I think it mapay eful at this stage of the reply to consider Wh a t course anommanding officer would b e disposed to ad opt if there were consigned to bi g custody, to be k ept ter regimental i n close arrest, under sentries, a ßemit major belonging to another regiment, , who to that time borne oharacierd, bu t t Nell _ the highest 0 had been charged with being concerne Ilse Sir William Mans field's words —in officer. Suppose further, that a conspiracy againste the authority of his commanding major gad this regimental sergeant almost dying India—the wife —that the place vu'is'e. gad e-na e time of the year one of its hottest mont h_ ser geant major a large-fraraed ma n of p le thoric h a bi t e of body, accustomed to ride A bout a great, eclat on a pony, and to be always engaged in duties Which required him to be active and stirring. Perhaps shall not be deemed presump tuous if, even in preeeeace of this high tribunal, I venture t o „ mo de of offer opinion that the proper en forcing an order for, close arrest under a sentry in such a case, would be that consis tently with the safe custody of the prisoner, w as the least severe which the custom of the service w ould warrant. I will now proceed to draw the attent ion of the Court to what actually took place : However, I will subetitute for the commanding officer of another regiment the commanding officer of Sergeant Major Lilley's own regiment, namely, the prisoner. Secondly, It is to be observed that the alleged offence of. conspiracy was committed against that commanding officer's authority, namely, the prisoner's. Thirdly. That a trial was then Pending where the commanding‘effieer, namely, the prisoner, was at one and the same time both a pro secutor and defendant. Fourthly. Tnat the sergeant balerbeled to was one of the witnesses who would probably give evidence unfavourable to his com manding oMeer, namely, the prisoner, Fifthly. That during ee , courseOf the confinement the Com mander i n Chief sufficient 13,jetice t had declared that there was no o support the charge of conspi reey. Siethly, T hat - the terms of the orders for the arrest left it dizcretio , nary with the commanding efEei. , r , namely, Pri soner commun , i L e o permitti withthe asergeant , m ajor ' to have free scvent kly, that Mr. Smal e e who required the evi dence of the sergeant major far his defence, was as freely to c o ent i t l e d by law meaunie e t e with the s e rgeant mej or as the prisoner now neer trial has b ea n allowea to ccm eetinicate, not Only w i th his owe - he t ev en with the Witnesse s f or the p eo - :ttters seem open to-ehe- Thet commanding such o.•kicrgeant witnesses, t s2cution. .s 3 EeVen folloviing observation. who nord laiztse. 7/ -r 11 ck!se arm, would naturally find himself placed in as delicate and responsible position as can well be imagined —a position where, on the one hand, all the noble qualities which go to make up the character of an officer might be nobly illustrated ; end where, on the other hand, all the undefined and dis cretionary powers which are necessarily en trusted to a commanding' officer might be terribly abused. For in this case those large discretionary powers might be employed for three several purposes—first, to gratify feelings of anger and dislike towards an individual; se condly, to obstruct the defence of another indivi dual against whom the prisoner was then acting as prosecutor, and for whom the first-named indivi dual was a witness ; thirdly, to facilitate his own justification, in his character of defendant, before the Mhow court martial. Let me now, by a refer ence to the evidence which is on record, show you that the :prisoner actually did employ the officer, he discre tionary powers which he had as commanding s eprecisely he i n and which Major-General Farrell's order ry o i for sel arrest expressly left him free to use, this manner and for these purposes. Let us follow the course of the arrest through i ts several stages of severity. The course of the arrest, as proved by the evidence, was this :—At the corn. mencement—on the 26th of April, 1832—it was simple arrest. Later in the same day it was close arrest, under a sentry placed outside the quarters. Shortly afterwards it was close arrest under;a sentry placed inside the quarters, for Sergeant Eyland proves that this order was given on the 28th April, and the date of Corporal lake's offence, as shown by the record of his court-martial, that it must have been given before the Ist of May, 1862, for Corpo ral Blake on that (by disobeyed it and was reduced by the prisoner for doing so. Shortly afterwards it was close arrest under a sentry, placed in the same room with the sergeant-majors, with positive orders not to lose sight of the prisoners by night:or by day. And this last order must have been given on or before the 4th of Mar, 1862, because it was given while Lieutenant Fitzsimon was doing duty as adjutant; and from the evening of the 4th ot May down to the 16th of May be was sick and off duty, as is proved not only by his own evidence but by that of Cornet Snell, and also by the regimental order-books. This gradually increasing scale of severity was ordered by whom, and under what pretext ? What says the evidence ? That the placing of the sentries inside the quarters, instead of outside, was done by order of the prisoner is proved by his own letter of the sth June, 1862, to the Deputy Adjutant-General, Mhow Division, in which he says that in consequence of the impossi bility of preventing communication being held with the prisoners by parties in the interest of the pri soner (namely, Paymaster Smales), it was deemed advisable to place the sentries in the room with the prisoners, not only to avoid the exposure of the sen tries to the sun and hot winds, but to prevent the witnesses being tampered with during the remain der of the trial... In this letter.we have proof not only of the fact that the sentries were posted inside the quarters in the very room with the sergeant majors, by the express orders of the prisoner, but also the reason assigned, which, in his (the prisoner's) opinion made this rigorous proceeding due and ne cessary. It is clear—First, that the real object of the close arrest, and of the placing of the sentries inside the rooms with the prisoners, bad reference solely to the defence of Paymaster Smales, whose witnesses they were. Secondly, that the object was to prevent the sergeant-mejors being tampered with, as Mr. Smales's witnesses against the prisoner. Thirdly, that by being tampered with was meant, " being communicated with by parties in the in terest ot Mr. Smales." For this is clearly shown by the prisoner's letter of the 4'h June, 1862, ad dressed to the Assistant-Adjutant-General, in which the prisoner uses these words, " in consequence of the impossibility of preventing communication being held with the prisoners by parties in the interest ot the prisoner, namely, Paymaster Smales, it was deemed advisable to place the sentries in the rooms with the prisoners, not only to avoid the exposure of the sentries to the sun and hot winds, but to pre vent the witnesses being tampered with during the remainder of the trial." These facts being thus established by the prisoner's own written state ments, let us consider the exact bearing of the feats upon the present charges. In order to understand this thoroughly, it will be necessary to call the at tention of the Court to the proceedings of the Mhow court martial (page 90), from which it will be seen that on the 10th May,1862, Paymaster Smales had closed his case and finished the examination of his witnesses, and that therefore, by the prisoner's own showing, the only reason assigned by him for keep ing the sentries inside the rooms of two of the ser geant-majors, at all events, viz., Sergeant-Majors Lillev and Duval, totally ceased to exist on that day, and could not by possibility revive. For they could no longer be tampered with as witnesses for Paymaster Smales, seeing that all his witnesses, in cluding Sergeant-Major Lilley (who had, indeed, been called as a witness on the 7th May), had been called, and that part of Paymaster Smalcs's case absolutely concluded. I need hardly observe, also, to this Court that this prohibition of all communication, verbal or written, between Mr. Smales and his witnesses, by whomsoever it was ordered, was absolutely illegal ; nor need I contrast with that proceeding in India the proceeding of the Crovn here with regard to the free access which the prisoner has been permitted to have, not only to his awn witnesses, but also to those for the pro secution, But it is material to call special attention to the fact that neither the. orders for the close arrest as given by Major-General Farrell, nor the orders respecting the duration of the arrest, as given by Sr WM. Mansfield, in any way whatever authorise this proceeding,further than what Major- Gen. Farrell's order forbade access to the sergeant majors except under the prisoner's own express permission, thereby expressly leaving the prisoner free to act as the law requires, namely, to allow Paymaster Smales to have as free communication with his witnesses as the prisoner has been allowed to have with all the witnesses both for the prose cution and for the defence, in India, as well as in England. Therefore all the portion of the written orders given by the prisoner to the adjutant on the 26th April, 1862, which are comprised in the fol lowing words, " with orders to allow no person whatever to hold communication, verbal or written, with the prisoner," are in truth the prisoner's orders, and not either Major-Gen. Farrelr's cr Sir Wm. Mansfield's. For Major-Gen. Farrell's order left this matter absolutely in the discretion of the prisoner, and Sir Wna. Mansfield's order was en tirely silent on the subject. Therefore these orders ::1 11 11 have in no way operated to debar Mr. Smales " sergeant-majors from freely communicating with oth , he er er, as they were entitled to do by pow prisoner had not used his discretionary a, t4t , right. Th; e. a manner as to deprive them of this 26th April t s, then, does it appear that from the Major day of his death was Sergeant communicate of his right to those who acted freleerll9 a greaTai-ceclatlnaami. T or with Mr. Smiles, or with deprived ee hi s , iol hini b , and he was illegally y the direct act of the of the 'IN • strange proceeding on Ivo r e goes not rest here t p h r s n p e a r i ~alone. but this e by any --m""' It further, and became males had great areuF Idusi concluded taa d nts e gh a ice l hisr , witnesses on the le, course of i A r lr s . Sm a l es , havedu rgoring said the tea m ay , an d examination bc e f f o therefore from that day the only p tet ezt d for placing the th e prisoner himself allege . gantries in side the quarters of the . s sergeant-majors N., " at an end; for how could Mr. SniaLe" witnesse s be tampered with when he had no longer any. vit. nesses to call, and that portion of the case, 48 well on the part of the prosecutor a Ei on that of aa,.. Smales, was finally closed ? Theref ore , from the 10th of Kay to the 25th of May, which was the day of Sergeant-Major Lilley's death—that is for a space of 15 days—it is proved beyond all possibility of question, by the prisoner's own showing, iu his own written official statements, and by the record of the proceedings of the Mhow court-martial (page 90), that the sentry was kept inside Sergeant' Major Lilley's quarters absolutely without reason svhseever, and kept there by the mere arbirrary exercise of the discretionary power entrusted to the piieoner as a commanding officer. CQutr , go; tiss exercise of arbitrary power on the part of the pri soner with the exercise of the supreme power of Parliament and of the Crown, as shown both by the provisions of the Mutiny Act and of the Articles of War, that not even a convicted prisoner shall in any case whatever, be his crime or his sentence what it may, be kept in solitary confinement for more than 14 days at a time; and if the whole term of im prisonment to which he is sentenced exceed three th escaonrne than tl a e n gally be kept in solita r y n seven days at one time, w i t h an interval of seven days b e t ween eac h con finement; and though in lite ra l s t r i ctness t hi s pro cmoonnfim, e i nt at l he or m vision of the Mutiny Act and Articles of War ap plies only to the caseof Sergeant -Majors Wakefield and Duval, the spirit of the provision can hardly be thought to be complied with merely be cause the confinement of Sergeant Major Lilley Was rendered not solitary by the pre sence of a dying wife. Let me pause here for a moment to submit respecttully to the Court the following question. Was this proceedine on the part of the prisoner due or necessary for the carrying into effect the orders for Sergeant-Major Lilley's eose arrest? Having pointed out that the order of the Commander-in-Chief respecting the arrest which was conveyed in Lieut.-Col. Thesiger's letter of . May 6th, 1862, did not direct or suggest close arrest, the prosecutor continued :—But, although the prisoner cannot be held responsible for the actual order for the close arrest, it seems to be a matter for the consideration of this Court whether, by the prisoner's own showing, he ought not to have applied to Major •General Farrell for the change from close arrest to simple arrest fourteen days sooner than he did apply. For, as has been already shown, the grounds on which alone the close arrest was considered by the prisoner to be necessary, namely, to prevent Mr. Smales from having communication with his witnesses, totally ceased to exist on the 10th of May; for from that date there were no witnesses to tamper with, either for the prosecution or for the defence. It seems, therefore, by the prisoner's own showing, that the application to Major-General Farrell to have the close arrest changed to simple arrest, which the prisoner sought to make a merit of in Lie cross examination of Major Champion, on the second day of these proceedings, was in reality so far from being a merit, that it was deeply condemnatory of him, inasmuch as it proved that he ought, by bis own showing, to have made the application exactly four. teen days sooner than he did make it. It seems, therefore, to be a matter for the consideration of this Court whether the prisoner is not responsible for all the consequences that resulted from that ap plication not having been made by him sooner than it was made. But with regard to what the prisoner failed to do in the matter, and the undue severity thereby evinced towards Sergeant-Major Lilley by the prisoner, the matter by no means rests here. For, as I intimated in my opening address, Sir William Mansfield's order was peculiar in its nature, and its wording; the confinement it directed was to be of uncertain duration ; the offence for which that confinement was ordered was not only not specified, but the order intimated, strange to say, that no offence what ever could be assigned as a ground for it ; and the offence for the alleged commission of which the ser geant majors 'were originally arrested (namely, a ceaspiracy) was declared by Sir William Mansfield not to be supported by the evidence, and that, there fore, no charges could be framed against the ser geant majors in respect of it. Allow me, therefore, to submit for the consideration of the several mem bers of this court the following question—What would a commanding cfficer be disposed to do who found himself called upon to enforce such an order, so strangely worded, so apparently contradictory with itself, and the legality of which was so ques tionable on its face ? For it is to be borne in mind, that by the express terms of the Mutiny Act and of the Articles of War, au officer or soldier is only punishable for disobeying " any lawful order of his superior dicer;" and en order fcr the confinement of an officer or soldier for an indefinite period is on its face unlawful, inasmuch as, by the 18th Article of War, it is expressly provided that "no officer or soldier, who shall be put in arrest or confinement, shall continue in such arrest or confinement more than eight days, or until such time as a court martial can be conveniently assembled." But, as in the case of the three sergeant majors Sir William Mansfield had, in -his letter, dated May 6, 1862, expressly stated that no charges could be framed aeainst them. it is clear that no court martial could be assembled for their trial, and therefore the latter part of this provision is inapplicable to the present case. And, therefore, it is clear that—even assuming that their confinement was lawful at all—it should have been expressly limited to a period of eight days at most. Let me, therefore, again pause to ask, What would a commanding officer be disposed to do who found himself called upon to enforce such an order For, as this court is well aware, the provisions of the 7811 Artine of War run thus—" Any officer or soldier who shall unnecessarily detain any prisoner in confinement without bringing him to trial shall be liable to be cashiered." I will now take the liberty of recalling to the attention of the Court the exact words that I made use of in my opening address, inasmuch as those words may serve not only to convey to the Court the question which I wish to bring under its consideration, but also to show that the view of the matter taken by the prosecution at the outset of the case has been steadily adhered to, and the precise issues which the charges were stated to involve are now, at the close of the trial, again brought under the consideration of the court in the very same terms in which they were originally submitted to it. In my opening address I used these words—" For the mere circumstance of keeping the sergeant major in close arrest so long as the order was in force the prisoner cannot be held responsible. But the length of time during which the imprisonment actually lasted, and the indefinite duration which was assigned to it by the order, appear to me to become matters for your considera tion, and to have a bearing on the first charge on which the prisoner stands arraigned, when it is re membered that, as the confinement (by the strange terms of the order) was to be uncertain in its dura tion, it ought to have been made by the officer en trusted with its execution as little grievous as pos• sible from its very commencement; and as the course of events seemed to be assigned to it by the com mander-in-chief, it will be for you to consider whether some steps ought not to have been taken, either to ascertain whether any definite limit was intended to be assigned to it, or to represent to the authority who gave the order that the duration of the confinement seemed to be becoming greater than he could have intended it to be. I, therefore, propose to submit for your consideration whether, both in what the prisoner did do in the matter, and what he failed to do in the matter in respect to the duration of the confinement, undue severity was not shown towards Sergeant Major Lilley." These were the words of my opening address. In those same words I again respectfully submit this part of the ease for the consideration of the Court. The prosecutor then proceeded to con sider the nature of the order directing the close arrest, and called attention to the fact that this portion of the case rested on the testimony of Major Swindley, Capt. Weir, Lieut. and Adjutant Fitz simon, Quartermaster Wooden, Sergeant Gibson, Sergeant Bernard, and Private Reynolds, corro borated by the testimony of an eighth witness, Ser geant Major Cotton, and by circumstantial evidence. Passing to the alleged hardships and indignities suffered by Sergeant Major Lilley, and his wife, be pointed out how the severity of the arrest rapidly and steadily grew greater and greater, until it was checked by the accident of Sergeant Major Lilley's being brought before the Mhow court martial. " And although" (continued Sir A. Horsfordt, " it 7 0 uld be ea s y f or any one t o d raw a t ouc hi ng pic ture of the sufferings of the sergeant major and his wife thile the to the watchfulness wore subjected by day and by night sentries, • ness of a constantly shifting series of bringing a constantlyf • hcuriosity to fresh gratify, whose witness, whose tonaitt.ent myself with calling a single e ntirely correct, 'That ony on this matter seems to be witness is the prisoner. For in his reley befor e th e m h aw evidently drawn up w,c !cilia martial—a reply h skill and care—he hold:, this language in reference to the pastin g of the sentriez 4 ?aja r Li , t . , it'y e bungalow. H describes it as "an act harsh and unusual, as the prisoner (namely, Mr. Smales) styles it, but which, had I been guilty of it, or had any knowledge of it, would deservedly be deemed an act of the greatest inhumanity on my part ; I allude to the testimony of the late Sergeant Major Lilley as to a sentry being placed at the door of his bungalow where his sick wife was lying." Therefore, as regards the fact of the hardships and sufferings endured by Mrs. Lilley on that particular occasion, no more proof can be needed. Whether the prisoner was responsible for these particular hardships and sufferings will be seen hereafter. The course that has been taken by the defence on this part of the cese will, however, render it necessary to dwell for a short time on the miseries endured by Sergeant Major Lilley and his wife throughout the whole period of the arrest, in order that the Court may judge whether the view taken of them by the prosecution, or that taken by the defence, is the more correct. The Court will have observed that throughout the exa mination of the witnesses the prisoner has seemed to think, and to suppose that this Court would think, that the opinions of the sentries about the annoyance and inconvenience endured by Mrs. Lil ley furnish the true test of the reality and amount of that annoyance and inconvenience; and that the proper mode of arriving at a knowledge of her feel ings would be to ask some of the sentries what their feelings on the matter were ! What will this Court think of such a test of a woman's feelings ? It seems strange, indeed, to think or to suppose that this Court would think that such a thing as a chick could be an obstacle to the vexation with which the known presence of a sentry must have struck a dying woman—a vexation that did not de pend on the mere.fact of the sentry seeing or hear ing her, but on the fixed ever-present knowledge in her mind that there was about her bed and about her path, and spying about all her ways, a con stantly shifting watchful male stranger, w ho seemed to be by law not only entitled to be there, but whose duty it was to be so ! Surely so flimsy an argument is as easily seen through as the chick itself. Pass ing then to the subject of the bungalows, the pro secutor contended that, whatever the first might have been, it was clear that the second consisted only of one large room and one inner verandah, and that Sir Hugh Rose would not have expressed him selfas he had done in regard to them, and the whole question of the arrest, if the truth had not been withheld from him—the worst evil which could befal a man in authority. It was argued by the psi -oner that if hardship had been experienced by Ser geant Major Lilley and his wife,Adjutant Fitzsimon was the persoa responsible ; but then came the question (observed the prosecutor), What is the duty of an adjutant who is ordered to put in execu tion an order so positive, precise, and peremp tory ? and what is the responsibility of the commanding officer who gave the order? This is a question of military law, and apparently one of the simplest kind ; for where the terms of an order are precise and clear, and are accompanied by no qualification, the proper rule of construction must surely be that which governs all cases of the kind, namely, that the plain grammatical meaning of the ocder is to be deemed to be the proper meaning of it. Non, applying this rule of construction to the order of the prisoner, namely, that the sentries were to be placed inside Sergeant-Major Lilley's quarters, so that they should not lose sight of the sergeant major by night or by day, it is difficult to see how an adjutant can be held legally responsible for any results of a literal com pliance with that order, be those results what th e y may ; for can there be a doubt that his duty is to carry it into execution, without reference to what he may consider fitting or expedient ? Let us, therefore, test Mr. Fitz simon's conduct by this simple rule; and on the supposition that he is to be considered guilty of dis obeying the order of the prisoner by omitting to see that the sentries were so placed as not to annoy or interfere with Mrs. Lilley, lot us try to frame a charge against him for such d;sobedience : for, in cases of the kind, the only true test of right or wrong is whether the alleged wrong can be set forth in a legal charge. Now, the charge would run thus : 4 , For conduct to the prejudice of good order and military discipline, in having at Mhow, on the-- day of --, failed to carry into effect the express order of his superior officer, whereby he was ordered to have the sentry posted inside Sergeant Major Lilley's quarters, so as not to lose sight of Sergeant Major Lilley by night or by day : whereas the said Lieutenant and Adjutant Fitzsimon did there and then cause the sentry to be so posted as to enable him (the sentry) to see by night and by day, in whatever part of his quarters he happened to be." This charge, which precisely states the acts of Lieutenant and Adjutant Fitzsimon, would also show that he had complied with the order to the very letter. It therefore would show, not that Lieutenant and Adjutant Fitzsimon had done Wrong, but would prove conclusively that he had done right, for the absurdity of the charge shows at once the ab surdity of supposing that any charge could be framed for an act which was absolutely right. But another view has been suggested, namely, that the titeral compliance with terms of the order is the very thing which is objected to, and that this com plete obedience to his superior constitutes Lieut. and Adjutant Fitzsimon's misconduct. This is a new view of military duty, and is so important a matter as to warrant and require a moat careful in vestigation. In this view of Lieutenant and Adju tant Fitzsimon's conduct with reference to the exe cution of the order, the suggestion is this—that ; as a literal compliance with the terms of the order seemed likely to entail inconvenience and annoyance on Mrs. Lilley, it was Adjutant Fitzsimon's duty to qualify the order, so as to prevent it carrying with it this consequence. This suggestion, therefore, involves this principle of military law, that, when officer gives an or d er t o an a dj u t an t, and peremptory, and, in the opi nionpa a c s o i t m i v m e npdri precise, s of the adjutant, the order carries with it a mis chief which a strict compliance with the terms of it renders inevitable, the duty of the adjutant is to take upon himself to qualify the order, and in it into execution. Before such tribunalr a ealit y not as s e carry t c h a isl surely need say nothing to show that the very statement of the principle seems to reduce it to an absurdity; and that, wholly irres• pective of the competency or incompetency of the adjutant for the duties of his office. I may, how ever, be permitted to call the attention of the court to this important feature in the case, that the very mischief which the order inevitably carried with it was so glaring and obvious that, at the very time of the order being given by the commanding officer the mischief of it had been publicly called to his attention by the adjutant himself as well as by Sergeant-Major Cotton; and he had, notwithstand ing, persisted on its being enforced as a matter of imperative military duty, and in a manner and with language so emphatic as to render his intention absolutely unmistakable. Therefore it seems clear that if the adjutant had ventured to deviate from the strict letter of the order, he would have done so in known, positive, and wilful disobedience of the express orders of his superior officer, and would have thereby rendered himself legally liable to all the consequences of such disobedience. The prosecutor then pointed oat the sweeping mode in which the prisoner disposed of the evidence in support of the charges against him by characterising it as perjury, and thus concluded : Mr. President and gentlemen—l have now done. I have gone with you through the evidence by a gate not known to the public, and by a way which seems to have been avoided by the prisoner. It is for this Court to determine which way leads to truth and justice. Where truth is unwilling to r eveal herself mercy becomes the guide. But if in thi s case truth seems clearly to have revealed herself in the evi dence, and the facts of the case to have been proved beyond a possibility of reasonable doubt, do they, or do they not, appear to you to carry with th em conviction like their shadow ? After consultation with his counsel, Mr. Vernon Harcourt, Colonel Crawley said—Mr. President--I beg to call the attention of the Cour t to the er roneous statements several times repeat ed b y the prosecutor , namely, that Sir William Mansfield has stat e d th at there was no evidence to ju stif y the arrest of the three eersemat trinjorF. I I. , eg leave to call the ntten tion of the Court to the fact that that statement is directly opposed to the evidence. The President.—The Court will consider your observation. Colonel Pipon, Judge-Advocate, then announced the Court as closed, and the public proceedings ter minated shortly after two o'clock. The members of the Court remained subsequently a considerable time in deliberation. Their judg ment, as soon as it has been arrived at—and there is every reason to suppose that it will be speedily come to—will first be submitted to the Commander in-Chief, and through him to her Majesty for ap proval, and will then be published in the Gazette. The inquiry has lasted 21 days, being some days less than:the Mhow court-martial, out of which it originated. ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE. NORFOLK CIRCUIT—CAMBRIDGE, Dec. 18. (Before Mr. Baron Martin.) THE MURDER AT WHITTLESEY. The two prisoners, John Green and Wm. George Smed ley, were again placed at the bar and the trial resumed. Mr. D. D. Keane and Mr. Markby for the prosecution•; Mr. Metcalfe and Mr. Orridge for the prisoner Green; and Mr. Sergeant Tozer (specially retained) for Smed ley. The prisoner Green is a powerful young man, exceedingly well made, and not by any means ill-looking. He was very watchful all yesterday, and seemed thoroughly to understand all that was going on, and during the summing up to-day kept his eyes fixed upon the judge, and listened attentively. We were not able to give the medical evidence yesterday, but to-day it is in full. Robert Halley Crisp, a surgeon practising in Whittlesey, being sworn, said—l was called to Mr. Whyle's Malting at about a quarter past 6 on the morning of March 12. I saw a body lying near the furnace. The face of the deceased was upwards, and turned towards the left side, The arms and hands were raised from the body, the knees drawn up towards the body, which was on the back. It was naked, all but the stockings and boots. It was much blackened by smoke or fire. The face was not so dark as other parts. The hair was very short and appeared to have been burnt. I saw all this by the light of a lantern in the hands of one of the bystanders. The furnace-room, where it was lying, was very dark. In trying to raise the body I took hold of the left arm. Smoke was still issuing from the chest, and upon throwing water upon it there was a hissing sound as if some part were still on fire. I took hold of the fore part of the left arm in trying to raise the body, and found the arm broken above the elbow. The arm was held together by the muscles, and the fore arm was complete. What is called the humerus bone was broken and a piece of the bone missing. That piece has never been found. The parts of the bone lett were not charred or calcined. The right arm was raised up a little higher than the left. I helped to take the body into the pump room, and then made a closer examination, The eyes had collapsed and the humours had escaped. The tongue protruded between the teeth, which were tightly clenched. I noticed nothing about or upon the throat, except that it was of a bronze colour from the smoke or fire. The left side was open and a great part of the integuments gone. The cartilage of some of the ribs and portions of the bones were entirely absent. The middle portion of the ribs between the front part and the cartilages was gone. Seven ribs were gone. Upon examination I was of opinion, and am now, that they ware broken by violence, because the edges of the bones left were rough and uneven. Part of the cartilages were attached to the sternum. The viscera of the lett side and left lung had been acted upon by fire. I could see the apex of the heart also burnt. The skin still covered the right side, but was discoloured by burning. The hips and thighs had blisters on them. The right aide of the back was very much burnt. The left side was also much burnt and the skin gone. I did not that day come to a conclusion as to how death had been produced. On the 14th I noticed the mouth more particularly. There was no sign of any ligature upon the trachea. I examined the fracture of the humerus. It was oblique. The edges of the remaining bone were not charred. They were smooth. I was of opinion the fracture had been produced by the entry of some sharp instrument. The fractut oof the ribs I think was produced by some blunt instrument ane by repeated blows. I could not form an opinion if the blows were given before or at er death. I think the woman died from asphyxia by a shawl or some such thing passed round the neck or upon the mouth and nostril. On the 12th I observed a scratch on the nose of the prisoner, and his hair was slightly singed. Cross-examined by Mr. Metcalfe—l found no marks of burning un him other than the singeing of the hair. I exa mined his clothing and saw nothing which attracted my attention. When I first went in the feet of the woman were under the settle. The body might have been in the posi tion if she had fallen from the set tle. The woman might have fallen. The attitude was that of a person who had fallen. The settle was much charred. There was a space about the size of the crown of a hat not burnt. The wall aly;v4 was discoloured by smoke. I found no mark or sign of pressure of any kind about the head or throat. The brain was not surcharged with blood. Had a person resisted suffocation with great force I should have expected it to have been surcharged. Suffocation caused by violence would cause congestion of the brain, and I found none here. I dont believe fire from the clothes catching fire would cause such a smoke to surround the person that suffocation would at once ensue. I know the gases generated by combustion. Oxygen must exist, or flame would not. Carburetted hy drogen is destructive to life. Ido not admit the ribs would have been broken as they were by the woman falling from the settle. The elbow might have been broken by a fall. If the bones were calcined they would be very brittle, but would not present the rough and jagged appearance of these. Re-examined by Mr. Keane—The fractured surface of the humerus was not charred or calcined. None of the broken ends of the rib bones were calcined. On the portions re !Paining the flesh was adhering. By the Judge—l think the arms and ribs were fractured by the same means. Edward Clapham, M.P., and house surgeon at Peter borough Infirmary, and who assisted Mr. Crisp in making a post mortem examination, then gave similar evidence, and Mr. Metcalfe in his address to the jury contended that upon the medical evidence it was clear that death might have been the result of accident. The woman having gone in by the open window, and sitting upon the Fettle opposite the furnace for warmth, fell asleep, her clothes caught fire, and she, probably the worse for drink, in a state of stupor was speedily suffocated. His Lordship, addressing the jury, said—Gentlemen, the two prisoners are charged upon an indictment—one (Green) with having of malice aforethought murdered Elizabeth Brown; the other (Smedley) with having harboured the said Green, knowing him to have committed the murder. Now as to Smedley, there is no evidence against him worthy of your consideration. This is a question of law to be de cided by the judge, and I at once tell you you must acquit . - the man. And further, I feel bound to say thero was no pretence for ever putting the man upon his trial. It is the first time in my experience a man has been put upon his trial in this way with anothercharged with murder. Having this strong opinion, I feel bound to express it, ani I repeat he ought not to have been put upon his trial here. You heard yesterday a discussion as to admitting some evidence properly objected to by his advocate, and I'll tell you what the nature of that evidence was. It was simply this. The man Smedley, on the morning of tho murder, when he had seenwhat had happened in the furnace-room, saw the driver of the mail cart first and said nothing to him, but imme diately after seeing another man told him what had happened. That is all. I think it right on his behalf to say what I have said, and at the same time I wish to say that there is no ground for supposing the solicitor for the prosecution acted improperly in including him in the indictment, or with any view to suppress the evidence he gave before the magistrates. I have looked through the evidence given then by him, and it is of a nature to help neither one side or the other. It is totally unimportant. Having said this with regard to Smedley, I must now re mind you that you have a case against Green requiring your best attention and care. It is true his life or death is with you; but at the same time remember we all have an inte rest in this inquiry, and you have a duty towards the public as well as the prisoner. Remember this a;so ; although it has been proved that the deceased was a woman of dim lute habits, and bad character, this is an inquiry relating to her death, and must be conducted with the same care as if she had been of the best character. It is true, as you have been reminded, that in the event of your finding this man guilty his life will be forfeited, but with that you have nothing to do. You have only to investigate the case as far as the evidence is placed before you; what becomes of the man afterwards is a responsibility that rests with others. I make these observations that you may dis charge your duty without fear of consequences. Now, there has been a good deal of medical evidence, and a great deal has been said by the counsel for the prisoner as to its na ture, and the competence of the gentlemen giving it, but I think you will agree with me in thinking both Mr. Crisp and Mr. Clapham spoke very fairly, and to the best of their ability; but if you believe Green was at the George and Star at half-past I on the night of the murder, that on leaving ho accompanied the woman and took her into the furnace room, and that between that time and 6 o'clock, during that time and in his presence, she was burnt to the extent deposed to; and if you believe he was there whilst this was going on, and that ho was the man who passed Stevenson with his braces hanging down, and who was met by the other two witnesses (who spoke positively as to his identity), having been absent from home all night, those are circumstances in the case which, left unexplained, render the evidence of the medical witnesses comparatively unimportant. Whilst care fully considering ad these matters you are also to remember that it is to be said for the prisoner no motive for this dread ful act has been sug:zested. It was not to get money; d hoes s well knew she had none ; she was a prostitute, d not appear the two ever had any quarrel o r ill-feelingitsoiatwvaerodry lat one another. The apparent absence of all motive you believe extraordinary circumstance in thi s ease; if this woman to have been kille d, it was a since the first as scanda l ous and cruel a murder as ever ha s been committed murder was done. His lordship then procee ded to detail to the jury all the material parts of. the a.evidenceagttiavoehnalbayatilhye various witnesses, and cautioned 41a6.4 importance to the demeanour of the prisoner when taken into custody—" policemen having (s tid he) very suspicious minds, and always putting a very unfavourable construction upon fhe language or manner of a prisoner." In conclusion his lordship said—". Before you convict the man you must be satisfied affirmatively, and beyond all reasonable doubt ; do not act on surmise, or suspicion, or any feeling of sus picion against the prisoner; you must have a belief and clear conviction on your minds that he by an act of his took this woman's life, and unless your minds are so con vinced you must acquit him. If you are convinced you must pronounce him guilty without reference to the conse quences. But if you are not satisfied that he either by choking her, or by some means prevented air reaching her to enable her to breathe, and so caused her death, and afterwards endeavoured to burn the remains, I say if you are not satisfied to the extent I have mentioned, then you ought to acquit him." The learned judge occupied about one hour in summing up The jury retired, and were away about ten minutes, when they returned with a verdict of guilty. . . The Clerk of Assize at once called apon the prisoner in the usual form, asking him if he h ,c 1 anything to say why judgment of death should not be passed upon him accord ing to law. He at once said, " I am an innocent man, my lord; I am an innocent man. Mr. Baron Martin tnen put on the black cap and said— John Green, after a trial, in the curse of which everything has been said that could be said on your behalf by your counsel, and after a most patient and careful inquiry the jury have found you guilty. For my part I think the evi dence justifies the verdict. Neither of yourself or through your counsel have you given any explanation as to how this matter occurred. You were not at home during the night. You were with the poor creature whose death you caused, and you have made no suggestion as to how you were employed. Nothing has been said in any way tending to show that this is not the case. I will not distress you or others by dilating further upon the cir cumstances of this terrible transaction; all I have to do is to pronounce, not my sentence, but the sentence of the law. I have no discretion in the matter, and can hold out to you no hope. I entreat you to attend to the advice and assistance that will be afforded you by the chaplain during the short time you now have to live." Sentence was then passed, and at the conclusion the pri soner again exclaimed, in a firm voice, "I am an innocent man, sir." Upon which the learned Judge, scarcely recovered from the emotion he had betrayed when passing sentence, said, " I can only say the evidence points to the contrary." With this finished the business of the winter aesize for Cambridge. HOME CIRCUIT.--MAIDSTONE, Deo. 18. (Before Mr. Baron Pigott.) CHARGE OF MURDER. James Palmer, 22, labourer, was charged upon an indict meat, and also by the coroner's inquisition, with the wilful murder of Margaret Jones. Mr. Barrow and Mr. Marshani conducted the prosecu tion. The prisoner was unprnvided with counsel, but at the request of the learned judge, Mr. F. Russell kindly under took to watch the case on his behalf. It appeared that the deceased, who appeared to be a very fine young woman, about 23 years old, was the wife of a corporal in the Royal Marines, and that she left her hus band last March, and went to live with the prisoner, who is a labourel in the dockyard at Chatham, and they passed as man and wife, and they seemed to have lived happily toge ther down to the period when she met her untimely end. On Saturday, the 7th November, they left the lodgings they had occupied to that time, and it appeared that they went to the house of a Mr. M'Lachlan, and asked his wife to recom mend them a oheap lodging, which she did, and on the same day the prisoner and the deceased took possession of their new abode, still pas-ing as man and wife, and appa rently on the most friendly terms. In the course of the Saturday they purchased the materials for the Sunday's dinner, and all went on well till the following morning, when the deceased expressed her intention to go to the funeral of a man who had been accidentally killed, and which was to take place at Chatham. Before she left she made some preparations for the dinner, and promised the prisoner faithfully that she would be home to dine with him. She did not, however, do so, and the prisoner ate his dinner by himself, and there was no doubt that he was very much annoyed at the deceased's conduct and at her stop ping away so long. He remained at home until 6 o'clock, when he went to Mr. M Lachlan's and made some in. quiries about the deceased, and was informed that she was last seen in a publichouse in the neig hbonrhood, and this appeared to increase his anger, and he said that when she did come home he would break her nose. He re mained at M'Lachlan's for some time—and at length the deceasel, who, there was no doubt, had been drinking all day, and who was the worse for liquor, came in, and the moment the prisoner saw her, he went up to her and struck her several violent blows on the face,and knocked her down, and while she was upon the ground he kicked her. The de ceased bled profusely, and shortly afterwards went into a fit, and when she came a little to herself the prisoner asked her to go home with him,but she refused, and said she would rather get her living in the tap-rooms than live with him, again, After this the deceased went out again with the M•Lachlans, and she returned home to their house a second time about 10 o'clock. The prisoner, who had remained there waiting for her,then again asked her to return home with him but she still refused. She was at this time, it appeared,sitting in a chair, and upon her positively refusing to accompany him, the prisoner struck her a tremendous blow on the left side of the iaw, which felled her to the ground, and he then exclaimed, "There, I have done with you,you may go where you like,' and he left and went home to bed. The deceased appeared to be in a very bad state after receiving this blow, and when the persons in the hou-ei had washed her face,and done what they could for her, she went to the lodging and slept with the prisoner. On the following morning she was in an almost insensible condition, and Dr. Seabrook, a sur geon am Chatham, was called in, and he prescribed for her, and the prisoner appeared to have expressed great concern for her, and stopped away from his work in order that he might attend upon her, and during the day he bathed her head with vinegar and cold water, and did all he could to alleviate her sufferings. About 4 o'cleck in the afternoon the husband of the deceased, who had received some infor mation of what had occurred, went to the room where the wretched woman was lying, and asked the prisoner if he had struck her, and he said he had not, but that the deceased was the worse for liquor. and the she had fallen down and hurt herself. The deceased teen, it appeared, in the presence of her husband, got out bed and walked up to the prisoner, and put her arm round his neck, and said, " Jemmy, I love you, you have always been a good man to me." She became quite insensible shortly after this, and died on the following day, and the post-mortem examination left no doubt that the injuries caused by the blow on the left side of the head had occa sioned her death. When the prisoner was taken into custody, it appeared that he admitted having given the deceased what he called "a slap" in the face, and he said he sup posed he must suffer for it. With reference to the medical evidence, however, it should be stated that the surgeon, in answer to questions put in cross-examination, stated that but far the mark of the blow on the jaw nearly all the ap pearances that were exhibited upon the post-mortem ex amination were consistent with the death having arisen from apoplexy, caused by the quantity of spirituous liquor that had been taken by the deceased. Mr. Russell, at the close of the evidence for the prosecu tion, asked his lordship whether be thought there was any case for the consideration of the jury upon the charge of wilful murder ? Baron Pigott said he did not think himself justified in withdrawing the more serious charge from the jury. Mr. Russell consequently addressed them upon the whole case, and he contended that there could be no doubt that the prisoner was very much attached to the unhappy woman, and that, even slit posing they should be of opinion that the last blow he struck her was the cause of her death, it was clear that he had not the slightest intention of caus ing such a result. The learned judge having summed up, the jury retired to deliberate upon thoir verdict, and in about half an hour they returned into court, and toxin I the prisoner not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter. They, however, at the same time strongly recommended him toimersy on ac count of the provocation he had received, and their belief that at the time he struck her he had no idea that it would be followed by such fatal consequences. His lordship said he would consider what sentence should be pronounced. At the conclusion of the business, the prisoner James Palmer was brought up for judgment, and the learned judge addressing him said that he thought that, under all the circumstances, the justice of the case would be satisfied by his ordering him to be imprisoned, and kept to hard labour, for three months. Horniman's Tea is choice and strong, moderate in pace, and wholesome to use. These alvantages have secured for this Tea a general preference. It is sold in packets by 2,280 Agents. ADVERTISEMENT.]—Avoid medicines: they alwayS aggra vate chronic complaints, but Du Barry's Delicious I.!;:aith Restoring Revalenta Arabica Food. which saves fifty times for seven its cost in other remedies, invariably cures them, r,estoring perfect digestion, strong nerves, sound tungs,thealtAy liver, all over, bad pure blood, refreshing sleep, f unctional regul extract el a ik fz ss o d ti e t of 60,000 Cures :—Cure No. Brehan, Paris, of a liver years,. debility, with aiesness, I digestion, constant sleep intolerable nervous 11 low s irited agitation, and dreadiu y . p .—Cure No. 1 771. L ord n c e o r v inp ou la s i t n h p e ' a m - p o i a t t at . n io g n away Stuart de Decies, Lord Lt. ut. of Waterford, of ma ny ' ja.—No. 49,832. " Filly years' years' dyspePs indescribable from dyspepsia, nervousness, asthma, cough, enable agony liatuien,y, spasms. sickness, a n d vo , COnstipatioe, —Cure No. 48,270. Mr. James Roberts,uting•-3laria Jolly." thirty years' diseased lungs, of Frinaley, Surrey, of i silent, and partial deafness. —Cu re S p itting of blood, liver derange Jacobs, of extreme nervousness, No. 47,121. Miss Elizabeth spirits. and nervous land indigestion, gatherings, low T. Campbell, Falienhai eft —Cure No. 54,816. The Rev. Jas dity of the liver, which ' n Norfolk , ., of indigestion and torsi. In tins, 1 lb. , ' 'tad restate 1 all medical treatment." ' s • 9 d. ; 21b ft, 4s. 6d ; 51b., I Is. ; 121 b., as. ; 418 40s, —Barry BU Barry * also Fortnum and II and Co., No. 77, Regent-street, London; son ; and all Grocers and Cliemias iN every WWII of the I.Tai tett liingdom• COUNTRY MARKETS• ------ ------ LIV ERP OL—FRIDAY. At this day's market we had a poor attendance both of millers and dealers, with a moderate business in wheat. which remains steady at the decline of 2d per cental. The holders of flour would be glad to make a further alight con cession to promote business. Indian corn totally Aeglected, and 3d down. All other articles a dull sale. WAKEFIELD —FRIDAY. The show of grain to-day was moderate. The trade in wheat limited, and last Friday's rates were rather lower. Barley in slow demand. Averages for the weer : Wheat 991 qrs., at . 44s lid O a t s — .... , Beans — —s OJ Peas •••• 7 8ar1ey......... 652 Rye — ........ —s Od STAMFORD—FRIDAY. White wheat, 42s t0144s ; red, 368 to 40s per 36 stone. Barley, malting, 34s to ; grinding, 29s to 32s,pe1 qr• Oats, 20s to 24s per 24 stone. Beans, old, 40s to 428 per qr.; new, 34s to 368. LINCOLN—FRIDAY. A fair quantity of wheat on offer at our market to -day, with a moderate business, at la to 2s per qr dearer. White wheat new, 44s to 483 Barley, g rinding..2Bs to 305 Red do. Old white _ 3B s to t to o _42: I O N a e t w s , d o o l d , . . ...... 2 2 0 4 a s t t o 24 o 28 ; Red do. —s to s I Beans. 40s to 42s Barley, malting 33s to 38s Beans, new ...... 37s to 405 BRISTOL SUGAR—FRIDAY. ivitlg There is less demand this week, and buyers refuse the prices asked for the few lots in the market. Refiners, produce sells slowly, at rather easier prices. Rum descriptions have improved id per gallon. COAL DIAIiKET. Prfoes of Coal per Ton a , a. d. the close of the malcet. 8. d; Byass's Bebside West Hartley ...16 6 Hartlepool W. Hartleyls 9 Lambert's West Hart- Walls End. Haswell Hetton ...... 2 0 ° A South Hetton ......... 20 u Russel's Hetton. ...... 19 3 Braddyll's Hetton ..... 19 9 Hartlepool 19 East Hartlepool 20 0 'radon 18 T easw rimd P on Thordei . 1 1 79 3 ,, deugh Hall 19 0 Riddell 18 0 Stewart's 19 6 North Hartlepool 19 u„ Wh arnc liff e ....1S 0 Framwellgate „.18 ° ley 16 3 West Hartley 16 6 Holywell 17 9 Hastings Hartley l6 6 r a nfield Moor 15 0 ranfield Moor Butes l5 0 Eden Main . 18 6 alker Primrose 15 0 Waldridge Gas l6 6 134:; sold, 119. Walls End. Kelloe South Kelloe 19 0 Tunstall Ships at market RAILWAY INTELLIGENCE. TRAFFIC RECEIPTS FOR THE WEEK. Miles Opened. Receipt B.-• Railways. 1863. 18 62 x 4 , Belfast and N, Counties 136 136 2 , 008 1.9 t6 Belfast and Comity Down 49 49 650 Blyth and Tyne Bristol and Exeter 2B 28 1,624 1,97 4 121 i 1214 5,812 6. , ;!,,, Caledonian Cockermouth& Workington Bl 84 186 2t Cork and Bandon 2O 2 0 324 33,3 Cork, Blackrock, & Passage 64 64 128 '" 20 Cork and Youghal .... 324 32 868 I M6 03 1 Cornwall 564 534 1,352 -. 0 , Deeside l7 17 22 4 . Dublin & Belfast Junction 63 63 1,340 1 .4, 5 Dublin and Drogheda 75 63 1,621 1 .7,6 Dublin and Meath Dub. & Wicklow and Wextd 9ll 484 2,0 4 1." I 00 5 Edinburgh and Wasgow 1694 1691 7,382 • •, 8 0 Furness, &o 5O 5 2,864 2, ', 3 g Glasgow & South-Western Gt. Eastern,Nrfk.,&E.Union Great Northern 353 351 33,108 2 1 7 . 6 9 7 6 Great North of Scotland 5B 58 1,554 ,3 t, t. Northn. & Westn. (Irel.) 714 164 460 ',, It.Southn. & Westn.arind.) 3734 329 7,903 B . t ' o ;/ Great Western 10564 10324 58,983 5 3 .2:4 Inverness & Aberdeen Juno 864 889 1,0 5 " ..- Inverness & Perth Junction 1194 872 . ~/ 10 Irish North-Western 145 145 1,572 J , ', 6 3 Lancashire & Yorkshire 402 3951 35,08 0 31. 63 7 , Limerick and Ennis. Limerick and Foynes 264 264 54 50 6 Llanelly 464 46, 545 .;/ London & North-Western London and Blackwall 5l 51 1,758 1 1 - : 0 London & South-Western Lond. Brighton, &S. Coast 261 211 15,230 li.u, 1 0 5 ! London, Chatham, & Dover 72 724 4,379 3 ', 0 Do. Metropolitan Extension 10 4 54 8f 0 9 4 Loud., Tilbury, & Southend Man.,Shellield,& Lincoinsh Manch. S.J un.& Altrincham 9l 4 1,162 1 .„ 16 Raryport and Carlisle 2B 28 1,387 I .' Metropolitan 34 2,135 40184 Midland (incl. N.-Western) 641 614 4 41,980 6 Midland Gt.Westn. of Irind 2)94 192 i 4,227 4, 1 1 `,2 Mon kland 7ll 714 1,573 1 .!, c0 Monmouthsh. Rail. & Canal 44 44 2,338 2,-u 1863. 1862. North British, Edin., Perth and Dundee N-Eastern and Stock. & DarL 1095 1 077 1 54,587 5,% North London 9 9 3,315 0,;;Ix North Staffordshire 254 252 8 .547 7,17." 5 Oswestry and Newton... 5O 42 1,053 0, Rhymney l9 19 911 86 ,,g St. Helen's Canal & Railway 52 52 2,009 2,1.., Scottish Central Scottish North-Eastern l3B 1324 4,800 4,512 Somerset and Dorset 66 394 697 34 2 South Devon South-Eastern 3OB 306 19,039 17,071 Taff Vale 57 65 6,593 6,002 Ulster Vale of Clwyd Vale of Neath 321 251 2,302 2.132 Waterford and Kilkenny 3l 31 318 411 Waterfbrd and Limerick 77 77 1,255 1,351 West Cornwall 274 274 628 615 W.Hartlepool Harbr.&RaiL 43 48 3,897 4.215 W'haven,Cleator,& Egrmnt 7' 7 Hs 427 Whitchaven Junction l3 12 902 6 81 Whitehaven & Furness Jun 35 35 871 6IS FOREIGN AND COLONIAL. Antwerp and Rotterdam 52 52 1,164 1, 055 Austrian B2B 828 30,088 315 66 2 70 276 Belgian Eastern Junction 264 24 Bombay, Baroda, & ten. India 1851 1674 2,505 1, 30 Buffalo and Lake Huron 2 041 161 i 1614 2,734 ,„,. Detroit and Milwaukie lB9 1W 5,334 4 .n:; Dutch Rhenish lO B/ 1 0 8/ 3,461 3,5‘' Eastern Bengal llO - - Eastern of France 1167 1051 59,476 50,973 East Indian - --- Grand Trunk of Canada lO9O 1090 - 7, 5 946 Great Indian Peninsula 5384 195 8,928 „, / 6 Great Luxembourg 134 134 3, 713 '''',)% Great Southern of India Great Western of Canada 345 3i5 13,009 l'', , ', ; :g Madrid, Saragossa &Alicant 650 490 17,229 11, " - Northern of Canada .. - 51 091 Northern of France 697 618 58,8 12 . c ygi Norwegian Trunk Ottan - 423 Paris, Lyons, & Mediterrn 183 58/ 1676 184 139,392 12 e 8 '39 / Paris and Orleans 1614 1131 70,611 5 - , ....„ Pernambuco 779 - 179 474 Royal Danish 69 69 1, 057 1 581 Sambre and Meuse 6B 68 1,35 6 4 ;631 South Austrian Southern of France .. .. 770 680 28,r0- 8. 42 Victorian 196 151 8, 0,0 552 Welland 4 913 West Flanders 75 75 9' W. and N.W. of France. 932 813 40,935 35 ' 412 Foreign Mail Packet List. MAILS DUE. 19' A.ustralia and Mauritius, via Southampton ..Dec. via blarseilles ......... Jan. 1 jrazil and Cape Verds, by Briti s h p ac k e t. Jd n ' 4 Cape of Good Hope, Ascension, and St. Helena..De c * 19. , hina, Penang, and Singapore, via Southanipton.pe c • via Marseilles ...Dec' Falkland Islands floc, 19. Gibraltar, via Southampton ' 19. India (Calcutta), and Ceylon, via Southampton D ec 'nj. via Marseilles Dee. Dee. ° . India (Bombay), via Southampton Dec. i t. --via Marseilles Jail' -. P0rtuga1.......... Dec lg. ‘lalta, Egypt, and Aden, via Southampton v• 21. via Marseilles .. 0. Newfoundland Oporto and Vigo -1 2 3 (J. 6 and British N. America, by Brit. packet......- ec * by U.S. packet...• 18. by Canadian packet. Doe. 10. W.C. of Africa, Madeira, and Teneriffe J an ' 14. Bahamas, via New York Jan. . 9 Mexico .. ,tII parts of West Indies, including Chili, Pal:, . 1 .131 p e ; 20'. California. and British Columbia. an, [ADVERTISEMENT.] —Holloway's Ointment ( l o wa Unerring Precision.—When the health is bre aking when trom the continuance of some weakening dispbahriVitenecit ulcers refuse to heal and extending mischief l et healing then is the time to try the potency of Hollow . a 9.. ;„, Thy e ase ointment and purifying pills. No treatment fo r g 17 !" 0 and safely leading to a cure can be compared to this. s _ res, ointment cleans and cools the foulest and most . an angr y vent s diminishes the inflammation, reduces the swaeliihnst,_p_an d d g er. the growth of proud flesh, and ePtir" boti l l ! ) aperienee to the Hundreds testify from their own P er o lf u kolloway's medico' unvarying success attending the usee_nlara ea veins, scurif ments in cases of ulcerated le g e, skin, and swelled ankles. Births. Eden, of a son. P . I H Bt e h n i le n y st at 2 F. 'BOURKE.--On the 17th inst., at Wald Newton Rectorfo the wife of the fion. and Rev. George W. Bourke, of daughter. E DEDL Ou ;the 16 th inst., at Cotgrave- la e Notts, the S Kira. 1, 1 1E . : "" s :? t the E R sq of a so . n , , Fitzroy-square, the wife at Weston-super- e Mare, Titzvon —On the 16t hitlet., th wi to of Colonel S. S. Trevor, of a daughter. Marriages. FARMER—WATSON.—On tho 7th M ay , i n Tam:mull!, es George Farmer, Bart. , to Elizabeth, the only surv o Gs ,.. daughter o f Thomas Watson, Esq., of Swansea, morgan. Jane ree°f PAYNE—MACLURE..--On the ! 7th inst. at St. Dfarq, j oye Westminster, John Payne, Esq., to Marion bet h, only daughter of the late William Mitclure, of Harley -street, Cavendish-square. Deaths. BRUCE.—Ou the 1411 inst., at Fairfield, near LiverP° ol Admiral Sir Henry Bruce, K.C.B , aged 71. • f3' EVERARD.—On the 16th inst., at Brighton, major Everard, late Ist Royal Dragoons. the FORSHALL.—On the 18th Mat , at 49, Woburn place, Rev. Josiah Forshall, F. R.S., aged 69 9 0 GOAD.—On the 17th inst., at Hackbridg e Rouse, 21 Carshaiton, Wm. T. Goad, Esq., aged 83. A 13 OA LIDDERDALE —On the 11th filet., at Hungerfor., —e Charles Henry Lidderdale, aged 66. 1 4 ' , SEYMOUR.—On the 17th inst., at Gloucester-creE nent, Hyde-park, Wm. Seymour, Esq., aged 80, -- - - t, 6 - v6 0 Londcn : Prin;ed and Published b y W I L LIAM AND':-„ '1 of Na 112, Strand, Print er, at THE SUN Office i''''.;oll Strand, n Vie Precinct of the Savoy. n the Coll3`l itiddlet.cx.—SaturtiaY, December 19, 186.1. be kit Roods n clerg, Every „CL f;1811 ‘A). a Nuall tirnir 'edbt Post.i 1e comp] 3Za Be ..kete al e ; - P Ina e(i) Ithr TT SATI T' r oves out lOay kenii Der e( and With Pr( Oft G' Th, Me rc , S CA] Pei "reel TM addit burl burl, , Th rAN LAT 13E A.AI( SCA 11l f fiber the Po , } %D;/' To 1I • Tho J. P Se inn may Pall Dep N, 01 Ant Ge o 0061