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

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 abty t hs
oemme emr cey ofa
ns t thheep
ecor wl e db. a
dI
nat
awnaasg e ads st eort ed
np Broadway and
ob-
tainallthpeososmesnsiibonusoesf
and
dveoraarls
ppliyeicnegs of artillery ; that
the railroad avenues were seized as coon as they.
that
came within the lines of the ur
the carriages were converted barricades,iineetogentsand
and
the horses impressed for the service of artillery.
Bat the statement does not appear to have been
true. The mob, however, had abundance of small
arms, and when these were wanting made up for
clubs, brick-bats, and
the deficiency of bludgeons,
ing a feeling of veng canes aeainst Mayor Opdyke, 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
cwtßCt
hhuouaeamnrtt gepucmtr
under
nsrdn B.
Nay,ces
el:co
srnisi
?oupt
ehet
ohi
we
ol
Without
nonhe t
iwa hr
teei
lurbl
Act.
meb cse
otTatamaohndneecvesbepiwsesrcoeowoadfbmrhamt
iaeobt
ytii
yield,l
under
becomes
t neye ddc,
cannot
arma
aondenwansdnoe
yovtae
feltlrett
oe,
ihwrri
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 thousand people,
declaring
against the draught, pronouncing it to
be unconstitutional and oppressive, and expressing
their determination to resist it. A few fanatics of
h
the press in this city persist in urging the Govern-
men
maintain
tohueg to follow their counsel, the
indications are that it will speedily have a new civileonscription. If the Govern-
wentt
bt to
unwise enough
outh
S.
war on its hands, in addition to what it technically
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 disorders Holloway's
Sudden Changes.—Changes of temperature constantly
and muscles. For upwards of 20 years
have been particularly celebrated for curing this class
aar freedom 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
_Ppolsf
liatv
!deptrta cease to trouble. Holloway's remedies relieve
motion
weakness perfectly
aftrestored,heli
bwahnedn
rthea dluaitoeul
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 had any doubt, This was said rather to the
Court, and no doubt for the purpose of letting the jury hear
it, and with that knowledge the jury 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 second e
ground
Mr. Macdonald—And the jury then said they must find a
saays whether the money was paid or not.
T
verdict for the plaintiff, because they were so far doubtful
ht 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 present finding, it might be read thus—
that the jury retired, and on returning they found a verdict
for salary and expenses less the £l5, which they find for
Mrs. Norton.
jury The learned
ad
thought that there raust have been a mistake on the part
of Miss Sibley. It was stated that she had paid for various
said; either
Judge—That
the
foreman or some of the jury said they
is not the whole 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 entries of disbursements,
.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•
40s.—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 plaintiff, 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 or
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 in the case of infantile deaths
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, to the greater vigilance of the police, 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 dtepee,ed to attribute its fre-•
quency to the comparative .immunity enjoyed by
the mother, under the present tailings 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 infanticiderthey 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