The Sun.
London, England, 1863-11-20 00:00:00

rHE SUN, LONDQN, FRIDAY EVENING, .NOVEMBER 20, 1863,

LAW INTELLIGENCE—This Day.

COURT OF DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
GASKILL V. GASKILL AND ROBERTSON.
This was a petition for dissolution of marriage on the
ground of adultery, presented by the husband.
The parties were married in 1858 at Camberwell, and
resided togethei until the early part of last year, when the
respondent left her husband. There was no issue to the
marriage, but the respondent became addicted to intemper-
ance. Daring the absence of her husband she was visited
by a solicitor, and also received many letters, which were
always given to her when the husband was from
home. A quarrel took place, when she left him the next
morning, and since that time she had boen seen in a caffee•
shop with the co-respondent, and on one occasion they re-
mained there the whole of the night.

The Court gave a rule nisi.
MASSEY Y. MASSEY AND HARRIS.
This was a similar petition presented by the husband.
From the evidence it appeared that the petitioner was a
clerk in Manchester, and was married in 1855, and they
lived together for eight or nine months, when Mrs. Massey
left with the intention of visiting her friends in the c,untry,
in Wiltshire. While she was away a report became current
that she had been locked up in prison for some offence.
This was inquired into, and found to be true, and then the
husband wrote to her and asked some explanation. When
she returned she did not come to the house in which her
husband was residing, but went to one near it, and after-
wards she came and created a disturbance in the street.
The husband told her he could not hive with her
after what he had heard, and she then came
to an understanding that she was to receive a weekly
allowance. She received the money a short time, when she
left the place altogether and came to London, and there
married a second time.
° I The Court granted a decree nisi.

materially assisted if the bankrupt was released, and the
bankrupt himself swore that he had no intention of quitting
the country, but was anxious to give all possible infor-
mation and show how he had disposed of the money,
but he could not get people to go to him in prison. The
learned counsel described the pitiable condition in which
the bankrupt was, and the only prospect of his ever regain-
ing his sight would be by undergoing a most painful opera-
tion. He, therefore, thought it was a case which the
Court, tempering justice with mercy, might exercise its
discretion and order the release.

Mr. Linklater, for the assignees, and Mr. Bazley, for the
official managers, contended that Mr. Commissioner Hol-
royd's decision ought to be upheld.
His Honour ultimately said he would cmsult Mr. Hol-
roy4 before he gave his final decision.

SECOND EDITION.

SUN OFFICE, HALF-PAST 4 O'CLOCK.

SPOR DING INTELLIGENCE.—This Day.

(BY ELECTRIC TELEGR tPII.)
SHREWSBURY RACES.-THIS DAY.

HURDLE RACE.

Pilot ..
1
Shan Van Vocht

Four ran.
HANDICAP.

Pupil 1
Don't Come Late
Seven ran.
MATCH.
Caroline beat Despair.
NURSERY HANDICAP.

Erytheia
Orphene

Six ran.
EMILLE HALL STAKES.

Alchymist _ 1
Southport

Four ran.
SWEEPSTAKES.

Antoinel to
Spicebox
Four ran.
HANDICAP PLATE.

Welland _ ___ _ ___ __
1
Bernice
Foreteller

Four ran.
HANDICAP STEEPLECHASE.

Lady Clifden ___
1
Leontes
Crytheia

Five ran.
HANDICAP PLATE. T.Y.C.

The Tyke 1
Rosa Lee 2
Cuckoo

Seven ran.
WELTER HANDICAP.

Captain Crow
Loiterer ....... .. 2
Redskin ........

Five ran.
HANDICAP PLATE.

--
Farfalla 1
Paddy O'Rourke

THIRD EDITION

SUN OFFICE, SEVEN O'CLOCK.

THE CRAWLEY COURT MARTIAL.

FOURTH DAY.
ALDERSHOT, Friday.

The court assembled at a quarter past 11 o'clock this
morning, and immediately adjourned for deliberation. Mr.
Vernon Harcourt, Mr. Waller, and the legal advisers of
Colonel Crawley, being requested to attend.
After a short space of time,
Lieutenant and Adjutant Fitzsimons was recalled for
cross-examination.

Colonel Crawley—Do I understand you to state that,
however much I might have been enraged against Sergeant-
Major Lilley, the order I gave you on the 26th of April
did, in effect, causd no annoyance to Sergeant Major Lilley
in the manner of posting the sentries ?
Witness—No. I consider the manner in which the sen-
tries were posted did not annoy him.
Colonel Crawley—Do you consider that the giving of
such an order showed at the time I gave it that I had no
desire to cause annoyance to Sergeant Major Lilley in re-
spect to the manner of posting the sentries ?
Witness—l should say not.

Colonel Crawley—Did you know what was the object of
placing the sergeant majors under arrest?
Witness—l was told by Colonel Crawley that the reason
for putting them under arrest was because they were in con-
spiracy against him.

Colonel Crawley—The question was, what was the object,
not what was the reason.
Witness—l did not know then, but I have heard subse-
quently.

Colonel Crawley—Was the object to prevent them from
communicating with any one outside ?
Witness—l have said that I did not know the object.
Colonel Crawley—Wore your instructions from me to
prevent them from communicating, with any one outside ?
Witness—Yes.

Colonel Crawley—Do you consider that it is the duty of
an adjutant in the execution of such an order I gave you
on the 26th of April to see the sentries posted himself ?
witness—No. I in,pected them. I have never under-
stood it to be the duty of an adjutant to post the sentries
himself.

Colonel Crawley-- I did not ask whether you posted them,
but whether it was your duty to see them posted.
Witness—l consider it is the duty of an adjutant to see
the place where tho sentries are posted, and to ascertain
whether they are acquainted with their orders after they
are posted.

Colonel Crawley—Do you not consider that it was your
duty as adjutant to see the sentries posted in the case of
Sergeant Major Lilley, who was your own immediate as-
sistant in carrying on the duties of the regiment ?
Witness—l consider that it was my duty to see the place
where the sentries were posted. I did not consider it my
duty to post the sentries myself.

Colonel Crawlay—Must not the manner of posting the
sentries in order to prevent them from communicating with
persons outside depend upon the quarters in which the
prisoners were confined ?
Witness—Decidedly.

Colonel Crawley—And in that respect must not the posi-
tion of the sentries depend on the discretion of the person
who from time to time is to see that order carried out?
Witness—I should say so.
Colonel Crawley—Who posted the sentries in the firs
instance ?

Witness—I gave the order to the regimental sergeant
major. I cannot Say who was the non-commissioned officer
who posted them,
Colonel Crawley—Were the orders you gave written or
verbal ?
Witness—l gave the orders in writing on the 2Gth April,
in the evening I received them from the commanding officer.
Colonel Crawley—Were those orders a copy of the orders
you put in on your examination in chief ?
Witness—The sergeant major wrote down the order
given to me by my commanding officer.
Colonel Crawley—Then you did not give orders to the
sergeant major yourself ?
Witness—Not in my own hand writing, but he copied it
out in my presence from the commanding officer's original
order.
Colonel Crawley—Were the orders he took down in wilt-
ing an exact copy of the order I gave to you ?

Witness—They were.
Colonel Crawley—Was there anything said in
my
ori-
ginal order as to where the sentries were to be posted ?
Witness—l think it states that they were to be posted
over the quarters of each prisoner.
Colonel Crawley—Dees that order state that the sentries
were to be posted inside or outside the quarters.
Witness—l understood it to mean that they were to be
posted outside.
Colonel Crawley—l must press for an answer.
Colonel Sir A. Ilorsford (official prosecutor)—lf the wit-
ness is to ba pressed upon a document that is before the
Court, I submit ho may be allowed to see it.
The President—Certainly.
the docu
Witness (having examined tuent)—lt does not
mention the word inside or outside, but says over the quar-
ters, which I understood to mean outside.
Colonel Crawley—Did you ask me whether the sentry
was to be placed outside or inside the quarters when I first
gave you the order ?
Witness—l do not recollect having asked the question.
Colonel Crawley—Will you undertake to say that you
did not ask the question, and that I said the sentries were
to be posted outside?
Witness—l cannot undertake to state. I can only say
I don't recollect it.
Colonel Crawley—At what o'clock did you visit the sen-
tries for the first tiros on that day?
Witness—l have not the slightest recollection what the

time was.
Colonel Crawley—Did you visit the first sentry who was
sent down on that occasion ?

Witness—l cannot remsniber.
Colonel Crawley—Was it not in your opinion the duty
of the adjutant in the case of so serious an arrest to visit
the sentry in the execution of it ?
Witness—ln my opinion the adjutant should visit the
sentry as soon as he has time to do SO. As soon as he is not
otherwise officially occupied.
Col. Crawley—Were you in any way officially occupied
that evening in matters sufficiently important Co warrant

your delaying the performance of so serious a duty, and, if
so, state what that occupation was ?
Witness—l do not remember how I was occupied. I
believe that as soon as I was unoccupied I visited the
sentries.

Colonel Crawley--Were you not occupied at mess after
the sentries were posted and before you visited them ?

Witness—l do -not recollect that I went to mess that
night. I should think I visited them before I went to mess.

Colonel Crawley—At what hour was the order taken by
Sergeant Cotton ?
Witness—The time I cannot state. I believe it was be-
fore dark.

Colonel Crawley—How does it happen that your memory
is much less retentive as to these matters than as to those
of which you have spoken in so much detail in your exa-
mination in chief ?

Witness—The matters I spoke of in eon detail in my
examination in chief, were matters I had written down in
the letter I wished to write to the commander in chief, and
of which I had frequently spoken, so that they were impressed
more upm nay mind.

Colonel Crawley--How long a period has elapsed since
the occurrence of these events, and the date of your letter
to the commander in chief ?
Witness—About six months.

Colonel Crawley—llad you frequently spoken about these
matters before YOUR letter to the commander in chief; if so,
to whom ? _ _

Witness—l think I have spoken frequently about them
to several officers in the regiment.
Colonel Crawley—To whom ?
Witness—l think I have spoken of it before my letter to
the Commander in Chief to numbers of officers in the regi-
ment.
Colonel Crawley—When you visited the sentries for the
first time, who was the sentry you found over Sergeant
Major Lilley and the quartermaster sergeants ?
Witness—l do not remember in the least.
Colonel Crawley—Where was he standing?
Witness—My recollection of the first sentry I visited is
that he was standing in the front verandah of the house.
Colonel Crawley—Was that position in your opinion in
accordance with the orders you had received from me ?
Witness—l should say so, and I should add that I believe
the sentry had frequent orders to go round the house to
the back door.
Colonel Crawley—How do ycu know that he had such
an order ?

Witness—lt is my recollection of the orders he gave
over to me.

Colonel Crawley—Were those the orders given over to
you by the first sentry you saw ?
Witness—I cannot state.

Colonel Crawley—l understand you to state that you do
not know what were the orders given over to you by the
first witness you saw ?
Witness—I recollect the orders that were given over to
me, or the substance at least of them, but I do not say
whether that order was subsequently given to the sentry to
move round to the rear of the house on the first day or the
second. It is now more than a year and a half ago since
the events occurred, and it is very difficult to recollect the

particulars.
Col. Crawley—You have already stated that the only
orders Sergeant Major Cotton received from me was an
exact copy of my original order. See if there is anything
in that order to the effect you have now stated ?
Witness—Not in the exact words, but it is mentioned
that the sentry should not allow any communication with
the prisoner, and therefore I thought it necessary that the
sentry should walk round occasionally to the rear of the
house.
Colonel Crawley—lf the sentry had any additional
orders beyond the copy of my orders, by whom were they
given ?
Witness—I don't consider he had any additional orders.
The order for him to go to the rear of the building occa-
sionally was only to have the commanding officer's orders
carried out.
Colonel Crawley—Who was to exercise a discretion as to
the positiOn of the sentries in carrying out my order, that
the prisoner should not have communication with any one
outside?
Witness--I cannot see that there was anything discre-
tionaryinthuei:on
ei
ea
ti n
was
any
iit' as the order was that there should be no corn-
between the prisoner and persons outside. If
discretion it must be that of the sentry as to
what part of the outside of the building he should stand.
Colonel Crawley—Then I understand that in your opinion
the position of the sentry over Sergeant Major Lilley was
to be at the discretion of the sentry. Is that your opinion
as an officer who at that time was an adjutant in the In-
niskilling Dragoons ?
Witness—lt is my opinion that in order that the sentry
should not allow any one to hold communication with the
prisoner, he should occasionally go round to the rear of the
house to see that no one got in by the back door.
Colonel Crawley said that answer was unsatisfactory, and
repeated the question.
Witness—There was no order as to the time the sentry
should go and see the rear of the house. Of course the man
was posted in one particular place in front.
Colonel Crawley—Was the order for Sergeant Major
Lilley to take exercise given a long time or a short time after
the arrest
Witness—To the best of my recollection it was given a
short time after he was placed under arrest.
Colonel Crawley—How long atime ?
Witness—l cannot state the time without looking at the
order which was received for it, on which, I think, there is

a date.
Colonel Crawley—Do you consider one of the hardships
of Sergeant Major Lilley's arrest was the delay in my giving
the order for him to take exercise ?
Witness—No. I think the commanding officer gave an
order that he might take exercise when it was brought to
his notice that he required it.
Colonel Crawley—lf the desirableness of such exercise
had been brought to my notice earlier by you or any other
person, do you believe I should have given the order earlier?
Witness—If it had been brought to the notice of the
commanding officer by me, I cannot say—if by the medical
officer, I should say it would.
Colonel Crawley—During the time you were adjutant
did you ever ask any indulgence for Sergeant Major Lilley
which was refused by me ?
Witness—No. I never recollect ever having asked for
any indulgence for him whatever.
Colonel Crawley--You have spoken of a conversation
alleged to have taken place in the orderly room of the bar-
racks. I must ask you, as near as you can, to fix the date
of that conversation ?
Witness—The date I cannot say, but it was before the
15th of May.
Colonel Orawley—Was it before or after the arrest of
Corporal Blake ?
Witness—l cannot state positively. lam of opinion it was
before.
Colonel Crawley—Why do you state that it must have
been before the 15th of May ?
Witness—For on the 15th of May I went on the sick list.

Colonel Crawley asked that the evidence given by the
witness on the second day of the court martial should be
read to him. It was read, and it appeared that the witness
stated before the sth of May an order was given that the
sentries were to be placed inside Sergeant Major Lilley's

quarters.
Colonel Crawley—Does it not follow, from the reasons
you then alleged for fixing the date of the conversation,
that it was before the date of the commission of the offence
for which that non-commissioned officer was tried ?
Witness—I should say so. Until after I had given that
answer I was not aware that it was on the Ist of May that
Corporal Blake had been placed under arrest. I was of
opinion that it was on the Ist or 2d of that month.
More previous evidence given by Lieut. Fit zsimons having
been read,
Col. Crawley said--I ask you to reconcile your uncer-
tainty of Sergeant Major Cotton being present with you.
Certainly that the conversation with me about Sergeant
Major Lilley being a married man, arose out of a remark
made by Sergeant Major Cotton.
-Witness—l have stated that I do not know whether
Sergeant Major Cotton was in the room when ho received
the order to place the sentries so that they should not lose
sight of the prisoner night or day, but that that morning
Sergeant Major Cotton was there I know. I recollect that
he remarked to the commanding officer that Sergeant
Major Lilley was a married man.
Col. Crawley—You have said in your examination in
chief that you are not certain whether Sergeant Major
Cotton was in the room when he made the remark on
which the conversation arose. Did he make it from
out-
side the room ?
Witness—No.
Colonel Crawley—lf you are not certain whether Ser-
geant Major Cotton was inside or outside the room, are yol;
at al
not equally uncertain whether he made the remark
Witness—l recollect perfectly well the remark
isthat
made, and what impressed it more on my memory!
the commanding officer got into a great rage with him for
making the remark, and made him leave the order y room
for saying it.
lace in th
taken
in wpritin ' e
the conversation you allege to have
Colonel Crawley—Do I understand youto say that after
orderly room, I gave you another order g with
regard to the arrest of the sergeant m ajor.
Witness—No.
our evidence in chief was
ColonlellCadraa wleY—i believe y
writtenthis: order for the posting of sentries
before him (myself) and he added one or two words in his
own handwriting. Do you adhere to that treatment ?
Witness—I do.
Colonel Crawley—Was the order I first gave you on the
2fith of April entered in the regimental order book and
signed by you ?
Witness—I think it was entered as a regimental morning
order.
Colonel Crawley—Look at the order book and see whether
that is the first entry.
Witness—Yes. I believe it to be the order,
The order was read—That Colonel Crawley ordered a
close arrest, and providing that the noncommissioned
officers should nave no couthaunication
wint;i
out-
side, at the same time persons
suspendia the
prisoners. It was
was signed by Lieutenant Fitec g e
n.
4. iiersford requested the ,juestecl the C%,:grt to tar,ke a nOto that

the regimental order book had been taken by the prisoner
in his defence. The application was acceded 10.

Colonel Crawley—Now take the regimental order book
and point out the second order written and signed by you
in reference to the arrest of the sergeant and the posting of
the sentries.

Witness—l know of no second order being entered in
reference to the posting of the sentries. The post order
was made by direction of Colonel Crawley.
Colonel Cr3wley—After the alleged second order who
was the first sentry who saw Sergeant Major Lilley rub the
liniment on Mrs. Lilley's chest ?
Witness-1 am not aware. I heard it remarked to my
commanding officer, as I heard it also myself.
Colonel Crawley—That is no answer to my questiod.
The President—Put it in another shape.
sentry ever see that operation
Colonel Crawley—Lid any
performed to your knowladge ?
Witness—l have never inquired about it from any
sentry, nor do I know.
Colonel Crawley—Then, as far as you know, the sec:nd
order did not lead to the indecency you anticipated, and
which you have stated in your evidence iu chief.
Witness—l should like to know what indecency is re-
ferred to which stated in my evidence in chief.
Colonel Crawley (reading)—" I also remarked that Mrs.
Lilley was sick, and that her husband was obliged to rub
liniment on her chest every day." What is the drift and
tendency of that remark ? Was it not that the sentry would
see that operation, and that Mrs. Lillay would thereby be
subjected to indignity ?
Witness—Yes; and it was my idea that when the com-
minding officer knew it he would not allow the :indignity
repeated and not allow the sentry to be inside as the
order was given.
Colonel Crawley—Did Mrs. Lilley ever suffer the incon-
venience you anticipated ?
Witness—l do not know. I have heard it stated.
Colonel Crawley—.I must repeat my question?
Witness —What inconvenience.
Colonel Crawley—ln having the liniment rubbed into
her chest while a sentry was present ?
Witness—As I have never seen it, I cannot say.
Colonel Crawley—On your oath, do you or do you not
believe that she did ?
Witness—On my oath I cannot say.

Colonel Crawley—lt has been stated in Parliament that
" M rs. Lilley was compelled to perform all the functions of
nature in the presence of a sentry." To your knowledge is
that true or false ?
Witness—l do not know.

Colonel CrawlQy—ln your great concern for Mrs. Lilley,
did it never occur to you to inquire whether she ever suf-
fered from this or not ?

Witnesk—l do not recollect having inquired.
Colonel Crawley—Were the sentries to your knowledge
ever inside Mrs. Lilley's bedroom ?
Witness—l cannot say whether they were inside the
bedroom or not. I have not seen them there.
Colonel Crawley—Have you ever heard the matter dis-
cussed, and have such statements been made in your
presence by any one ?
Witness—l think I have heard it stated that they were
at the door or inside the bedroom.
Colonel Crawley—May I assume that if such statements
had been made, that Mrs. Lilley had to perform the func-
tions of nature in the presence of a sentry, you would have
indignantly denied them ?
Witness—I should not haveldenied them, not knowing
whether it had occurred or not.
Colonel Crawley—Then that is what you consider the
duty of an officer in such a case towards a regiment of
which he was a member ?
Witness—l cannot refute that which Ido not know.
Colonel Crawley—Where did Mrs. Lilley sleep ?
Witness—l have seen the room pointed out on the model,
but I do not know myself, not having gone into the build.
ing since the arrest.
Colonel Crawley—After this alleged conversation was this
second order immediately acted upon ? Witness—To the
best of my recollection it was immediately acted upon, as I
think the commanding order told the acting regimental
sergeant to act upon it immediately.
Colonel Crawley—Did you go to see the first sentry posted
after the second order you have mentioned. Witness—l
really cannot say that I inspected the first sentries or not,
but I should say 1 did, because I knew that Col. Crawley
was very strict about his orders being carried out on that

point.
Colonel Crawley—•Who was the first sentry you saw, and
where did you find him posted ?...Witness—I don't recollect
who he was.
Colonel Crawley—Where was he posted ? Witness—The

first time I recollect visiting the gentry in the bungalow he

came to the back door to me. I had not gone into Sergeant
*Major Lilley's quarters, as 1 knew Mrs. Lilley was sick,
and I did not like to inconvenience her. Sometimes the
door at the back was closed when I visited the sentry, and
he came and opened it.
Colonel Crawley—Where was the sentry posted after the
second order? Witness—The sentry was posted inside the
quarters. He could not have been posted in any particu-
lar place, as his order was not to lose sight of the sergeant
maj,,r night or day, and consequently was obliged to follow
him from. one room to another
Colonel Crawley—When the sergeant major went to the
water-closet, or to the rear as soldiers call lt, was the
sentry bound to follow him, or insist that the door should
remain open, or was it sufficient for him to know that he
was there, and could not escape
Witness—The sentry was not to follow him to the water-
closet. That was the only exception to the order.
Colonel Crawley—Could a sentry posted outside the house
make sure that the. prisoner under his charge could not
communicate through the doors and windows with other
persons ? Witness—ln the first building I should say not.
Colonel Crawley—Then in your opinion the prisoner was
to be prevented from communicating with other persons, it
was necessary that the sentries should be inside the house
as the first building was concerned? Witness—Yes, a
sentry could watch the prisoner much better inside than
outsie.
Colonel Crawley repeated the question, and pressed for a
more direct answer. Witness—Essential Ido not consider
it was, for a sentry walking occasionally to the rear of the
building, no one would dare to come near the house to com-
municate with the prisoner. Certainly on a dark night a
person might come, if he was not afraid of being seen by
the sentry. .

Colonel Crawley--Do you know that complaints were
made by the sentries that they were unabe to perform their
duty outside the building? Witness-1 don't recollect.
Colonel Crawley—Will you swear that you never heard of
the sentries complaining that they could not perform their
duty of watching the prisoner while outside the building?
Witness—l will not swear that, but I dont recollect.
Colonel Crawley.—Will you swear that such complaints
were not the cause of the alteration in the position of the
sentries? Witness—As I never have heard complaints
made to my recollection I cannot swear that.
Colonel Crawley—Did you as adjutant make any attempt
to post the sentries inside the house to watch the priWitness—l
s
without unnecessarily inconveniencing him ?
should say that when I had the sentries posted inside the
building on receiving Colonel Crawley's orders to watch
the prisoners night and day, it must have inconveniened
him. There were four or five rooms, and the sentries had
to follow the sergeant major from one room to the other.
Col. Crawley—Did you, as adjutant, go into the house
so as to observe where a sentry could be placed to watch
the prisoner without unnecessarily inconveniencing him.
Witness—l have r recollection of going into tho house,
but it was before Sergeant Major Lilley's arrest, and, as I
stated before, did not go again into the house, because I
knew that Mrs. Lilly was ill, and I did not wish to incon-
venience her.
Was any report ever made by you to
Colonel Crawley—
me of any annoyance or inconvenience that was caused
either to the sergeant major or to Mrs. Lilley.
Witness—None to my recollection.
Colonel Crawley—Did you ever receive any report of any
inconvenience or annoyance having been caused, either
from Sergeant Major Lilley or Mrs. Lilley, or from anyone
else ?
Witness—I have heard it spoken of.
Colonel Crawley—l beg to protest against any hearsay
evidence being foisted into the evidence gratuitously by the
witness, and either that the latter part of the answer
may
be exchanged with all that refers to hearsay evidence,
or
that the protest be received,
The Court ruled that the answer must stand.
The question was repeated.
Witness—I have never to
my knOwledge received such
a report, either from Sergeant Major
before, I
Lilley or Mrs. Lilley,
or any one else, but, as I said have heard it
spoken of.
The court then adjourned at four o'clock until to-morrow.

THE RECENT MURDERS.—The bodies of Mrs.
Hunt and her tWo children were interred at Paddington
Cemetery yesterday afternoon. The father and brother of
Mrs. Hunt were amongst the mourners, and the officiating
clergyman addressed a few words to the assembled crowd on
the uncertainty of lite and the importance of preparing for
an eternal world, which were listened to with great attention.
ABOUT 20,000 FRIENDLY SOCIETIES are nowrn
existence iu England, of which not much more than half
are registered.
i TTLL
Foit SEVEN YEARS PAST Two ...*-- lON GAL- ,
_ _
_,,,
LoNS Or PURE SPRING WATER have been daily pumped
into the Thames.
MR. BALFE'S NEW ROMANTIC OvePnEiRA,::
de Nevers,". is announced to-morrow cog thel3l Blanche
English Opera.
A LAST GLIMPSE OF
During the autumn of FwAliTiliteE-laßairltedf,A7:vilenE:ibTe
man, of a countenance nolbSlse6inacorreretpliinneg
pression, might be seen slowlyh.stAlone d sw
et
he te
sunnyn '.x-
steps assisted by a
places of Queenstown, hand of the invalid
young lad, on whose
Titiwas Theobald shoulder Mathew—
.
rested for support.
Alaguire's Life of Fetlter dfathcw:
ON THE BOARD are susceptible
of 264,517,206,000
THE CliEssillEr combinations. If one could make a new
combination every second, it would take one and a-half
times as song as the world ha, existed since tbeCreati-v. to
exhatz
140 oombrOa,tlolls.
t

LONDON GAZETTA—This Eve4ting,

LORD CHAMB r,RLAIN'S OFFICE, Nov. 18.

Orders far the +Court going into moutnin z on Sunday.
next, the 22d inst., for his late Majesty the iing of Den-
mark, viz, :
The ladies to wear black dresses, white gle yes, black or
white shoes, feathers, and fans, pearls, dismal tds, or plain
gold or silver ornaments.
The gentlemen to wear black Court dress, with black
swords and buckles.
The Court to change the mourning on Sunday the 6th of
December next, v-z, :
The ladies to wear black dresses, with coloured ribbons,
flowers, feathers, and ornaments, or grey or whit dresses,
with black ribbons flowers, feathers, and ornatapa&s.
The gentlemen to continue the same morning.
And on Sunday, the 13th of December next, the Court
to go out of mourning.
The
of9-ATION OF PARLIAMENT.
this evening contains an Order in Coun-
cil, further proroguing Pailiaanent from Ist Dee. to Jan. 13,

BANICaUPTS
The portion of the Gazette containing the bankrupts had
not arrived when Nvo went to press.

Course of the L':xchange—This Day.

Amsterdam
Ditto
. --
Rotterdam ..
11 191
191
Antwerp ..
25 70+
Brussels _
25 70
Hamburgh .. 13 81.
Short. 25 9^,-
Paris
Ditto
.._

11 18
12 0
12 0
25 75

25 76
13 9
25 35
25 75
25 75

25 70
1191
12 45
12 50
33i

Marseilles
Frankfort on Maine
Vienna
Trieste ...... .
Petersburgh .. ,
Berlin
Madrid •••• —48 k
48,i
Cadiz
481.
Leghorn — 25 87k 25 ?j,,
i‘lilan
Genoa ...., 25 87k 25 '..ti
Naples
Palermo „.... 25 87t 2.5 94
Messina
Lisbon —52 k, 52a
Oporto —2 a
—I
Foreign Gold in Bars (Standard), per 0z...... £3 17 9
Mexican Dollars .. ............... 0 00
0
0
Silver in Bars (Standard) . .......... ... .. 0 0
.-
South American D0ub10n5...... ............... 0 0 0

120.-
12 80
12 so

POLICE INTELLIG ENCE—This Day.

ARLBOROUG 11-S 'MEET.

A FOOLISH REASON FOR ATTEMPTING TO COMMIT
SUICIDE —Mary Ann Dollard, about 39 years of age, set,.
vent to a gentleman residing in Sussex-street, Pimlico,
was charged with attempting to commit suicide.
From the evidence of a park constable named Jenkins,„
it appeared that hearing an alarm that a female was in the
Serpentine, he went there and found the prisoner in the
water. A Young man threw ofF his coat, jumped in, sworn
to the prisoner, and with his (the constable's) assistance
brought her out. On asking her how she came to do such
a thing she made no reply, but cried bitterly.
qr. Andrews, in whose service the prisoner had been ter
10 years, said the prisoner haiL had a few words on a triv'ml
matter with a person in the house, and it had excited her.
She possessed a good temper.
Prisoner said she was very uorry. She was very excited
at the time, having had a qua! rel.
Mr. Yardley—Do you always go to the Serpentine and.
jump in when you have a qua;-rel ? It.is a foulish wicked
act, and nothing like it was sever heard. 'A
woman, 39
years of age, quarrels with aztotAer. and then she goes and
jumps into the deep part of the Serpentine.
Prisoner, who was crying during the hearing of the case,
said she would not, do such a thiztg again.
Mr. Yardley—How can I be sure of that. I shall re.,
mand you for a week.

MARKETS—This Day,