The Sun.
London, England, 1854-01-19 00:00:00

LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, JANUARY 19, 1854.

ANNUITIES ON THE MUTUAL PRINCIPLE

ENGINEERS', MASONIC, and UNIVERSAL
MUTUAL LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY.

345, Strand, London.

PURCHASERS OF ANNUITIES ADMITTED TO PARTIC:

PATION IN THE PROFITS.
Policy Stamps paid by the Society.
Assignments of Policies Registered Free of Charge.
A Liberal Commission allowed to Solicitors and Agents on the
iniionctfon of business.
• • ANTHONY PECK, JLA. Assistant-Actuary.

HINTS to the ASTHMATIC and CONSUMP-
TIVE.—Read the few plain instructions—i lustrated by
cases—which are given away with every box of Dr LOCOCK'S
I'L•l.-
MONIC WAFERS, by attention to which the most hopeless case
will certainly he relieved—and the majority permanently cured. To
be had of all Druggists.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

CONSISTORY COURT.—JAN. 18.
(Before Dr. Lusbington.)
POSTERN V. POSTERN.-DIVORCE.

This was originally a suit for the restitution. of conju-
gal rights, 1,r0i4.-,,ht by Mrs. Postern, but the husband
replied by a libel, charging her with adultery, and
prayed for a divorco.
There being no defence,
Dr. Lushington pronounced for the separation.
TIIE CIOCCI CASE.-JUDGMENT.

In this case Mrs. Ciocci sued fora divorce, on the
ground, first, that her husband had been guilty of
cruelty towards her, particularly in having communi-
cated to her a disgraceful disease, from which he was
suffering at the time he had married her ; and, secondly,
that he had also committed various acts of adultery.
The proceedings of the case, which were very pro-
tracted, were fully reported in The Sun at the time of
the bearing,

Dr. Lushington now gave sentence. He said the case
had been very fully discussed at the bar, the argument
having occupied no less than four days. He thought
that that time had been well consumed, for the veracity
of many witnesses had been called in question. The
evidence was contradictory to a very great extent, and
consequently much time 'must necessarily be spent in
the investigation 'of such a case. Indeed, a lengthened
inquiry was absolutely requisite for the discovery of the
truth—if indeed it were possible, under all the circum-
stances, to arrive at the truth at all. He must com-
mence by stating the few admitted facts of the case.
The marriage took place on the 15th of January, 1851.
It appeared that Mr. Ciocci was an Italian refugee,
who had been for some years resident in this country ;
that he derived his maintenance by teaching lan-
guages, and that for some time before the marriage
he had been a resident, as he (the learned doctor) un-
derstood, at Brighton. The lady was a Miss Jemima
Mary Frances Bacon Franks. She had also resided
at Brighton, and was possessed of a considerable pro-
perty. She was the elder of the two, though the
respective ages of the parties did not distinctly appear i
but there was enough in the admitted circumstances of
the case to satisfy his mind that, according to all pro-
bability, this was not a marriage likely to produce much
happiness. The parties moved in different spheres of
life, and the fortune was r,ll secured on the lady. The
separation took place on the 14th of March, 1851, so
that there was, in fact, a cohabitation—if such it could
be called—of two months only. What were the peculiar
circumstances which led to this separation were not
disclosed by any evidence in the case ; and indeed much
was left, as he thought, very inconveniently, for the
court to conjecture. For instance, he knew nothing of
the facts immediately preceding the 14th of March,
1851, which had caused the cohabitation to cease. How-
ever, cease it did ; and he found Mr. Ciocci in London,
and his wife elsewhere—where it did not appear. From
this time to the commencement of the suit in Hilary
term in 1853, there was an entire blank with, however,
one exception, for it appeared that tie lady was en-
deavouring by her agents to find proof of a charge of
adultery against her husband. All the court knew of
this was from the correspondence in the case produced
by Mr. Ciocci, from which he collected that Mr. Ciocci
did not attempt to enforce cohabitation. From the
same source he also formed the conclusion that Mrs.
Ciocci had at that time no knowledge of the special act
of cruelty now charged, for such knowledge would be
wholly inconsistent with the letters from her produced
by her husband. With regard to the general charge of
cruelty, he (Dr. Lushington) was of opinion that it
wholly failed, and that the evidence to support it was
so entirely insufficient that it would be wasting time to
enter into any further discussion of that part of
the case, more especially as it had no bearing upon
the specific act of cruelty charged. To that spe-
cific act, and to the evidence adduced to substantiated
it, he would therefore at once address himself. The 6th
article stated that Mr. Ciocci before and at the time of
his marriage was suffering from disease, that he was at-
tended by divers medical practitioners, and that he was
warned against the risk of communicating the disease to
hie wife if lie married, but that he did nevertheless
marry, and did so communicate the malady to Madame
Ciocci. If this averment had been proved, he should
have had no doubt whatever, both upon principle and
authority, that an act of legal cruelty had been com-
mittee. The, proof necessary to support the cbarke *as
twofold. First, evidence was necessary that Mr. Ciocci
had the disease, and then evidence to show that his wife
had also become infected with it. Mr. Watson, a sur-
geon at Brighton, was the first witness, and there was
not the slightest reason why the court should not give
the fullest credence to his statements. Mr. Watson de-
posed that he had been acquainted with Mr. Ciocci for
three or four years prior to November 1850 ; that on
the 17th of that month he attended him, and continued
to attend him till the 27th of December, at which time
he was not cured. The witness then left Mr. Ciocci in
charge of Dr. Starr, who succeeded is his practice.
Doctor Starr said that he attended Mr, Ciocci on the
10th of January, 1851. Mr. Ciocci told him that he
had consulted a foreign gentleman, whose medicine had
done him good. Dr. Starr then made a professional
examination of him, and he deposed that though he was
approaching convalescence, he was not at that time cured.
Dr. Starr did not himself prescribe for him, but he de-
posed to the prescriptions of his predecessor from the
books of the practice which had been handed over to
him. Upon this evidence there rested no doubt what-
ever. There was no contradictory or conflicting tee.
timony ; and the court had no right, either legally
or morally, to doubt the veracity or medical know-
ledge of either of these gentlemen. It was, there-
fore, in the judgment of the court proved beyond
all question that Mr. Ciocci had been diseased
for some time immediately prior to the marriage ; and
that he was not well on the 10th of January, five days
before the marriage. The next step in the case was,
whether he communicated the disease to Madame
Ciocci. It was hardly necessary to inquire whether
there was any evidence of his having been warned of
the consequences of marrying in the state he was clearly
proved to have been in ; for he (Dr. Lushington) was of
opinion that common sense and ordinary experience—
he spoke not of any higher motive—must have made
Mr. Ciocci quite aware of the probable eoesequences—
the contequences most likely to result from his marriage.
If this were a point necessary to be determined, he
should have no doubt whatever in determining that a
man who married under such circumstances and com-
municated a disease to his wife, would be guilty, to use
the mildest term applicable to such recklessness, of
cruelty in the eye of the law. He should decide thus
upon the principle that if a man does an act likely to
produce injury, and if the injury i 8 produced, he can
never excuse himself by saying that he hoped the result
might be averted by some peculiarly good fortune. But
if warning were necessary, warning Mr. Ciocci had. He
had ample warning from Mr. Watson, who told him
that it was impossible for him to be married before he
was quite cured. That was on the 27th of December,
the last day the witness saw him. What his state was
on the 10th of January, five days before his marriage,
appeared from the evidence of Dr. Starr. To marry in
a state in which there was the slightest chance of com-
municating the disease was a crime
se. The point
that next arose was whether it was so communicated to
c.soeci, istr. Watson deposed that he was
staying at Brighton in February, 1851, when Mr.
Ciocci told him he was married, and
wished him to
prescribe for his wife. He went to her house, but she
refused to see him, and he prescribed for her according
to Mr. Ciocci's description. He (Dr. Lushington) must
here express his surprise and deep regret that the exa-
miner should have left the evidence in such a doubtful
state, and should not have asked the witness when Mr.
,
Ciocci had described his wife's malady to be and what
he (Mr. Watson) had prescribed. If this had been done
the case would have been comparatively clear
but this
unfortunate omission had left the most material point in
a state of doubt, from which it was impossible to extri-
cate it. Another medical witness had described the
symptoms, but he said that they might have proceeded
from natural causes, and that they afterwards ceased
without any special treatment. On the whole, then, he
(Dr. Lushington) was of opinion that it being clearly
proved that Mr. Ciocci was still unwell on the 10th of
January, five days before his marriage, the probability
was that he did communicate the disease to his wife ;
but that as there was, from the case he had mentioned,
no legal proof that he had done so the charge of cruelty
failed. He was of opinion it was essential to sup-
port such a charge that the corpus delicti should be esta-
blished, and 'where there was no communication proved
he was not prepared to say that, however great the
moral delinquency of marrying in such a condition, it
would constitute a legal act of cruelty as understood by
that court. Before he addressed his attention to the
evidence adduced in support of the charges of adultery,
he must notice that there was a great gap in the history
of the case, which was accounted for neither by plea nor
evidence. no presumed that the lady continued to
live apart from her husband after March 1851 ; and he
was led to presume that Mr. Ciocci came up to London.
When he left Brighton the court was unable to find
out, but come to London he did at last, and he
seemed to have followed his occupation of teacher
of languages somewhere or other. Some intimation
must have reached Madame Ciocci, which gave rise
to the inquiry which was instituted, as they learned
from the evidence of Edger. This led to the em-
ployment of policemen, and persons who had been in
the police ; and also the examination as witneses of com-

mon- women of the town. Now wherever persons of the

description of Owen and others were employed for hire
and money to procure evidence, everything they did and
said must be watched with the greatest jealousy and
vigilance. - Such persons were naturally anxious to at•

tain their end, and generally their pecuniary reward
depended, or at least was supposed by then to depend,
upon their success ; and the very nature of their employ.
ment, which obliged them to mix with the lowest dregs
of society, did not make them the most scrupulous of
agents. Great care, therefore, became necessary in deal-
ing with them, but that care must not be carried to an
extravagant length. Somewhat similar observations
applied with still greeted force to the female witnesses
to whom he had referred ; and it was from all the cir-
cumstances and probabilities of the ease, arid from the
general conduct of Mr. Ciocci, that corroboration or
otherwise of any of their statements must be sought, re-
membering always that if there were doubt the balance
should be given in favour of innocence, and against guilt.
He (Dr. Lushington) could not pass over altogether in
silence the extraordinary nature of some of the interro-
gatories addressed to the witnesses, and, amongst others,
parts of the Bth and 9th. Witnesses were asked whether
Mr. Ciocci was a member of the Church of England ?
Now, what had that to do with the quesition ? The
court was at a loss to conceive why such an interroga-
tory had been put. He trusted that no one supposed
the same measure of justice would not be dealt out
to all parties litigant in that court, no matter what
were their religious opinions. Then there followed
an interrogatory as to the religious faith of Madame
Ciocci before and at the time of her marriage, and whe-
ther she had not been in communication with some Roman
Catholic priest, all without the least reference to the suit
in any way whatever. Indeed the interrogatories might
have been lessened in number, and condensed in one-
twentieth part of the space without the least injury to
the cause. The 9th and 10th articles pleaded what had
been called, perhaps not very accurately, the solicitation
by gr. Ciocci of the chastity of Jane Legge ; but the
court was of opinion that the unsupported evidence of
Jane Legge alone could not be safely relied on ; but
other charges had been made which rendered it very pos-
sible that such evidence might-have some bearing upon
the whole case. It was not, however, sufficient to es-
tablish the .charge here made. The next charge was not'
that relating to Charlotte Thomas. This case was most
materially distinguished from that of Jane Legge. Mr.
Ciocci's acquaintance— and, he might almost say his in-
timacy—with this woman was not only denied, but was
even admitted. The sole question was, whether the inter-
course which was admitted to have taken place between
the parties was of a criminal or an innocent nature.
The explanation offered by Mr. Ciocci was, that he was
connected with an association called the Female Aid
Society in Red Lion-square, and that from pure and
even laudable motives, he bad induced Charlotte
Thomas to return to her mother at Chelsea. It must
be observed that Charlotte Thomas was a prostitute,
and Ciocci accosted her, as he stated, from " paternal"
motives. The question arising was, therefore, first,
whether there was a prima facie case of adultery estab-
lished with Charlotte Thomas ; and, secondly, whether or
not that charge was rebutted by satisfactory proof? In the
16th article it was alleged that this young woman had
visited Mr. Ciocci at his lodgings, No. 16, Grosvenor-
street West. Owen deposed that towards the latter end
of December, 1852, lie saw her at the window of Ciocci's
lodgings. They had got therefore two steps in the case.
First, it was admitted on behalf of Mr. Ciocci that he
had an acquaintance with this girl, though he alleged
for a different purpose ; and secondly, she had been seen
at his lodgings in Grosvenor-street West. In her exa-
mination in chief on the 19th of April, Thomas gave her
account of the intimacy in the following manner ; She
said that at the commencement of her acquaintance with
Mr. Ciocci she was 17 years of age. It began at an
eating-house in Lisle-street, which appeared to be fre-
quented by,ltalians and prostitutes. It had been said
in the course of the argument at the bar, that Mr.
Ciocci had been driven by want to resort to such a place;
but he (Dr. Lushington) did not believe that in this
metropolis Mr. Ciocci could not have procured accom-
modation without contamination from such associates -
and he could not say that he looked with much favour
upon these symposiums of Italian refugees and prosti-
tutes. The witness went on to say that she did not see
Mr. Ciocci again for some time, but she afterwards met
him in the street, went home with him, and, according
to her statement, committed adultery with him. Now
the question was at once raised, was her evidence credible
or not ? On cross-examination, on the 21st and 22d of
April, she said she did not know anything about such
an institution as the Female Aid Society ; or that Mr.
Ciocci had ever been the means of restoring girls in her
position to a moral course of life. Afterwards she
said the acquaintance commenced by his asking
her whether she would not consent to go home to her
mother, if at his intercession her mother would con
sent to receive her? She said she replied that she should
be glad to do so, and he immediately accompanied her
to Chelsea to her mother, whom he induced to receive
her. She added that he had been a kind friend to her,
and could not have been more so if he had been her
father. She then refused to state upon her oath that he
had behaved criminally towards her ; and said that she
was sorry she had told the examiner what she did. This
was a little startling. He could not entertain one shadow
of a doubt that something bad taken place between the
19th and the 22nd of April to cause this discrepancy.
He did not pretend to say which statement was true or
which was incorrect, but he did say, that through the
medium of some person or some agent, the witness had
been induced to give a totally different account from
that which she had given at her examination in chief;
for it would have been altogether impossible, if the
cross-examination had gone on upon the 19th, for her to
have given such very different answers. Why had not
her mother been examined to corroborate the statement
of her daughter ? Her mother came up with her ; why
then, was she not also examined ? Surely, when they
were told of intercourse of the description alleged by
Mr. Ciocci, between a married man separated from his
wife and a person of this kind, the court ought to have
the best confirmation of it possible. Again, the first in-
terrogatory was one asking whether the witness had had
any communication with the other witnesses in the case,
and it was a most remarkable fact that the first inter-
rogatory put to her was not the first but the third. I
am ashamed (continued Dr. Lushington, with great ve-
hemence and indignation) ; it is an endeavour to im-
pose upon the court, and to keep back that information
which it is entitled to have. The interrogatory is kept
back because the parties know that this witness has been
tampered with, and that if they had put the first inter-
rogatory to her it would have discovered who were the
persons who had so tampered with her. I wish I had
in evidence who those persons were. Not in this court
only, but in another would they have to answer for
their conduct. It is as clear as the light of day—as
clear as the sun at noon—that this witness has been
tampered with throughout the whole of her examination
and cross-examination, and that this interrogatory has
been suppressed lest the mode in which it was done and
the persons who did it should be known. Dr. Lushing-
ton said he had now discussed at great length the evi-
dence upon the 16th article, but before he pronounced
any opinion upon it he should proceed to examine the
other charges. With regard to an alleged act of adul-
tery at a brothel with Polly Miller, whose evidence was
supported by that of Juliana Beck, it was clear that
Mr. Ciocci had been in constant communication with
her ; but the court could not safely proceed without
some further corroboration. Then there remained only
the case of Fanny -Alexander. The Bth article pleaded
that Mr. Ciocci habitually consorted with prostitutes,
and was constantly walking with them both at Brighton
and in London. Owen deposed that he commenced
watching him on the 6th of October, 1852, and con-
tinuer? to do so until the 3d of December. During that
period he saw Ciocci conversing with prostitutes, no
fewer than seven times, either in the morning or the
evening. There could be no reason to doubt the gene-
ral correctness of Owen's statement, because in such
conversations lay the main part of Mr. Ciocci's own case;
but, as to whether his explanation of his motives was
satisfactory, the onus probundi rested with him. Alex-
ander, according to her own account, was a prostitute,
aged 20, and she deposed to a criminal intimacy with
Mr. Ciocci in May, 1852, at a brothel in Chelsea, but
where she professed to be unable to say. She said she
frequently saw him at Windsor-terrace, Vauxhall-road.
On the 15th article she stated that Mr. Ciocci was ig-
norant of her residence in Westminster, and that she
desired him to direct to her at Stafford-place ; that she
received a note, desiring her to call upon him ; that she
did so, and that he took her to several police-offices ;
that he told her to deny ever having been improperly in-
timate with him ; that he afterwards took her to his
lodgings in Grosvenor-street, and that he there com-
mitted adultery with her. In answer to the 21st inter-
rogatory, which was with reference to the Red Lion-
square Society, she said that Ciocci had told her that if
she would like to change her mode of life, and be a good
girl, he would get her a situation ; but she denied that
he had ever asked her to enter some reformatory associa-
tion. (Dr. Lushington went minutely and at very great
length into the evidence respecting Mr. Ciocci's con-
nexion with this witness, Mr. Ciocci having contended
that he had only sought to procure from her a statement
respecting a Mr. Guadelata, who was a candidate for the
ministry of an Italian chapel, whom Alexander charged
with having once slept with her, and whom he therefore
thought an unfit person for the office.) Dr. Lushington
observed that Mr. Ciocci's great defence was his con-
nexion with the Red Lion-square society, on the strength
of which he said his communication with prostitutes
was for a pure purpose. But even the establishment of
such a connexion would not substantiate his inno-
cence. No one would contend that the support of
such a society, however laudable in itself it might be,
would constitute a perfect panoply of purity. lie
feared that mankind were much too prone to error and
inconsistency not sometimes to fall, even though they
might be supporters of such a society. But the most Mr.
Ciocci could prove respecting his connection with the
society was, that he held conversations with Mr. Smith,
the secretary ; that lie had suggested subscribers ; that
he had undertaken to distribute the tracts ; and that he
had satisfied Mr. Smith as to the interest he took in the
institution. The court would have been glad to have
had some more precise information respecting the society.
He should like to have known whether it was so afli uen
that it could send out agents into the highways and bye-
ways to. bring in persons to receive its benefits. How-
ever.T homthatThomas
a mightnd
Alexander. be, M r. C iNo ceci
ti h hader ahadc
entered
no st teer de d twoth e gi rs ltsi
tution. Neither had been reformed ; but both had re-
torted by charging the pions agent with the commission
of adultery. Not one came to the institution ; and both

[I)R1OE SD.

of them swore that they had never heard of it until under
examination. He could not say that its effects had been
very successful, nor could he congratulate it with respect
either to Thomas or Alexander. But did the evidence
of Mr. Smith call for such an association with 'prostitutes
on the part of Mr. Ciocci as was described by Owen ?
Was it part of the vocation of Mr. Ciocci to be drinking
with Polly Miller at the Devonshire Arms, at the corner
of Tichborne street, seven times within two or three
months ? He (Dr. L.) confessed that he was at a loss for
an explanation of that circumstance. These things did
somewhat startle him. He had had so little evidence as
to the proceedings of this institution, that he was not
willing to attribute improper conduct to any bona fide
agent either of that or of any decent society ; but if he was
asked to believe that the mere fact of being an agent of
an institution of this kind was to remove all suspicion
from associations most suspicious in themselves, he had
surely a right to expect that such an agent should be at
least, in the ordinary sense of the word, fallible man
though he was—

" Integer vitae seeleris que purus."

- -
Did Mr. Ciocci appear to be such a character? Could
he pronounce him to be such, looking at all the facts of
the case ? Here were the admitted facts. That in De-
cember 1850 and Jan. 1851, he had a disgraceful dis-
ease, derived from association with some of these very
prostitutes ; that not being assured of his perfect cure
on the 10th of January, he married on the 15th. Nor
was this all. How stood his character as regarded the
solemn obligation of an oath ? Was it possible to read
his answers and avoid coming to one conclusion ? He
denied that for some time before, and at the period of
his said marriage, he was suffering from disease ; but it
was declared in the evidence of the medical witnesses
from Brighton that he was in that state. Had they the
slightest reason to suppose that Mr. Watson and Dr.
Starr were not speaking the truth ? Yet if they were
speaking the truth Mr. Ciocci was not. The court
was obliged to look at character in this case, for Mr.
Ciocci's very shield and defence was character. "It
is true," he said, "I placed myself in a position natu-
turally engendering strong suspicions, but those suspi-
cions will be dissipated when you come to know that
I acted as the agent of a great and humane society, and
that my life is pure." The court would not waste time
in noticing the salvo to Mr. Ciocci's conscience con-
tained in the magical words "as articulated," which had
often served as a cloak for the disguise of truth and the
promulgation of falsehood. But the words had nothing
to do with the matter in this case ; they did not occur in
the sixth article, and Mr. Ciocci's statement involved a
direct averment of what had been disproved by credible
witnesses. The court was of opinion that the defence
had wholly failed, and that while the attempt to ascribe
to Mr. Ciocci a pure and praiseworthy motive was not
supported by affirmative evidence ; any presumption
arising from the evidence of Mr. Smith had been re-
butted and annihilated by the proved character and con-
duct of Mr. Ciocci himself. All honour to those who
from a pure motive dedicated their money and their time
to rescuing from vice and misery the outcasts of society;
but nothing could be more disgusting than to see an
ostensible connection with such a society paraded for
selfish purposes, for corrupt indulgence, and for defeat-
ing justice. He (Dr. Lushington) trusted that he had
with due patience and care examined all the evidence
by which Mr. Ciocci had sought to exculpate himself.
He had not forgotten, too, that he was a foreigner,
though after eight years' residence in England that
was an element of less importance ; but the court
was of opinion that his justification had wholly failed,
and it now only remained for it to state its decision. As
to Charlotte Thomas, there was her own evidence, sup-
ported by Owen, who saw her in Mr. Ciocci's room.
The court was of opinion that her examination was not
shaken by her cross-examination, but that it had even
been confirmed by it ; for it was perfectly clear that be-
tween her examination and cross examination she had
been tampered with. The court was not to be thus
deceived. The very foundation of Mr. Ciocci's defence
was, that he was intimate with her; and when his
averment of benevolent and philanthropic motives was
discredited, his own case corroborated her evidence. A
similar observation applied even more strongly to the
case of Fanny Alexander. The court hart no doubt that
Alexander did return with Mr. Ciocci to Grosvenor-
street, and as it had been proved to his satisfaction that
the purpose alleged for the defence was false, for what
other conclusion could he come but that she returned
for the purpose of committing adultery ? In this case
he should pronounce the charge of cruelty to be
not proved ; and he should pronounce for the separation
on the ground of adultery, especially as referred to Char-
lotte Thomas and Fanny Alexander, although that was
unnecessary. He should also condemn Mr. Ciocci in
the costs.

The judgment occupied upwards of two hours in its
delivery.

NAVAL INTELLIGENCE.

PO lITSMOIJTH,
We believe Captain Sir Thomas Maitland, C. 8., will
be succeeded in the Victory by Capt. Dalrymple Hay,
as flag captain, a probability we recorded some time ago.
The engineer department of this arsenal is engaged
in deepening the moats of the fortifications of Gosport,
on which side this harbour it is proposed to erect a new
barrack for 1,000 infantry, with the necessary comple-
ment of officers. The site pointed out for this additional
garrison for Gosport is near the double gateway within
the lines.

The Dauntless, 31, screw-frigate, Captain Ryder, is
to be ready for sea or out of the hands of the dockyard
artificers by the 3d of next month. She has got 10
volunteers from the Simoom, but is still 280 short of her
complement.

Tile Serpent, 12, Commander Lambert, is under the
shears to-day, dismasting, preparatory to being paid off
to-morrow.

The Princess Royal, 91, Capt. Lord Clarence Paget,
has entered a few more hands, and is favourably pro-
gressing with her equipment.
The Colossus, 80, was brought down the harbour this
day by the steam-tug, and placed in the fitting basin to
remove her ballast, &c., prior to being taken into dock
to have a screw propeller fitted. This ship was built at
Pembroke, and launched in 1848. She was built upon
the design of the ex-Surveyor of the Navy, Captain
Sir William Symonds, and is so nearly upon the lines of
the Vanguard that she may j ustly be considered a sister
ship.

The Sphynx, 6, paddle sloop, has been placed in No.
4 dock to-day, to undergo the necessary repairs, and to
fit her for further service.
The freight-ships Sir George Pollock and Orient have
been taken up to convey the 62d Regiment from Queens-
town to Malta ; the 49th, from Malta to Barbadoes ;
and the 36th, from Barbadoes to this port.
The freight-ship Bussorah Merchant embarks a draft
of the 11th Regiment from this port, and the 40th Regi-
ment from Queenstown, for New South Wales.

WOOLWICH, JAN. 18.
APPOINTMENTS.

Clerks-in-Charge—William M. Shanks (1846), serving
as First Clerk of the Britannia, 120, Bag-ship of Vice-
Admiral J. W. D. Dundas, C. 8., in the Black Sea, to
the Caradoc paddle-wheel steam-vessel, on the Mediter-
ranean station ; John G. Barnes (1847), serving as First
Clerk in the Tiger, 16, paddle-wheel steam-frigate, in
the Black Sea, to the Shearwater steam-vessel, on the
Mediterranean station, vice John M. Jefferson, pro-
moted to be Paymaster ; Wm. Warburton (1847), serv-
ing as First Clerk of the Leander, 50, in the Black Sea,
to the Banshee, on the Mediterranean station, vice Wm.
Thom, promoted to be Paymaster ; Henry Callaway
(1847), serving as First Clerk in the Cumberland, 70,
flag-ship of Vice-Admiral Sir George F. Seymour,
K.C.8., on the North America and West India station,
to the Scorpion, 6, surveying vessel at Devonport.
Midshipman—Win. F. Johnstone to the Calliope, 26,
on the Australian station.