The Sun.
London, England, 1857-12-22 00:00:00

ambition

SUN OFFICE, Seven o'Clock.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.--(This Day.)

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
(Sittings at Guildhall, before Lord Campbell and a
Special Jury.)
THE QUEEN V. BOEINSON-2EEJUE7.
The further hearing of this extraordinary case was
resumed this morning. The first witness called was

Sarah Grocott—l-am the wife of a butcher in St.
John's Wood. I was engaged on 28th June, 1854, by
Field to go to Mrs. King's. I was to be paid 2/. a
week; I went there on Thursday the 28tb. I

know the defendant. I saw him on that day

about luncheon time. He went to the Crystal
Palace with Mrs. Evans and Mr. Melling. They dined
that day on their return between 7 and 8 o'clock. I

remained in the house till the following Saturday

week. I had been engaged specially to watch Alm
Evans. Mr. Robinson came again on the 30th
about luncheon time. That was his usual time
for calling. Mrs. Evans was in the house, and they

were alone together for some time. He
called again the following day (Saturday) ; they were
alone on that day together for some time. I had ob-
served nothing up to that time. On Sunday Field gave
me a gimblet, and I made a hole in the folding door be.

tween the drawing-room and back drawing-room. I
was unable to command a view of the sofa through the
first hole I made. The second time I was more suc
cessful, and could command a view of the sofa in the
drawing room. On the 4th of July Mr. Robinson came
as usual. Mr. Mellina was there ; they had luncheon
about 1 o'clock, and Mr. Mellitus went out. After he
had gone out the defendant and Mrs. Evans were alone
in the drawing-room. I went into the back drawing.
room, where I found Mrs. Price taking an inventory.
I looked through the second bole I bad made, and
I saw the defendant and Mrs. Evans sitting
on the sofa, side by side. Mrs. Price
looked through, and in doing so made a slight noise
On that Mrs. Evans came into the room and asked
what we were about. Mrs. Price said taking an
inventory. I think we then both went down stake.
After that I heard the drawing-room door shut as 1
supposed by Mrs. Evans. I then went up stairs
again with Mrs. Price. I again looked through the
bole and I saw the defendant and Mrs. Evans
on the sofa. Mrs. Evans was sitting astride the defend.
ant's lap. I fetched Mrs. King up, who looked through
the hole also. The defendant came again the following
day, July 5, and was alone with Mrs. Evans for some
time. I again looked through the hole and saw them
on the sofa. I witnessed a similar act to that on the
previous day, only they were in a different posi-
tion. I left, and asked Mrs. King to come
up, and she looked through the hole. I again
looked through and saw that they bad not changed their
position on the sofa. That night, before going to Liver-
pool, in August, I saw the defendant in company with
Mrs. King. She corroborated Mrs. King's evidence,
relative to the defendant's meeting them in Brogustone-
street, previous to the trial in Liverpool, in August, and
the conversation that passed between them. Defendant
did not speak to me ; he did not know me.
Cross-examined—When Field engaged me I was
to have 21. a week for a month. I knew I was to
Batch a lady. I remained 9or 10 days, and had my
money, 81. I did my duty very carefully. I did not
look through the keyhole, but I went once to
the doer and listened ; that was the only time
I listened. I made the hole in the door in the
middle of the day, when they were all out. I found 1
could not see the sofa, and I had to make another. The
familiarity was taking place when I saw them. I went
to Mrs. King in the dining room, and fetched her up
She carne up immediately and looked through the hole.
I was not a minute fetching Mrs. King. I did not tell
Field of it for some time afterwards. Mr. Melling I aid
me the 81 , and I had given my evidence to that gentle-
man before seeing Field. I saw Field yesterday, and spoke
to him several times ; once I believe after Mrs. King
had given her evidence. I have been examined twice
at Liverpool and once in Doctors' Commons. I said
nothing about the conversation with the defendant
except on the second trial, because I was not asked
about it.

Re-examined--I was to have 81. for the month
whether I discovered anything wrong or not.
Mrs. Price deposed: I keep a lodging-house in Ryder
street, St. James's. My husband is at present in Aus-
tralia. She coi tJbated the evidence of the last witness
relative to what she saw on looking through the hole in
the panel of the door. She added that the defendant's
hand was partly up Mrs. Evans' clothes.

Cross-examined—l did not know Mrs. King's real
name, or her mode of life when I became acquainted with
ber. I once accompanied her to the Marble Arch to meet
as she said Mr. Evans ; she did not tell me she was
going to meet Field. We met the latter there ; Mr.
Evans was not with him. I did not hear her say,
"Here's my friend, Mrs. Price, perhaps she will oblige
me." I did not hear Field's answer. I always knew it
was supposed an intrigue was going on at Mrs. King't,
it was desirable to discover ; I had been separated from
my husband, but I lived with him before he went

to Australia. After the discovery I went to Margate
with Mrs. King. Field spoke to me about it, but I
can't say if it was there. It was before the first trial in
Liverpool.

Re-examined—l have had no conversation with Field
nothing material at all—about the trial. My husband
was a warehouseman. Hs left me before he went to
Australia.
Margaret Clarkson Saunders, 31, Saville-street--I
was at Mrs. King's house on a Tuesday in July. Ibe
lieve it was the 4th, I was in the house-keeper's room
on the basement cleaning paint. I know Eden Davis,
Mrs. Evans's maid. I saw her that day in the house-
keeper's room between two and four o'clock. She was
ironing, and did not go up stairs at all during that time
Cross-examined—l occasionally worked for Mrs. King
in Brydges-street, Covent-garden. lam her cousin. It
was after the first trial that I was asked about Ellen
Davis.

John Clarke, fiy-driver, at Cheltenharn—l recollect a
party being given at Lansdowne-crescent in 1845, Bbout
150 yards from Mr. Carrington's. It was a private ball.
Miss Carrington and the defendant got into my fly : it
was between 2 and 3 o'clock in the morning. He directed
me to drive to Berkeley.plAce, where the defendant
resided : it is a mile and a quarter from Lansdowne-cres-
cent. I drove them towards the place, and when near
Belle Vus, the defendant stopped the ay, got out and
paid me, directing me to drive the lady home to 15,
Lansdown•terrace. I did so, and the lady got out.
have repeatedly seen them walking together in reti red
places in the suburbs of Cheltenham.

rf
Cross-examined—l spoke of it at the time in 1845,
because it was something 80 unusual. At the request of
a fly-man I went on Friday last for the first time and
told Mr. Evans of it. I saw him at the Assembly-
dresses, It was a very common thing to see the dc-
between 10 and 11 o'clock.
The lady and defendant were both in ball
going to Mr, Carrington's house on a Sunday
morning
nodms t
This was the plaintiff's case,

Sir F, Theeiger, in addressing the jury for the defend-
ant, said he felt certain they were all deeply impressed
with the importance of this case, both as to its character
and its consequences, for they could entertain no doubt
serious that could be brought against any individual. It
awtaaillhtehagtretahteestchoaffrgeencoef Perjury was one of the most
,against ecciety, poisoning the
very channels through which justice must flow, and he
was quite sure that their feeling on this subject would
induce them to regard with the most careful attention
all the circumstances of
,this most extraordinary
case, and to weigh them carefully and deliberately
in theirone way or the other on the important issue they
were upon
before
to detchi pronounced an opinion
edye. To prove perjury the
evidence sliculd
,be clear and intelligible. Here
all the circumstances were of a conflicting character, and
he felt certain they would net convict if they bad any
called minds
doubts on the circumstances of the ease brought forward
by the prosecution. It would he his duty fairly to lay
before them all the cireutustanc3s in this case of ane
importance, in order that they might fathom its intri-
cacies, and to protect the defendant, if they thought be
ought to be, from the charge if without foundation. He
then reviewed the origin of the proceedings up to the
lady's marriage in 1850, and her separation six months
after, on the ground that she refused to live with her
husband if his mother resided in the same house. She,
however, consented to do so, but her husband refused
to receive her, and she had not seen him since.
After referring to the evidence of the lady's
alleged conduct before marriage, which, if
true, must have been of common notoriety, and known
to the husband, the learned gentleman made some re•
marks on the conduct cf the husband, and the excuse
he bad made of that to get rid of his wife. Referring to
the conduct of Inspector Field, the learned gentleman
said that within the last few years there bad growls up a
system, unusual in this country, of persons who had
been employed in the police force setting up a private
office, in which they held out that they were ready to

detect matters interesting to others to know. He
believed that that syetem was likely to prove one of the
most mischievous description. If these persons confined
their operations to follow up and apprehend fugitive felons,
perhaps they would be the means of producioggood rather
than harm, but if they were to be spies on the conduct
of individuals, and were to be employed watching, month
after month and year after year, houses of individuals
for the purpose of discovering anything important for
those who employed them to know, he confessed it
appeared to him, it would lead to considerable danger
throughout all the walks of life. In obtaining their in-
formation these persons must use for their instruments

the basest and most worthless characters, because a
spy was so odious to the national feeling of Eogliihmen,

and so much odium was attached to the employment,
that few persons o' respectability liked to be so engaged,
and he trusted that would always be the feeling of the
people of this country. The learned gentleman then
proceeded to review at great length the proceedings that
had been taken in the case, and the evidence given
thereon, observing that in the original libel in Doctors'
Commons, adultery was never alleged to have taken place
in Edgeware-road or Bryanstone-street ; but in the
additional libel put in reference was made to the occur-
rence at Cheltenham, spoken to by Mann to have taken
place in August ; and on the defendant proving that he
was not in Cheltenham at that time, the witness on the
trial had shifted the time to July ; he also proved that
no adultery took place at the above places, and con-
sequently the Court of Arches refused to grant
a divorce; and now the prosecutor hai insti-
tuted these proceedings with evidence that
had come on the defendant with surprise. After some
remarks criticising the evidence, the learned gentleman
said that one of the many difficulties Mr. Robinson had
to contend with, was that unfortunately Mr. Carrington
and his wife were dead and hi could not call them,
which was of importance to him, because that lamented
gentleman would have proved the lodgings were taken
for him and with his consent. It had pleased Providence
to deprive the defendant of the evidence of Mr. Car-
rington. On the 10th inst. Mr. Carringtan, a gentleman
of great respectability and of an advanced age, dropped
lowa suddenly and died, and in the course of the same
day his wife followed him to the grave. The import-
ance of Mr. Carrington's evidence could not be over-
estimated in a case of this description, because
it was admitted the defendant had been on terms of the
utmost familiarity with the family, and thought no more
of going into Mrs. Carrington's house than his own,aod
that he was in the habit of riding and walking out with
her, and was such a reflection to be thrown on this.
respectable man that he would have tolerated any such
intimacy as existed between the defendant and his
daughter, which, if they believed the witnesses for
the prosecution, almost proved to demonstration that
criminal intercourse bad taken place between them.
The old gentleman's evidence would have b 3en of im-
portance to show that the lodgings in Edgware-road
and Bryanstone-street were taken with his concur-
rence. He could not, however, call that gentleman;
but there was a witness he should bring forward,
because it was impassible to come to a conclusion
that the defendant was guilty of perjury without her,
and without casting an indelible stain on Mrs. Evans'
character. Painful as was her position, anticipated
perhaps by the prosecution to place the defendant in a
position almost compulsory to determine whether to
expose her to an inquiry for which the prosecutor was
prepared, or whether he would abandon the chance be
had of being protected by her evidence. The lady herself
however under the painful and distressing circunsetancJs
under which she was placed with her father and mother,
scarcely cold in their grave, with another member of the
family within three days having been numbered with the
dead—felt that she must protect her character by ap.
pearing in the witness-box to disprove the odium and
calumny it had been endeavoured to be established
agsinet her ; she would appear befire the jury and sub-
mit to the most rigid and searching examination. The
learned gentleman said the whole was a fabrication, a
plat and a contrivance, and he called upon the jury to
'indicate the character of the defeudant and Mrs.
Evans. (The conclusion of the learned gentleman's
speech was received with applause.)
The final witness called was

Mrs. Evans, a lady-like person. She was dressed in
black, and appeared at first very nervous. She deposed
—I was married to Mr. Evans in 1850. The defendant
has known the family since 1842, and was a most inti-
mate friend of the family. I ate turned 32 years of age.
Ur. Robiuson's mother resides in Cumberland street,
where he lives part of the year, and the other at Chel-
tenham. The defendant called at any father's whenever
he liked. He was accustomed to ride with me and the
family.
Lord Campbell—What is the age of the defendant
Mr. James—About 49.

Witness continued—My father did not keep a riding
horse for use, and I always rode the defendant's I lick
mare. I way about 17 when I first knew him. I was
married Nov. 14, 1850. I became engaged to him in
Sept. of the same year. Mr. Robinson had no hand
whatever in that engagement. He resided at the time
at Cheltenham with his wife. After the marriage I re-
sided with my husband in Leiceiter, who is fond Lf
minting and kept hunters. He deserted me in March,
1851, and the deed of separation was made in Mar. We
disagreed about living with his mother, and when I found
be would not give in, I wrote to say I would give way,
but he declined to live with me. I wrote him a lett.r
which has never been produced. He never ass'gntd
any other cause for leaving me. My father died on the
10th of this month, and my mother on the same day.
iy father gave his evidence in the Arches Court, and
if he bad lived he would have given evidence here. We
were in the habit of coming to London, and Mr. Robertson
was in the habit of taking lodgings for us—he did it on
several occasions. I was never in a fly with Mr. Robin-
son at Cheltenham in July, 1849. Was in Norfolk at
the time staying atlielstend Rectory. I was never at any
time in a fly al )ne with Mr. Robinson at Cheltenham,
or any other place. I never left a party at Lansdowne-
crescent or any other place with Mr. Robinson. I was
always on ouch occasions seen home by my parents. In
1853 I came to Londo❑ and lodged in the E 'gware-
' road with my servant. My parents knew of it and a'l
my movements. I asked the defendant to take lodgings
for me, because my usual lodgings were occupied. I
arrived at Edgware-road on the 23 i June, and removed
, there for a fortnight and a day. The defendant used

to call there, and I used sometimes to go out with him.
I never saw the defendant in poese,sion of a latch-key
whilst I was there. I never heard of it till my maid bad
her deposition taken. I never knew of his coming into the
house without knocking or being announced by my maid or
Mrs. Phillips' servant. When I have gone out with her
we have walked to the parks and the Royal Academy
Exhibition. He never on such occasions let himself in
with a latch-key—he always knocked. I have read the
proceedings in this case.
By Mr. James—Were you ever guilty of any act of
adultery with Mr. Robinson ?
Witness—Never.
Mr. James—At auy time in the evening of A ugust 4,
1853?
Witness—Never.
Mr. James—Were you ever guilty of any indecency
or adultery with Mr. Robinson, as deposed to by Mann
Witness—lt is utterly false. The story is utterly
false from beginning to end. My sister Fanny was
with me in Dublin in August, 1853. My father kept
a memorandum-book, which I was in the habit of seeing.
Mr. James proposed to put in the beak.
Mr. Sergeant Ryles objected.
Lord Campbell refused to admit. it.
Witness---I can do very well without it. My father
took my sister to Dublin on the 2d of Aug. There was
no other sister at home then. She remained till the
end of Oct., but my father left about the 15th of A ugu,t,
and my sister went on a visit to my brother-in-law, Dr.
Wood, 16thLancero, then qaartf red at Dublin, in 1854.
I went to Bryanstone-street. My father and mother
came up after me. I arrived on the 19th of June
accompanied by my cousin, Mr. Mellins, a gentleman
reading for the church who had been in the army. I
think I wrote to the defendant to take apartments
for Mr. Mellins and myself. My father and mother
arrived on the sth of July, about 5 o'clock in the after-
noon.
Mr. James—l will ask you this question, during the
time you were in Bryanstone-street, did Mr. Robinson
take any improper familiarities with you, or to put the
question plainly did you commit adultery with him
there ?
Witness—l never did.
Lord Campbell—Or take improper familiarities I
Witness—Never.
Mr. James—ls it true that, on the 4th July, you
were in an indecent position with
ct himabric on theon sofa ?
Witness—That story is a perfe fati.
Mr. James—Or on the sth? Were you in an indecent
posture on the sofa ?
Witness-4 say I swear to that day. I went to the
theatre twice with the defendant, wiao left me at the
door: I went once to the opera with him and his sister,
hire. Thaokeray. They both saw me home and left. On
the 4th, Mrs. Thackeray called with her little boy, about
three years old. They came with Mr. Robinson about
11 o'clock. Mr. Mellins came out of his room and
joined them. I went out with Mrs. Tnaclveray and the
child for a walk. The defendant left the house with us,
and after accompanying us a short distance we
separated. I went with Mr. Tnackeray and his
little boy into the park, returning 'o Payanstone-street
lbout one o'clock. I tlitrtl found my cousin
waiting for me. I generally took lurch about 1 o'clock.
1y cousin only took lunch with me tl:at day. After
the defendant left the house in the morning I saw
nothing more of him that day. On that day Mrs.
11,1‘Donald and her daughter called on me about 3
o'clock. She is the wife of Ganeral M‘Donald, and
my mother's sister. They remained about half-an-hour
or three-quarters of an hour. When my father and
mother came I took the whole of the house. My cousin
went out about 3 o'clock, and my aunt came in his
absence. They just missed them. Tiny left before hie
return. I generally dined about 7 o'clock. My cousin,
after Mrs. M'D.inald left, went out wish me before din-
ner fora walk in the Park. We ruturued but , a short
time before dinner. I am quite positive the defendant
did not call after that morning. The defendant called
LI the following morning, the sth, about 11 or half-past
11 o'clock. My cousin was then at home, and reading

in the room adjoining. Mr. Thaakeray and his son
called again that day with Mr. Robinson. They re-
mained about half-an-hour, and we all went out together.
We waked in the park, the defendant leaving us at the
Marble-arch. A shower of rain came on, and we
got very wet. I returned home by myself. Mr. Mackay
and his son were staying at Mrs. Robinson's, in Cum-
berland-street, and they left me in Little Quebec-street.
I gut home to lunch a little after one : I found my cousin
there. The defendant did not lunch with me that day.
My father and mother arrived about 5 o'clock. I have
no rec, llection of the defendant's calling afterwards, or of
seeing him after the morning visit. lam positive he di.i
not. The defendant has a son in the Treasury. He
called with his father two or three times in Bryanstone•
street. I was in the habit of going with my father and
mother to church. He never on any occasion called and
saw me on a Sunday after my parents had gone to

church.
By Mr. James —Either before or after your marriac,e
is it true that the defendant ever took any iroprv'er
familiarities or indecent liberties with you ?

Witness—Never.
Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant Byles—The defen-
dant's mother resides in town. He has two sisters. No
lady called upon me in the Edgeware-road. The defen-
dant did not call upon them every day. One day he
did not call, but I can't account for it, perhaps he can.
I never remember his calling on me three times a day.
I kept no notes of it. I have read the defendant's evi-
dence in the Arches Court. I don't recollect his calling
three times a day. I won't swear one way or the other.
We might have stayed some times for an hour and a
half alone.
Mr. Sergeant Byles—What did you do during that
length of time !
Witness—l suppo'e I talked to him as I worked, aed
he to me, the same as other visitors.
Have you ever been with him when the blinds have
been down ?
Witness—l never noticed them. I never made a note
of it. If the sun was shining, no doubt the blinds were
down.
Will you undertake to say when be has come in, you
or he have never pulled down the blinds ?
Witness— I don't recollect. I will not undertake to
speak for any one but myself. If I found the sun dis-
agreeable, I might have pulled them down.
Can you undertake to say that you have not pulled
the blinds down when be came in
Witness—No ; I ,cannot say one way or the other.
If the sun was disagreeable no doubt I did it. I
recollect visiting at Miss Max well's once. Ido not
remember goi, g into the garden. I bad a sprained
ankle at the time, and could hardly go from the car-
riage to the drawing-room. I know nothing about the
locality. My sister walked in the garden so far as I
can remember. She was between 11 and 12 years of
age at that time. I have three sisters, Fanny, Emma,
and Clara. Emma is married. Fanny died in 1846.
Clara is unmarried. In August when my sister was
in Dublin, I and Mr. Robinson were in Cheltenham.
When at Edgware-road I did not go with the de-
fendant to Hampton Court. I did in 1852.
Re-examined—The defendant was one of my father's
oldest friends. Since my husband has deserted me he
has never called upon me in London. In my rides with
the defendant I invariably started from my father's
house. I never pulled down the blinds for an improper
purpose, neither has the defendant.
By Lord Campbell—Do you recollect your father
having a servant named Crast I

Witness—Yes.
Lord Campbell—Do you remember at any time when
he was in your father's service your leaving the room
with your little brother I
Witness—l dont remember. I had a little brother,
and no doubt I have left the room with him.
Lord C.mphell—Do you recollect on any occasion
the defendant's following you
Witness—lndeed I do not.

Lord Campbell—Now, I must a.k you, Did the de-
Lendant at any time upon the stairs kiss you

Witness—indeed, not.
Lord Campbell—He never did I

Wit ness -- No
Mr. Mellins was next examined, and corroborated
Mrs. Evans' evidence relative to the lodging and her
movements in London. He came with her as her con.
panion, and was constantly with her. lam in deacon's
orders. He was a proctor. The defendant did nut take
luncheon with them on either the 4th or sth.
In his cr.e.s;.;:xamination he said he had called to read
a number of facts after the first trial, and made a memo
rand•ini of them, which he had since destroyed. He
had gone out, and on his return found Mrs. Evans and
the defendant together alone.
Mrs. M`Donald was called to corroborate Mrs.
Evans.
In her cro=s•Examination she said that she had sten
tho par ties together several times at Cheltenham, at ber
father's house, and bad remarked that the defendant
paid ,narked attention to her, a hich she thought par-
ticular to a young married woman.
His Lordship announced that he should sit until the
conclusion of the defendant's evidence, which is not
expected to close till a late hour.

NAVAL APPOINTMENTS.—(This Day.)
The following appointments were made this aftercoon
at the Admiralty :

Lieutenants—M. E. Porter, to the Vesuvius (for dis
posal) ; J. M. Stewart, to the Ganges (for ditpusal)
Masters—Valentine G. RobertP, to the Illustrious ;
John J. Brown, to the Renown.

-----
LONDON GAZETTE—(This Evening.)

WHITEHALL, DEC, 21.

Tho Queen has been pleased to give and grant unto
Captain Frederick Sayer, late of the 23,1 Regiment, and
now Deputy Assistant Quartermaster-General, her
Majesty's royal licence and permission that he may accept
and wear the Insignia cf the Imperial Order of the Legion
of Honour of the Fifth Class, which his Majesty the Em-
peror of the French hath been pleased to confer upon him
AS a mirk of his Imperial Majesty's approbation of his dis-
tinguished services before the enemy during the late war.
VICTORIA CROSS. —Erratum in the London Gazctte of
Friday, Nov. 20 :- -The date of Lieutenant Symonit's Act
of Bravery, is the 6th of June, 1855, and not the 18th of
October, 1854.
CROWN-OFFICE, DEC. 21.
MEMBERS RETURNED TO SERVE IN THE PRESENT
PARLIAMENT.

Burghs of Elgin, Cullen, Banff, Inverury, Kintora, and
Peterhead. —Mountstuart Elphinstone Giant Duff, Esq.,
younger, of Eden, in the room of George Skene Duff,
Esq., who has accepted the office of Steward of her Ma-
jesty's Chiltern Hundreds.
DECEMBER 22.

County of Northampton—Northern Division —Georr'o
Ward Hunt, Eq., in the room of Augustus Stafford
O'Brien Stafford, Esq., deceased.
BOARD OF TRADE, WHITEHALL, DEC. 21.

The Right Honourable the Lords of the Committee of
Privy Council for Trade and Plantations have received,
through the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, a copy
of a despatch from her Majesty's Minister at Berne, report-
ing that the Swiss Federal Government have reduced the
import duties upon meat, bacon, sausages, and sewing silk,
of British produce or manufacture, if accompanied with a
certificate stating them to be of British origin, to 3f.
per quintal, and that all articles intended for transit
through Switzerland should be accompanied with a similar
certificate in order to be admitted at the lowest rate of
duty.
WAR OFFICE, PALL-MALL, SEPT. 22.
Corps of Royal Engineers—Brevet-Colonel W illiam Biddle-
comb Marlow to be Colonel, vice Portlock, retired on
full pay ; Captain Conolly McCausland to be Lieu-
tenant-Colonel, vice Marlow ; Second Captain John Gor-
don Jervois to be Captain, vice McCausland ; Lieu-
tenant Wilbraham Oates Lennox to be Second Captain,
vice Jervois. The undermentioned Gentlemen Cadets
to be Lientenauts, viz. : —Joseph Allan Millar, Edward
Pelham Hardinge, John Robert Hogg, Napier George
Sturt, Thomas Pilkington White, Charles Johu O'Neill
Fergusson, George Herb,rt Boliand, Richard Warren
Stewart, and William Salmond.
91st Foot—Ensign Elliot Armstrong to be Lieutenant, by
purchase, vice Dobie, who retires ; Wm. Hunter Bailin',
Cent., to be Ensign, by purchase, vice Armstrong.