From The Times, Tuesday, Nov 9, 1819, posted with permission of the transcriber, Petra Michinson. Geo. SKELETONS IN CARLISLE-CASTLE. --------------------- (From the Carlisle Patriot.) TO THE EDITOR OF THE CARLISLE PATRIOT. Sir, - On account of a report being circulated, that two human skeletons have bee lately discovered in Carlisle-castle, one the skeleton of a lady, and the other of a child, I was induced to visit the Castle, together with Mr. ANDERSON, the surgeon, to examine the bones of these skeletons. I can assure you, we were not a little disappointed on finding that none of the bones were human, but belonged to some of the lower animals. The spine and rib mentioned in the Patriot of last week, I have also examined, but cannot believe they are the bones of a child. When, and for what purpose, these bones were placed in the Castle, I do not pretend to know; neither have I yet been able to determine to which of the lower animals they belong. Had it not been for the regard I bear for truth, and there being an account of the lady and child, with many conjectures respecting them, in the Carlisle papers of last week, I should not have troubled you with this; by the insertion of which, or by acknowledging the mistake in your next paper, you will much oblige your obedient servant, THOMAS BARNES, M.D. Carlisle, Castle-street, Nov. 4. ----------------- To-day, we insert a letter from Dr. BARNES, on the subject of the bones found in Carlisle-castle last week, which that gentleman thinks are not human, but the remains of some of the lower animals. On what were conjectured to be the bones of a woman we laid little stress, for they were too much decayed to admit of satisfactory scrutiny: of the supposed spine and rib of a child we spoke with greater confidence, because an eminent medical gentleman had pronounced them human. The tooth of some large animal, and other bones, have since been discovered in or near the same place. Having no object but truth, and no favourite theory to maintain, we are willing to belive that Dr. BARNES is correct, though, we confess, the presence of costly silks and silver with brute bones is not a little puzzling. (From the Carlisle Journal.) - As to the elegant female dress, the silk to which this high sounding name is given was found apart from the bones; and there is no appearance of its ever having been made up into any kind of vestment, being more like an old silk handkerchief than any thing else. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~