The Sun.
London, England, 1863-01-23 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, JANUARY 23, 1863.

resistible that it is not the " best hope for man-
kind" at which these statesmen aim, so much as at
a great and overmastering nationality, the terror
and scourge of all other nations.

DECEMBER 22.

is Einvoerreyslantiangmionrdeiccaotinespitehtaet. the
nveicctoornyfeodfetrhaetel3dtih.
vision alone—that of Gen. APL's ws—picked up after
the battle 180,000 rounds of ball cartridge. On the
field were gathered up from 12,000 to 15,000 stand
of arms. Prisoners by dozens were found concealed
in the cellars of Fredericksburg, eager to surrender,
and burning with anxiety to reveal marvellous tales
of the demoralisation of the Federal army. There
is no doubt that on the night of the 13th General
Burnside contemplated a renewal of the attack next
day. Stories were rife of his having said that if it
cost him 50,000 men he would take those heights.
It was remembered that, in a simi.ar position, Gen.
M'Clellan had angrily vowed that a Federal army
should enter Richmond in triumph. But it was
found by General Burnside that the 50,000 men,
whom, perhaps, he was willing to sacrifice, had
a will of their own on the subject. The immense
slaughter of Federals before Marye's Heights was
seen and known by all the Federals who were not
engaged against the Confederate right. Loud mur-
murs that Gen. M'Clellan never would have led
them into such a slaughter-pen were distinctly
heard. Gen. Hooker's voice against renewing the
fight is said to have been emphaticay raised, just
as it was raised against crossing the river and at-
tacking at that point. Retreat became peremptorily
necessary, and it is universally conceded by the
Confederates that, under cover of a most propitious
night, that retreat was admirably conducted by
Gen. Burnside and his subordinates. Since the
army has withdrawn to the northern bank of the
river the Confederate cavalry, hanging constantly
on its skirts, report worse demoralization than has
ever been known among the Federals before. Ten
thousand deserters have quitted the army since the
battle of the 13th.

Still, in Richmond the opinion seems to be uni-
versal that, undeterred by all the warnings of the
past, the Faderals will persevere in this hopeless
struggle, if only with the hopes that, before they
are compelled to desist, they may inflict a good deal
more anguish and suffering upon their foe. Earnest
and impassioned appeals are being addressed by
the Richmond journals to the people, begging them
not to be too much elated by this great victory, but
to yrepare for many and weary months of warfare
before their independence is secured. They are re-
minded that the Christmas of 1861 was passed in
universal exultation by reason of the news just re-
ceived of the Trent affair, and in confident anticipa-
tion that they should shortly have England for an
ally. These hopes were blasted ; the darkest months
of the Confederacy were March and April of 1862.
They are cautioned against despising their enemy
and holding him too cheap, and witnessing a repe-
tition in 1863 of the darkest moments of 1862.

Before concluding this letter let me mention that
the computation of the dead Federals actually buried
in front of the Confederate lines after the battle of
the 13. h is not a loosely picked up rumour, but the
certified report of the Confederate officer belonging
to General Longstreet's corps detailed to attend the
Federal burying party throughout their operations,
and to count, in co-operation with the Federal
officer commanding the party, the number of bodies
committed to the ground. It is no matter of surprise
in Richmond that General Burnside, writing his
amended report of the Battle of Fredericksburg,
should estimate the number of the Federal killed as
1,152. Since it was found that, contrary to the uni-
versal expectation of the Southern Confederacy,
General ITClellan's recent official utterances could
not be depended on, the hope that any other Federal
General would value truth more highly has reluc-
tantly been abandoned. Neither, again, is it matter
for surprise that General Foster, officially reporting
upon his recent operations in North Carolina, should
claim untold victories. It is possible that he believes
in them, and that his design when undertaking his
expedition, was successfully accomplished. The
belief is none the less firmly held by the Confede-
rates that General Foster and his marauding troops,
though succeeding in committing great excesses and
depredations, were driven headlong back, and that
from the experience gained they will be unwilling
lightly to undertake another foray into North
Carolina.

RAILWAY INTELLIGENCE.

LONDON, BRIGHTON, AND SOUTH COAST.

The report of the directors of this company states that the
amount of capital raised to the 31st of December, 1862, is
£10,743,258, consisting of £4,705,473 ordinary stock and
shares, £3,1:9,000 pref rential stock and 5hare5,X1,717,675
mortgage debt, and £981,110 debenture stock. The amount
of capital expended during the half-year is £291,591, the re-
duction in the rate of interest on the mortgage debt still con-
tinues, and the amount of debenture stock issrLd has reached
£981,110. The loans falling due at 41 and 5 per cent, have
been renewed at 4 per cent, and the average rate of interest,
including debenture stock, has been further reduced from
£4 Is. 9d., as last reported, to £1 Os. 11d, per cent. The
gross revenue for the half-year has been £580,562, showing
an increase of £53,821 over the corresponding half-year,
nearly the whole of which arises in the passenger traffic
and tolls. The revenue for the year 1862 has been
£1,025,423, or £77,303 iu excess of that of 1861. This in-
crease is chiefly attributed to the development of traffic at
the Victoria-station (as anticipated), and on the suburban
lines, aided, to some trifling ex`ent, by the International
Exhibition, from which, however, this company derived
little advantage, particularly as its share in the Continental
traffic is but small. On the whole, the results of the past
year must be considered satisfactory. The total traffic re-
ceipts for the half-year ending 31st December amounted to
£563,338, against £517,818 for the corresponding period,
and the total w)rhing expenses, including renewals, to
£283,590, against £242,474, showing an increase in the
traffic receipts of £45,520, and in the expenses of £11,116.
The expenses amounted to 3s. 51d. per train mile, or 50-one-
third per cent, of the receipts, against 3s. 2i d. per train mile
and 461 per cent. of the receipts in the corresponding period
of 1861. A tabular statement in the report shows that the
number of passengers conveyed over the line in the year
1848 was 2,485,778, and in the year 1862, 12,259,302; the
receipts being respectively £349,977 and £696,787. The re-
ceipts from season ticket-holders increased from £10,427 in
1848 to £13,829 in 1862. The gross revenue in 1818 was
£153,408, and in 1848, £1,025,423. The total mileage run
by the trains was 1,119,308 miles in 1848, and 2,940,885
miles in 1862. The total expenditure in 1848 amounted to
.47,7 and in 8
£496,730, and the taxation in-
creased fromto £66,830 in 1862. The re-
newals to £6,161 in 1848, and to
l 8 O 8
ad adt3it,eln 555 6
amounted 2 in t 0
1848
£44,659 in 1862. The preferential charge for mortgage debt
and preference capital amounted in 1818 to £104,041, and
ie. 1862 to £254,004, and the dividend per annum gradually
increased from £3 12s per cent. in 1818 to 6 per cent. in
1856, at which rate it has continued up to the present time.
The increase of expenditure arises from several causes—
namely, the working and maintenance of the now com-
pletely opened Shoreham, Hentield, and Horsham line, the
extensive renewals in the locomotive department, and the
augmentation of taxation—a charge entirely beyond the
control of the directors. Besides these items, exorbi ant
claims for injuries to passengers has necessitated a sum of
upwards of £lB,OOO being placed to the debit of the half-
year's revenue. The Croydon and Balham line was opened
for public traffic on the Ist Dec. last. The distance from
the Victoria station to all narts of the main and coast line is
now the same as from London-bridge. The West London
Extension line will be opened without further delay. A
connexion with the whole of the railways north of the
Thames will then be secured. The line from Pulboroagh
to Ford will be ready for traffic in the ensuing summer, and
complete a new direct line to Portsmouth, shortening the
distance by nearly ten miles. The net amount at the credit
of revenue is £170,613, out of which the directors recom-
mend the payment of a dividend of 31 per cent. for the half
year, payable on Feb. 12, leaving a balance of £8,360, mak-
ing the dividend for they ear 1862 amount to 6 per cent.

RAILWAY BILLS.
Yesterday the Standing Orders of both Houses of Parlia-
ment were declared to have been duly complied with by
Messrs. Smith and Frere in the following cases :—London,
Brighton, and South Coast, new lines ft om Peckham to
Tooting, Mitcham, and Sutton, together with junction lines
to the London, Chatham, and Dover, West End and Crys-
tal Palace, and Croydon and Balham Railways, for whi:h
it is proposed to raise £lOO,OOO in new shares, and to bor-
row £133,333 on mortgage ; an extension line from Dork-
ing to Leatherhead at an estimated cost of £00,000; Wim-
bledon and Streatham, for a lino between those points, and
to raise £50,000 ; Southampton and Itchen Floating Pier,
at a cost of £6,000; Bristol Railways, junction to connect
the Bristol Port Railway with the Bristol and Exeter, Great
Western, and Midland Railways at Bristol, at an estimated
cost of £360,000, the other railways and Corporation of
Bristol contributing; Bradford, Wakefield, and Leeds
Railway, for extensions to Methley and Low Moor and
Barnsley Coal Railway, and other powers, and to rata()
£130,000; Mid Wales Railway, for a branch to the Man-
chester and Milford Railway, and to raise £75,000; Ketter-
ing and Thrapstone, for an extension to Huntingdon, and
raise £150,000; Vale of Neath, for new lines at Merthyr
and Aberdare, to amalgamate with Swansea and Neath,
and to raise £30,000 ; Ramsey and St. Ives.

LAW INTELLIG4NCE---Jau. 22.

COURT FOR DIVORCE.
(Before Sir C. Creeswell).)
OIPPS V. GIPPS AND HUME.

Mr. Sergeant Pigott and Dr. Stinks were counsel for the
petitioner, and the Queen's Advocate and Mr. Lopes for the
co-respondent.

Mr, Sergeant Pigott said that the petitioner in this suit
was the secretary of the patent department of the Kensing-
ton Museum. The respondent wus the daughter of Capt.
Cruikshank, an officer in the Indian army, and the peti-
tioner, who was at the time a man of iedependent means
and without any profession, became acquainted with her at
the house of a lady about 1851, and on the 15th October,
1851, they were married. In Ju1y,1852, a child, issue of the
marriage was born, and shortly afterwards the respondent
took a whim, and refused to cohabit with her hueband, In
consequence of this strange determination the petitioner was
rendered very unhappy, but he resolved to make the beat of
it and travel on the continent. Before he left he received a
letter from his wife, in which she commenced by calling
him "Deal, dear Pemberton," and expressed grief at their
separation, and a hope that on his return she would be
better. She then stated that she had been busy packing up
her things,and spoke of their daughter and domestic matters.
Cohabitation between the parties was resumed on the peti-
tioner's return, and the respondent became enceinte. She
afterwards addressed him a letter, stating there was no luve
or affection between them, and asking him to consent to a
separation from bed and board, for which they were to assign
as a reason incompatibility of temper, by stipulating that
she should have access to her child. The petitioner then
determined to go to America for change of scene; but prior
to leaving the country, he wrote to the respondent,request-
ing that any communication from her to him should be dis-
continued, except so far as related to their child or business.
He went to America, where he remained till Jan. 1853,
and in 1860 the parties again lived together at Hereford-
equere till a late period in the year. They had become ac •
lei, Wiltshire,
which quainted with Mr. Ii utne, and about this time the respondent
stated that she was in bad health. She and her mother
afterwards received an invitation from Mr. Hume to spend
some
eh she accepted
time
nthisPlace,Monckton Fargh
against her husband's wishes. He sub-
sequently suspected her, and opened a letter which she gave
him to deliver to her mother, and found therein a letter to
Mr. Hume i
own from d
e a
hisre dearest." in which she called
h
(petitioner's) i tsi ohne er'
saids w
) shie,
of
was able to write only
a few lines to him yesterday, in answer to his two letters,
and proceeded, " Do not fret about me, as I will soon be
better, but I am triste at not seeing you. Do make some
arrangement with mamma for some means of taking me
away from here." She subscribed herself, " Your little p. t,
Helen." She then went to a friend, Lady Wilson, and
after remaining with her some time she went to Nice, where
it was believed she was joined by Mr. Hume. The respon-
dent, since her separation from her husband, had given birth
to twins. On the 12th of March, 1861, the petitioner filed
a petition, which was set down for hearing before a jury,
but the compromise between petitioner and the co-respon-
dent, through their legal advisers, was then entered into, by
which the petitioner was to withdraw his claim for damages,
on consideration of which the co-respondent would consent
to pay £3,000 in lieu of the same. It was further arranged
that the petitioner should not proceed with his suit, the co-
respondent undertaking to pay him £4,000 at his mother's
decease, and in the interim, the interest of that amount.
Mrs. Gipps afterwards demanded an allowance of £l5O a-
year, separation, and tree access to her children. The peti-
tioner refused to allow her mote than £lOO a-year, on the
ground that his income would not enable him to exceed that
amount, which, with an allowance of £l2O a-yeas from her
uncle, he contended would be adequate to her support. The
£3,000 had been paid, but the interest of the £4,000 was not
paid, and the parties not being able to come to terms, the
petitioner instituted the present suit ; and it appeared, ac-
cording to the learned counsel, that pending those negotia-
tions the respondent was receiving visits from Mr. Hume.
Mr. William Tate, a solicitor, living at llereford-square,
Brompton, was the first witness called, and stated that he
had seen the parties comin—
g out of the church at Brompton
on the morning of the marriage. They lived with Mrs.
Tainton, the mother of the respondent, at Cadogan-place,
and he visited them there. They resided afterwards at
Hereford-square for about twelve months.
In cross-examination the witness said that the petitioner
appeared ridiculously fond of his wife.
Francis S.3yenour
Hayden, a surgeon, living at No. 62,
Sloane-square, Chelsea, proved to having attended Mrs.
Gipps in her confinement, at Charles-street, Berkeley-
square, on the 14th of May last. He had attended her
previously at Maddox-street, Bond-street, about three or
tour months before her confinement, and he had met a
gentleman coming out of her room, whom he had reason to
believe was Mr. Hume, Mrs. Gips did not tell him the
gentleman was Mr. Hume, and he did not know him per-
sonally, but he believed him to have been the most likely
person to be there from what he had heard elsewhere. He
never heard Mrs. Gipps
speakabout Mr. Hume, and she
paid him herself for attending her in her confinement.
Amelia Hatton raid that she was formerly a chamber-
maid at the Beehive -11
—oxhill. She was there in August,
1861, and remembered a lady coming there and taking apart-
ments on the 3d of August, which was a Saturday. Ou the
day following tt gentleman came to the inn, and he and the

lady occupied the same apartments, a sitting-room and bed-
room. The lady merely said, on taking the apartments, that
her husband would be at the inn the next day. They re-
mained until Tuesday, and then they left together. She
accompanied a gentleman to Charles-street, Berkeley-square,
Where she identified Mrs. Gipps as the lady who had been
at the Beehive. She also went to Curzon-street, Mayfair,
and was pointed out a gentleman as Mr. Hume, whom sne
immediately recognised as the gentleman who had been at
the Beehive with Mrs. Gipps.
Edward Creasy, an ostler at the Beehive, proved a
gentleman and lady having come to that house on the 3d
of August, and to having driven them out on the Sunday
morning to the Leatherhead station for a parcel, and to
their leaving on the Tuesday.
John Bastable, who accompanied the female Hatton to
Charles •street and Curzon-street, proved her having iden-
tified Mr. Hume and Mrs. Gipps as the parties who had been
at the inn at Boxhill.
Jane Cooper, an old woman, a sweeper of the street cross-
ing, said that she had seen Amelia Hatton and a gentleman
walking up and down opposite No. 20, Curzon-street; and
stated that when they saw Mr. Hume come out of the house
they ran away in different directions. She did not know
what was the matter with them. (Laughter.)
Amelia Francis,who is in theservice of Mrs. Gipps, proved
to having lived with her at Somers-place, Park-square, and
to having accompanied her to Paris and to Switzerland
about the commencement of September, 1861. Mr. Hume
accompanied them to Switzerlandifrom Paris, and remained
with them at the same hotels. They went afterwards to
his place at Monkton Farleigh.
The handwriting of the respondent having been identified,
the letters referred to by counsel were then put in as evi-
dence.
Mr. John Haywood Evans, solicitor to the petitioner,
was then examined in support of the learned counsel's
statement in opening the case, as to what had taken place
relative to the negotiations for a compromise, which he con-
firmed. He said the respondent had been traced by a de-
tective to the Southwick Hotel and the other places where
she subsequently resided, and the petitioner, in order to
inform himself of her actual position, went to where she was
living a few days previous to her confinement. Mr. Gipps
had to pay the expenses of the proceedings before the court)
and also expenses of proceedings instituted in Chancery re -
lative to the £3,00J he had received.
Dr. Spinks summed up the petitioner's case. The charge
of adultery having been clearly proved, the only question
was whether there was anything in the conduct of the pet 4
tioner which ought to deprive him of his right to a decree.
On what ground could it be contended that there was any
thing like connivance? The fair construction of the agree-
ment for the withdrawal of the first petition was, that the
petitioner abandoned his tight to proceed on the ground of
any tdultery committed up to the date of that agreement.
There was not a word tending to show that it was contem-
plated that the a,tultery should continue. On the contrary,
he insisted on the clause respecting a deed of separation
being struck out, as he would not allow Mr. Hume to inter-
fere between him and his wife.
The Judge. Ordinary—Can you refer me to any instance
in the Ecclesiastical Courts in which a divorce was granted
on the ground of adult, ry where the husband had accepted
pecuniary satisfaction for adultery previously committed ?
Dr. Spinks said he was not aware of such a case. But
in this case the husband had not accepted the money as
pecuniary satisfaction for the adultery.
The Judge-Ordinary—l do not know what else he
agreed to take the £7,000 for.
Dr. Spinks—For the withdrawal of the suit.
The Judge-Ordinary—For a consideration he abandons
the suit and allows her to remain his wife.
Dr. Spinks said she was to remain his wife, but not for
the purpose of enabling her to comm .t adultery. He under-
took to make a provision for her, but he stipulated that she
should remain chaste, and conduct herselt properly. Was
it likely that he would offer to give her a third of his income
if he knew that she was to live as Mr. Hume's mistress ?
The Judge-Ordinary—l do not know that I ever heard a

case in which there were so many unpleasant considerations
on both sides. I must consider whether he was principally
prompted by a desire to keep his wife chaste or to protect
his own pocket.

Dr. Spinks pointed out that the arrangement had not
been carried into effect, in consequence of the hostility
which appeared to be existing between the respondent and
the co-respondent. The petitioner, therefore, had a right
to conclude that the intercourse between them had ceased.

After the agreement was signed, the respondent and the co-
respondent were playing at hide and seek for months, the
wife's address was concealed from the petitioner, and imme-
diately upon discovering that the intercourse between them
was being kept np, he refused to go on with the negotia-
tions for an allowance until he received an assurance that
it had been broken off. The petitioner's object was to avoid
publicity and to make a provision for his children. The co-
respondent had by a trick entrapped the petitioner into a
compromise of the first suit, and his object probably was to
prevent the petitioner from obtaining a divorce, in order
that he might not be called upon to marry the lady he had
seduced. It appeared that the petitioner was very fond of
his wife, aJd he had from the first acted as an affectionate
husband. He had neither been guilty of connivance nor
of neglect and misconduct, and he was therefore entitled to
a decree.
Dr, Tristram, on behalf of Mrs. Gipps, stated that she
and her advisers had never until this morning seen the
pleas filed on behalf of Mr. Hume. Some questions were
yesterday put to one of the witnesses by the Queen's Advo-
cate which appeared to impute collusion to her. He was in-
structed on her behalf to deny that she had been guilty of
any collusion whatever.

The Queen's Advocate, for the co-respondent, reminded
the Court of the admitted facts. A petitioner in suit for
dissolution had received from the co-respondent a sum of
£3,000, and after receiving that sum he called no evidence
in support of his petition. He also received a promise of
£4,000 more, and he endeavoured to enforce the payment of
that £4,000 after he had obtained information that the in-
timacy between his wife and the co-respondent had been
renewed. He should be sorry if it was any part of his duty
to pass a panegyric on Mr. Hume's conduct, but it must be
remembered that the husband and wife has not cohab,ted
for any length of time, that the marriage was not a very
happy one, and that this was not an aggravated case of
seduction or violation of hospitality. He referred to Lord
Stowell's judgment in "Lovering v. Lovering" (3 Hagg.
Ecc., 85), and said that it would be contrary to all prin-
ciple to grant relief to a husband who did not come into
Court with clean hands, and who wished to make use of the
Court for a collateral purpose. After the first suit was
withdrawn what provision did he make for his wife ? It
was stated that on one occasion on her application he sent
her £2O, and that was all. He never offered to provide a
home for her. The agreement contained no provisions that
all intercourse with Mr. Hume should cease. It was all very
well for Mr. Gipps's attorney to writ 3 in a tone of indig-
nant morality when a proposal was made for a settlement
upon her—" You, Mr. Hume, have no right to interfere
between Mr. Gipps and his wife." The answer was, " You,
Mr. Gipps agreed to take £7,000 for your own dishonour,
and I have a right to a voice in the distribution of the
money." Mr. Hume said that the £4,000 was only pay-
able upon certain conditions which had not been kept, and
he refused to pay it. AWI was filed in Chancery to en-
force the payment, and between the filing of the bill and
the argument Mr. Gipps received information from a detec-
tive that his wife was being visited by Mr. Hume. Did he
then return the £3,000 he had received from Mr. Hume ?
No, on the contrary, ho proceeded with his suit in Chan-
cery for the purpose of enforcing payment of the other
£4,000. Could there be a doubt that if he had received
that £l,OOO this suit would never have been instituted?
Ate object of the suit was not to obtain relief for an injured
husband, but to fill the husband's pockets with money,
which he hoped to obtain from the adulterer as the price of
his dishonour.

The Judge-Ordinary--It is necessary that I should exa-
mine with considerable care the documents and the evidence
in this painful—l had well nigh said disgusting—case. I
do not yet know how the parties will ultimately divide the
blame between them; but I think they will all repent of
having appeared before the public.

I SERIOUS CHARGE.—On Wednesday, at Repton,
near Derby, Major Mosley and Mr. Clay, the Fitting
magistrates, were engaged in investigating a case of affilia-
tion, brought by Miss Hackett, the parish schoolmistress at
Edingale, near Tamworth, against the Rev. Ralph Francis
Watson, the curate. The applicant is the daughter of a
widow, of ladylike appearance, and is 25 years of age. In
answer to questions put by Mr. Leech, of Derby, who sup-
ported the application, she disclosed a systematised scheme
of seduction, which unfortunately proved successful. It
appeared that Mr. Watson's house was near the residence
of Miss Hackett, and upon the occasion of his housekeeper
being taken ill she agreed to assist him until her recovery,
and for that purpose she went to his house and lived there
for some time. This was in 1861, and upon the house-
keeper's return, Miss Hackett continued to go occasionally
to sleep there. Mr. Watson used to go into the room
where she and the housekeeper were in bed, and kiss them.
Other familiarities were also sworn to by the applicant;
and the intimacy continued until the 25th of February last
year, on which occasion Mr. Watson succeeded in hif long-
cherished design, pledging himself at the same time to
marry her. Upon her subsequently informing him of the
c ndition to which he had brought her, he desired her to
take an infusion of the leaves of a tree growing in his
garden, but she declined, saying that it would poison her.
He pressed her on several occasions to take medicine
which would cause abortion, but she at all times stead-
fastly refused to do so. She subsequently, at Mr. Watson's
request, resigned her situation and went to live at Bir-
mingham, where he frequently met her, and on one occa-
sion wished her to go with him to a house of ill-fame.
On the sth of last November she was confined ; and,
although the respondent had promised to support her,
child and herself, he refused to do anything for her, and
her letters were unanswered. Tier only resource was there-
fore this appeal. She went with the parish constable to
Mr. Watson's house, but ho refused to see her. The case
had reached this point at 7 p.m., when the magistrates de-
termined to adjourn it until the following day.