The Sun.
London, England, 1856-04-04 00:00:00

•

THE SUNS LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, APRIL 4, 1856.

Foot, to be Assistant-Surgeoa, vice Moorhead, promoted

in 29th Foot. _
41st Foot—The promotions of Lieutenant Fitzßoy and
Fnsign Donelan, and the appointment as Ensign of First
Lieutenant Ellison, from the Kent Artillery Militia, to
bear date the 25th and not the 7th of March, as previously
stated.
46th Foot—The appointment of Quartermaster-Sergeant
John Dwyer to be Ensign and Adjutant, to bear date the
25th, and not the 7th March, as previously stated.
51st Foot—Lieutenaut H. R. De Anyers Willis to be
Captain, by parchase, vice Drought, who retires ; Ensign
M. B. Lewin to be Lieutenant, by purchase, vice Willis ;
Henry Chambers, Gent., to be Ensign, by purchase, vice
Lewin.
60th Foot—Captain William Douglas Phelips, from the
27th root, to be Captain, vice Freer, who exchanges.
filth Foot—Assistant-Surgeon Edward Louis Lundy,
horn the 79th Foot, to be Assistant-Surgeon, vice Evana,
appeiuted to the 32d Foot.
76th Foot—Captain Thomas Bythesea Mortimer, from
half-pay Unattached, is be Captain, vice Brevet-Major H.
D. Smart, who exchanges.
79th Foot—Lieutenant James Bell to be Captain, by
parchase, vice Freme, who retires ; Ensign T. R. Howkins
to be Lieutenant, by purchase, vice Bell ; James M. Thos.
Simpson, Gent., to be Ensign, by purchase, vice Howkins.
94th Foot—The commission of Assistant-Surgeon Joseph
Watts to be antedated to sth April, 1855.
95th Foot—Spencer Lynne, Gent., to be Ensign, by pur-
chase, vice Rawlins, promoted.
97th Foot—Lieut. Robert George Macdonald, from the
Royal Canadian Rifle Regiment, to be Lieutenant, vice
Armstrong, who exchanges.
Ist West India Regiment—Acting Assistant-Surgeon
James Kelly to be Assistant-Surgeon.
Royal Canadian Rifle Regiment—Lieut. John Fellows
Armstrong, from 97th Foot, to be Lieutenant, vice Mac-
donald, who exchanges; Serjeant Joseph Harkness to be
Quartet master, vice Baxter, who retires upon half-pay.
Royal Malta Fencible Regiment—Ensign James Lazza-
rini to be Lieutenant, with local and temporary rank, vice
Metrovich ; Frederick Sedley, Gent., to be Ensign, with
local and temporary rank, vice Lazzarini.
TURKISH CONTINGENT.

TIIE MILITARY BOARD OF INQUIRY.

(From the Times of this day.)
The Military Commissioners have at length for-

George Montgomerie Davidson, Esq., to be Paymaster ;
William George Proctor, Esq., to be Paymaster.
BRITISH ITALIAN LEGION.
The appointment of Lieut.-Col. W. L. Grant, to the
British Italian, Legion, to bear date 12th November, 1855,
instead of 14th December, 18)5, as previously btated.
4th Regiment—Ensign Henry John Hunter, from the
2d Regiment, to be Lieutenant.
It o STITAL STAFF.— To be Assistant-Surgeon—Assistant-
Surgeon Robert Speedy, frous the Ist West India Regi-
ment, vice Callen, appointed to the 4th Light Dragoons.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

really opened their proceedings at Chelsea Hospital.
The inquiry commences at a fortunate moment for
the officers whose conduct has been called in ques-
tion. The boom of the Tower guns which an-
nounced the restoration of peace has scarcely died
away. We are at least assured that for a time we
are safe from the consequences of similar errors.
Whatever may come of the deliberations of the
Cominialioners, we shall not, until we are again
plunged into hostilities, feel the effect of their de-
cisions. It is so natural to forget when danger is
past, and to forgive when the sun is again shining
on our own side of the hedge, that we could almost
understand an act of amnesty in favour of the ac-
cused. If there were any security that nations
would henceforth live in harmony, and that we
were freed once for all from the painful necessities
of military preparation, we also should be inclined
to recommend forgetfulness of the past, and to
acquiesce in the recent distribution of martial
honours. This, however, is not so. Philanthro-
pists have been somewhat harshly aroused from
their dreams and philosophers from their theories
by the cannon of Sebastopol. The millennium is
neither come, nor is it at hand. We are still living
in the old world of Caesar, of Marlborough, and of
Napoleon. The weak are still, as ever, a prey to
the strong, and the strong will still attack the
weak. The instinct of the tiger or of the ambitious
ruler—we care not which illustration is accepted—
still survives, and against it we must take, precau-
tion, as before. Therefore it is that an unusual
interest attaches to the proceedings at Chelsea. If
the members of the Court are not precisely the ar-
biters of the future military system of England,
they are at least the persons who must decide upon
the matter in the first instance, although their de-
cisions are liable to subsequent appeal. They are
called upon to determine whether the blame of the
disasters which befell the British army attaches
to individuals or to the system. Very true that
in the hands of the Earls of Lucan and Cardigan
the British cavalry melted away, like a handful of
snow in the grasp of delirious man, but if they can
show that these officers did all that could be fairly
expected from them under the circumstances—that
on their part there was no want of zeal or of dis-
cretion, it would be in the highest degree unjust to
sacrifice them because they were involved in the
fatal trammels of an erroneous system. In this
case the Commissioners, if they do their duty,
must pronounce the condemnation of the system,
not of the men. So with regard to Sir Richard
Airey and Colonel Gordon ; these gentlemen are
accuse-I, rightly or wrongly, by the voice of the
Queen's Commissioners, of neglect of duty. It is
said on such high authority that in their quality of
Quartermaster-General and Deputy-Quartermaster
they did not avail themselves of the resources
which had been placed at their disposal by the
solicitude of their Government, and suffered many
brave men to die, whom they might have saved.
Now that the matter has been brought before a
Court of competent authority, it is not for us to
prejudge the case. Sir Richard Airey and Colonel
Gordon—and Sir Richard Airey especially—have
asserted that the repbrt of the Crimean Commis-
sioners is one-sided and partial. It embodies, say
they, the substance of the charges against them, but
not their defence. It is upon the unchecked state-
ment of their adversaries that an opinion has gone
forth to their prejudice, and therefore they ask us
to suspend our conclusions until they also have
been heard. Nothing can be more just. If they
have at all suffered in reputation and character
from the precipitate judgment of their fellow-sub-
jects, they have no other persons to thank for it
than their friends •at the Horse Guards and the
War-office. When Lords Hardinge and Panmure
did their best to stop all inquiry, and actually
showered premature honours upon officers who
were lying under a heavy accusation preferred by
Commissioners who acted under the immediate au-
thority of the Government, what wonder that pub-
lic opinion should discharge the office of the more
regular judge ?
The point, then, which must be more immedi-
ately decided by the Chelsea Commissioners is
whether the system or the men—the individual
officers accused—were at fault. A third alterna-
tive, which we will not permit ourselves to antici-
pate, of course remains. The Court may, by the
fatuity and partiality of its proceedings, insure its
own condemnation, as well as that of the system
of which it forms part. Our recent experience of
military tribunals has not been very encouraging,
but we are willing in the present instance to hope
for the lest. A very fair test of the impartiality of
the Court may be found in their willingness or re-
luctance, or it may be in their positive refusal, to
admit the statements of Sir John M'Neil and Col.
Tulloch in favour of their report. We see with
pleasure that, in answer to a question from Mr.
Villiers, the Judge-Advocate, the Court decided
that a notification of its proceedings should be for-
warded to those two gentlemen. They were to be
informed that their report was to be called in ques-
tion by the inquiry then in progress. If this means
anything, it means, of course, that the Commis-
sioners are to be heard, and such a step would go
far indeed to show that the tribunal is in earnest.
With the exception of this; single point, which we
note as of superior interest, the proceedings yester-
day were merely formal. The Court very properly
decided that the cases of officers whose conduct was
to be inquired into would be taken separately, ac-
cording to their rank. The Earl of Luca.u's case is to
be taken first, next Monday, and summonses have
been forwarded to him and to his witnesses requir-
ing their attendance on that day. Whatever may be
be the rules which the Court may establish for its own
guidance, the inquiry can scarcely be conducted in a
satisfactory manner unless Lord Lucan and the
other officers accused can be confronted with the
Crimean officers who have borne testimony against
them, and these again with Lord Lucan and his
fellows. As at present, the Court is called upon
to decide between conflicting statements, some of
VG Mel have been made in the Crimea and some in
England, but none upon oath. This arrangement
gives fearful facilities to a lukewarm judge, who
may be anxious to avoid the responsibilities of a
direct decision. It is very unfortunate, besides,
inasmuch as it affects public confidence in the de-
cisions of this tribunal, that Lords Hardinge and
Panmure should have displayed themselves so
openly the partisans of the officers accused. The
patronage of the army is in their bands. There is
not an officer holding a British commission and in-
volved in this inquiry, from Sir Alex. Woodford,
the President of the Court, down to the humblest
witness for or against the accused, who is not de-
pendent upon the War Department and the Horse
Guards for his professional advancement. It is
therefore to be regretted that Lords Hardinge and
Panmure should have rendered it a matter of com-
mon belief that the judge who decides against their
friends decides against them, and that the witness
who gives evidence against their friends gives wit-
ness against the two great officers of State with
whom rests the prosperity of his own future career.
Still, with all necessary allowances and all un-
necessary drawbacks, this Chelsea inquiry must
prove of vast importance to the efficiency of our
army. The question of the culpability of the
officers accused must also remain of public in-
terest, for, if unjustly whitewashed by the Court,
they will remain public servants, and that iu
posts of high trust and responsibility. It is,
moreover, of -the last importance, as far as the
British soldier is concerned, that if these officers
have by their neglect of duty, their want
of zeal, or their inefficiency, been accessory to
the destruction of a considerable portion of
the expeditionary force, they should meet with such
censure and punishment as they deserve. It is
within our _knowledge that in the remotest districts
of the British Islands it was so well understood
that the Crimean leaders were in fault that the
country folk turned deaf ears to the blandishments
of the recruiting sergeants, and refused to pat
themselves under such guidance. They cared not
for the perils of tbeilssault er the battle-field—they
were indifferent to the fair hazards of a campaign,
but they objected to unnecessary starvation and
disease. Be it right, or be it wrong, such has
been the general opinion of this country for the last
15 months. The Military Judges at Chelsea have,
then, before them, a most serious task. We are
all well aware of the overpowering nature of the
influences which will be brought to bear upon
them from the Department of War, from the Horse
Guards, and elsewhere, but we still cling to the ex-
pectation that they will discharge their duty. The
old flags of Blenheim are hanging behind the Pre-
sident's chair, and the great flag from Kinlooltra in
front of him. We sincerely trust that Sir Alex-
ander Woodford and his colleagues will remember
that the cause before them is substantially that of
the brave men by whom such trophies have been
won.

ST. PANCRAS' WORKHOUSE.—DEPRIVATION OF THE
POOR OF TIIRIR PORTER.—At the weekly meeting of
the newly-elected board of directors of the poor of St.
Pancras, held in the Vestry-hall, Camden Town, Henry
Farrer, Esq., churchwarden, in the chair, memorials
were presented, signed by several hundred inmates of
the workhouse, praying the board to reconsider the step
they had taken at their first meeting, stopping the supply
of porter. Mr. Orr moved the appointment of a com-
mittee to investigate the subject. Mr. Spooner se-
conded the motion. Mr. Beard considered the distri-
bution of porter had led to a great amount of intoxica-
tion. After some observations, the resolution of the
previous board, to place the distribution of the porter
entirely under the control of the medical officers, was
confirmed.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.—GLOUCESTER, Aram 3.
PRICHARD V. WEBBER.
Mr. Whateley, Q.C., Mr. Serjeant Pigott, and Mr.
Phipson appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Keating,
Q.C., Mr. Huddlesten, and Mr. Macnamara for the de-
fendant.
The plaintiff in this action was a young woman of
Swansea, named Maria Prichard, who, being only 17
years of age, sued in the name of her father as her next
friend. The defendant, Vivian Arthur Webber, was a
young man, 26 years of age, the son of a lady at Swan-
sea, and a member of the Windham Cluh. The ac-
tion was brought to recover damages for breach
of promise of marriage, and also for assault and
imprisonment. The defendant denied the alleged
promise, and also pleaded a justification, alieging that
previously to the alleged promise the plaintiff had con-
witted fornication with divers men, and that the same
was unknown to the defendant when he made the pro-
mise. To the counts for assault and imprisonment the
defendant pleaded the general issue.
Mr. Whatelev, in opening the case, said that, after
the experience of a great many years, he had never risen
to address a jury aith greater pain and anxiety than on
the present occasion, when he should have to lay Lefore
them one of the most disgraceful cases which had ever
been brought into a court of justice. The plaintiff had
been ruined by the arts and profligacy of the defendant,
who, though a gentleman of birth and property, and
once in the British army, had cast her off without
making her one shilling compensation. The acquaint-
ance between the part:es had commenced in the month
of November last at Swansea, where the plaintiff resided
with her father, who was a widower. The defendant's
mother resided near Swansea, and it was while residing
with her that his acquaintance with_ the plaintiff
commer esd. He induced her to walk out with him, pro-
fessed great affection for her, and premised her marriage.
The acquaintance, however, was forbidden by the father,
who, in the month of December, got his daughter a situ-
ation, and sent her away to Bristol. While she was re-
siding there the defendant induced her to go up to Lon-
don, on the assurance that he had got her a situation
as governess in the family of his aunt, and that he would
marry her in the course of three weeks. Fortunately,
the defendant's letters had been preserved, and these
would clearly establish the promise to marry. One of
these letters, dated the 18th of December, 1855, and
addressed to her in a feigned name, was as follows :
"'Windham Club, Dec. 10, 1855.
"Dear Girl,—l hevo sent you 4/. in Miss Edwards's
name. New do, dear girl, do, for God's sake, have confi-
dence in me, that love you better than anybody in this
world, for you wrote as if you had some doubt of my
honesty. I will not, let me assure you, behave in any other
way than a gentleman ; but I hope soon to make you my
wife. I have got you the situation in my aunt's family as
governess, to teach one little girl. I hope, dear Maria,
that you will come to it, as it is a good place for you,
forgot to tell you that my aunt will want you in a week's
time, as the other governess will be leaving ; so, dear girl,
I shall oeily have the pleasure of escorting you about for a
week. Pray leave off your past shyness to me, but look to
me as your future husband, for, as the God is in heaven,
you will be my wife before three weeks are over your little
head.
" You will go to your situation. Then I shall come in about
a week, and take you from there to make little Miss Maria
little Mrs. Webber, or if you like you can stay zt the lodg-
ings till I marry you. lam sure of my mother's consent,
for I am her per. If she does not, then I must take French
leave. Do not thick I shall tempt you before you are my
wife, and you by so thinking will not come to London.
Dear, darling Maria, I would not be guilty of such an ac-
tion, so do pray place confidence in me. Now, I must give
you some little instructions. Mind not to be late at the
station. You must inquire the night before. I will meet
you without fail at Paddington-station. You see, dear
Maria, how badly I write, for lam not well at all. But I
shall be batter when you come to London. Farewell, dear
girl, and believe me to be,
" Yours affectionately,
" VIVIAN WEBBER.
" Miss James, at Miss Edwards's, 56, Oxford-street,
" Swansea, Glamorganshire.
" P.S.--I have taken most respectable lodgings for you."
In consequence of that and other letters which the de-
fendant wrote, the plaintiff cAme up to London. There
had, however, been a miscarriage in one of the defend-
ant's letters, and the defendant, in consequence, not ex-
pecting the plaintiff, was not at the station, as he had pro-
mised. She, however, went in a cab to his lodgings, at
10, Bury-street, St. James's, and was then taken by the
defendant to a lodging at 17, Duke-street. The plaintiff
soon fell, and while she continued there scenes occurred
which were quite indescribable. The defendant, who drank
to excess, treated her with great violence and cruelty. At
length, when the defendant's lust was sated, the plaintiff
was told to go, and a man named Read, a pugilist, and
a friend of the defendant, came and took her away. She
was then sent back to Bristol. It appeared that, bad
as the conduct of the defendant had been, he had still
some remorse and compunction, for on the plaintiff's re-
turn to Bristol he wrote her this letter, which the learned
counsel read as follows :

" Windham Club, Thursday.
" Will you believe me if I call you dear Maria? when I
found you had gone I was taken so ill and repentant that
I was obliged to go to bed, where I remained in a fever
until this morning, when I got up. The first thing Ido
is to ask you to forgive me. I should never have done
what I did had I not been drunk. I direct this to the
same direction in Bristol as before, but have told them to
forward it to your other if you are absent. Pray write
and toll me if there is anything I can do for you, and I
will do it for you if possible. lam going to Swansea soon,
and hope to Heaven you will be there with me. Put my
kindness in the balance against my unkindness, and if the
latter should be a little the heavier have the charity to for-
give. Tell me all about W—e, and where she is. Do
you see how weak lam ? If I was cruel, do not you be so.
" Yours affectionately,
"P
-S.—Do pray write. `• VIVIAN WEBBER.
" Miss Prichard, 33, Stokescroft, Bristol."
After that time the parties had never met, and no offer
of reparation bad ever been made. It might be said
that the promise which the defendant had made was au
improvident one, but it a ould be distinctly proved. It
might be that the defendant never meant to fulfil his
promise, and only made it that he might seduce the
plaintiff. If that were so; be, was doubly a villain. But
he had done worse than that. He had put on the record
a plea which charged the plaintiff with immoral conduct
previous to the connexion. It would be seen whether
he would venture to produce evidence to support that
plea. If he did not, the plea would be a great aggrava-
tion of the injury which he had inflicted on the plaintiff,
for which the learned counsel hoped the jury would give
exemplary damages.
The foaowing witnesses were then examined :
George Prichard said—l am the father of Maria Pri-
chard, the plaintiff. She was 17 in Aug. last. I live at
Swansea. I am a furniture broker. lam a widower, and
the plaintiff is my youngest daughter. She was the only
daughter I had at home last year. She has always lived
at home till she went to London. She on one occasion
went on the stage at Swansea. The manager wanted a
child for some minor part, and some one told him
of my daughter. That was in 1853. She acted 10 or
12 times in 1853. In November last year I beard of
something, and desired her to go to 13ristoi. I took her
on board the packet. She was to go to Mr. Wall, at
Bristol. She went there. I first knew she had gone to
London when she was there.
Cross-examined—l am now a journeyman uphols-
terer. I was not in the habit of going to the theatre.
The plaintiff was not many months at the theatre. It
was all in one season. I think it was in 1853 I knew an
actor named Sinclair. I never saw him at my house. I
knew him at the Royal Yatch, which he used to frequent.
He was an actor at the theatre in 1852. He was not at
Swansea in 1853, not till 1855. I believe he is now at
Bristol. I never taw Sinclair in company with my daugh-
ter. I became next friend some weeks ago. I was asked
by Messrs. Loveland and Tweed. I knew a clerk to Mr.
Beor, an attorney, named Morris. Ido not keow w he-
due- he was acquainted with my daughter. About a
month ago I weet to a Mrs. Preston, at Swansea, and
asked her whether she knew anything about my daugh-
ter lately ?
Felix Hussey Webber said—l am a brother of the de-
fendant. My mother resides near S wan-ea. My father
was Capt. Webber, in the 74th Highlanders. He was
killed in July, 1833. My brother, the defendant, I be-
lieve, was 27 last Dec. He was a lieutenant in the 67th
Foot. The defendant left the army, I believe, in 1853.
He has been living since with my mother at Swansea.
He is a member of the Windham Club, and some-
times resides in London. He was at Swansea in
November last, I believe. I am acquainted
aith my brother's handwriting. I believe this letter,
No. 1, to be his writing. I do not believe this signature,
No. 2, to be his handwriting. (This letter contains the
promise to marry, which was read in the opening) Mr.
Hammond (clerk to the plaintiff's attorney) came down
to Swansea. He said if he could not get proof of the
handwriting he should subpoena my mother. I told him
I was quite as well aware of the defendant's handwriting
as my mother was, and I should be obliged if he would
not subpoena her, for I would do everything that she
could do. I said that when I came into court I would
slate whether it was my brother's writing or not. The
gentleman called upon me to state then whether they
were in my brother's wri'ing, He then showel me
several letters. He offered me to read them, but I de-
clined. He showed me No. 1. He put them on the table
and turned them over, and I looked at them cursorily.
I said, "Well, I don't think there's much doubt about
their being in my brother's handwriting." I said in respect
of one letter, "It is so-totally different that you cannot
expect me to say whether it is his or not." Ido not re-
member having said that any one of there four lettere
was so different that_l could not speak to it.- Ido not
recollect having seen all, these. I can't tell how many he
laid on the table. There were several letters. There
were some papers in an envelope. I saw the signatures
of all the letters on the table. The signature which I
objected. to was written longways across a sheet of paper
With that exception I was satisfied with the signatures.
Letter No. 3 is in defendant's handwriting, so is No. 4.
Hrtinnond then said that would be sufficient, and he
should not should not subpoena my mother.
Cross-examined—I never saw the plaintiff on the stage
to my knowledge. The defendant sold out of the army.
His means are extremely limited —excessively so. He
has next to nothing. lam a clerk in the House of Com-
mons. I have seen my brother suffering under delirium
tremens,

Re-examined—He is in the habit of getting drunk.
In December he was living at No. 10, Bury-street ;
but for a short time in that mouth he had lodgings in
Duke-street. The defendant sold out in 1853. He has
since received great assistance from my mother. She is a
lady of fortune. I and my brother are her only children.
It was here proposed to read the letter of 10th Decem-
ber, but the evidence was rejected on the ground that
the handwriting of the defendant was not proved.
Ellen Steer said—l am the NN ife of Henry Steer. I live
at 17, Duke-street. On tie 12th December defendant
came and took two rooms. He said they were for a lady
and a gentleman. I asked if the lady was his wife. 'He
said, with imitation, that the was. I told him the rent