The Sun.
London, England, 1860-07-23 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY EVEICTING, JULY 23, 1860;

effect of a dull summer evening, whereas on the pre-
sent occasion this odd, unearthly light was co-
existent with apparently full sunshine. After the
time of greatest obscuration, and as the moon tra-
velled off the sun, a rapid brightening of the light
took place. At 3h. lm. 305., the " large dark spot"
was again centrally uncovered, and at 3h. 28m. 335.
the lunar limb was just half off the eastern remain-
ing spot. After this the clouds, which had more or
less been scattered over the heavens all day, began
to close rapidly over the sun, and consequently the
moment of emersion of the western spot, and also
that of the last contact of the limbs of the sun and
moon, were impossible to be observed. The lati-
tude and longitude of my observatory may be taken
at 51 deg. 0 min. 58s. N., and 17.55. east (or fast)
of Greenwich.—l am, sir, &c.,
WILLIAM NOBLE.
Forest-lodge, Maresfield, Uckfield, Sussex,
July 20.

MILITARY ORGANISATION.

The long looked for report of the select commit
tee on military organisation was published on Sa•
turday, and occupies over 20 blue-book pages. The
committee consisted of Viscount Palmerston, Lord
John Russell, Lord Hotham, Sir James Graham, the
Judge Advocate, Mr. Ellice, Mr. Sidney Herbert,
Mr. Walpole, Mr. Horsman, Sir John Ramsden,
Sir William Codrington, Mr. Monsell, Colonel Wil-
son Patten, the Earl of March, and Capt. Vivian.
The report commences with an outline of the
question which the committee had to take under
their consideration, viz., the position which tbe se-
veral authorities hold towards each other, with re-
spect to patronage and to the supervision and con-
trol of the separate departments, the appointments
in the army, and the civil arrangements of the dif-
ferent officers. With respect to the relative powers
of the Commander-in-Chief and the Secretary for
War, the Secretaries of State are said to hold their
seals by patent, during the pleasure of the Crown.
They exercise their powers interchangeably, al-
though, for convenience, particular departments are
assigned to each of them. They are the channels
which convey the royal pleasure throughout the
body politic, both at home and abroad. The coun-
ter-signature of one of them is necessary to give
effect to the sign-manual. Every commission in the
army is so counter-signed. The patronage of the
Crown, both in Church and State, is administered
under this safeguard. To every public document
signed by the Sovereign, the signature of a secre-
tary of state is appended ; and thus, while the So-
vereign can do no wrong, the responsible adviser of
every act is ascertained, and the Minister must an-
swer for what the Crown has done. Heretofore
there has been no limitation in the patent to the
powers of a secretary of state; he is removeable at
pleasure ; but while he holds the seal of his office he
is responsible for the acts of his Sovereign, and admi-
nisters the royal authority and prerogative which are
delegated to him without reserve. It must be re-
membered, also, that each secretary of state receives
the seals of office from the hand of the Sovereign in
council ; when he surrenders office he gives back
the seals ; but while he holds them, even before
the issue of his patent, he is in the enjoyment and
full exercise of all his powers. It would appear
therefore to the committee that the tenure of his
office is by seals rather than by patent.
The committee next proceed to notice the prac-
tical working of the present system, more especially
with regard to the relative position and power of
the Commander- in-Chief and of the Secretary of
State for War. They say :
" His Royal Highneas the Duke of Cambridge
was graciously pleased to attend your committee,
and gave his evidence with perfect frankness, and
in the clearest manner. Lord Panmure, Gen. Peel,
and Mr. Herbert have also been examined ; and on
the testimony of these authorities, the highest and
the best, a judgment must be formed on the ques-
tion, whether the Commander-in-Chief be suffi-
ciently under the control of the Secretary of State
for War. Notwithstanding the reservations in the
patent, his royal highness admits that, with respect
to commands in chief, whether at home or abroad,
with respect to the giving away of regiments, and
with respect to promotions, the consent of the
Secretary of State for War is invariably obtained
before appointments of this description are sub-
mitted to her Majesty. These matters are gene-
rally adjusted by personal communication between
his royal highness and the Secretary of State ' • but
if a difference of opinion should arise, which has
not yet occurred, his royal highness declares that
the decision must rest with the Secretary of State,
because in the constitutional form the Secretary
of State would advise her Majesty to take his
opinion, and not that of the Commander-in-Chief ;
and thus the matter must finally come to the deci-
sion of the Secretary of State, who is the responsible
minister.' "
With respect to the appointments in the army
the committee report :
"The question at issue on this head has refer-
ence principally to first appointments, thit is to
say, to first commissions in the cavalry and
infantry, which constitute the patronage of the
Commander-in-Chief. The first appointments in
the artillery and engineers are open to competi-
tion on fixed rules, and the candidates who succeed
undergo the test of severe examination. But the
first appointments in the cavalry and in the line,
either by purchase or by gift, are at the disposal of
the Commander-in-Chief, who has the sole power of
nomination. The qualifications of the candidates
are approved by the Secretary of State, and are
tested by an examination before admission into the
army, whether they pass through the Military
College at Sandhurst or not. The extent of this
patronage is very great. The appointments to
first commissions, from the Ist of January, 1853, to
tha 30th of June, 1859, were 3,558 in number. Of
these 1,996 were by purchase, and 2,825 were given
away. Previous to the late war the commissions
given way averaged about 60 a year, and there was
one year, at the end of the war, in which there
were only three. In this return first commissions
in the cavalry are not distinguished from first com-
missions in the infantry. A cavalry commission
was at the time more valuable than an infantry
commission. The regulation price of an ensigncy
is £450. Assuming, therefore, that the 2,825 first
commissions, given away in six years and a half
were all ensigncies only, their motley value amounts
to the sum of £1,271,250, if sold at the regulation
price. But 1854 and 1855 were years of war, and
a large proportion of the commissions given away
may be ascribed to the necessary and sudden aug-
mentation of the army in that emergency; 1857 8,
however, was the year of mutiny in India; in con-
sequence of the raising of second battalions to meet
the demands for reinforcements to India, 686 first
commissions were given away in the course of that
year by the Commander-in •Chief, the money value
of which, assuming them to have been ensigncies
only, is £308,700. This is a large amount of patro-
nage.' The Duke of Cambridge • says that it is
exercised ' on principles which rest in the breast of
the Commander-in-Chief for the time being ;' but
he adds, 'that commissions are only given away to
such persons as are supposed to have, and I think it
will be found in every case that they have some
claim upon the country. It would seem, in the
first instance, that this exercise of patronage at
the Horse Guards is not interfered with by the
Secretary of State. There is, indeed, a list
of these first appointments sent to the Secretary of
State before the names are submitted to her Ma-
jesty for approval. Sir Edward Lugard, the Secre-
tary for Military Correspondence in the War De-
partment, and the immediate channel of written
communications with the Horse Guards, gives a
full account of this list, and of the manner in which
it is treated by the Secretary of State. For the
purpose of obviating objections as to the largo
amount of patronage at the Horse Guards, and the
number of first commissions given away, the Com-
mander-in-Chief opened a plan whereby henceforth
there should be only one entrance into the army,
and that through the medium of a military college.
His royal highness is of opinion 'that this would
I be the most desirable thing which could be intro-
duced into the service.' He gave the outline of a
plan in great detail, which will be best explained
by reference to the evidence and to the questions
and anwers specified in the margin. Mr. Herbert,
who heard that evidence, and who took part in the
examination of his royal highness, declared that in
his opinion, the advice given by the Duke of Cam-
bridge was sound, that if were adopted the whole
dispute as to first commissions would be entirely at
an end, and that one entrance into the army,
through the door of a military college, would ter-
minate the controversy respecting patronage."
With regard to the question of the Commissariat
and the Military Train, the committee report at
considerable length and go fully into the subject,
but their views may be gathered from the follow-
ing extract :
" Sir Julia M'Neill's solution of the question,
whether the commandant of the Military Train, or
the Commissary in Chief, should in the field have
exclusive power over the means of transport is, ' that
neither one nor the other should be trusted with it ;'
but that the French iutendance' should be intro-
duced into our military system. Were this view
adopted, in addition to the quartermaster-general
and the adjutant-general, in the field there would
he a staff officer attached to headquarters,
whose -special duty it would be to con=
trol and direct both the Commissariat and
the Military Train, under the immediate orders
of the Commander-in-chief. It is worthy
of notice that Captain Gordon, the principal mili-

tart' storekeeper at Woolwich, has arrived at this
same conclusion from different premises. He, too,
served in the Crimea as ordnance storekeeper, and
from his experience at Balaklava and at head-quar-
ters before Sebastopol, he is of opinion that a supe-
rior officer should be added to the staff abroad, who
should control all the civil departments of the
army, both the commissary-general and the stdore-
keeper. When he is remined that the French
system is very like this, he says, that it is much
better than our own ; but it did not strike hint at
first in that light, though on reflection he sees the
resemblance. Your committee beg to direct seri-
ous attention to this suggestion. It bears directly
on the causes of the sufferings of the British army

in the Crimea."
The committtee find great fault with the man-
ner in which the accounts of the War Department
are kept ; in fact, it would seem that they are al-
most in a hopeless state of confusion, and this state
of affairs is more complicated by the recent trans-
fer of the expense of the Indian army to the Crown.

The committee says :
" The state of the account between the British
Exchequer and Indian territory is most unsatisfac-
tory. The account for the Persian expedition is not
yet closed. The account of the first China war is
hardly yet completed. The account of the second
China war, which ended in 1856, is not yet balanced.
There are four or five different accounts still
open, with disputed balances to a large amount ; and
with respect to the new expedition to China, India,
in the midst of great financial difficulties, has been
required to make advances in the current year for
all expenses incurred in taking up transports in
India, in paying the men, and in providing cattle,
horses, and other necessaries, as well as equipments
for the army. In the estimate for the China vote
of credit, laid upon the table of the house, these ad-
vances are now included ; but while Indian terri-
tory is overwhelmed with debt, it will be unseemly
thskt Great Britain should make war on China out,
of Indian resources. The repayment of these ad-
vances ought to be prompt, and within the present
financial year."
The committee, whilst speaking of the different
arsenals, incidentally refer to the position which Sir
William Armstrong holds with the Government.
They say :
" The gun factory has been mentioned, and it is
necessary to call particular attention to the evidence
of Sir W. Armstrong ; 3,000 men are now employed
at Woolwich exclusively in making guns on Sir
W. Armstrong's principle, and under his superin-
tendence. Sir William is the paid servant of the
Government, receiving £2,000 a year; he has also
received £6,000, and his salary is to be continued
for seven years from the present time. It appears
that the Armstrong guns are of a construction so
peculiar, and so much depending on the mode of
putting them together, that it would not he safe to
contract for them in the open market. The conse-
quence is, that they are made at Woolwich only,
excepting a supply under contract from one single
factory, and that factory is at Elswick. The effect
of this exclusive supply is to give a close monopoly
to the Elswick factory. The construction of these
guns is a very refined process. The putting together
requires to be very carefully done. Mr. Anderson,
Sir W. Armstrong's assistant at Woolwich, deposes,
that 'if these guns were made by contract, it would
be necessary to have some inspectors constantly at
the place where they were made, to see that they
were properly put together; no inspection, after
they had been put together, would be satisfactory.'
Yet these guns are made by contract at Elswick.
They come up from Elswick to Woolwich, put
together. 'There is no Government inspector at
Elswick to watch their construction, but Sir W.
Armstrong says that the guns are manufactured at
Elswick under his own inspection, and that he goes
down there continually. But at Woolwich also there
are 3,000 men at work under his superintendence,
and he admits at Elswick he inspects guns made
by his own partners in a neighbouring concern.
Sir William Armstrong is well worthyof confidence,
and has acted generously towards the public by the
free surrender of his patent rights, but he is placed
by these arrangements in a false position ; he can-
not watch two great concerns distant from each
other more than 300 miles; he ought not to be
the inspector of the work of his own partners,
although the guns are proved on their arrival at
Woolwich by an artillery officer. This large and
exclusive manufacture of Armstrong's guns is pro-
ceeding on the assumption that they are proved to
be the best. But Mr. Anderson admits there would
be a difficulty if Mr. Whitworth's guns were proved
to be better. Mr. Herbert says that when Arm-
strong's guns were first adopted, he had no com-
petitor ; and if we had waited until the great ques-
tion should be decided what is the best possible
gun to be made, it would not in this year, nor will
it be in next year, that we should commence to
make that which other nations have got, and
which we should then be without."
With regard to the question—How is the army
to be governed P—the report says :
"Earl Grey recommends a board, with a Cabinet
Minister at its head, but not the Secretary of State.
He seeks to restore the supreme power to the
Secretary of State for War and Colonies. This
board would be a new experiment. It undoes all
that has been done. It throws aside all the advan-
tages of growing experience and improyed practice
which the last five years have not failed to afford.
Instead of concentrating responsibility, it redis-
tributes it. The machinery of boards is known to
be cumbrous and uncertain in its operation. It
only works well when the head of the board acts
as if he alone were responsible. A board, therefore,
would be a retrograde measure which your com-
mittee cannot recommend. A council is a board in
a modified form, and the same objections apply,
though in a less degree. Mr. Herbert has given a
scheme for reorganising the War Department. He
proposee that there shall be one commander-in-
chief, as at present, a parliamentary under-secretary
two permanent under-secretaries, one of whom shall
be a military officer, and also an assistant under-
secretary. A director of materiel,' an officer of
artillery, to superintend the manufacture of all
warlike stores. An inspector general of fortifica-
tions, an officer of engineers, as at present. A mili-
tary officer to overlook the commissariat, the cloth-
ing and all stores not called warlike stores,'
to be called director of supplies. A director-
general of the medical department, as at present.
A storekeeper-general, as at present. A commis-
sary-in-chief, as at present. An inspector of militia
and volunteers, reporting to the parliamentary
under-secretary. An accountant-general, having
charge of the finance. The scheme thus proposed
would secure an infusion of new military blood into
the War Department, which would give vigour to
the system, and confidence to the army. The Sec-
retary of State would have around him professional
advisers, whose opinions he might consult, either
separately or collectively, according to his view of
the exigencies of each case. On the whole, your
committee are of opinion that this scheme proposed
by Mr. Herbert has the merit of reducing change
to the minimum, while it promises an increase of
real efficiency. Mr. Herbert has also declared it to
be his opinion, if one or more of these military
heads of departments had seats in the House of
Commons, the public advantage would be great.
When the Secretary of State is a civilian unaided
and unsupported by military colleagues in the
House of Commons, he is exposed to serious diffi-
culties, and his administration of the army is inade-
quately defended. When he speaks on military
subjects, his authority is questioned; when he an-
' swers professional questions, it is known that he
retails the opinions of others rather than that he is
pronouncing his own. His position in the House
of Commons would be far different if he had by his
side a colleague, a soldier of distinction, at all times
ready to sustain his answers, and to uphold his
authority. With reference to any difference that
might arise as to the relations between the Secre-
tary of State for War and the Commander-in-
Chief, your committee cannot do better than refer
to the memorable observation of the Duke of Wel-
lington. He thus sums up his evidence before the
commission of military inquiry in 1837 There
can be no doubt that the officer at the head of the
army, if he wants to incur any expense, would na-
turally go to the Secretary at War, and know from
him whether he has any objection to incurring the
expense proposed. He must know that if it be not
approved by the civil authorities of the army, such
expense will not be voted in Parliament, and will
not be allowed. On the other hand, if the Secre-
tary at War should think that any expense which
was incurred ought to be discontintied, he would
naturally inquire from the Commander-in-Chief
whether he thought such expense might be discon-
tinued without inconvenience to the service. That
is the way in which business is generally transacted.
There may be such a rule as that referred to ; but I
have never myself thought much of such rules; they
must be departed from when the service renders a
departure from them necessary. 'These can be but
general rules, as landmarks by which the official
arrangement of the service ought to be conducted.
The bst rule is the mutual good temper and for-
bearance of the parties.'"

[AnvlarrismstENr.]-llolloway's Ointment and Pills.—
Indisputable Facts.—The merits of these remedies have
been and are acknowledged in both hemispheres, and few
would presume to impugn ;the experience of the whole
world. Testimonials from all parts vouch for their effi-
ciency as
virtues in overcomingabscesses, swellings of the joints,
curatives. The Ointment soon displays its
enlargement of the glands, cutaneous eruptions, sores,
ulcers, and in allaying inflammation and pain in rheuma-
tism and gout. It heals by cleansing all animal fluids
with which it comes in contact, and promotes a sound and
permanent cure: It removes all' obstructions to the free
circulation through the minutest vessels, and repairs mis-
chief by constantly securing pure blood. The Pills effect
generally what the Ointment accomplishes locally.

THE WALK.E.RINGHAM IWURDER.

At the Nottingham assizes, on Friday, John
Fenton, blacksmith, was charged with the murder
of Charles Spencer, at Walkeringham, on the 6th
March. The prisoner, who pleaded not guilty, is
a well-made and rather good;looking man of middle
height. He preserved a calm and almost uncon-
cerned demeanour throughout the whole pro-
ceeding. The facts, as stated by the learned
counsel for the prosecution, and as they were sub-
sequently elicited in evidence, were as follows ;
The deceased, Charles Spencer, was a cattle
dealer living at Walkeringham, a village about 12
miles from Retford ; the prisoner was a blacksmith
and publican, of the same village, and was a cousin
of the murdered man. On the 6th March, the
deacesed was at Gainsborough market, and be-
tween 10 and 11 o'clock at night, he crossed over
Walkereith Ferry, on his return home, having
previously received a considerable amount of
money. At this time Mr. James Henderson, a
farmer, and his son, and also the prisoner John
Fenton, and James Fenton (no relation) were with
him. The two Fentons walked on first, and James
Fenton walked with John as far as the door of the

latter, when he left him, and proceeded to his
own home. Henderson and his son accom-
panied Spencer to within a short distance of his
house, and from this tithe the unfortunate man
was never seen alive again. The reports of two
pistols were heard directly afterwards by the vil-
lage schoolmaster, who also heard a cry of " For
God's sake, what are you going to do ?" The
schoolmaster looked out of his window, but seeing
no one, he got into bed again. Early in the morn-
ing the body of Spencer was found lying in a
ditch, surrounded by a pool of blood. Two bullets
were lodged in his head, his throat was cut from ear
to ear, and his fob pocket was empty and turned in-
side out. The scene of the horrible crime was in the
centre of -the village, within a stone's throw of the
church. Opposite was a barn called Gamson's barn,
and from two footprints by the side of one of
the buttresses of this building, it was evident that
here the assassin had lain in wait for his victim.

On the horse road near the place where the
body was found, were picked up a couple of
discharged pistols, a hat, an umbrella, and a stick.
The evidence which connected the prisoner with
the atrocious crime was purely circumstantial, and
was very remarkable. A witness, who, more than
20 years ago was apprenticed to the prisoner's
father, stated that during his apprenticeship the
old man gave him a pair of pistols to clean. Find-
ing a difficulty in unscrewing the barrel of one of
them he placed the pistol-stock in a vice between
two halfpence, and in this way effected his object ;
but in one of the halfpence there was a dent, and
the protuberance on the other side made a dent
in the stock for which he was soundly scolded.
The circumstance remained impressed on his
memory, and on hearing of the murder he
communicated the fact to the police. On one of
the pistols found near the body of the murdered
man, a precisely similar dint was discovered, and
the maker's name exactly corresponded with what
the witness remembered to be the name of the
makers of the pistols he had cleaned. Bullets of
the same size as those extracted from the head of
the murdered man, and caps of the same number
as that upon the nipple of one of the exploded pis-
tols, were found in Fenton's possession.
The Jury returned a verdict of Guilty, and the
prisoner was sentenced to death.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT.-LEWES, JULY 21.

The commission for the county of Sussex was
opened in this town on Friday afternoon, and on
the following morning business was proceeded
with at ten o'clock, Lord Chief Justice Cockburu
presiding on the Crown side, and Mr. Justice
Blackburn at nisi prius. The entry of causes is
rather large for this place, there being four special
jury and seven common jury cases to be disposed
of. On the Crown side there are 27 prisoners, and
among the charges are one of murder and three of
manslaughter. Tsto of the latter, the charge
against Mr. Hopley, the schoolmaster, at East-
bourne, of causing the death of one of his scholars
by brutal treatment in the shape of flogging, and
the case of Mr. Bull, a surgeon, who is charged
with causing the death of his mother by negli-
gently administering to her an excessive dose of
prussic acid, appear to excite very great interest.
The other cases in the calendar are of the ordinary
description.
The Lord Chief Justice, in his charge to the
grand jury, in reference to the charge of murder,
said it appeared to him from the facts stated in the
depositions, that the only course they could pursue
in respect to this case, was the painful one of re-
turning a true bill, and the only other cases to
which he considered it necessary to direct their at-
tention were two charges of manslaughter of a
rather peculiar character. The first of these was
the case of Thomas Hopley, a schoolmaster, who
was charged with the manslaughter of one of his
scholars by beating him, and he would shortly
state to them what the law was in reference to this
case. By the law of England the right was given
to a parent or a schoolmaster to administer correc•
tion to a child, and although many persons might
be of opinion that it was injudicious under any cir-
cumstances to resort to personal violence, and that
it was much better to make use of those kind influ-
ences to which youth was so susceptible, still the
law undoubtedly sanctioned the use of personal
correction. At the same ' time, it was required
that any punishment inflicted upon a child by a
parent or schoolmaster should be of a moderate and
reasonable character, and if there was any excess,
or the punishment was inflicted with rashness and
anger, and fatal consequences resulted, the party
by whom such punishment was inflicted ren-
dered himself amenable to the law, and was guilty
of the offence of manslaughter. They were not there
to enter into any speculative discussion as to the
propriety or impropriety of resorting to cor-
poral punishment in such a case, but must
deal with the case as it stood, and the
only questions they were called upon to decide
were, whether the prisoner was proved to have
inflicted punishment of a moderate character, and
such as would be inflicted by a reasonable man upon
a child, or whether it was inflicted in excess and
with anger and violence, and that it was the cause
of death; in which case it would certainly, in law,
be unjustifiable, and the prisoner would be responsi-
ble. The law did not permit a parent, much less a
person to whom he delegated his authority, as was
the case with a schoolmaster, to make use of exces-
sive punishment to a child, and if death resulted,
both were amenable to the law. With regard to
the facts, it appeared from the depositions that the
punishment was continued for a long period, and
that it was inflicted with a rope and a stick, which
were not the ordinary instruments of punishment
for children, and the grand jury would, of course,
take this fact into their consideration when the
matter was before them. The material question for.
them, however, would be whether it was proved
that the punishment inflicted upon this child was
inordinate and improper, and that it was the cause
of death, and if this was established by the evidence
it would be their duty to return a true bill. Thd
other case of manslaughter to which he considered
it necessary to advert, was a charge against a
surgeon, named Bull, of having caused the death
of his own mother by negligently administering to
her an improper dose of prussic arid. In this case,
which was undoubtedly one of a most painful
character, the only question for the consideration
of the grand jury was whether there had been
such criminal tneglect on the part of the person
accused as would render him criminally respon-
sible,'and he would observe that mere inadvertence
or oversight would not be sufficient to bring him
within the scope of the law, but they must be satis-
fied that he had been guilty of gross and culpable
negligence or rashness before they would be justi-
fied in returning a true bill. If this were not clearly
established it appeared to hini that the grand jury
ought not to add to the misery which the circum-
stances must necessarily have occasioned to the un-
fortunate prisoner by causing him to be placed at
the bar to take his trial upon such a charge.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.—STAFFORD, July 21.
(Before Mr. Justice Byles.)
ACTION FOR SEDUCTION.
The Court has been occupied nearly the whole of
two days in tying the cause of
'OOTTON V. SNAPE.
It was an action brought by a timber merchant
at Bloxwich against the defendant, son of a farmer
and late publican, a relative by marriage of the
plaintiff, to rcover damages for the seduetion of his
daughter Hannah. This case has been tried before,
when the verdict for the plaintiff for £5O was re-
turned, but the defendant lad obtained a rule for a
new trial.

The evidence is too voluminous in detail, but the
following is a hrief'summary of the facts :—ln the
beginning of December, 1858, the defendant went
to lodge at the house of the plaintiff, who has eleven
children. Hannah, the subject of this action, was
at that time 15 years old, and according to her evi-
dence, on the 22d December she was sleeping in a
bed alone, her younger sister Jane, who usually
slept with her, being unwell, when her father came
to see the girls, and the defendant accompanied
him. Next night, as they were at supper, the
defendant drew her some beer, after drinking
which, she became very drowsy, and fell asleep
immediately on going to bed. She was awoke by
finding the defendant in bed with her, and in the
very act of committing the offence. He after-
wards threatened to kill her if she told auy one,