The Sun.
London, England, 1861-02-01 00:00:00

TBE ARMY.

Col. Alexander Anderson, Commandant of the
Portsmouth Division of Royal Marine Light In-
fantry, hail resumed the command of his division,
on retnrn from leave of absence.

The following officers from the Indian Military
College at Addiscombe, who have just been ga-
zetted to commissions in the corps of Engineers,
are ordered to join the head-quarters of the
Royal Engineer establishment at Chatham this
morning as Royal Engineers, and not as Indian
Engineers, as formerly :—Lieuts. A. Hill, F. W.
Nixon, E. J. Castle, K. C. Pye, R. Brockman, A.
A. Jopp, R. J. M'Clure, W. A. Wallace, and R.
Blood.

The official inspection of the Bedfordshire Light
Infantry Regiment of Militia, prior to their leav-
ing their quarters for disembodiment, took place on
the parade-ground of Colewort Barracks, Ports-
mouth, yesterday. The regiment was drawn up in
line on the parade• ground, and received the inspect-
ing officer, Lord W. Paulett, C. 8., Lieut.-Governor
of the garrison, and commanding the South-West
dtstrict, with the usual honours. The regiment was
commanded by Major Judd, in the absence of Col.
Gilpin, M.P., who was prevented being present in
consequence of being one of the sufferers, but in no
severe degree, by the late railway accident near
Wimbledon. After inspecting the men, Lord
Paulett, addressing the commanding officer, said,—
I extremely regret losing the services of so
fine a regiment as the Bedfordshire Light Infantry.
I am sorry that Col. Gilpin is not present, and learn
with regret that his absence is occasioned by a severe
railway accident, and that he can only return to
march his regiment home. It was not my intention
to take my leave of you so early, but official duties
call me to London, and I shall not return until it
would be too late for the purpose. The very high
state of efficiency of the corps is eminently creditable
to all, from the commanding officer to the private,
and shows that all have worked together to promote
the interests of the service. The soldierlike appear-
ance and discipline of the Bedford is unrivalled,
and their general good conduct has become a house-
hold word in Portsmouth. No regiment has ever
behaved itself in a more orderly manner, and I tell
you you are a most respectable body of men. The
chief magistrate of this town is an old and expe-
rienced soldier, and the character he gives you is
unexampled in this garrison. I cannot let this op-
portunity pass by without speaking in terms of
high commendation of Capt. and Adjt. Toseland.
I knew him in the Crimea when he was Adjt. of the
33d, and when I had the honour of command-
ing the Light Division. A more zealous or merito-
rious officer is not in the service. The Parliamentary
duties of your colonels have subjected you to many
changes of commanding officers, but you have al.
ways had an efficient one, and Captain Toseland's
ability and unwearied zeal have always ensured
the highest state of efficiency to the corps. Officers,
non-commissioned officers, and soldiers of the Bed-
ford, you are a regiment that your country and
county ought to be proud of, and I feel assured that
the reception you will meet with in Bedford on your
return will be worthy your high character. The
good wishes of the inhabitants of Portsmouth will,
lam sure, accompany you. I wish you all success
in procuring employment on being disembodied,
and trust every man will do well.
The regiment will proceed to Bedford on Thurs-
day next.

TEE VOLUNTEER MOVEMENT.

LONDON SCOTTISH RIFLES

A general meeting of this corps was held last
night in the Floral Hall, Covent-garden, with re-
spect to the recent appointment of 14 non-commis-
sioned officers. Lord Elcho, the colonel of the regi-
ment, presided, and at great length explained the
principles on which the election of the officers had
been conducted. A protracted discussion followed,
which lasted until nearly midnight, and in which
Professor Mason and other gentlemen took a promi-
nent part. The question at issue resolved itself into
this—whether the members of the corps should
have the nomination and appointment of the non-
commissioned officers, or whether the ultimate deci-
sion should rest with the commanding officer. In
the course of the opening speech of Lord Etcho he
clearly showed by reference to the act under which
the volunteer corps are enrolled and by the rules bind-
ing upon the Scottish Rifles, that the commanding
officer, being directly responsible to Government for
the efficiency of the corps, had practically unlimited
and uncontrolled power in the appointment of the
officers, upon whose efficiency that of the
regiment itself depended. Anxious, however,
to consult the feelings and wishes of the
gen ntlemen he had the honour to com-
mand, he had, previous to the late election,
consulted with the greatest anxiety and with the
most sincere desire to promote concord and effec-

tiveness, the most experienced members of the corps,
and, as the result of that consultation and conside-
ration, had issued a list of names nomina ed by the
various companies of the regiment, mer !y italicis-
ing, as commanding officer, those whom he thought
most deserving of promotion. The I, suit was the
election by vote of the following gentlemen to be
non-commissioned officers alphabetically arranged,
the last number showing the company to which
they belong :

Company. Company.
Aitchison, Sergeant 6 I Fotheringham, Sergt.... 1
Brown, Sergeant.. 4 Macconochie, Sergeant .. 5
Cameron, Sergeant 2 1 Masson 5
Campbell, Sergeant -
Dunlop (C. 8.) 1 Murdoch, Corporal 5
Edward (Indian medals) 1 Oliver, Sergeant 1
Ferguson 6 Pringle, Sergeant .. 6
Mr. FENWICK—How many voted ?
Lord ELCHO-276.
Mr. FENWICK—Out 0

850 ?

Lord ELCHO—That was not his business. It
was open to every member to vote, and the unani-
mity of the corps in the election• was shown in the
fact that in the first list of 30 nominations issued,
there were 10 approved of by himself and the
Council, and in the final list of 14 appointed, nine
names were italicised by the commanding officer.
(Cheers.) Under any system whatever there must
be heartburnings and jealousies on this question.
When there were many applicants for places, and
only a few places to be filled, disappointment must
follow, and when those so disappointed communi-
cated their feelings to their friends, of course dis-
content was spread, however small the grounds for
this discontent might originally have been. In
his position of commanding officer he had two duties
to perform—one was his duty to the Government,
a duty rigidly defined by the law; the other to
promote to the utmost extent in his power the
harmony and the efficiency of the body under his
command. To any regular, constitutional, and
proper expression of the sentiments and feelings
of the regiment he was always ready to listen, and
although a memorial signed by 80 members out of
850 of the effective strength of the regiment had
been sent to him after it had first appeared in a
daily newspaper, he was not indisposed to discuss
the question either in that general meeting, or with
a deputation appointed by it.
A lengthened discussion followed, which termi-
nated in the rejection, by a large majority, of a
motion to appoint a deputation to wait on the
commanding officer. The noble lord then said
that anonymous letters had been published in a
morning journal affecting his conduct as a com-
manding officer. That was a breach of discipline
which he intended to bring before a court of inquiry
if he could find the writer, and it would also be
his duty to institute an inquiry as to the originator
of the irregular memorial to which he had referred.
He should be happy to see any one as to the best
mode of officering the regiment in future if they
came to him in a regular manner; but it must be
understood distinctly that he would stand by the
last appointments. (Cheers.)

The protracted proceedings terminated by the
noble lord and the leading malcontents shaking
hands together very cordially, by three cheers for
Lord Eloho, and three more for the London Scottish
Rifles.

THE LATE FATAL ACCIDENT ON THE LONDON
AND SOUTH- WESTERN RAILWAY.

The following is a more extended report of the
concluding portion of the inquest than appeared
in The Sun of yesterday :
Mr. F. Hohler, of Kingston, said he left the
Waterloo Station by the 5.15 train—the train that
followed the 5.10. At the Epsom junction they
were stopped by two danger signals. They were
both alight, and the train therefore came to a dead
stop close to the second light. Heard a man call
out there had been a frightful accident a little
below, and he at once jumped out and ran on to the
junction to render what assistance he could. He
got a light, and after helping some persons, went
forward with two porters. There was a first-class
carriage turned over between the up .and down
lines. One of the porters called " Good gracious !
here is a man under here." Witness looked under,
and saw the body of a man underneath. Witness
could only see his bead and shoulders, as a railway
mat was over the rest of.the body. The deceased
man was lying on his face, and the whole weight
of the carriage rested on the back of his head and
body. A door of the carriage was forced off and
lying near his feet, which were covered with the
sand and ballast. Witness helped to turn over the
carriage, and a gentleman stepped forward and felt
the deceased's head, and said that death must have
been instantaneous. The carriage under which de-
ceased was found was the only carriage which had
fallen upon the six-foot way. The others had turned
to the left and gone over the bank. Deceased, when
found, was lying with his head up towards London,
and witness was sure his legs and the lower part of
his body was quite covered by the gravel and bal-
last which had been torn up by the can iage leaving
the rails and thrown over it. Witness took the
door which had been forced off and a cushion, and
helped to place the body on them. That was the
body the jury had seen that day.
George Wyld, M.D., examined—l live at 12,
Great Cumberland-street, St.Marylebone. On Mon-
day afternoon last I was a passenger by the 5.10
train to Guildford. I travelled in the middle com-
partment of a first-class carriage marked " Guild-
ford." I took my seat in the right-hand corner, with
my back to the engine. I believe the carriage was
about the middle of the train. I did not notice
any guard's van attached to the train as I entered
the carriage; but I can state that after the accident
I saw no guard's van behind us. Two other gen-
tlemen entered the same carriage that 1 rode in, one
of whom took his seat on my right hand in the
corner, leaving a seat vacant between himself and
me, and the other took the diagonal corner, oppo-
site my first fellow passenger. I observed that the
gentleman who occupied the diagonal corner was
of dark complexion and pale, and that immediately
on taking his seat he covered his face with a white
cambric handkerchief, as if intending to sleep. I
took no further notice of him until I felt a certain
bumping. I should have thought very little of this
bumping, but having been in the accident at
Hitchin in September, 1859, I knew very well that
it indicated something wrong. I felt that it was
utterly useless to move, and I therefore sat fast in
the corner. I then perceived the gentleman in the
diagonal corner stagger to his feet, apparently con-
fused and only half awake. The next moment the
carriage began to heel over towards my side, and I
instinctively seized hold of the partition between
the seats with my left hand. I looked to the left
and almost momentarily saw the ground through a
hole or chasm in the carriage. Immediately after-
wards the gentleman who had been in the diagonal
corner fell backwards, his knees being drawn up
towards his head, while his hands, instead of being
convulsively extended, were held up about a foot
from his face. I observed that his face was per-
fectly calm, wearing no expression of fear or pain.
On falling, he instantly disappeared through the
chasm. Whether the aperture was caused by the
door being open or the side of the carriage driven
out I could not tell ; but the carriage was falling at
the time and was very near the ground. I did not
hear the gentleman utter a cry or a sound. My
believe is that,
not being quite awake when the
accident began,
he rose up hurriedly and was
precipitated through the chasm. I cannot say
how far the carriage went, but my impression
is that it must have caught him up and ground
him on the gravel. I saw no attempt made by
anybody in the carriage to open the door, and
I don t believe that it was opened by the act of any
passenger. I cannot say positively whether the
window on my side was down, but think most
likely it was so. The window, however, was not
large enough to let a man through, and I think he
must have fallen out through the doorway. He
paTssheed
Coroner—Does not this evidence negative
the idea which has been put forward, Mr. Bedford,
as to the deceased having thrown himself out of
the carriage.
Mr. Bedford—Certainly I have not given any
countenance to such a report ; I have complained
that it should ever have been circulated.
Nlr. Dalrymple (solicitor for the railway cm-
pany)— I think it is sufficiently clear that the door
of the carri ige must have been wrenched off, but
as this unfortunate gentleman was found under-
neath the carriage it was at first supposed that he
had been in the act of getting out of it when it fell
over. If any member of Dr. Baly's family has been
pained by the statement of the secretary of the
company on that point, I am sure Mr. Crombie is
sorry that he made it. It was the natural infe-
rence he drew from the information given to him
at the time.

Dr. Wyld's examination continued—l cannot
tell whether the door on my side of the carriage
had been locked or not. I did not observe any
officer of the company lock it. I have no doubt
now that the deceased was the person who sat in
the diagonal compartment. I got out myself
through the window, which became the roof of the
carriage when it had upset, and I said to my other

fellow-passengers, " God bless us ! Did you see
that man go through the hole ? he must have been
crushed." I then went and saw the people who
were wounded, and did what I could to assist them.
I next proceeded to the carriage in which I had
travelled, but I could eiscover no one under it. I
went and told the officers of the company that a
gentleman had fallen through that carriage. They
many observations, but instituted no exami-
nation as to the fact. Some one standing near
said, " Oh! that gentleman is all right ; we have
seen him."

Dr. Weld's examination being now concluded,
The Coroner said he had received an intimation
that the third passenger who was in the same car-
riage with the deceased was too ill to attend the in-
quiry that day.
A gentleman named Geach, who was travelling
at the time of the accident in the next compartment
of the carriage occupied by Dr. Baly, here stated
that it was totally impos..ible for that gentleman
to have made any attempt to get out, the catas•
trophe having occurred so quickly after the first
shock.

The Coroner—Such a notion has already been
sufficiently disproved; but even if it had been true,
it would have implied no reflection against the
deceased, who might naturally have been much
excited at such a moment.

A friend of Dr. Baly's who accompanied Mr.
Bedford complained that the secretary of the com-
pany had written a letter to the Times, stating
that if the deceased had kept his seat he would not
have lost his life.

Captain Mangles (a director of the company)
said he was not aware of the publication of any
letter containing such words.
[The passage of Mr. Crombie's letter here referred
to is as follows :—" By this unfortunate accident
I am sorry to say one passenger has lost his life,
apparently from having attempted to get out of
the carriage before the train came to a stand, and
two others have sustained serious personal
injury."]
The inquiry having been formally adjourned till
this day week the jury proceeded to view the scene
of the accident,'of which and the fragments of the
carriages scattered over the embankments they
made a long and careful examination, in which they
were assisted by Colonel Yolland and Mr. Beattie,
of the South-Western Railway. There is nothing
to add to the description of this sad scene which
appeared in our columns of yesterday. The trace
of one carriage being off the line is very distinct
before the junction is reached, and at the points
there is evidence of a carriage having gone off on
the left side and got on the rails again. After
passing the points it would seem that nearly all
the carriages must have been off the rails, and at
the bridge they went over the embankment one
after the other. The flange of one of the right-
hand wheels of the tender has been forccd.back for
at least an inch or more over half the diameter of
the wheel ; but whether this was the cause or the
effect of the accident remains to be seen.

L.4W INTELLIGENCE, Jan. 31.

-COURT FOR DIVORCE AND MATRINIO-

NIAL CAUSES.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
STURGE V. STURGE AND MELLI 3.

Mr. Field appeared for the petitioner; Mr.
Karslake for the respondent; and Mr. Thrupp for
the co-respondent.
The case was part heard on Tuesday, and ad-
journed for further evidence as to the charge of
adultery and as to identity. The petition was by a
husband, and both the co-respondent had filed
answers denying the adultery charged, pleading
condonation and connivance, and recriminating.
Evidence had been given of the marriage of Mr.
and Mrs. Sturge in February, 1832, and of their
subsequent cohabition at Bristol, where Mr. Sturge
carried on the business of a musical instrument
maker and mender. They had several children, of
whom one only survives. In June, 1858, the co-
respondent Mellis, who was described as a com-
positor, went to lodge with Mr. and Mrs. Sturge,
and remained with them until January, 1859.
Shortly after ho went away Mrs. Sturge left her
husband's house, and had since lived with him as
his wife at Stonehouse.
Martha Thomas was one of the witnesses called
on behalf of the petitioner. She stated that she
was formerly a needlewoman ; that, in March,
1859, she was at work at Bristol, and, hearing that
Sturge was looking out for a person to take charge
of his shop, she applied for the situation, and he
engaged her at a salary of £l2 a year to assist in
the shop and take care of the child, a boy 11 years
of age. In October, 1859, two tipsy women came
to the shop, one of whom she believed was Mrs.
Sturge. The woman asked her whether she was
Mrs. Sturge. She replied that she was not, and
she should be very sorry to be Mrs. Sturge. She
used to sleep at the house of Mrs. Bryant, her sister,
who lived in Itatcliff-street. Sturge was then
living in Park-place, and she was in the habit of
going at eight in the morning to dress the boy, of
taking her breakfast there with Sturge, of having
her other meals there, and of staying till 10 or 11
at night.
The witness was cross-examined by Mr. Kars-
lake, who elicited from her that Sturge, after he
left Park-place, occupied lodgings, consisting only
of a bed-room and sitting-room, and that she was
in the habit of keeping her bonnet and a frock in
the bed-room, and of changing her frock there when
she had done her work. She positively denied
that she had ever been in or on the bed. She left
in October, 1859, and came to stay with an aunt
in London for about six weeks. She then returned
to Bristol on her own private business. She met
the little boy by accident in the Broadmead, and
went with him to see Sturge, who re-engaged her.
She had continued with him down to the present
time. He never called her Mrs. Sturge. He and
the little hoy called her " Sarah Ann."
In re-examination, the witness said that she had
never had any improper intimacy with Mr. Sturge.
Mr. Karslake, for the respondent, called
Eliza Sturge, the petitioner's niece. She said
that Mrs. Sturge left her home in January, 1859.
She then went to look after Sturge's house from
time to time, and to take care of the little boy.
There were a sitting-room and three bedrooms in
the house. One evening, about three weeks after
Mrs. Sturge left, Martha Thomas and another
woman went to the house, and had supper with
Sturge. He told her that Thomas was Sarah Ann
Dodsworth, from Plymouth. She left Thomas
there that night, and found her there when she
went back at 8 o'clock next morning. She saw she
was not required any longer, and went away.
Whenever she went to the house afterwards she
saw Thomas there. Sturge moved from Park-
place to St. James's-churchyard. He occupied two
rooms—a bedroom and a sitting-room, communi-
cating by folding doors. About half-past 8 one
morning, when she called at the house, she saw
Thomas in the bed undressed. Sturge was getting
breakfast ready. She went into the bedroom.
Sturge called out to Thomas, " Come, old girl, it's
time to get up ; breakfast is ready !" She then
went away to her business. The little boy was
there in his night-dress. Sturge afterwards
moved to the Horse-fair, where he had two bed-
rooms and a sitting-room. She saw Thomas
there. Thomas's gown and mantle were kept in
the bedroom. He next lived in the Arcade, and
Thomas remained with him. In October, 1859,
Mrs. Sturge went back to Bristol, and remained
about a week. Thomas then left Sturge's house.
After Mrs. Sturge left Bristol she went to Sturge's
house in the Arcade. Sturge said he had given his
wife a sovereign and sent her off to Mellis, because
he could not make herself happy. He also showed
fier his wife's linen which had come from the wash,
and said he was goinc, to send it off to her. She
then went and looked after the house for a fort-
night. Sturge then said he expected "Sarah
Ann" back from London. A few days after
" Sarah Ann," or Thomas, came back. Sarah Ann
had remained with Sturge ever since.
In cross examination the witness admitted she
was now on bad terms with Sturge.
Mr. Karslake submitted that upon this evidence
the pleas of condonation and connivance had been
established. Even if it had not, there could be no
doubt that the counter charge of adultery had been
proved against the petitioner.
Mr. Field contended that the unsupported evi-
denee of one witness as to a conversation was not
sufficient to establish the charges of connivance and
condonation. As to the counter charge of adultery,
it was disproved by the evidence of Thomas. Con •
sidering the position in life of the parties, it could
not be presumed from the circumstances she had
stated that an improper intimacy had been formed
between them, and the charge, therefore, rested
upon the evidence of Eliza Sturge. It was very
improbable that she and her parents should have
continued upon intimate terms with Sturge if she ,
had seen Thomas in Sturge's bed. In the absence
of corroborative evidence the Court ought not to act
upon that statement.
The Judge Ordinary said there was no doubt that
the charge of adultery against the respondent and
the co-respondent had been established. He next
had to consider whether the charge of adultery
against the petitioner had been established. His
lordship referred to the evidence of Thomas, and
observed that the course of events, as stated by her,
was singular. The petitioner must have been
perfectly well aware that adultery with that young
behavedw woman veryan wasvery
unkindly to her in omitting to call
imputed to him, and he had certainly
her sister, who might have given such strong
con-
firmation of her story if it was true. It was at least
and late at night in the house of A man who was
suspicious that she should be early in the morning,