The Sun.
London, England, 1859-02-11 00:00:00

THE ARMY.

Yesterday some experiments took place.near the
field-works of the Royal Engineers at Chatham, for
the purpose of testing some new descriptions of
missiles which have been invented by Captain J.
Norton, an officer who has already made some
valuable inventions in connection with the rifle.
The afternoon was exceedingly wet and unfavour-
able for carrying on the operations, but notwith-
standing this drawback a number of officers of the
Royal Engineers were present. The experiments
first made were with a new description of rifle
shell, called, by Captain Norton, the liquid-fire
rifle shell. The object of this new missile is to set

on fire the sails, ridging, and even the hull of any
vessel against which the shell is thrown, and cer-
tainly the results of the experiments yesterday
proved that the shell in question is one of the most
extraordinary projectiles ever introduced into the
art of warfare. The shell is about three or four
times the size of an ordinary conical rifle bullet,
but is hollow, the interior being filled with glass in
which is contained the " liquid fire." This chemical
substance is prepared from a secret in the posses-
sion of Captain Norton, but the chief ingredients
are phosphorus dissolved in bi-sulphate of carbon,
and hermetically sealed. Immediately on this shell
striking any ignitable matter the glass is broken,
and so powerful is the liquid that it almost instan-
taneously sets the objects in a blaze. During the
experiments yesterday afternoon a number of large
sacks were suspended on poles, to represent the
sails of a ship, and these were soon soaked through
with rain, so as to become completely saturated.
Captain Norton then took a heavy three-groved
rifle, which he loaded with one of his shells and
fired at the canvas. Notwithstanding that the sack-
ing was very wet the effect was exceedingly sur-
prising, the liquid spreading through the canvas,
which in a short time began to smoulder, and after
another :interval burst forth into flames, entirely
consuming the whole. Had the sacking been dry
the effect would have been instantaneous. Captain
Norton can undertake, with the same description
of shells, but of larger size, to set fire to any
line-of-battle ship in the navy. The next experi-
ments undertaken were with a new description
of rifle shot, which has been named the " Spinster."
This bullet, which can be fired by Captain Norton
at a distance of no less than 1,800 yards, is intended
for blowing up ammunition waggons, bags of gun-
powder, or setting fire to the camp of an enemy.
The bullet, which in shape and size resembles the
Enfield rifle ball, has a chemical substance attached
to its base, which becomes ignited the instant it is
fired, remaining burning long enough to do the
execution for which it is intended. A bag, con-
taining about two pounds' weight of gunpowder,
mixed with a great quantity of sawdust, was placed
upon the ground, the powder being soon wetted
through by the rain. One of the " spinster" shots
was fired at the mass by means of Capt. Norton's
gossamer seamless cartridges, but owing to the
powder being so wet no immediate result followed,
as the gunpowder was so mixed up with the saw-
dust. After a short time, however, the powder was
ignited and blown up. Captain Norton afterwards
exhibited some of his " frictional igniters," which
are a kind of hand grenade, and can be made to
explode when thrown from a glacis in the face of
assailants. The engineer officers present expressed
themselves in satisfactory terms at the result of the
experiments made with f Capt. Norton's inventions.
Large detachments
En-
gineers, the Marine the Royal Artillery,
alight Infantry, and the Antrim
Rifle Militia were eedstein front of the Artillery
Barracks, Woolwich,P
garrison orders circulated onpursuance of
even-
ing, to form a funeralthe preceding
party inlrieradiness to issue
from the garrison at 2 o'clock. Mr. Lightfoot, the
deceased, had recently undertaken the temporary
office of Acting Assistant-Surgeonl at the Royal ,
Artillery Infirmary, and on Friday ast, after visit-
ing the sick wards of the hospital, he was about to
sign the register,. required on sucoccasions, when
he complained of sudden indisposition.The medi-
cal officers of the establishmetoi were in-
stantlyinto a summstatoneed, but the decewashiedednhhtie d already
gy, in
enrolledexpired
fallen of
in the course of an hour. Although notas a permanent officer in the service of herMa
jesl7, and consequently not strictly entitled to a-
military funeral, the routine of the service was
in this instance relaxed in favour of the deceased,
who was interred with full military honours. A
long column of troops, resting on their reversed
arms, guarded the entire line of march from the hi_
firmary to the extremity of the parade, between
which the body was conveyed on a gun carriage
drawn by six artillery horses, headed by the regi-
mental band performing the slow and solemn dirge
of the "Dead. March in Saul." Six of the medical
officers, friends of the deceased, acted as pall-bearers,
and some of his nearest relatives followed as chief
mourners. The troops then filed into line four
abreast, and accompanied the corpse to St. Thomas's
Church at New Charlton, the place of interment.
The funeral train was closed by Col. Bloomfield,
11-A. A.D.C. to her Majesty, and the second com-
mandant of the garrison ; Lieut.-Col. Congdon,
!Uri., Brigade Major Shaw, and Dr. Pratt, deputy
thireter-general of hospitals.
detachment of 90 drivers, ordered to be distri-
buted as a reinforcement to the 12 field batteries of
ReYal Artill
arnnder orders for service in India,
were yester despatched from Woolwich, to join
their respective
The whole of this powerful prior to embarkation.
vfvueurtful draught will leave Eng-
land in the most perfect of military efficiency,
reinforced to the
andrAlowar strength, viz., 120
gunners, 100 drivers, nomx-commissioned offi-
cers, forming a total of 3moci
Surgeon-Major C. C. J. Delmeegne, M M.D. has been appointed by the authorities aftiieTiv
ment to serve as principal medical mar Depart-
ment
distriofficer in
commandO of ple
ct, under the
General Eden. Major-
It is stated that Mr. Armstrong, the inventor
the wrought-iron rifle cannon, has entered int-o-a'
contract with her Majesty's Government, and that
a considerable number of the guns are to be forth-
with supplied for tho use of the Axtillexy,

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—Feb. 10.

HOUSE OF LORDS.-APPEAT S.
THE GREAT THELLITSSON WILL ( ASE.

Their lordships assembled this morilngYor the
first time as a judicial tribunal durin , the present
session for the special purpose of pr ceeding with
the extraordinary will cause of 1 hellusson and
Thellusson.

Thomas Robarts Thellusson, appellant, v. Abra-
ham Wildey Robarts, Edward James Dawkins,
Charles Sabine Augustus Thellusson, the Right
Hon. Frederick William Brook, Baron Rendlesham
(an infant), and the Hon. Arthur Thellusson (since
deceased), respondents.
The on. Arthur Thellusson (since deceased),
appellant, v. Abraham Wildey Roberts, Edward
James Dawkins, the Right Hon. Frederick William
Brook, Baron Rendlesham, Thomas Roberts Thel-
lusson, and Charles Sabine Augustus Thellusson,
respondents.
These two appeals from the decision of the
Master of the Rolls involved the construction of
one of the strangest wills ever recorded, and which
for upwards of sixty years has been the subject of
a long and expensive litigation for the once-colossal
fortune of the testator, Peter Thellusson, of Brads-
worth, in the county of York, Esq. The testator
made his will in 1796, and died in 1797, leaving
three sons—Peter Isaac, George Woodford, and
Charles—and several grandsons. After several
small bequests, he devised all his real estates, of
the value of upwards of £60,000, to certain trus-
tees, together with a large personal property, to
be invested in the purchase of land upon certain
trusts, the substance of which was, that all rents
and profits were to accumulate and to be laid out
in the purchase of real property during the lives of
his three sons and his grandsons, then living or
born in due time after his death. In fact, none of
his sons or his grandsons then living could inherit
his wealth, his object being to found three great
fortunes, of which his less immediate representa-
tives were to be the possessors. At the time of the
testator's death, there were nine persons in exist-
ence during whose lives the accumulations were
directed to continue, namely, Peter Isaac, the tes-
tator's eldest son, created Baron Rendlesham in
1806 ; George Woodford, his second son ; Charles,
his third son ; five sons of Peter Isaac, namely,
John, George, Henry, William, none of whom left
issue, and Frederick, whose son Frederick William
is the present Baron Rendlesham, one of the re-
spondents : Arthur, the son of Peter, was born in
Ibol, after the death of the testator, and has died
since these appeals were brought. He has left one
son, Arthur, who has revived the appeal. The
ninth person was Charles, who was the last sur-
vivor of the nine lives, who died in 1856. He was
the eldest son of Charles, the third son of Peter
Thellusson, and has left one son, Charles Sabine
Thellusson, one of the now respondents ; George
Woodford, the second son, left no issue. The great
contest is as to the true construction to be placed
on the words," eldest lineal male descendant," whe-
ther " eldest" is to be taken in its legal or natural
sense. The litigants are the grandsons of the tes-
tator, who are the appellants, and the respondents are
his great-grandsons, and the question in point of
fact is, which line comes within the term " eldest."
The will became the subject of proceedings in the
Court of Chancery, which in 1801 declared the
devises and limitations in the will to be good, and
directed the trusts to be carried out under the di-
rection of the court. The testator's eldest son was
declared entitled, as heir at law, to the real estate
purchased by the testator between the period when
he made his will. The House of Lords affirmed
this decree. In accordance with the terms of the
the will, the three sons of the testator presented, in
turn, to certain family livings. In 1820, when all
the sons were dead, Henry Hoyle Oddie claimed
the right of presentation. He was the son of the
only married daughter of the testator's second son,
George Woodford, and claimed as the eldest male
lineal descendant. This became the subject of a
fresh suit of Oddie v. Woodford, and their lord-
ships' house, on appeal, held that being descended
through a female, Oddie did not answer the de-
scription of "the eldest male lineal descendant."
On the death of Charles, the last survivor of the
nine lives, which occurred in 1856, the time as
designed by the testator for the partition of the
estates arrived, and there being no male lineal
descendants of George Woodford, the testator's
second son, Baron Rendlesham, the respondent,
filed a bill, praying he might be entitled to one
moiety of the estates as " the eldest lineal male
descendant" of Peter Isaac, the testator's eldest son.
The other respondent, Charles Sabine Augustus,
also filed a bill, praying to be entitled to the other
half of the estates, as " the eldest male lineal de-
scendant" of Charles, the third son of the testator.
The appellants, Thomas and Arthur (the latter of
whom is since deceased), also filed bills, praying
that they, as the grandsons, and " eldest male"
surviving issue of the testator, when the estate be-
came divisable, might be declared entitled to the
estates. The Master of the Rolls declared the
respondent, Lord Rendlesham, to be entitled to one
moiety of the estate as " eldest male lineal descend.
ant" of Peter Isaac, and the respondent Charles
Sabine Augustus to the other moiety, as the " eldest
male lineal descendant" of Charles, the third and
youngest son of the testator. Against this decision
the present appeals were brought.
Mr. Rolt and Mr. N. Palmer were heard for the
respondents.
Their lordships then adjourned the further
hearing.

- COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius after Term at Westmin-
ster, before Lord Campbell and a Special Jury.)

DICKSON V. THE EARL OF WILTON.-LIBEL.

This was an action for libel, brought by Lieut.-
Colonel Dickson, late of the Tower Hamlets Militia,
against the Earl of Wilton, colonel of that force.
The alleged libel was contained in a letter addressed
by the defendant to the Viscount Combermere, and
in an oral communication which the defendant
made to Air. Thomas Duncombe, M.P., and was to
the effect that the plaintiff had misappropriated the
regimental funds.
The defendant pleaded not guilty and a justifica-
tion.

Mr. Edwin James, Mr. Hawkins, and Mr. Cole
ridge were for the plaintiff; and the Attorney.
General, Mr. Collier, Mr. Millward, and Mr. West
represented the defendant.

Mr. James in opening the case said the plaintiff,
Lieut.-Colonel Dickson, was -a soldier and a man of
honour, and the defendant, the Earl of Wilton, the
colonel of the Tower-Hamlets Militia regiment,
which was embodied in March, 1855. The noble
lord received his coloneley from the late Duke of
Wellington, but until that time he had never seen
any service—.

- never set a squadron in the field,
Nor the division of a battle knows

More than a spinster."
The complainant, however, had served in India and
Spain during the war. e had also held an ap-
pointment at the Cape of Good Hope, and been alto-
gether about 33 years in her Majesty's army. On the
10th July, 1846, Mr. Dickson was appointed major of
the regiment in question by the late Duke of Wel-
lington. After the outbreak of the war with Rus-
sia, in 1855, the regiment was embodied and called
out. It assembled first at Bethnal-green, after-
wards removed to Woolwich, where it encamped.
In March, 1855, the plaintiff became the lieutenant-
colonel, and being a man thoroughly knowing his
profession, he did all he could during the year's
service to render the regiment efficient, and to raise ,
its military character, and he was beloved by all
the men in the ranks with whom he came in com-
munication. In militia regiments there was what
was called a regimental mess, which was formed by
the contributions of the officers and by a bonus or
gift of the Government at the rate of £25 for each
eonmany. For a long time, while the regiment was
at Woolwich, there was no regular mess ; the offi-
cers messed with the officers of the artillery, each
paying his quota; but an independent mess for the
regiment-having been ultimately formed, it became
necessary to have china, table linen, and various
other • articles and these were ordered by the Earl
of Wilton,pliedprincipal portion of them being sup-.
Messr. Hodge Messrs.
Sharpus and Company, and
these articles the and Lowman. For the expense of
but they faileteoofficers of the regiment are liable,
their respective proportions,
The amount owingpaty, yessrs. Sharpus for goods
supplied to the regime
£5BO odd, and they
sued the Earl of Wiltileii\vr that sum. He was
extremely annoyed at this,° rand, it not being con-
venient for him at that time PaY the money, he
yment in six we eks,
gave a judge's order for its pa
which expired on the Bth of May, 1858 and
on the
:
26th of that month he penned the libelibelswlc which con-
stituted the foundation of this action. The regimentti
was disbanded in May, 1856, and these liabilities
were those of the officers, who hoped that the regi-
ment
zei
ment would be re-embodied in the following year
and intended probably to discharge them after that
event, and the Earl of Wilton was constantly writing
to Col. Dickson requesting him to
.come to him and
see if the creditors could not be staved off for an-
other year. The libel was contained in a letter which
the 11',arl of Wilton addressed to Viscount Comber-
mere, who, however, according to army routine,
had nothing to do with the matter, and therefore it
could not properly be called a privileged communi-
cation • but if it could, that defence would fail, be-
cause the Earl of Wilton had placed a justification
on the record, and the jury would have to say whe-
ther Col. Dickson had or had not been guilty of a
paltry embezzlement. The letter was clearly not
written honestly and with a bona fide desire for
Inquiry, but evidently to injure a gentleman against
I `/Thcal% his Lordship had taken most unfounded and

extraordinary prejudice, It was dated the 26th
May, 1858, and addressed to Field-Marshal Viscount
Combermere, and contained the following passages :
"In reference to your lordship's letter of the Ist inst., I
beg to inform your lordship, for the information of the Se-
cretary of State for War, why I consider Lieut.-Col. Dick-
son's conduct rendered it imperative for me, as colonel
commanding the regiment, to suggest his removal from it.
" On the 13th Aug., 1856, the regiment under the com-
mend of Lieut.-Col. Dickson marched to Cremorne-gardens
to assist in a sham attack upon Sebastopol, at which some
of the men of the regiment were injured, as well as some
arms, accoutrements, and clothing lost or damaged. On the
3d Oct., 1856, Col. Dickson received from the committee of
the Wellington College, £79 for compensation, to be
awarded to the men injured on that occasion, and £4O 12s.
for the arms, accoutrements, and clothing lost or damaged.
It has latelycome to my knowledge that a sumof £2l 2s. ld.
out of the £4O 12s. for paying' the damages stated above,
although nearly two and a half years have elapsed, still re-
mains unpaid."

Now, the facts with regard to that matter were
these :—A "benefit" was given at Cremorne-gar-
dens, on behalf of the Wellington College, the per-
formance consisting of a mock attack by the Eng-
lish and their allies, the French, upon the Russians
at Sebastopol. In consequence of a platform giving
way, several men, including some of Col. Dickson's
regiment, were injured, and the managers of the
Wellington College thought it right to pay the
suni.i mentioned by the Earl of Wilton by way of
compensation. Col. Dickson received the money,
and he disbursed every farthing of it, as would be
proved by vouchers which would be produced. The
second charge in the letter was thus made :
" Col. Dickson' while in command of the regiment, in total
disregard of the rules, customs, and regulations of the ser-
vice, would not allow any mess meeting for auditing the
accounts, although applications for the same were repeatedly
made to him by the officers of the regiment, thereby causing
the officers to separate in total ignorance of the state of the
regimental funds,- and preventing the mess debts being pro-
perly discharged." _ _

- -
The learned counsel saidhe should prove that he
was never required to summon a meeting for the
accounts, and that one meeting for that purpose
was held. He now came to the third charge.
" In consequence of such neglect on the part of Lieut.-
Col. Dickson, I ordered a board of officers, composed of the
major and the two senior captains of the regiment, to in-
quire into and examine the mess accounts, by which it
appears that between the period of embodiment of the regi-
ment in March, 1855, and the formation of the mess in Oct.
in the same year, there was a misapplication of the funds of
the regiment amounting to £152 18s. 41d., the principal
items of which are for an entertainment, which ought to
have been defrayed by the officers of the regiment."

The explanation which the plaintiff would give
with regard to that sum would be explicit and
satisfactory. In July, 1856, the Earl of Wilton
suggested that his daughter, Lady Catherine Eger-
ton, should present to the regiment their new
colours, and when that ceremony took place, a
breakfast was given by the regiment with the
knowledge and sanction of his lordship ; and the
proper vouchers of the sums paid would be laid be-
fore the jury. This entertainment cost £69, which
had been deducted from the £152, and yet with the
knowledge of that fact the Earl of Wilton made
this charge against Col. Dickson, a charge of
an offence which under the Mutiny Act rendered
him liable to four years' penal servitude. The other
items were made up in this way. There was an
" inspection luncheon" when Gen. Pierrepont came
from the Horse Guards to inspect the regiment,
which involved an expense of £33, and also a din-
ner on the occasion of Col. North retiring from the
regiment, on the 4th August, 1855, which cost £36
25., and the balance, a miserable sum of £2 55.,
was spent in purchasing a topographical work
for the use of the officers. In a second letter,
dated the 24th July, 1858, the Earl of Wilton
renewed his charge against Col. Dickson in the fol-
lowing letter to Viscount Combermere :
" My Lord,—Since my accusation against Lieut.-Colonel
Dickson appearing in the public papers, I have received
in-
formation-Srom the sergeants of the regiment, and likewise
the regimental agents, that Lieut.-Col. Dickson drew from
the latter, in August, 1855, a sum of £25, which amount
was given by myself and Col. North for the sergeants'
mess, but which, as will be seen by the enclosed certificate,
was never received by the sergeants. I request you to for-
ward this to the Secretary of State for War, that with your
approval and sanction it-may be appended to what on a for-
mer occasion I laid before the court."

Ta-this charge Col. Dickson gave the most con-
clusive answer. About the camp at Woolwich there
were a number of poor people—the wives and chil-
dren of the privates. Col. Dickson benevolently
suggested that a " maternity fund" should be esta-
blished for their assistance. A sum of £5O was sub-
scribed for that purpose—the Earl of Wilton contri-
buting £lo—and the whole of the money was dist ri
buted among those people; Col. Dickson never having
had any control over it, and merely signing the
cheques, and handing them to the orderly. At length
Col. Dickson believed that it was the intention of
certain parties, from pique or something worse, to
dismiss him from the regiment without his being
heard, and desirous of having even-handed justice,
he consulted Mr. T. Duncombe, M.P. ,in July, 1858,
who put a question in the House of Commons to
Gen. Peel on the subject of his case. Afterwards the
Earl of Wilton called upon Mr. Duncombe, and, in
the course of conversation with hiin, said—" Things
have gone much too far, That is not the worst of
it; for, besides having received and retained the
regimental funds, I have had to pay £5BO for things
he ordered, having been sued, and a writ served on
me at his instigation." The learned counsel said the
fact was that all the other officers were sued as well
as his lordship, and that the plaintiff never insti-
gated the parties to sue him. Indeed, it would ap-
pear that the Earl of Wilton, finding it extremely
inconvenient to pay the money, suggested that the
other officers should be sued. Mr. James then stated
that a court of inquiry was appointed to inquire
into, the charges against Col. Dickson, and that it
held it sittings in August and Sept., but that Col.
Dickson was not heard on oath before it, and that
although it terminated its sittings in Sept. last,
neither the plaintiff nor the public knew at the pre-
sent moment whether the court had made any re-
port. All was kept as secret as diplomacy, and
whether there was or not a report in existence was a
dark, mysterious secret, confined to the archives of
the War-office; but to the surprise of Col. Dickson
he saw in the Gazette of the 28th Dec. last a notifi-
cation to the effect that the Lord Lieutenant of the
Tower had appointed Mr. Samuel Walker to the
regiment, " vice Lieut.-Col. Dickson, displaced,"
thus depriving him of a commission worth between
£3,000 and £4,000. It was under these circum-
stances that Col. Dickson brought this action into
court, in order to vindicate his character from the
gross imputations which had been cast upon it by
the defendant.

Lieut.-Col. Dickson was examined at great length
in support of the above statements. _

OnCross-examination by the Attorney-General,
he said his first introduction to the Earl of Wilton was
at Chester a good many years ago, when he was
introduced to him by his relative, Lord E bury.
During the whole time he was in the militia regi-
ment he was always on the most friendly and confi-
dential terms with the Earl of Wilton, and until
the middle of 1857, after the report of the board
with regard to Captain Dickson, he never had the
slightest difference with his lordship. After the
regiment was disbanded, the earl complained that
he had lent the band of the regiment to Sir B.
Hall to play on Sunday in the Regent's•park.
Witness succeeded Col. North as lieutenant-colonel
of the regiment. The first cheque he drew was in
February, 1856. He considered himself president
of the mess, ex officio, and that was the reason why
he received and disbursed monies. He took that
office at the request of Captain Brush, who was
inexperienced, and whose accounts had got into
confusion. They tried to allay the impatience of
the claimants upon the regiment , not having suffi-
cient funds to pay all demands. He complained of
the way in which Capt. Dickson kept the accounts,
and Capt. Dickson complained of him. Witness
once met the captain in the Haymarket, and used
violent language to him. Witness also threatened
to report him to the Earl of Wilton. He considered
the conduct of Captain Dickson during the whole
time he was in the regiment as disgraceful to a
soldier and a gentleman.
The witness was then Bross-examined at consider-
able length as to his differences with Captain
Dickson, and as to the state of his accounts in con-
nexion with the regiment, and as to his communi-
cations with the Earl of Wilton, both before and
after the disembodiment of the regiment, but
without eliciting any material fact to shake his
examination in chief.

At six o'clock, when the court rose, this cross-
examination had not concluded.
The trial will be resumed to-morrow

(this day).

POLICE INTELLIGENCE, Feb. 10.

GUILDHALL—JUVENILE CRIMINALS.—John
Walsh, 17, Wm. Ford, 13, and Ellen Casseldine,
16, living in the neighbourhood of Fox-court,
Gray's Inn•road, were placed at the bar before
Mr. Alderman Challis, charged with stealing a
pocketbook, containing one £5 Bank of England
note and two £5 Bewdley Bank notes, from the
person of Mr. Beddoe, of Lukhill, Stanport, Wor-
cestershire.

H. Tyler, of the G division of Metropolitan Police,
said—From information I received I apprehended
the prisoners for stealing a pocketbook and three
£5 notes. When I told them the charge they said
the boy Dowell, who gave me the information, had
stolen the pocketbook himself. I then went to the
White House, in Baldwin's-gardens, kept by a
person of the name of Jesse Hatton. I asked him
if he had received a £5 note from Casseldine, and
he said he had not, but that he received one from
two gentlemen, who had a bottle of wine at his
house and paid for it with a £5 note, which he
changed for them. He said he did not know the
gentlemen, but one of them gave the name of
Livermore with the note.
'Arlo Stone, a grocer is the neighbourhood;