The Express.
London, England, 1864-03-16 00:00:00

THE RXISESB, WEDNESDAY EVENING, MARCH 16, 1864.

hie (Sir G. Geer's) examtinication he stated his expectation
that the corporation would take every means to ensure the
safety of the public. He got an immediate answer stating
what had been dens, end ohm that the reservoir was to be
examined by the corporation engineer. Same then he had
rewired the report of the engineer, accompanied by a de-
scription of the precautionary measures which ware about
to be taken. These communications had appeared to be
satisfactory, but since then he bad received no information
on the subject. If the hon. member knew of the present
danger for • month be was sorry that he had not before
brought it under his (Sir G. Grey's) notice. He had, how-
ever. written by this post to the Mayor of Bradford
calling his attention to the subject, and demanding
a report as to the present condition of the reservoir.

'i j

to which Colonel Crawley bad been subjected, sad the
attempt. made and defeated to obtain a verdict 'sand hi=
The Marquis of HARTLYGTON said he rose to state the
conies which the government intended to take on this m-
asks, in referees to the various motions on the paper.
The government would give a most cordial meet to the
amendment of the right hon.entleman who had just
moved that it would be inexpedient to supply farther
on this subject. (Ironical cheers.) There was no
paper
gentleman who could state that the question had not
been fully and amply dimmed by the house, and he
thought the time had come when this controversy might be
brought to a close. He was glad to find that the hon.
gentleman, who bad moved for further paper, had
not called in question the finding of the court-martial, but
the speech of the hon. gentleman was in great part a repe-
tition of that which he made lest year, in which he called in
question the legality of the arrest of the sergeant-majors.
In reply to the speech of the hon. gentleman of last year,
he admitted on the part of the government that it was their
opinion, and that of their legal advisers, and of the military
authorities at the Horse-Guards, that the continuance of the
arrest after Sir W. Mansfield had decided that there were
no snfficient grenade for bringing the three sergeant-melon
to trial was illegal. But it was impossible to try Colossi
Crawley for the continued arrest mince he was covered by the
order of his commanding officer, Major-General FarrelL
There was no doubt a misunderstanding, and it was a most
unfortunate circumstance that the three men should have
been detained in custody three weeks beyond the proper time
He announced in the house last year, in most namistakrable
terms, that although Colonel Crawley might be morally
responsible, yet, after what occurred, he could not be tried,
because what he did was afterwards sanctioned by the order
of Sir W. Mansfield, who was himself technically re
aible for the illegal arrest, but he (the Marquis of rarl.-
Hart-
ton) explained that Sir W. Mansfield was placed is
difficult circumstances, as at that time he was 400 miles
away from where the occurrences had taken place, and
therefore he had no opportunity of making constant re-
ferences to any of those transactions which wen
going on. Sir W. Mansfield was evidently under
; the impression that the trial of the three men
would be terminated in a few days, and, if he had not been,
he would not have given the order for the continuance of
. the arrest. (Hear, hear.) The hoc. member for Andover
had disclaimed any with to see Sir W. Mansfield placed
upon his trial, and he did not think any bon. member
would desire that an officer of such distinguished services and
talent should be brought before a court-martial ; and he (the
Marquis of Harlington) felt perfectly certain that theme,-
' martial would have found him guilty of any military offence ;
for although he might have been technically responsible,
yet he was not morally guilty. He promised last
year that, although Sir W. Mansfield would not
be brought to trial, yet that the opinion of the
commander-in-chief that he had committed an error in
judgment would be communicated to him, and that had been
done, and he thought the communication of such an opinion
was • punishment, if a punishment it might be called,
fully and amply sufficient for any error in judgment upon
the occasion in question. (Hear, hear.)
Lord HOTHAM, after justifying an amendment he had
put upon the paper, said he cordially concurred in the prin-
ciple laid down by General Peel ; but this was an excep-
tional case, and exceptional cases required exceptional
remedies, and when such things were done as had been dose
in this case there wee more to fear from mystery and sec-my
than in letting the whole truth be given to the country.
He complained of some remarks made by Lord Harlington,
which he thought derogatory to Sir William Mansfield.
Lord HARTINGTON disclaimed any intention of dero-
gating from the high character of Sir W. Mansfield.
Mr. O'REILLY suggested that in the proceedings in
Irwin there had bees violations of military law.
Sir J. FERGL'SSON cited certain expressions used by
Mr. Fonseca' last year, in relation to the treatment of
Sergeant-Major Lilley, for which he thought an explanation
was due to the house. He reviewed and severely censured
the spirit of the proosediegs against Colonel Crowley, who
had suffered, he said, grievous injustice. Mr. Forteacue, is
his opinion, had only two coursers open to him—either to
apologise to the hones for having been made the vehicle of
gross falsehood, or to take exception to the finding of the
own-martial. . . . .

Mr. READLAbf, after explaining the course he had
taken, as Jadge-Advocate•General, with reference to the
Mhow court-martial, proceeded to reply to the objections
offered to the proceedings which had been taken against
Colonel Crawley, justifying the bringing that officer to a
court-martial, and the having the trial M England. He
defended the manner io which the trial had been conducted,
and all the steps be had taken in a case in which unusual
difficulties had presented themselves.
Mr. MOWBRAY complained that Mr. Bedlam had not
fully explained his oouraeof action in retegeDoe to the Mhow
, court-martial and to Paymaster Smales. He complained
likewise of the high terms in which he had spoken of Ser-
geant-Major Lilley, and that he had not touched upon the
question of the legality or illegality of the arrest. Aa to the
mode of conducting the proceedings at the trial of Colonel
Crawley, be suggested certain points in which that mode
was, in his opinion, erroneous, and that the fault lay with
the Judge Advocate-General.
Mr. SMOLLETT thought, with Sir J. Ferguson, that
the statement made by Mr. Fortescue last year ought to
have been retracted, and that an apology was due to the
house and the country. He read portions of the statement,
and detailed facts which showed, he said, that it was almost
wholly unfounded. He detailed the case of Paymaster
Sinaloa, and what he termed the inconsistent and capricious
orders in his case ; and in that of Colonel Crawley be con-
sidered that there was not a department of the government
that was free from blame. He thought there was no Deem-
ing for a court-martial upon that officer.
Mr. DUTTON vindicated the conduct of Sir William
Mr. BOUVERIE contended that Mr. Fortescae was un-
fairly censured for the etatemeut he bad made.
The dim-mince was continued by Mr. R. Dutton, Mr.
Bawer* Coloiml Gilpin, Mr. Neste, Captain Archdall, and
Sir W. Fraser.

Mr. FORTESCUE could not avoid saying a few words
after the appeals which had been made to him, particularly
by the hoe. member ft Ayrshire, whore language, if tech-
nically within the rules of parliament, was not in ac-
cordance with that courteous and gentleman-like
demeanour which the hon. gentleman might study with
great advantage to the improvement of his own manners.
("Hear, hear," and • laugh.) He (Mr. Fortescue) had
already explained that he had brought forward the statements
he had made upon information which he thought was well
founded. This evening he had carefully avoided casting any
aspersion upon Colonel Crawley ; and he had confined his
remarks to various oonsiderations which be thought showed
that has original remarks were not altogether unsupported
by facts. As referee°, had been made to Mrs. Lilley, be
molt say that if hoe. gentlemen would read the evidence
of Surgeon Barnett, they would eee that in the details of the
aneet there had been a needles, disregard both of decency
sod of humanity. (Hear, hear.) As regarded the motion,
he was willing to withdraw his proposal for the production
of the confidential reports. (Hear, bear.)
The motion was theca negatived, and General Peers
amendment was agreed to without a division.

,-

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCITIT.-7-Msineroxr., Mawr 15.

The bushier of thaw assists WU proceeded with yester-
day morning, the Lord Chief Biros predding Is the Crown
Court, and Lord Chief Justice Rate at nisi prim. There are
seventeen causes entered for trial, and fire are special jury
cams, and one of these, it is said, will occupy two days, if
it is tried.

The Lord Chief Baron, in charging the grand jury, said
there was only cone cue to which he considered it necessary
todirect their attention, which was a charge of wilful murder
against two prisoners. The case, however, was vary diffe-
rent to ordinary met of murder, for it appeared that the
accused pinions were originally committed for trial upon a
charge of robbing the deceased man, and with having used
personal violence to him at the time the robbery was com-
mitted. Three weeks after the transaction the prosecutor
died in one of the London hospitals, and the result of the
post mortem examination went to show that the death was
accelerated by the violence that was need towards him
at the time the robbery was committed, and under
those circumstances the prisoners were charged with the
offence of wilful murder. The law was somewhat peculiar
with refereoce to such a case, and it might be thought that
it would be as well that some alteration should be made in
it, but it was his duty to tell them that the law of England
was, that if in the course of the commission of any act of
felony death ensued, thecrime amounted to wilful murder
in the persons concerned in such act of felony. In the pre-
sent use there did not appear to be the slightest vaned for
supposing that the prisoners Intended to cause the death of
the deceased, but still if the grand jury should be of opinion
that in the course of the struggle when the robbery was
committed the deceased received injuries that accelerated
his death, the offence would be murder, and they were
bound to return a true bill against the prisoners for that
offence. . . . .

Mr. Barrow, who was instructed to prosecute, shortly
afterwards applied to the court to permit the deposition of
the deceased to be laid before the grand jury in support of
the charge of murder.
Mr. Albion, who was counsel for the prisoners, objected
to this being done, on the ground that the deposition was
taken upon a totally different charge, namely, that of
robbery with violence, and be contended that the act of
parliament making the deposition of a deceased witness
admissible, only applied to the case where the same
was preferred before the grand jury as the one ori=3:
investigated before the magistrate.
The Chief Baron, however, ruled that the deposition of
the deceased was admissible, and he directed that it should be
submitted to the grand jury.

THE POLICE COURT&

BOW-STREET.

named Michael • A big powerful-I ng man, Cahill, a
journeyman hatter, was charged with being drunk and
awaiting his wife, Mary Ana Cahill.
The prosecutrix stated—My husband, sir, deserted me a
fortnight ago, bat be came home drank about 2 o'clock this
morning, when I was in bed and asleep. I asked him what
he did there after being away for a fortnight, and be said
no more but up with his fist and began beating me. and
calling me all but everything. He dragged me oat of bed,
kicked me in the chest, and beat my head spinet the bed-
rr. I cried out "Murder," and a policeman came in, or
elieve he would have killed me. He has often ill-used
me before—twice be hasha4 a month for me, and once six
months, and once been bound over to keep the peace towards
me for six months.

Policeman °onion, F 147, said he heard the cries of
" Murder," which induced him to enter the plasm (No. 11.
Wild-court). He found the primecutrix lying on the bed
with her face and the bedclothes all over blood from •
wound in her head. The prisoner, who was' drunk, was
beating her and using horrible language. Witness dragged
him away from her and took him into custody.
Impactor Brimmaconrbe stated that the prisoner had
undergone the several sentences mentioned by the prosecu-
Cris tot assaults upon her.
The prisoner sad it was all false. He did not desert his
wife; she turned him out and shut the door io his face.
The previous night be met her, and they got drinking
together and made it up. He went home tint, and it was
she who came home drunk at two o'clock and assaulted him
when he was in bed. It was his blood that was in the bed,
and it wangle that used the bad language. . .

Mr. Vaughan maid the assault ;as clearly proved, and
brutal as it was in itself, was aggravated by the calumny
be sought to cast on his wife. He (Mr. Vaughan) should
impose the heaviest penalty in hie power, though he thought
even that insufficient. He must be imprisoned for six
months, and be bound over, himself in 201. and one surety
in 10/., to keep the peace for a further period of six months.