The Express.
London, England, 1867-07-31 00:00:00

BIIutNNIA,

TRH SURGE.) \ ;.1C.174: OR. IRE EARLY
DA% -. IF TIIK K .Ti: n, lOF 1:11; I.':.
a. I l'ravoop. 5k04.1-• and the M'lrs9l..—e.n.
c1u.:41.A vs Ws 'flit: LADY 311.. J. lovetar).

HMI MAT= AT LoYIsIN BRIDOK
MI DAT —Mandan. Itt 3,0 Afternoon, 2k. 6m.
to-Mlutow—Morninit. tn. 31m. Afternoon. '213. 63w.

LONDON, WLrIIVKSIM Y, JULY 31.

THE proceedings of the Simla Court-martial
have at length been made officially public, and
with them the censure passed by the authorities at
home upon the parties concerned. We regret to
find that the record of the trial, and of the pro-
ceedings which led to and which followed it, con-
firms the unfavourable opinion which at the time
of the occurrence we felt obliged to express upon
the conduct of the Commander-in-Chief in India.
That opinion has been, indeed, expressed in the
most decisive language in a despatch by the Duke
of CAMBRIDGE to Sir W. MANSFIELD himself,
dated 17th January of the present year. But
although this despatch approves fully the verdict
of the court-martial, which Sir W. MANSFIELD
impugns, and conveys the weightiest reproof on
that officer for disregarding at his own hand the
recommendation to mercy which the odhrt ap-
pended to their verdict of guilty on a minor
charge, the public will be somewhat surprised to
hear that of the two culprits, the one who is
blamed most sharply retains his poet and his
honours, and the one who is least condemned is
dismissed the service, with only the paltry allow-
ance of 1,8001. to make up for the ruin of his
prospects for life. These facts make it still neces-
sary to recall the leading points in the history of
this discreditable case.

Up to April, 1866, Captain Jsavis held the
appointment of aide-de-camp to Sir \V. MANS-
BUILD. His functions in that capacity were
rather domestic than military ; ho was in fact Sir
Wi LL i Am's farm steward and groom of the chambers,
and Lady MANSFIELD'S gentleman-in-waiting. He
had the superintendence of all SirWILLIAE's house-
hold expenditure, and charge of his stables, and
of a farm which was kept for the cheaper
supply of his table. It was alleged against him,
GM the evidence of a dismissed butler, that he
had in this capacity misapplied or converted to
his own use certain sums of money and
ether property. These formed the primary
articles of charge on which he was brought
to a court-martial, and on these he was
acquitted. But before his trial he had been
ordered to attend a court of inquiry, and
to submit his papers to it. This he refused to
do, and the court-martial found him guilty on
this point of insubordination. But the Judge-
Advocate-General, whom the Duke of CAM-
IMMIX consulted, pointed out, as we did at
the time, that it is very doubtful whether an
officer is bound to obey an order to defend
himself before such a tribunal as this was, and
whether, therefore, he is not entitled to
refuse to obey an order to produce books.
Re was next charged with refusing to give up
his sword after being put under arrest ; and this
also is • very doubtful military offence. Lastly,
he was charged with having declared, on being
ordered to appear before a court-martial, that he
would not appear unless dragged before it, and
would protest against the illegality and injustice
shown to him. But for this strong, yet surely not
unpardonable, remonstrance he had the excuse
that he had been refused permission to summon
the attendanos of military witnesses whom he con-
ceived to be essential to his defence. On all these
supplemental charges he was, however, found
guilty, and sentenced to dismissal from the service;
but the sentence was accompanied with a recom-
mendation to mercy. Sir W. MaNsFisLD—at once
party, prosecutor, and judge—sent the proceedings
back to the court-martial, to revise their verdict
of not guilty on the original charges of peculation.
They adhered to it. Then the Commander-in-
Chief confirmed the whole sentence, dismissed
Captain Jaime; from the service, and refused to
give any effect to the recommendation to mercy,
adding instead some strong strictures en the con-
duct of the court-martial in making it. On this
head the Duke of CAMBRIDGE observes that the
court acted perfectly rightly, and that Sir
WILLIAM adopted an utterly wrong course
in confirming a sentence in a personal
matter, instead of sending it home to be adjudi-
cated on by more impartial and higher authorities.
But even against this reprimand Sir WILLIAM
rebels. In a remonstrance, couched in language far
more strong than that which he had pronounced
subversive of military discipline when used to
himself by Captain Jarvis, ho disputes the cen-
sure passed on him by the Duke of CAMBRIDGE.
And in a memorandum distributed anonymously
in this country, and only now subscribed by hie
counsel, he maintains his own views, and calls in
question every contrary opinion expressed either
by the court-martial or by his own official
superiors.

We have hitherto traced the cue in its merely
legal progress. But the papers now produced
supply information which may, perhaps, lead to
the conclusion that the hand which smote Captain
Jiang so heavily was not that of the military
Comrnsnder•in•Chief. The duties of an aide-
d, -clamp, it has been observed, are not merely
peeuniary, but social. This last branch seems to
hare been • considered in the Commander-in-
Clocra household the more important.
They were defined by Sir Witalan