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

COLONEL CRAWLEY.

Mr. D, FORTESCUE rose to call attention to the
court martial on Colonel Crawley, and to move for certain
papers relating to the arrest of Sergeant-majors Lilley,
Duval, and Waketleld. The hon. gentleman said he wished
to disclaim any intention of calling in question the verdict
of the court-martial, because he considered that verdict was
honestly arrived at. (Hear.) With regard to his first state-
ment respecting the treatment of Sergeant-major Lilley,
great exaggeration had been imputed to his description of
the quarters in which the sergeant-major was confined, and
great pains had been taken to show that they were spacious
and commodious, and indeed such was the case as regards
the quarters in which ho was first confined ; but his (.Ir,
Fortescue's) remarks applied only to the quarters in which
Lilley was last confined, and in which he died. His state-
ments regarding:Lilley's wife also required some modifica-
tion, and he was bound to admit that his speech contained
several errors of detail, but under the circumstances it was

almost impossible to avoid such mistakes, It only remained
for him to express his regret if, from any defects in the in-
formation supplied to him, or any unconscious perversion of
that information on his pert, he had been led to overstate
the case and give a darker shade to a picture which in his
opinion needed no such assistance. (Hear, hear.) He would

now make a few remarks upon the arrest itself—a subject
involving no less a question than the competency of any
officer to suspend the clear and distinct provisions of the
Articles of War. (Hear, hear.) The language of those
articles was perfectly plain and explicit, They provided
that no officer or soldier should be kept in confinement be-
yond a period of eight days before being brought to a
court-martial. (No, no.) Well, at all events that was his
reading of the article. And any officer keeping a soldier in
arrest more than eight days without bringing him to trial,
was liable to be cashiered, (No, no.) Now in this case three
non -commissioned officers, who had been subpoenaed as wit-
nesses for the defence of a prisoner, were, after an irregular
examination, placed under and kept in close arrest
for several weeks upon a charge of conspiracy, which the
Commander-in-Chief declared had not a shadow of founda-
tion. (Hear, hear.) This highhanded and arbitrary pro-
ceeding- had been ,defended on the ground of emergency,
and it was alleged that the regiment was on the brink of
mutiny. But did any one really believe that ? (Hear, hear.)
The only crimes alleged against these non-commissioned
officers were, first, that they had read the defence of Captain
Smales before it was delivered to the court-martial. That
was a course of proceeding which they had an indisputable
right to take. The second offence alleged against thew was
the unsupported assertion of one of the sergeant-majors
against his comrades that they had used improper language
against their commanding officer. The amount of credence
to be given to that statement might be judged of by the
fact that Sir Wm. Mansfield stated that the men could not
be brought to trial, and yet for weeks after that decision
had been pronounced, these men were kept in confinement.
(Hear, hear.) The question was, who was to blame for all
this ? It would seem that the sanction of his military
superior exonerated Colonel Crawley from the responsibility
of the arrest, and the verdict of the court-martial acquitted
him of the charge of undue severity. The result of the
ccurt-martial had caused much dissatisfaction throughout
the country—(hear, hear)—and it had tended to confirm
the impression that, in a question between a superior and
an inferior, everything was reedered subordinate to what
was called "supporting authority." But in that house
there were many hon. and gallant gentlemen who had
themselves occupied positions of command, and he would
appeal to them whether they had not found that the
best and surest way of maintaining their authority was to
inspire every officer and private under their command
with a full and perfect reliance on their strict justice.
(Cheers.) He believed that the mischief done by all this
unhappy business was incalculable—(cheers and counter-
cheers)—and that it would take years of administration
at the Horse Guards to restore that military justice,
which, it it ever existed, must have been shaken to its
foundation. If it should awaken in the minds of the mili-
tary authorities a more resolute determination to do justice
to all—no matter at what cost to individuals—no matter at
what apparent sacrifice of authority—and, most of all, if it
should lead to some sweeping damage in those antiquated
forms of procedure—(cheers)—with their temptations to
perjury—(cheers)—if such results attended the late court-
mat tial, costly and barren of result as many persons believe
it to have been, it would have conferred a great and lasting
benefit. (Cheers.)

Mr. H. GRENFELL, in scconding the motion, said the
only excuse he could offer for interfering in the matter was,
that as a taxpayer, and as the representative of taxpayers,
he was desirous of knowing why £lB,OOO had been expended
on this court-martial. Like his hon. friend, he did not find
, fault with the verdict of the court-martial, as it was con-
sistent with evidence given at the trial ; but although Col.
Crawley was not considered guilty of that with which he
was charged, he was morally responsible for the illegality of
the arrest, and he was also morallyrespensible for beiug, the
principal party in an unjust court-martial. Ho should like
to know what hon. and gallant gentlemen opposite would
have done if they had been placed in the position of the mili-
tary authorities of this country. lie very much doubted
whether they would have granted the court-martial. There
were various opinions entertained about the best mode of
administering the army. There were some who thought it
should be absolutely administered by the Horse Guards, and
others that it should be administered by the Secretary for
War, with a council of officers around him. For his own part,
he believed the Commander-ia-Chief was bound by his posi-
tion to do dustice to all persons in the array—(hear)—and
that he was bound to consult the feelings of one class as well
as the other. He would go further, and say that if all the
majors and colonels in the army wete swallowed by an
earthquake, there would,be no difficulty in finding efficient
persons to supply their places. (L tughter.) But if a simi-
lar earthquake were to swallow the non-commissioned
officers, it would be a difficult matter to supply their places.
But if this was the case as regarded the Commander in
Chief, it was still more the duty of the Secretary for War ;
for he could not forget that the Secretary for War had been
a Liberal member of that house, and that, when ventilating
a question relating to purchase in the army, he dwelt upon
the efficiency of non-commissioned officers, and recom-
mended that camraissions should be bestowed upon them
as rewards for their services. Various motions had been
made for additional papers in this case, but he thought they
had already enough of papers, and that, if they got any
more, they would only become confused as they did in the
Schleswig Holstein aff.ir. The court martial on Colonel
Crawley was like the Wyndham lunacy case, where, owing,
he would not say to the incompetency, but the small calibre
of the judge—(laughter)—the counsel on b ,th sides took
every sort of liberty. Still it seemed to him that justice did
not suffer in that case, as the liberties were t tken on both
aides; whereas, in the Crawley court martial the liberties
were all on one side. The hon. member then referred to
the dismissal of Major Swireley, in whose evidence, with a
single exception, and that art extenuating one, he could not
lied any proof of animus, and he hoped they would hear
from her Majesty's Government that justice would be done
to this officer. (Hear, hear.)

Lord LOVAINE rose to move, as an amendment, for
copy of correspondence and legal opinions forwarded by Sir
W. Mansfield from India to the S:.cretary of State for War
and the Commander in Chief, relating to the legality of
the Mhow court martial. Ihe noble lord took exception
to some of the statements made by the honourable mem-
ber who brought forward the motion, and said, so far as
he could understand the evidence, it was perfectly clear
that the sentry had never intruded upon Mrs. Lilley.
Objections had been raised against the court martial,
but he di I not see how the court martial could be
considered unjust in the presence of the memorandum of
the Commander-in-Chief, which he held in his hand. With
regard to the proceedings which had taken place in India,
he thought it would not be denied that the military autho-
rities in that country had been hardly dealt with. The
extraordinary thing was, that, after the case had been sub-
mitted to the judge-advocate—after the Commander-in-
Chief had expressed an opinion approving of the proceedings
—it was suddenly discovered that the court-martial was
irregular, unfair, and should be reversed. That was owing
to the calumnies of the Indian press, to their republication
in this country, and their production before the House of
Commons in the most exaggerated form. A victim was re-
quired; it became necessary to yield to pressure from with-
out ; and therefore, upon ex parte statements, Colonel
Crawley was brought to court-martial in t his country, and
a slur wits cast upon the whole Indian army. The noble
lord then complained of the vacillation which had been dis-
played by the Government in the granting of papers re.
lating to the case. If they were resolved for the future to
take a firm course, and refuse all further explanations, he
should feel that he ought to withdraw his amendment; and,
under the circumstances, he begged to withdraw his motion,
eserving to himself the right of renewing it upon a future
occasion.

Ganeral PEEL said he had always deprecated interference
on the part of the House of Commons with the discipline
and command of the army. (Opposition cheers.) Redrew
the broadest distinction between questions relating to the
maintenance of I Le discipline and the promotion of the army
and matters appertaining to the civil administration of the
army. At. the same time he had no desire to debar that
house from the exercise of the constitutional control vested
in it with respect to the discipline of the army. They had
a Minister of the Crown responsible for the administration
of the affairs of the army, and if the House of Commons
was dissatisfied with the administration of the army they
could remove the Minister. He most earnestly hoped that
the Crawley court-martial case might never be drawn into
a precedent. It had done more to weaken confidence in the
governing powers of the army and the springs of discipline
than any case that had occurred in his time. He was not
going to re-try Colonel Crawley, for in his opinion it was
the Government which was upon its trial in respect to its
conduct on this question. (Hear, hear.) There was a

demand fur a victim, and Colonel Crawley was offered
up. He did not wish to be considered an admirer of
Colonel Crawley ; on the contrary, he condemned him for,
as it were, accepting the ovation of his men as he left the
head-quarters to proceed to England to stand his trial.
Undoubtedly such proceedings were subversive of the
discipline of the army. It was said that no trial in India
would be satisfactory to the people. Therefore, instead
of trying the man where the excitement existed, they
brought him to trial in this country, and fortunately for
Colonel Crawley it was that he was tried by court
martial. (Cheers.) He (General Peel) was abroad at
that time, but from the evidence he read in the daily
newspapers he thought that the defence had commenced
first, the statements of the witnesses being so entirely in
favour of Colonel Crawley—and he thought it would be
fair for the prosecution to retire from what might have
been called persecution. (Hear, hear.) The hon. and
gallant gentleman remarked upon the influence of counsel
at the trial, and upon the calumnies in the Indian news-
papers and articles in magazines, and said that it was well
for Colonel Crawley all these attempts had no effect on the
honourable men who had to try him. They came to,the
conclusion that he was fully and honourably acquitted of
the charges brought against him ; and surely it might be
thought an end of the case. (Hear.) The Commander-in-
Chief in his memorandum had intimated that he had no
intention of continuing the discussion upon the circum-
stances under which the trial arose. He thought it would
have been well if the house had followed the Course of the
Commander-in-Chief. He deprecated the placing of the
confidential communications of officers on the table of the
House of Commons, and he trusted that the house would
agree with him that the beet plan was to come to the con-
clusion that the production of private papers would be in-
expedient. (Cheers.)
The Marquis of HARTINGTON said the Government
agreed with the right hon. gentleman that it was inexpe-
dient to produce papers that involved further discussion on
that subject. He was sure no hon. gentleman could say that
this subject had notnow been fully and amply discussed by
the house, and thought the large majority would agree with
him when he said that the time had at last come when this
controversy should be brought to an end. In reply to the
speech of the hon. gentleman who had brought forward this
motion, he admitted now, as he admitted in reply to a simi-
lar speech of the hon. gentleman a year ago, that Sir Wm.
Mansfield was held to be technically responsible for the
continued illegal arrest daring the Mhow court-martial;
but he had explained that Sir William Mansfield was four
hundred miles away from the scene where these occur-
rences took place, and had no opportunity of making con-
stant reference to the progress of the proceedings. He
was sure that no court martial would have found Sir Wm.
Mansfield guilty of a military offence, and he submitted that
to an officer of Sir Wm. Mansfield's distinguished talent the
communication of the opinion of the Commander-in-Chief
was full and ample punishment—if he might use that word
—for any error of judgment he might have made. Major
Swindley was censured for the manner in which he gave
evidence against his commanding officers, but whether the
evidence he gave might have been elicited from him in a
peculiar manner he was not prepared to say. Whether
Major Swindley wished to make the worst case he could for
his commanding officer it was not for him to say, but it was
quite clear from the evidence ho gave that his feelings to-
wards his commanding officer were such that the regiment
could not continue in peace and harmony if Major Swind-
ley went hack and Col. Crawley remained the commanding
officer. Major Swindle), was not actually placed on half
pay, but was permitted, as it was called, to change to half
pay. The other witnesses who were removed would before
long be gazetted to other regiments. In reply to the speech
of the hon. member for Andover last year, which related
chiefly to the imprisonment of Sergeant-Major Liley, he
had stated that Sergeant-Major Lilley had died in illegal
imprisonment, and he stated as well as he could what led
to that imprisonment; but he was not prepared to come
down to the house and give a victim to atone for the death
of Sergeant-Major Lilley, He stated also that Col. Crawley
was not responsible for that, and would not be tried for it;
but he promised that whatever circumstances of severity
there were in the imprisonment should be investigated.
This had been done, and this was the only promise Go-
vernment ever made, and the only promise Government
ever thought it necessary to give. The Government had
been of opinion that the surest way of getting at the facts
of the case was to have a court martial on Colonel Craw-
ley, The right hon. gentleman opposite did not seem
to think that the evidence was sufficient to justify
that course, but ho would remind him that they had
the sworn evidence of Sergeant-Major Lilley on the
Mhow court ,martial, evidence which had never been
cross-examined or contradicted, as to the manner in which
the sentries were posted. They had also the admission of
Colonel Crawley that undue severity and inhumanity had
taken place in the imprisonment of Sergeant Major Lilley,
but that he was not responsible for it. They had the letter
of Lieutenant Fitzsimon contradicting that statement,
which letter he had been induced to withdraw on the repre-
sentation of General Farrell that it was insubordinate, and
would be ruinous to his future prospects ; though, in the
opinion of the military authorities at the Horse Guards and
the War-office, there was not one word or sentence that
could be considered insubordinate or improper. Those were
the grounds upon which it had app:ared to her Majesty's
Government that the trial was justifi Lble. It was true that
they had had statements from In lie in explanation of the
occurrences of the Mhow court martial ; but those statements
did not go to disprove a single one of the statements which
had been made by the hon. member for Andover. If he
made an ex eption to that general statement, it was to ex-
press his regret that he had not explained last year that
there was nothing unfit for human habitation in the house
in which Lilley was confined, being the quarters in which
he would have lived if he had not been under arrest. Com-
menting then upon the exceptions taken by Sir Hugh Rose
to the remarks made by the Commander-in-Chief in his
memorandum of Dec. 18, he denied that the Commander-
in-Chief had ever, in any material point of view, modified
the opinion which he had expressed upon the imprisonment
of Sergeant Maj Lilley, or that the Government had ever
sufficient materials in their possession to refute the state-
ments which had been made in the press, and that therefore
they had no other course open to them than to order the
court martial to take place. Referring next to the attacks
which had been made upon the Government for having or-
dered the court martial to take place in England, he pointed
out how unlikely it was, in the excited state of public opin-
ion which had existed, that the House of Commons or the
country would have been satis'icd with an inquiry con-
ducted in India, and insisted on the wisdom of the course
which had been adopted by the Government, by remarking
that the first thing which had taken place on the trial was
an objection on the part of Colonel Crawley to the charges
on which he was to be tried. This objection to immediate
reference could be made to the Government, occasioned no
difficulty, though if the trial had taken place in India it
must have caused very great delay, and a reference to Sir
W. Mansfield, the Commander-in-Chief in Bombay, in-
volving the legality of his own actions. If the inquiry
had taken place in India, moreover, it would have been
imputed to the Government that they were trying to shield
the Indian authorities. The right hen, gentleman had
severely condemned the conduct of the Government in
giving any papers on the matter. While quite agreeing
that it was undesirable fur the Howe of Commons to make
itself a court of appeal for the revision of courts-martial,
or any other case, whether affecting civil or military affairs,
he said it was useless, when a case had excited so much
popular excitement as that of Colonel Crawley, to try and
suppress the discussion of the House of Cammons, (Hear,
hear.) He just;fl td. the production of the proceedings of
the Mhow court-martial on the grounds that the hon. mem-
ber for Brighton (Mr. Coningharn) had bean permitted by
the Speaker to read portions of the evidence in support of
his statements last session, and that, as the Government
were not then in a position to give an ample explanation of
all the circumstances of the transaction, they had a right to
know what had happened, and what the Government in-
tended to do. The production of the first papers had
oblh,ed the Government, in justice and Equity, to produce
the others. He would not follow the Tight hon. gentleman
into the observations he had made respecting the conduct
of the prosecution, as the Advocate-General would give an
explanation of that. (Hear.) It was the opinion of many
hth military authorities that what had occurred had not
been in any manner prejudicial to the discipline of the
army. It would, however, be fatal to the discipline of the
army if at any time that discipline should degenerate into
tyranny—(hear, hear)—and it would be almost fatal if
even a sus' icion of such degeneracy should be allowed to
remain. Most serious stains had been cast upon the
purity of military justice by the statements made. in the
newspapers and in the house last year, and the administra •
tion of military justice could only be vindicated by complete
and impartial investigation, like that which had been made,
No member of that house could rejoice more than he did
that Col. Crawley was able to relieve himself from the im-
putations which had been cast upon him.
Lord HOTHAM, after juetifying an amendment he had
put upon the paper, said he cordially concurred in the
principle laid down by General , Peel ; but this was an ex-
ceptional case, and exceptional cases required exceptional
remedies, and when such things were done as had been
done in this case there was more to fear from mystery and
secresy than in letting the whole truth be given to the
country. E o complained of some remarks made by Lord
Hartington, 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
India there had been violations of military
Sir J. FERGUSSON cited certain expressions used by
Mr. Fortescue last last year, in relation to the treatment of
Sergeant-Major Lilley, for which ho thought an explana-
tion was due to the house. He reviewed and severely cen-
sured the spirit of the proceedings against Col. Crawley,
who had suffered, ho said, grievous injustice, Mr. For-
tescue, in his opinion, had only two courses open to him—
either to apologise to the house for having been made the
vehicle of gross falsehood, or to take exception to the find-
ing of the court martial.

➢lr. HEADLAM, after explaining the course he had
taken, as J udge-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 otHcer to a

court martial, and the having the trial in England. He de-
fended the manner in which the trial had been conducted,
and all the steps he had taken in a case in which unusual
difS2ultie4 had presented th6mselves.
Mr. MOWBRAY complained that Mr. Headlam had not
ful;y explained his course of action in reference to the Mhow
court-martial anta to Paymaster &maks. 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 and illegality of the arrest. As to
the mode of conducting the proceedings at the trial of
Colonel Crawley, he 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. FERGUSSON, that
the statement made by Mr. Fortescue last year ought to
havo 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
&males, and what he termed the inconsistent and capricious
orders in his case; and in that of Colonel Crawley he con-
sidered that there was not a department of the Government
that was free from blame. He thought there was no
necessity for a court-martial upon that officer.
Mr. DUTTON vindicated the conduct of Sir William
Mansfield.

Mr. BOUVERIE contended that Mr. Fortescue was
unfairly censured for the statement he had made last year.
In the first instance, he had grounds for the statement ;
allegations were rife upon the subject, and it was necessary
that there should be an inquiry, which had resulted in the
vindication of Colonel Crawley,

Colonel GILPIN thought the Government ought to pay
the whole of the expenses of Colonel Crawley.
The debate, which was continued by Mr. Neate, Captain
Archdall, Colonel Dickson, Sir P. O'Brien, Sir W. Fraser,
and Mr. Fortescue, in reply, terminated in the original
motion being negatived, and the amendment being
agreed to.

Mr. BAINES obtained leave to bring in a bill to extend
the Franchise in Boroughs.
Leave was given to introduce other bills.
The remaining business and orders having been disposed
of, the house adjourned at five minutes to 12 o'clock.