The Sun.
London, England, 1864-02-27 00:00:00

THE WAR. IN DENMARK.

The Earl of MALMESBURY, seeing the noble earl the
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in his place, begged
to ask him whether he had received any information touch-
ing a declaration that had been published at Berlin with
respect to Denmark. The noble earl then referred to a
statemerat on the subject, which appeared in the Morning
Post ori that day.
Earl RUSSELL said he was sorry the noble earl had
Lot given him notice of his intention, as it would have
enabled him to answer him more correctly. What
was stated was, that the Commander-in-Chief of the Army
had no orders to send troops to Duppel, and it was not his
intention to do so ; that afterwards, when the Danish troops
were on the frontier they took up a position on
their front, and the Prussians thought they were
then justified in crossing and occupying the
fort. No order had been given them to enter Jutland, and
the conduct of the officer who had ordered the troops
to do so had not been approved. With regard to
that part of the noble earl's question, based
upon the report in that morning's paper, what he
understood the Prime Minister to say was, the intention of
the German powers was to make the war local in order to
obtain what was called a material guarantee, but the
Danish Government in giving orders for the seizure
of Prussian and German ships had made the war general,
and that if those ships were seized, the Prussian Govern-
ment must demand compensation, net for the general ex-
penses of the war, but for the value of the cargoes of those
ships, and retain the material " guarantee" until the claim
was satisfied.

The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH asked if there had
been any communication from Austria, or whether the
matter was purely Prussian ?
Earl RUSSELL said it was entirely from Prussia. He
had not founded his remarks on anything like a despatch,
but was simply gathered from a conversation with a Prus-
sian Minister. He had reason to believe that the Austrian
Government would endeavour to moderate the action of
their Generals.
THE CRAWLEY COURT MARTIAL

Lord COLVILLE of cuutoss asked a question with

respect to the conduct of the Deputy Judge Advocate in

the Crawley court martial. That officer had first drawn up
the charges against the prisoner; he had then during the
trial taken his seat with, and had assisted, the official pro-
secutor ; and, lastly, he had acted as the adviser of the court.
He might be told that there was precedent for that combi-
nation of function; but, if that was the case, the sooner a
change was made the better. He thought that the mode in
which the prosecution was conducted was censurable, espe-
cially in regard to the course taken in the reply of the official
prosecutor, which raised a case quite different from that
which he had opened. He wished to ask whether it was by
the authority of the 'War Office or by the direction of the

Judge Advocate General that the Deputy Judge Advocate
acted as the legal adviser of the public prosecutor on the
recent trial of Colonel Crawley, and whether the military
authorities recognised the conduct of the Deputy Judge
Advocate as a precedent for future adoption.
Earl DE GREY and RIPON' said that there had been

no deviation from precedent in the course followed at the

Aldershot court martial. If the trial had taken place before
1860 the same person might have been officiating Judge
Advocate before the Court, he might have been the official
prosecutor ; and then have been the Judge Advocate Gene-
ral revising the sentence and advising her Majesty upon it.
In 1860 a change was made, and it was directed that the
officiating Judge Advocate before the Court and the official
prosecutor should ba different persons. On the occasion of

the Crawley court martial Mr. Head lam, the Judge Advocate
General, appointed Col. Pipon to act as officiating Deputy
Judge Advocate, and as adviser of the Court. When it be-
came known that Col. Crawley was about to employ coun-
sel, it was thought necessary to give Sir A, Horsford similar
assistance. After some consideration, Mr. Headlam recom-
mended that Mr. Denison, the Deputy Judge Advocate,
should afford his legal assistance to the prosecutor, and that
arrangement was carried out. If Mr. Denison had not
discharged that duty, some other counsel must have been
selected from Westminster Hall, and attached to Sir Alfred
Hereford. The Judge Advocate General thought that that
was a course for which there was no precedent, and which
would be attended with some inconvenience. The reply of
the official prosecutor was the speech of counsel, and he was
unable to say whether or not it was marked by propriety ;
although, looking to Mr. Denison's standing at the bar, he
had no doubt that it was quite regular. He thought it a fair
question for consideration whether the Judge Advocate
should not be confined to the discharge of judicial func-
tions, and relieved from the official duties which now fell
to his share. That was a question well deserving of consi-
deration, and it was now under the consideration of the Go-
vernment. But the existing system had been established
for a very long time, It was not desirable to deal with it
harshly and before they had quite made up their minds
what they would substitute for it. And he was therefore not
then prepared testate definitely the views of the Government.
The Duke of CAMBRIDGE said that Sir Alfred Here-
ford was entirely in the hands of counsel, and what he did
were the acts of counsel. He believed that every one had
given that gallant officer credit for the admirable manner in
which he had discharged his dutiee—a manner of which he
(the Duke of Cambridge) entirely approved. He deprecated
discussions on military subjects in either House of Parlia-
ment, because he believed they were detrimental to the
public service. He desired, however, to refer to some ex-
pressions which had fallen from him on a previous discus-
sion, and which had given pain to Sir Hugh Rose. He had
never intended to bring any charge against that officer. All
that he intended to imply by the words, "error of judg-
ment," which he then used with reference to the conduct
of that general, and also of Gen. Mansfield, in regard to the
Crawley court martial, was, that he differed in opinion
with-those gallant officers, not that he thought their con-
duct deserving of censure. He was glad to take this, the
earliest opportunity, of removing a misapprehension which
seemed to exist on the subject.
Lord CHELMSFORD desired to express the highest
opinion of Sir A. Horsford, who had conducted himself
in the discharge a his duties at the Crawley court martial
with the most perfect impartiality. Of course, in the
management of the case he was entirely in the hands of his
counsel. It was true that prior to 1860 the Deputy Judge
Advocate was also the prosecutor. It was the duty of the
Deputy Judge Advocate to see the charges were properly
framed ; then to take care that the proper witnesses were
called ; and subsequently to attend the court for the purpose
of advising them on points of law. He did not perform the
duty of prosecutor in the strict sense of the word, but was
present at the trial rather as the adviser of the court. But
he (Lord Chelmsford) had never heard that any Deputy
Judge Advocate had, until the present case, summoned the
witnesses for the defence to hie house and cross-examined
them. In 1860 it was considered inconsistent with the
proper discharge of the duties of the deputy judge advocate,
as adviser of the court, that he should also act as nominal
prosecutor. He was surprised, therefore, that it should
have been thought proper to convert the deputy judge
advocate, on the occasion of the Crawley trial, into the
adviser of the public prosecutor. Either the judge advocate
general or the deputy judge advocate ought to have been
present to advise the court. But, instead of that, Mr. Head-
lam appointed Colonel Pipon to act as officiating deputy
judge advocate, and it was no disparagement to that gallant
officer to say that he was not quite equal to these functions.
The inconvenience of the course adopted was seenewhen it
b"ar.eie necessary to refer to the judge advocate general a
"sleetion which arose during the trial, as to the adraissa-
Hay of certain evidence tendered by the prosecution. This
mounted, under the circumstances, to a reference to the
very department which was conducting the prosecution.
He felt bound to censure the course taken by the prosecutor
in his reply- lie took up entirely new ground; he started
an entirely new case, which Colonel Crawley had had no
means of meeting. Such a course would not have been
allowed in any civil court ; nor would it have been tolerated
at this court martial it the deputy judge advocate had been
been in his proper place, acting as the adviser of the court,
instead of counsel to the prosecutor.
Lord LONGFORD condemned the unseemlyattacks which
were made by the public preen upon Col. Crawley up to the
time of the trial ; and remarked that they were not dis-
couraged by persons who were bound by their official posi-
tion to have done so.

---
Lord WENSLEYDALE made some observations which
were entirely inaudible in the gallery.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY vindicated the course
that he had pursued during the last session of parliament,
in pressing upon the house the necessity of bringing Col.
Crawley to trial in England. Had it taken place in India,
it would not have led to the satisfactory results Which had
actually attended it.
Lord CRANWORTH hoped that this discussion would
lead to a great change in tho duties and functions of the
deputy judge advocate. It ought never to be allowed that
an officer who had to advise the court should assist in the
conduct of the i-csecution,
The Earl of HARROWBY hoped that the expenses of
Col. Crawley's defence would be borne by the nation.
The Earl of HARDWICKE thought that, as Colonel
Crawley had, contrary to the usual practice, been brought
to England for trial, the expenses of his defence, which
had been materially augmented by such a course, should
be defrayed by the public.
The Duke of CAMBRIDGE said that the course taken
in the Crawley case, of bringing the colonel to England for
trial, was not to be considered as a precedent. It was neces-
sary to take that course under the circumstances, and look-
ing to the public excitement which prevailed. He thought
the gallant colonel had been a groat gainer by it ; for no
acquittal emanating from a tribunal sitting in India would
have been received by the public with the respect which
had been paid to the decisicn of the Aldershot court. The
judge advocate general was entirely responsible for the
conduct of court mutials.
Earl DE GREY and RIPON said that both he and

the Commander-in. Chief entirely accepted the acquittal
of Colonel Crawley, and rejoiced at the result of his trial.
But when in June last the Government deal ted that ho
should be brought to England for trial, the gravest
charges had been brought against him both by the press
and in Parliament. It was necessary that, the best means
should be taken for their investigation. The course which
had been taken by Colonel Crawley himself also rendered
it expedient that the trial should come off in England. The
noble earl then entered at some length into a justification
of the course taken by the Government, and said he
thought if the court-martial had not been held in England,
the suspicions which had taken hold of the public mind
would never have been dissipated, and Colonel Crawley
would not have had the opportunity of fully vindicating
his character which he had enjoyed. All the expenses of
Colonel Crawley's defence, which had been entailed upon
him by the trial being held in England would be defrayed.
While he had been in England he had received Indian pay,
and his command money. All the expenses which had not
been repaid him were those he had incurred for legal assist-
ance. There was no precedent for anything of the kind,
and to do so would lead to inconvenient consequences. The
office and the practiee of the deputy-advocate were no
doubt anomalous, and it was well worth considering whe-
ther reform could not be effected.

The subject then dropped.
THE WEST HARTLEPOOL HARBOUR AND
RAILWAY COMPANY.

The Earl of DONOUGHMORE asked her Majesty's
Government, first, whether the case against the late direc-
tors and auditors of the West Hartlepool Harbour and
Railway Company had been laid before her Majesty's
Attorney-General, and what decision had been taken on
the subject. Second, whether it was the intention of the
Government to propose any measure in the present session
of Parliament to carry out the recommendations of ,the re-
port of the Select Committee on " Railway Companies,
Borrowing Powers" of last session ?
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that the case against
the directors and auditors of the West Hartlepool Har-
bour and Railway Company had been laid before the late
Attorney-General, Sir William Atherton. He had not,
however, been able to give any attention to the case, as he
was then suffering from the illness which afterwards led to
his retirement from office. The papers had since been laid
before the present Attorney-General, and he had given it
as his opinion that, under the circumstances a verdict of
guilty could not be expected. Under these circumstances it
was not thought desirable to institute a Government pro•
secution.

Earl GRANVILLE was understood to reply to the noble
earl's second question ; but his observations were quite in-
audible in the gallery.
The house adjourned at twenty minutes before seven
o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—Last Evening.

The SPEAKER took the chair at 4 o'clock,
PETITIONS.

Several petitions were presented in favour of the repeal
of the duty on fire insurance, the Malt Cattle Bill, from
Yorkshire praying for the passing of a permissive bill, Bic.