The Sun.
London, England, 1864-03-09 00:00:00

THE HORSE ARTILLERY.

Col. NORTH asked the Under Secretary of State for
War if the whole of the increased expenses caused by the
new brigade of horse artillery were to be borne by the Horns
Government, or to be shared with the Indian Government.
And whether it were intended that this augmentation should
absorb one of the supernumerary colonels commandant of
late Indian artillery ?

The Marquis of HARTINGTON replied that the
whole expense would devolve upon the imperial revenue.
What had taken place, however, was not so much the
formation of a new brigade, as the division of the old bri-
gade of horse artillery, with its 10 batteries, into two brigades,
with five batteries each. The additional expense, which
had been incurred through the appointment of commissioned
and non-commissioned officers, had been met by other re-
ductions made in other branches of the artillery. The extra
expense therefore had been very trifling indeed. In reply
to the second question he might state that there were two
supernumerary colonels and two supernumerary lieutenant
colonels absorbed by the new arrangements on our own,
and not on the Indian list.

THE CASE OF PAYMASTER SMALES.
Sir J. FERGUSSON asked what was the date at which
the Queen was recommended by the Judge Advocate Gene-
ral to confirm the sentence of the Mhow court martial, by
which Paymaster Smales was cashiered, and whether her
Majesty was advised to confirm that sentence by the Judge
Advocate General after consideration of the proceedings of
the court martial ; what was the date at which her Majesty
was advised to pardon Mr. Smales ? Was the sentence of
the court martial confirmed, or had it been overruled, at the
date at which the proceedings were laid on the table of the
house ? What were the grounds on which the Queen was
advised to pardon Mr. Smales after her Majesty had been
advised to confirm the sentence by which he had been
cashiered, and were those grounds apparent on the face of
the proceedings ?

Mr. HEADLAM, in reply to the first part of the question,
stated that her Majesty never did confirm the Mhow court
martial ; but it was confirmed by Sir H. Rose in India, un-
der the authority he had for that purpose. As to the second
question, he had to state that the date was July 13. As to
ther
o eneat e
eo. g use io he would state that the blue book of the
p
wstasnl'aid upon the table on July 3, long after the
nq
court martial had been confirmed in India, but before her
Majesty was advised to pardon Mr. Smales. As to the last
question, he had already mentioned that her Majesty did not
confirmwhichmt
rh. e
Smiles
ad
li
ens wasg
of the court martial ; but the grounds on
pardoned were these-- first, that the
trial was not a fair one--(hear)--and partly from the man-
ner in which the witnesses were arrested and kept in close
custody. (Hear.) It was considered that the charges were
irregular, it being uncertain what was the precise crime
with which he was charged—so that, had the trial taken
place in this country, the finding would not have berm con-
firmed. (Hear, hear.)
Sir J. FERGUSSON wished to know whether the pro-
ceedings of the :dhow court-martial were not submitted to
and approved by the right hon. gentleman.
Mr. HEADLAM—No; not approved of. The first opinion
I gave on the subject was as I just stated.
Sir J. FERGUSSON then asked the Under Secretary of
State for War whether he would lay upon the table the
letter from the 'War-office in which the restoration of Mr.
Smales to the half pay of his former rank wag authorised or
announced ? Whether the accounts of Mr. Smales with the
6th Dragoons had been adjusted? And what previous em-
hnthtehre hPeuhbad ii°beseenrvirceemohvaeld been
pslmoyamlesen; tws
and, if so, for what reasons ? any heldo
fbytth
el‘ml r;.
The Marquis of HART INGTON, in reference to the first
question, said that after her Majesty had been pleased to
pardon Mr. Smales it became the duty of Lord De Grey to
consider what would be the effect of that pardon. The case
was referred to the law officers of the Crown, who gave it
as their opinion that, although the pardon did not have the

effect of reinstating Mr. Smales in his office as paymaster of
the 6th Dragoons, nor give him a claim to be either em-
ployed or placed upon full pay, it did give him a claim to
be restored to the service and placed on half pay. Lord Do
Grey acted upon that recommendation. In reply to the
next question, he had to state that the accounts of Mr.
Smales had not yet been adjusted ; the subject was under
discussion between Mr. Smales and the Indian Govern-
ment. He must mention, however, that the settlement of
Mr. Smales's accounts had nothing to do with his restora-
tion to the service and his being placed on half pay. In
reply to the last question, he would state that Mr. Smales,
in 1830, was appointed acting ordnance clerk at Sierra Leone.
In consequence of a court-martial which took place at that
station, and at which Mr. Smales was a witness, he was re-
moved by order of the governor—Colonel Finley—for hav-
ing, in his opinion, given false evidence at that court-martial.
(Hear, hear.) When Mr. Smales returned he appealed
against that order, but he was informed by the Board of
Ordnance that the acting appointment which he had held
had already terminated, and it was; therefore, unnecessary
to investigate a case which was no longer existing. He was
almost immediately afterwards appointed by Lord Hill to
an ensigncy in an African corps, by which it might be sup-
posed that no stigma rested upon his character. He re-
mained in that corps till 1842, and in 1844 he was appointed
paymaster of the 4th Dragoon Guards. He exchanged into
the 7th Dragoon Duards in 1845, and sold his commission
in 1849. In June, 1854, he was appointed paymaster of the
Wilts regiment of Militia, and he was appointed by Lord
Panmure chief paymaster of the Turkish Contingent in
March, 1855. His services were dispensed with at the con-
clusion of the Russian war. He was appointed by the right
hon. member for Huntingdon (General Peel) paymaster of
the Light Dragoons in 1858, and by the same right hon.
gentleman was allowed to exchange for the paymastership
of the 6th Dragoons.
GOVERNMENT TELEGRAMS.

Mr. D. GRIFFITH asked the Under Secretary of State
for Foreign Affairs whether a despatch from Earl Russell
to Lord Bloomfield, at Vienna, of the 18th of January, 1864,
to which an answer was returned by Lord Bloomfield, of
the date of the 19th January, from Vienna, printed among
the Danish papers, was sent by telegraph from this coun-
try ; and whether the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
would have any objection to direct that, in future, de-
spatches sent by telegraph should be distinguished from
those sent by the ordinary means of communication, in
order that the dates of despatches might correspond with
the facts of their transmission and answers, and be at once
intelligible to members of the house without further ex-
planation.

Mr. LAYARD replied that the despatches were not tele-
graphed in the same form in which they appeared in the
printed papers. They were transmitted briefly in a secret
cypher, which was afterwards expanded into a full despatch,
In the answer it was always stated whether the despatch
it was in reply to was telegraphic or not. In the answer to
the very despatch which the hon. gentleman alluded to it is
distinctly stated that the despatch was telegraphic. From
the very obvious reason that the telegraphic messages were
always very short, they could not be produced literally in
the original cypher. If it were considered necessary to trans-
mit a despatch from London to St. Petersburg with the
view of receiving an answer on the same day or the day
afterwards, it was evident that it must be sent by telegraph.
Mr. D. GRIFFITH, with some warmth, complained that
the hon. gentleman had not answered the question. He had
given notice of that question, and he presumed that the hon.
gentleman would have come there to answer it on behalf of
his chief. (Hear, hear, and laughter.)
Mr. LAYARD said he really did not know whit answer
he could again give—(hear, hear)—as it appeared quite im-
possible to make the hon. gentleman understand. (Loud
laughter.) In the answer to the very despatch to which
he alluded it was stated that that despatch was sent by
telegraph. It would be an insult to the intelligence of hon.
members to explain that a despatch, sent to St. Petersburg
on the same day, or the day after, must necessarily have
been transmitted by telegraph.
Mr. D. GRIFFITH again rose, amid cries of " Order,"
and said—l ask the Under Secretary of State if he is pre-
pared to give an answer to this question on the part of the
Secretary of State, or on the part of himself. (Cries of
" Order," amid which the hon. gentleman resumed his seat.)
STATEMENTS OF PRINCE GORTSCHAKOFF.

Mr. HUNT—I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury
for an explanation of a passage which occurs in a despatch
from Lord Napier to Earl Russell, dated January 6th, 1864
(No. 644 of the Papers on the Affairs of Denmark, &_t.), in
which the following language is attributed to Prince Gorts-
chakoif " The four Governments (r e., England, Russia,
Prussia, and Austria), happily now thinking and acting in
harmony on a question still more important than that of
Holstein and Schleswig, ought not in this matter to be split
into two camps opposing each other."
Lord PALMERSTON—I rather conclude that the ques-
tion to which Prince Gortschakoff alluded must have been

.
the decisiun of these Governments with regard to the invi-
tation to attend a ge,.eral European Congress. There was
no other question to which he could have referred, or on
which any concert was established. If the hon. gentleman
wishes to inquire, as I suppose he does, whether there was
any combination by those four powers against France, I
can assure his there is no ground whatever for any such
supposition. (Loud cries of " Hear, hear.")
FEES TO PARLIAMENTARY COUNSEL.

Colonel W. PATTEN said that he had received a com-
munication from Mr. Hope Scott in reference to the state-
ment made the other evening by the right hon. gentleman
the President of the Board of Trade, to the effect that for

the future counsel appearing before parliamentary commit-
t- es might do so for a sum nos less than fifteen guineas,
correcting that statement, and informing him that for the
future the sum required to be paid to parliamentary counsel
need not exceed ten guineas. He desired to ask the right
hon. gentleman whether he had received any communica•
Lion to a similar effect.

Mr. M. GIBSON—I have received no such communi-
cation, but I road a document the other evening, which
was put into my hands by an influential member of the
parliamentary bar, in which he detailed what he believed
to be the understanding arrived at by the body. My hon.
and gallant friend says, however, that I made a mistake,
and I understood him to say, upon the authority of Mr.
Hope Scott, that any counsel is to be permitted to take as
little as five guineas upon a retainer, five guineas upon
his brief, and that anything beyond that is a matter to
be settled between the client and the barrister. Well, that
no doubt is a very considerable change, and a very consi-
derable relief to the suitors before parliamentary committees.
(Hear, hear.) But although it is a considerable reduction,
and although it is a handsome thing on the part of the bar
to make this concession, still I shall not be discharging my
duty if I did not state the feelings of those I have been in
communication with to be that the parliamentary bar should
be regulated by the same rules as to fees as prevail in the
ordinary courts of law and equity. (Hear, hear.)
THE PLANS OF THE CRAWLEY COURT•
MARTIAL.

Mr. FORTESCUE—I desire to the Under Secretary
of State for War whether, inasmuch as the plans published
with the proceedings of the court martial on Col, Crawley
are liable to mislead the house, by representing the quarters
in which Sergeant-Major Lilley died as containing more
than double their actual amount of accommodation, he
would object to reconsider his former decision, and allow
hon. members an opportunity of inspecting the models.
The Marquis of HARTINGTON—I cannot admit that
the plans which have been published with the proceedings
of the court martial are in any degree calculated to mislead
the minds of hon. members. I think that if they will look at
the plans in connection with the evidence referring to them,
it is impossible that any doubt can arise as to the quarters
in which Sergeant-Major Lilley died. The reasons stated
by me for not removing the models from the custody of the
Judge Advocate remain as btrong as ever ; but, at the
same time, I have to state that if any hon. member is not
satisfied with the plans produced, my right hon. friend is
quite willing to afford him the opportunity of inspecting
the models. Having answered that question, the house will
allow me to appeal to it, and ask whether hon. members in-
tend to reopen the trial of Col, Crawley, and to enter into
minute details which have been already decided at Aldershot.
(Hear, hear.) It was considered by the Government that, as
the proceedings in India have been published, and as they
were supposed to reflect considerable blame upon Colonel
Crawley, it would be most unjust to the gallant officer if
the proceedings of the court martial held at Aldershot should
not be given as full and as wide circulation as those which
were supposed to implicate him so much. The conduct of
the Government in ordering the court martial at Aldershot
had been the subject of criticism, and the Government were
perfectly prepared to afford the house all the materials that
could be possibly desired to form a judgment upon the
merits of their conduct. But the Government did not ex-
pect, and I think the house will hardly hold it was right,
that when an ample and full investigation has been gone
into before the only tribunal competent to form and pro-
nounce a decision upon the case, it is hardly fair or honour-
able, or consistent with our notions of fair play, that the
evidence should be again revived in this house—(loud cries
of " Hear, hear")—and that the country should be invited
to arrive at a different conclusion from that already formed.
(Hear, hear.)

Mr. FORTESCUE—I entreat the house not in any way
to prejudge the question of the court martial, or the resolu-
ti-m which I intend to bring forward. But I beg to ask the
judge advocate whether he can explain the circumstances
under which an important passage in Dr, Barnett's evidence,
(between questions 591 and 592) relative to an alleged cur-
tain in Sergeant-Major Lilley's second quarters, which ap-
p-ars in the Times' report of the court martial on the 26th
November, 1863, has been omitted in the official report of
the proceedings ?

Mr. HEADLANI— I have compared the report of the
Times newspaper with the original record in my office, and
I have to state that the original record is the paper laid be-
fore the house. I find, however, that there occurs a pas-
sage in the Times' report of the evidence regarding that
which is not in the original record. That passage is as
fellows I have no recollection of ever seeing a curtain
in Sergeant Major Lilley's second quarters." I cannot say
how those words appear in the limes report and not in the
official record.

THE DANISH PAPERS.
Mr. DISRAELI—I rise to put the question, of which I
gave notice yesterday, to her Majesty's Government. It
relates to the papers respecting the affairs of Denmark, The

house is aware that the last, and as I now understand the
final, instalment of papers respecting the affairs of Den-
mark, come up only to the termination of the month of
January. Since that period very important transactions
and incidents have occurred in these matters. We have
had the announcements, for instance, of an armistice, after-
wards of a conference, and finally, among other matters of
moment, the invasion of Jutland. The house will find in
the papers before us no official record whatever of these
events. The house does not know why the armistice and
the conference were proposed—what objects were contem-
plated in the proposition, and why the proposition failed.
What I wish to know from her Majesty's Government is,
whether it is their intention to submit further papers on the
affairs of Denmark to the house, and if so, how early they
will be in the hands of members? (Hear, hear.)
Lord PALMERSTON—The only matter which causes
delay in presenting further papers is the communicati,ms
and negociations now going on with regard to a conference.
As soon as these communications are brought to a close,
one way or another, which I hope will be in a very short
time, further papers will be laid before Parliament, bring-
ing the correspondence up to the close of the negotiations
now going on.