The Sun.
London, England, 1863-06-06 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, JUNE 6, 1863.

ing the close arrest, viz, Ist, That the sergeant-majors had
narrowly escaped (if they had escaped) the commission of a
great crime, and it was necessary to keep them out of temp-
tation—(oh, oh)-2d, That there might be no tampering
with the witnesses ; and 3d, That it was necessary the
charge brought against them by Col, Crawley should not
be condoned by the release of the prisoners until it had
bcen discovered what evidence there was forthcoming.
Such were the facts of the unfortunate occurrence. (" Un-
fortunate," and hear, hear.) The opinion of the Judge
Advocate-General upon them was that Col. Crawley had
not sufficient evidence before him of the charges brought
against the sergeant-majors, that the arrests were illegal,
and the reasons alleged by Sir W. Mansfield were not valid.
(Hear.) It was clear that some persons were to blame.
(Hear.) The question was how the blame was to be distri-
buted. Sir W. Mansfield evidently thought he was simply
acting as a police magistrate would have done in remand-
ing a prisoner; and Col. Crawley felt himself justified by
the order of his superior officer. It was not to be forgotten
that, in dealing with officers of their distinction and ser-
vices, great caution and delicacy required to be observed by
his Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief ; but a claim
having been made by the relatives of the sergeant-major,
who were persons in poor circumstances, who had been de-
pendent upon him, the Government had thought it right
to award an allowance of about the same amount as would
have been payable had Sergeant-Major Lilley been dis-
chargedin imns
inted thadoaft
allhavingthe ral codlileadte circumstances had not. (Oh, oh.) It was to be
borne
yet become thoroughly known, and the account of Lieut.
Fitz-Symons, who had just arrived, contradicted several of
the important particulars in the chargest against Colonel
Crawley. He did not doubt that to many persons it would
have been more satisfactory if a victim could have been pro-
duced for punishment. That was not so ; but full inquiry
would be made into those collateral circumstances which
could alone criminate the officers. Great as had been the
pain and disgust caused by that story of scandal and mis-
management, the Secretary for War must not allow himself
for a moment to be diverted one hair's breadth from the
strict rule of military justice.

Mr. Alderman SIDNEY thought the expldnation of the
noble marquis would be very unsatisfactory, and that had
the parties implicated been ordinary civilians a very diffe-
rent course would have been pursued. When such men as
Col. Crawley were retained in command for only the strange
reason that they enjoyed the confidence of their Com-
mander-in-Chief, it showed a negligence of the lives and
liberties of men which would tend to endanger the confi-
dence of the whole army. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord
had not said a word about the gross indecency that had
been shown in the treatment of Lilley's wife. (Hear.)
Colonel BARTTELOT defended Colonel Crawley,who he
said was ready and anxious to come forward with full ex-
planations.
Mr. PIGOTT did not think the noble lord could be
censured for any want of tenderness in his treatment of the
officers in question. The subject was one of the greatest
importance, and the investigation ought not to cease until
the really responsible parties were discovered. (Hear.)
Captain ARCHDALL said that, as there was to be
further inquiry, he would merely express his gratification
with the vindication of the regiment pronounced by the
Commander-in-Chief.
Mr. HEA.DLA.M said it was clear that Colonel Crawley
was protected by the order of his superior officer; and
therefore he could not be removed from his command on
that ground.
The house then went into committee of
On the vote of
SUPPLY.
Lord C. PAGET
X 165,000 for harbours of refuge,
said, in answer to Mr. Lindsay, that it
was not intended to extend the works at Dover beyond the
present plan,
Mr. LINDSAY moved the reduction of the vote by
was unfit for a harbour of refuge, and would be useless in
£3,000, the sum proposed for the harbour of Alderney. It
time
entering or leaving the channel, and no sane man would
attempt to run into Alderney in a gale of wind. Already
more than a million of money had been expended on Al-
derney, and the best thing for the committee to do was to
boldly admit they had committed an error, stop the works,
and thereby save a million of money. Every penny spent
there was so much money thrown into the water without
any corresponding advantage.
Lord C. PAGET gave a detailed history of the progress
of the works at Alderney, from the commencement to the
present time. Arrangements had been made with the con-
tractors to give them compensation tor the plant, &c., pro-
, cured, and the expenses they had incurred necessary to carry
out the breakwater of the eastern arm of the harbour which
the Government had stopped. They were only completing
, their substructure to a certain point, which was now just
under the surface of the water, and if allowed to remain in
its present state would be dangerous to shipping.
Sir J. ELPHINS2 ONE thought the money might be
better laid out in improving harbours of refuge nearer
home.

Mr. EVANS supported the vote. 'The works could not
be left unfinished.
After some further discussion, •
Sir S. M. PETO said he wished to know from the noble
lord the Secretary to the Admiralty whether or not it was
intended to extend the pier at Dover further than the foun-
dations had been laid. Unless he received a distinct answer
he should take exception to the vote for Dover as well as
for Alderney.
Lord C. PAGET replied that there was no intention of
extending the Dover pier farther than the limits of the
foundations, and said the Government had also given up
the eastern arm of the breakwater at Alderney.
Mr. BAXTER expressed his amazement at the noble
lord's change of opinions with respect to Alderney. Two
years ago the noble lord thought Alderney would be valu-
able as a look-out station, now the noble lord recommended
it as an important naval station,
Viscount PALMERSTON said he could understand if
they were only beginning the work why hon. members
should hesitate to vote the money—but, considering that
the works had been some time in progress, and ware ap-
proaching completion, he could not see why the committee
should refuse to pass the present vote.
The committee divided. The numbers were—
For the amendment 62
Against it
Majority against
The vote was then agreed to.
On the vote of £68,39 for works at Holyhead and Port-
patrick.
Sir H, CAIRNS moved the reduction of the vote by
£5,000 on account of Portpatrick, on the ground that it
could not be made a harbour of refuge or a packet station
unless at an extravagant outlay.
The amendment was withdrawn, after an explanation by
Mr. M. GIBSON, and the vote was agreed to.
Upon the vote for £89,618 balance of the sum of £114,618
for public buildings in Ireland,
Mr. MAGUIRE proposed to reduce the vote by £3,000.
The committee divided--

for The
e
84
Majority for the vote .... —65
ijivoy°teeesewas then agreed to.
The Chairman reported progress, and the house resumed.
INLAND REVENUE BILL.
The bill as amended was considered and agreed to.
DRAINAGE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LAND
(IRELAND) BILL.
On the motion for the third reading of this bill,
Mr. HENNESSY moved that the bill be re-committed,
Purpose of having the principle of arbitration in-
troduced,

After some discussion,
Lord PALMERSTON moved that the debate be ad-
si
; °lll.lled until Monday, and the proposal was agreed to.
.1,T,116 Canaan Islands Bill passed through committee.
'4"/ house was counted out half-past two.