The Sun.
London, England, 1863-09-12 00:00:00

ttt

LONDON, SATURDAY, SEPT. 12, 1863.

In the Times of yesterday there is a letter on the
court-martial of Colonel CRAWLEY, which contains
information that is anything but satisfactory. The
writer sends passages from a letter which he has
received from an officer at Mhow. These refer to
the steps now being taken with reference to col-
lecting evidence for the approaching court-martial.
It would seem from this authority that a totally
wrong system is being adopted. In the first place
Major MAUDE, the Commandant Magistrate, is
taking the summary of evidence for the prosecution.
Now, when it is remembered that he was the
Judge Advocate at the Mhors court-martial, which
judgment has since been quashed owing to the
illegality of the trial, it seems a mockery to select
him for this new undertaking. The manner in
which he is carrying it out, certainly does not do
much to remove the unfavourable impression with
which his name is received, for the plans he has
formed are calculated entirely to defeat the ends of
justice. He examined the witnesses the first day
in the presence of Colonel CRAWLEY. Was ever
anything more preposterous ? No one who was
impartial would do such a thing. Same Captains
then asked for leave to be present when their men
Were examined. This removed the examinations
to the mess-room of the 6th Dragoons, and then
Colonel CRAWLEY was not present. It seems,
however, that nothing can deter this man from
meddling where he has no right whatever so to do,
and consequently he sent for Cornet SNELL, who
had given evidence against him, and cross-exa-
mined him in the presence of only one person,
Captain BILLINGTON, for two hours. Captain
BILLINGTON is the one who previously gave his
testimony at the trial of the Mhow court-martial,
to the " amenity of Colonel CRAWLEY'S man-
ners and language in conducting the affairs of
his regiment." It is qaite evident why he was
selected to be present on the occasion referred to,
but by what right does Colonel CRAWLEY assume
the privilege of stultifying the trial about to take
place, by tampering with witnesses, interfering
where he ought to be quiescent, and altogether
adopting a most extraordinary and unprecedented
course. It is truly said, in the letter from which
extracts are taken, that SNELL ought to have refused
to give any statement, but all know the influence,
direct or otherwise, which is brought to bear on
these cases. Inexperienced and ignorant persons
are taken advantage of, and on assumption of au-
thority goes down with a great many for a lawful
exercise of a just prerogative, and hence, before
wiser heads can interfere, the mischief is completed,
and the wily stratagem succeed. It appears that
Colonel CRAWLEY had the audacity to summon
SNELL to another examination, so that that gentle

man has very wisely sent in a letter of remonstrance
to the General, begging to be informed whether
he is compelled to answer questions, and also
remonstrating against being subjected to a
rigid cross-examination before going into court.
"The tenour of the letter," it is said, " con-
veys an impression that the witnesses for the pro-
-4e
eution were not being fairly dealt with." If such
should prove to be the case, indignation in this
been4Y will know no bounds. It would have
to
better to have refused a court-martial on
Colonel
CRAW LEY altogether, if he is too sacred to
be treated ~
like other officers in a similar situation,
and if be
le to be allowed to trifle with the
solemnity of •
Justice, and to interfere with the
right and fitting
arrangementsHe of the trial.
can have no
earthly right to be present at the
examination of witness
them in court afterwardses* If be cross-questioned
that would be quite a
different affair, but Ith
Prefatory stages of the
case he ought to be in the
e
writer of
ground altogether
and completely. The
the authorities
this letter states
t ed witha t
the
what War-
office
i
very properly, that
ought to be made 11
s
going on
at MRn
ow)" and adds •
lutedly enough,
that "it was proved very dangerous fo
in this deplorable bn:inaell/ officer
to take any part Be which
is considered adverse to the autnorities,,, „o
pre-
fors making the communication in the manner
ferred to instead of adopting a more direct course,

This sentence leads one to rcfltct that it would be
wiser for those in authority to be mire rigid i❑

enacting suitable conduct from the individuals who
are comparatively high in command, and less severe
in visiting the consequences of breaches of disci-

pline on the heads of the offonders who protest, or
complain at the tyranny practised upon themselves
or others, It is an undoubted and indisputable
fist that any laxity of rule, or want of discipline in

the army or navy is serious in itself and baneful in

its effects ; but let those who dilate cn this theme
take heed, and reflect that 4here are evils a hun-

dredfold more to be dreaded than any mischances

of that nature. If the notion once becomes current

that favouritism and prejudice are to influence the
cfrairs of the army, and to reign paramount in the

investigation of charges, and the findir.gs of court-

raartials, the results will be disastrous indeed. It

is mentioned in the Indian letter referred to, that