The Sun.
London, England, 1863-12-04 00:00:00

TILE CRAW

MARTIAL,

(FROM 01:R OWN REPORTER.)
FOURTEENTH DAY.
[The following appeared in the Third Edition of " The
Sun" of last evening] :

ALDERSHOT, Thursday.
The Court was opened this morning at half-past 10
o'clock, when
Colonel Shute was early in attendance, with a view to
being cross-examined by the prisoner.
The members of the court martial remained in consulta-
tion for some time before the opening of the court.
The President and members having taken their seats,
Colonel Pipon said that the prosecutor had stated yester-
day that he had recei 'ed a let ter from the Adjutant Genera:,
directing him to decline the production of the letter of the
Commander in Chief to Colonel Shute. The Court would
request the prosecutor to hand in the letter which formed
the grounds of their decision yesterday.
Colonel Sir A. Horsford said that the letter had nothing
to do with the proceedings of the court-martial. He had no
objection to hand it to the Court, but not for the purpose of
its being recorded in the proceedings.
Colonel Crawley stated that having had an opportunity,
by the kineness of the court martial, of considering the
course be should adopt on the subject, recapitulated what
had taken place on the subject, and the pledge given by
the prosecutor atter he had a knowledge of the contents of
the letter, also of that of the Adjutant-General, and after
expressing rograt that the production of the letter should
be considered detrimental to the public service, he
begged to suggest that in order that the Court
might fully appreciate the difficulties with which
he had to contend, the letter of his Royal Highness
should be handed to the members of the Court, not for' pub.
lication, but to enable them who were his judges to form a
just opinion of his case. He felt that under the circum-
stances he could not make any further attempt to cross-
examine Colonel Shute in the circumstances in which he
(Colonel Crawley) was placed. By the course he suggested
substantial justice would be done ; and the court would be-
come acquainted with the difficulties in which he stood, and
the facts on which he relied in justification of the course he

in reply, stated that anything handed
had pursued.
Colonel Horsford,
to the court would become evidence, and must be recorded
on its proceedings, which would be in violation of the orders
information
the
evidence t o
they he had received, which were not to produce a letter of a
confidential character. The letter from. the Adjutant-
General,ingui
wasry, so f aar
meref rom
official
conveying
the
court relative
letter, conveying instructions to
hime;'riefqwued. He had n
why
ybe
could not
layo objectionbefore to that letter being
recorded on the proceedings.
Colonel Crawley said that the same course that he
wished to be pursued with the letter of the Commander in
Chief was now being pursued with the Adjutant General's
letter.
The court retired to consider the point.
On their return into court,
Colonel Pipon announced the decision of the court to be
that the letter produced should be recorded, and they de-
cline to receive any communication which is not to be
recorded on its proceedings.
The letter was then read, which simply stated that his
Royal Highness objected to the production of any letter,
or any extract, which was strictly confidential in its
character.

George Cowley, private of the 6th Dragoons, was re-
called and re-examined by the prosecutor.
Sir A. Horsford—How long have you been in the regi-
ment P —Four years and five months.
Colonel Crawley—Were you ever posted sentry over Ser-
geant Major Lilley, and if so, state where ?—I was posted
sentry once only over the sergeant major in No. 2 room in
the first bungalow at the door of No. 2.
Did you ever see Mrs. Lilley in her bedroom P—No.
William Clerk, private of the 6th Dragoons, called.
Sir A. Horsford—Were you sergeant during Sergeant
Major Lilley's confinement ?—Yes.
Did you attend Sergeant Major Lilley in his exercise,
and if so, how often?—Twice, but I do not recollect the

dates.
When you attended him did you go behind him or by the
side of him ?—The first time by the side of him, the second
time 10 or 15 yards in the rear of him.
Were you armed f--Yes, with side arms.
Colonel Crawley—Did you ever visit the sentries over
Sergeant Major Lilley, and if so, where were they posted f
—They were posted in the little room in the rear of Ser-
geant Major Lilley's bungalow, No. 4 room.
Did you consider the position of the sentries any annoy-
ance to Mrs. Lilley F—No.
Did the sergeant major or Mrs. Lilley ever make any
complaint to you F—No.
Do you consider the place where Sergeant Major Lilley
was exercised a good place fur such a purpose ?—Yes, a very
good place.
Is it usual on all duty for a sergeant to be armed with his
side arms ?—Yes.
Sir A. Horsford said he had to inform the Court that it
was not the intention of the prosecution to examine any
more sentries in chief, nor would they call any more had
it not been that they had given the prisoner a list of them,
and it was usual to call all in order that the prisoner
might cross-examine them if he desired to do so.
Colonel Crawley said that with every desire to save the
time of the Court, he was advised he could not, without
injuring his defence, release the prosecution from calling
the witnesses, He did not think that to take a different
course would save any time. If the prosecution would call
his witnesses in succession it was probable that with regard
to most of them he should not have any questions to put.
John Love, late of the 6th Dragoons, was called—
Sir A. Horsford—Were you orderly-room clerk during
the time of Sergeant Major Lilley's arrest F—Assistant
orderly room clerk.
Cul. Crawley—l have no question to put.
Sergeant George Robins of the 6th Dragoons called.
Sir A. Horsford—l do not propose to examine this
witness.
Col. Crawley—l have no question to ask him.
William Rhodes, corporal of the 6th Dragoons, called.
Sir A. Hereford—l don't propose examining this witness
in chief.
Col. Crawley—l have nothing to ask him.
Private James Doherty of the 6th Dragoons was called,
and was not examined either by the prosecutor or prisoner.
Private Francis Dribble, of the 6th Dragoons, was called,
and there was no examination in chief.
Colonel Crawley—Did you see Sergeant Major Lilley
drink any brandy when he was under arrest. If so, state
what ?—I saw him drink several glasses of brandy.
Did he drink several glasses of brandy on one occasion
when you were on sentry, or on several ?-0n one occasion.
What sort of a glass was it he drank it out of f—A
tumbler.
Did he offer you some brandy?—Yes, he asked me to
drink, but I did not take any.
How much brandy was there in the glass when he
offered it to you? Well, there might have been a goo
dram in it.
What became of the brandy lie offered you when
sergeant
you
refused to drink it ?—I had occasion to take t.oeame
major to the rear, and he drank the brandy whenhe
back,
goons
sivwatee James
recalledD,
but there
and
wPraisvanteo
side. Iclxuannoafttiahne 6th
eitherDra-

Sergeant Francis Johnson, 6th Dragoons, called. There
was no examination in chief.
Colonel Crawley—Were you servant to Sergeant Major
in the hF bit of drinking a
Jae was placed in arrest ?—I was.
Lilley three years before
Was Sergeant Major Lilley
certain amount of spirits the first thing in the morning?—
He used to drink a certain amount but not to excess. He
would take half a dram of arrack in a cup of coffee the first
thing in the morning.
In your opinion after his arrival in India, was he a strong
man or was he frequently ailing P—He was ill three times
in India before his arrest.
Was he a man who could drink a considerable
quantity
of spirits without showing its effects ?—I could not say. -
Private Jame. Nye called.
Sir A. Horsford—Were you at any
time Sentrythbest of my
over Ser-
geant Major Lilley, and if so when?—To
date, and
recollection on the 27th of April. e
How often were you sentry, and when ?
—Three times,
on the 27th April. I don't remember the second
on the night of the 11th of May.
Did you go over with Sergeant Major Lilley to the second
Iweesnt from the first bungalow to the second,
'
P—ln al, e small room, No. 2.
buNnvghaelonwyPo—u
where were you posted
n could
somwehtiemneistdwowasndfo—wYes. and was it sometimes up and
Was there a chick there,
Why ?—There
Was nothing in the room when I went
you see through it—could you
ever see the bed ?—Not in the
second bungalow.
down.

Was there anything in the second bungalow at any time
when you were sentry ?
In the first bungalow could you see the bed ?—When there
was a light in the room I could just discover the bed.
Colonel Crawley sail ho had no questions to ask him.
Private John Mackey was called, but was not examined
in chief.
Colonel Crawley—Were you a guard over Sergeant Major
Lilley in the second bungalow on the 15th of May ?—Yes.
Did you ever see Sergeant Major Lilley in the verandah
of the second bungalow before that day ?—Yes.
Private E. Rendell called—There was no examination in
chief.
Colonel Crawley—Where were you posted when you were
!
first sentry over Sergeant Major Liiky ?.—Outside the
11
bungalow.
8
Do you remember being moved from there, 1
don't know
and why were
you moved ?—I was removed about 4 o'clock. n
ac,eount of
why I was removed, but I suppose it was
the sun.
Were you sentry a second time
inside the house ?—Yes,
in No. 2 room. which hung in the door.
Could you see through the chick I
could not.
were you posted ?
At what distance from her bedroom
I should think about 10 or 12 feet.
way into Mrs. Lilley's bedroom
Private James lielley called.
Sir A. Io t
he s —Were you posted over Sergeant Major
14iiey when
'155 in the scowl bungalow was.
Sir i

f Did he make any complaint ?—He made no complaint.
Colonel Crawley—What was the room used for in )vhich
the sentries were placed ? A servant's room, and for he dding
:saddlery.
Colonel Crawley said he wished to know whether the pro-
secution intended to examine any more sentries in reference
to the annoyance caused to Mrs. Litley. If not, he was con-
tent to rest his case on that point where it stood.
Sir A. Horsford said the prosecution thought it unwise
to ,say more about their mode of conducting the prosecution.
.l'he Court shortly afterwards adjourned.

SECOND EDITION.

bUN OFFICE, HALF-PAST 4 o'CLocK.

THE PRINCIPALITIES.

BUCHAREST, Dec. 3.—The Nalzon pub:isbeki
some days back:, the draft of a Constitution which
is said to have been submitted to the Powers by
Prince COUZA. The statement made by that journal
is unfounded. The Committee on me Adoress in
the Chamber is entirely composed of members of
the Opposition.