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

TEE CRAWLEY COURT-MARTIAL.

(PROM OUR OWN REPORTER.)
EIGHTEENTH DAY.
ALDEnsnoT, Wednesday Morning.
The Court re-assembled shortly after 10 o'clock.
Colonel Crawley proceededl with the letter of Sir High
Rose, alluded to at the cose of the proceedings yesterday,
and which went into detail
atgreat length with respect to
the former character of Sergeant Major Lilley, combating
the assertions of Mr. Fortescue Mr. Coningham, made
in the House of Commons, and
complaining that almost
every statement which had beenmade in the public ,
and tended ofci
new-
papers with regard to the treatment Sergeant Major
Lilley was incorrect in part
to prejudice the public mind both againnrtednost unjustly
SirT Wm. Mans-
field and the commander of the regiment
contradicted the statements made in the House
letter also
Commons
with respect to the nature of the place of confienef but
inasmuch as full evidence has been produced ebmcfnt'
Court, the public have a better means of judgine ore the
place of confinement of the three sergeant tnnjogrsoft,,the
Mr. Fortescue at the time ho made his statements 'T. an
document also went at considerable length: into
e
details which alloet the general administration of the army
in India, and quoted the opinion of medical man of high
authority with reference to the nature of the climate and its
general effect upon our troops. The reading of the docu-
ment occupied the time of the Court a long time. On its

conclusion,
The Prosecutor remarked that this was a letter written
by Sir It Rose for the information of the Counnander-in-
Chief, and embracing a great variety of subjects, among
them the character of Sergeant Major Lilley. Now, the
opinion of Sires. Rose on that matter, to be admitted, could
only be founded on evidence, and apart from that evidence
the opinion was mere hearsay, and as such could not be re-
ceived as evidence in the present case. As, however, it
would now be futile to treat the letter as not having been
produced, it was suggested by the prosecution that it should
be appended to the proceedings, and used by either party as'
they might think necessary. He further suggested that to
avoid similar difficulties in future all documents intended to
be produced should be first submitted to the Court, and that
the prosecutor might have the opportunity of stating his
reasons against their admissibility as evidence, and taking
the decision of the Court upon the point before they were
road.

Col. Crawley—Mr. President, I have no objection to the
prosecution treating the despatch of his Excellency the
Commander-in-Chief in India according to what the prose-
cution is pleased to term its seeming worth. As to the
course proposed by the prosecution, it is entirely at variance
with the example they themselves have set, and it is in
direct opposition to the first principles of the administra-
tion of justice. In the case of their own evidence, as for
instance in that of the letter of Sir Wm. Mansfield, which
was put in as against me, no private investigation took
place. I sought no cover of secrecy, but the prosecution
has regarded no seal of confidence. They without hesi •
tation put in confidential documents without any objec-
tion being raised on my part. Not only that, but they
put in proportions of the blue book which were read in
open court, and passages from which were afterwards
pronounced to be inadmissible. Why then is it that as
soon as the defence is begun they seek to change the
course which has hitherto been pursued ? Why is it that
they seek to turn an open court of justice into a court of
secret inquiry ? I ask the Court, then, to permit me to
pursue the course which the prosecution has pursued,
with this exception, that I ask to put no confidential docu-
ment in evidence. As to the particular letter which has been
just read, I am advised that there can be no question aboutit.
If the letter is relevant on any point it is admissible. I could
mention twenty reasons why the letter is relevant, but I
will mention only one. The surgeons of the 6th Dragoons
have stated that it was not their duty to interfere with dis-
cipline by reporting any anticipated injury to the late Ser-
geant Major Lilley; but the letter of the Commander in-
Chief, who is the proper person to state what, according
to his instructions, was their duty, bears iupon that point.
I beg also to remind the Court that a list of these docu-
ments was furnished to me by Sir William Mansfield, for
the express purpose of being used on the trial ; and I have
been permitted only last week to copy them, in order to pro-
duce
them in court. I have only to add most respectfully
that, under no circumstances, can I consent to the private
investigation which the prolaecution proposes.
The Prosecutor—lf the Court will permit me, I think I
can make this matter clear, though in doing so it will look
as if we were going back to the very elements of jurispru-
dence. A tribunal consists of a judge or judges, and judge
and jury. Courts martial are composed of judges alone,
and are more liko the courts of equity. In such courts the
practice is, that if a document is tendered in evidence the
judges first see it, and determine whether it is admissible in
evidence. If they think it is not it is rejected; but if it is,
it is attached to the proceedings, and forms an element in
the judgment. The same course prevails in courts martial ;
therefore the prosecution feels no doubt in the course they
have adopted. The latter of Sir William Mansfield con-
, tained the order for the arrest of Sergeant Major Lilley, and

therefore they were bound to produce it.
Colonel Crawley—l wish to remind the Court that when
the prosecutor put in from the bluebook Sir Hugh Rose's
remarks, they made him in fact their witness, and the ob-
jection they now take to his letter would apply equally to
his remarks. I did not object to them taking the course
ttihoeys of Sirdid, bu
Hught Im
Roseustre aremind the Court that if the observe-
ngood for one purpose they are
good for another.
The Court retired to consider the point.
On the return of the court,
Colonel Pipon said—As the court was closing the follow-
ing was put in by the prosecutor :—The blue book was read
d
out at the express instance of the prisoner, and against
urgent request of the prosecutor. The court adheres to the
decision to decline receiving any communication whicb
re-
is
not to be read and appended to the proceedings. With
ference to the letter last read, the court has to observe, that
the prosecutor stated that the document to which he, now
objects was one of those given to the prisoner for the ex-
press purpose of using them in his defence ; and he alo
stated that he had no objection to the copies beingrreeaaddtthoe
court as evidence. It therefore rests with the prosecutor to
show what part can be legally objected to.
Colonel Crawley suggested for the consideration of the
prosecution whether, with respect to the documents he Was
about to read, the same course should not be thalatnenasusofwtahse
taken in the blue book, namely, that he should
documents, and that the prosecutor should state his
objec-
tions collectively; otherwise the proceedings might bein.
definitely prolonged.
Sir A. IlJrstord said the matter was in the

Court.
Colonel Crawley then proceeded to read the letter from
Colonel Hatch to the Commander in Chief in India, stating
that Sergeant Major Lilley might have been
,„ opinion
L.* r
convicted by court martial not only fc.r disobedience to the
orders of the commanding officer, in making public the pro-
ceeding of the court martial then sitting, but for uttering
violent and beastly language against his commanding
officer; and that, although the confessions of the sergeant
majors could not be used as evidence against themaelvee,
they not having been previously cautioned, yet there was,
in his (Colonel Hatch's) opinion, evidence against Sergeant
Major Lilley of the encouragement of disobedience to
orders. The letter was signed "G. A. Hatch, Deputy
Judge Advocate General."
J3:rlety 11.101,t 1863,1uai0
A second letter was then read from Col. Hatch, dated
"an \\vvhasich he states that the arrest of the three
Crawley, arrestedhael sane.
chargehe having
stpaetrefdecthtlaytrtehgeuylahradonbeetnhe part o
on a
of conspiracy, and that the major generalsibility arising
tioned their close arrest, and that any
from the continuance of that arrest wreas"°;itt
Crawley to the superior officer.
Crawley was one dated
shitted from Cot.
The next letter read by Colonel
sater Oimla, and ad-
dressed
16th of April last, from the headequar
Adjutant General at the
by Sir Hugh Rose to al
Horse Guard, in which the Commanderhi
the evidence submitted
to
Colonel Crawley, and that Ser-
geant
lly
that a cabel existed againetarty
to it.
.mfaeientaCbhiiieelifesdtattlede thatfet
Major Lilley
20, 186 ?, acknowledging the
dated l'ne"°w' of Cambridge, and stating, with
General, wwasitcroampja:sni.r Hugh Rose to the Adjutant
Duke
The next letter
Rose's) r part
on the trial of Paymaster Smales, that
of it which had rel'crence to his (Sir
Surgeon Td
to in evidence—which fully bore out ich
regard memorandume t that t of
the
11
onerear-rreDembaulkl had fo.rwarde d
,to. hina, an addendum—
the - sergeant major's drinking habits being; the
evidence; of the
cause—.
his death. The letter also enclosed fresh infer-
. iaTtic,43—e iuDei,,,,,, tb.?, half-yearly report of Msjor General
\..