The Sun.
London, England, 1863-12-18 00:00:00

men who denounced the clemency of Canning. We
know that it is the 811'6a-sighted and the panic-
stricken who, acting on momentary impulses, are
lax in the hour of security only to become cruel in
the instant of danger. It is they alone who have
the wisdom to be severe in time who have the cou-
rage to be merciful when severity can be safely
dispensed with. Sir, to the full and proper under-
standing of this transaction, it is most material and
relevant—as, indeed, the Court has deliberately de-
cided—to understand what was the condition of the
6th Dragoons at the time when these events took
place. My justification, and that of those under
whose authority I acted, consists in this—that the
regiment at the time of the coart-martial on Mr.
Smales, and of the arrest of the three sergeant-
majors, was in a state ofJnsubordination, as respects
certain of the officers and non-commissioned officers,
of the most dangerous character. That which I
could have proved if I had been permitted, now
that I am debarred of the means of proof I will
take upon me to re-assert. What the condition of
the regiment was when it came into my hands I
would, had I been allowed, have demonstrated out
of that letter to Colonel Shute. I would have proved
it out of Sir Hugh Rose's historical memoir of
the 6th Dragoons. But, sir, even in the
absence of this most material document, I am
not wholly without the means of satisfying you,
to some extent, of that which I should have
been glad more fully to have demonstrated. In the course
of this weary inquiry you have had some means of judging
of the materials with which I had to deal, and the diffi-
culties I had to encounter. You will judge by your own
eyes, you will judge by your own ears—above all, you will
judge as officers and gentlemen, by that inborn sense of
honour which is more conclusive than reasoning, and more
irresistible than logic. I speak to a body of men many of
whom are, all of whom have been, commanding officers.
You have seen some of my officers You have seen, you
have heard enough, I think, of the men who have so com-
ported themselves in a court of justice to judge of what
must have been my situation on the parade and iu the mess-
room. I ask you, after what you have seen, to place your
•
selves as commanding officers in my position, and to judge
me as you would in like circumstances yourselves claim to
be judged. Whoever else it was, sir—it is clear it was not
I—who educated these officers in their ideas of what was
due to military discipline and to the authority of the dupe.
riors by whom they might happen to be reprimanded. These
were not officers of my teaching any more than Mr. Fitz -
simoa was an adjutant of my choosing. You will readily
believe that, when disaffection has become chronic among
the officers, it is not long before the infection begins to
spread among those immediately below them, who ought to
look up to them as an example. Of all the forms of insub-
ordination, that which descends from above into the ranks
is the most fatal and incurable. Those who ought to be
safeguards against mutiny are become themselves the pro-
pagators. What lesson do you think the sergeants of the
regiment were likely to learn from such instructors? In-
subordinate officers naturally seek allies against their colo-
nel by tampering with the non-commissioned officers of the
regiment. The regimental sergeant major and the two other
sergeant majors had been successfully enlisted by the cabal
in conspiring to overthrow my authority. The body of
the regiment, it is true, was still sound. The discipline
of the troops was intact. But the crisis had arrived, the
danger was imminent; one step more and the flame might
have kindled in the ranks, and the famous regiment of In-
niskilling Dragoons would have broken out into open mu-
tiny. Sir, I took those measures which such a condition of
things seemed to the to require. I knew what was my duty,
and I did it without fear and without favour. How rapidly
the process of deterioration of discipline takes place in a re-
giment under the influence of tropical climates and tropical
habits no one who has not experience of Indian military life
can form any conception. The measures which are necessary
to enforce discipline elsewhere are there ten times more ne-
cessary. I may bo permitted to quote on this subject the
language of a great civilian who knew India well :—" A
strong line of demarcation must be drawn between soldiers
and the rest of the community. They must be subject to a
sharper code and a more stringent form of procedure than
are administered by the ordinary tribunals. For of all ma-
ladies incident to the body politic military insubordination
is that which requires the most prompt and drastic reme-
dies." These are the true and striking words of Lord Ma-
caulay. I acted on those principles with that instant, ne-
cessary, and justifiable severity which, in my firm belief,
alone prevented a great catastrophe. In a position of unex-
ampled diffieulty, I acted with a prudence and circumspection
in which I have nothing to regret. I took the course which
wisdom dictated and the rules of the service prescribed. I
did nothing on my own unassisted judgment. I consulted at
once my military superiors. I took evidence, as you have
heard, from credible witnesses and from the culprits them-
selves. I took it in my orderly-room in the presence of the
adjutant and two other officers. I wish I could lay that evi-
dence before genes laid it before General Farrell, who sub-
mitted it to Sir W. Mansfield. From that moment I deferred
to their judgment, which I unfeignedly knew to be better
than my own, and I acted in strict accordance with their
directions, not more from a sense of military duty than
from a profound confidence in their superior wisdom. I was
ready at the time—l was always ready—to have proceeded
to the trial of these men. If they were not tried it was none
of my doing. If the question of the propriety of that arrest,
and the justice of the decision of my superior with reference
to it is not now tried, that again is none of my doing. I am
ready—l always have been ready—and anxious to try it.
Sir, the question which lies at the root of this whole matter
is the question of mutiny or no mutiny. That is the key
to the whole business, and you are asked to unlock the
mystery while the key is withheld from you. Sir, again,
that is no doing of mine. I would have laid before you the
evidence which I laid before my immediate superiors, and
upon my conscience-I know that that evidence would have
satisfied you, as it abundantly satisfied them, Then you
would have been in a position to pronounce upon the real
merits of the case. You would have been able by your
finding to have satisfied a nation whose judgment has been
perverted by falsehood and blinded by calumny, that nothing
has been done either by me or by those whose approval I
have earned which was not consistent with justice and essen-
tial to discipline, which was not necessary to maintain the
organisation of the British army, and therein to maintain
the integrity of the Indian Empire. It, Sir, this wider and
more real issue is not presented fcr your immediate adjudi-
cation, I deeply regret it ; that it is not is, as you know, no
fault of mine. And now, Sir,
uSiiorh, llcoammehsepreeciafirrcaalilgynetdo, caound-
ed to pronounce your sentence. The
os ind ewr
ht
iho eh tywo ou cahr
ea ragseks
first charge is, " for conduct unbecoming an officer and a
gentleman, and to the prejudice of good order and military
discipline, in having caused the order for the close arrest
of Regimental Sergeant Major Lilley to be carried into
effect with unnecessary and undue severity, whereby the
said sergeant major and his wife were subjected to great
and grievous hardships." Colonel Crawley then pro-
ceeded at great length to analyse the evidence, which is
now familiar to our readers, and pointed out how that
adduced by the prosecution, so far from supporting the
charges, completely refuted them. The case, he said, had
been treated as one of peculiar military barbarity—but, he
asked. in what respect the execution of military law differed
from that of civil sentences. Did a judge, in passing sen-
tence, take into account the circumstances of an offender's
personal position in determining the measure of punish-
ment when inflicted upon him ? Did he he ask what was
his habit of body, or what was the exercise he was used to ?
or did he inquire whether he had a wife, and if she was
sick? Equality of sentence for similar offences was the
rule of both civil and military tribunals. Equality of ope-
ration upon the offender was beyond the reach of human
justice. He arrested the three sergeant-majors for the
same misconduct, the same evidence, and they were all sub-
jected to the same restraint. Why, then, was that which in
the case of Sergeant-majors Wakefield and Duval was not
called in question, made a subject of accusation in that of
Sergeant-major Lilley ? On the contrary he thought it
would appear that if anything was to be laid to his charge
it was rather an excess of leniency than an exaggeration of
severity. Of the three prisoners confined, two were placed
in an arrest equally strict, with this aggravation in their
punishment, that, being single men, their confinement was
solitary. If, upon the receipt of the orders from his supe-
riors, he had sent Mrs. Lilley to the female hospital, and
had placed Sergeant-major Lilley in the same arrest as that
in which the two other sergeant majors were confined, who
could have said that he had exceeded his orders ? But he
knew the circumstances of the case, and he deliberately ab-
stained from exercising a severity which seemed to him ex-
treme and unnecessary. Having disposed of the question
of the bungalows, and shown that they were in no respect
unfit places for confinement, he strongly impressed on the
Court that in no instance had Mrs. Lilley's privacy been
outraged, and that the placing of the sentries inside the
house was not for the purpose of annoyance but to protect
them from the heat of the sun. Ho dwelt on the culpable
neglect of AdjutantFitzsimon in having never seen the sen-
tries properly posted, and denied that the officer had given a
true version either of the orders which were given concern-
ing the arrest in the first instance, or of the alleged subse-
quent conversation in the orderly-room. The evidence of
Surgeon Turnbull he in like manner impugned as unworthy
of credit; and, with regard to the general character of Ser-
geant Major Lilley declared that the charges had nothing
whatever to do with it. If it had been a material issue, he
thought they had heard enough to know that they wore in
nossession of only half the case ; but as to the circumstances
of Sergeant Major Lilley's death, he asked if it were not
plain, beyond all manner of doubt, that there was on the
part of Surgeon Turnbull at least a deliberate design, by a
suppressio yen and a suggestio fast, to saddle him with
personal responsibility for the death of that unfortunate
man? He denied in tote corroborating the evidence of
Lieutenant Davies on the point that Surgeon Turnbull had
applied for a coroner's inquest on the body and—quoting,
in support of his statement, the addendum to the medical
report, and the testimony of Lance Corporal Holman—
maintained that the predisposing cause to Sergeant Major
Lilley's death was the quantity of spirits which he drank
during his confinement. It had been said that Sergeant