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

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

LIGHTHOUSES,

Lord LOVAINE called attention to the correspondence
between the Trinity Board and the Board of Trade, and
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in his
opinion, the experience of the electric light for the past two
years was not sufficient to warrant its adoption at Portland ?
Mr. M. GIBSON said whatever power was exercised by
the Board of Trade with reference to lighthouses, and the
mode of illuminating lighthouses, was in accordance with
the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act. But that act
had given them no authority to incur expenditure in the
experiment of lighting lighthouses. The duty of the Board
of Trade was simply to control expenditure ; and it was no
part of their province to force upon the Trinity Corporation
any expenditure of which they themselves did not approve.
Some time since the Trinity Corporation proposed the re-
constructing the Portland Lighthouse, and the Board of
Trade suggested that before the work was undertaken it
might be well clearly to ascertain whether Portland Light-
house was not fitted to receive the electric light, and also to
take care that the light itself had a full trial. The Trinity
Corporation decided that for the present it would not be right
to adopt the electric light at Portland, and in coming to that
conclusion they had the assistance of the advice of that most
able man, Mr. Faraday. As for himself, if he had an opi-
nion upon the subject, he should say that the trial which
took place at Dungeness was most satisfactory—(hear)—
and that, too, was the opinion of Mr. Faraday. The noble
lord might rely upon it that no unnecessary obstacles would
be thrown in the way of the adoption of the light, but
then reasonable time must be allowed to ascertain if the
invention could be safely applied.
Sir J. PASINGTON having listened very closely to the
statement of the right hon. gentleman, was nevertheless
quite unable to ascertain what were his intentions. He
could not avoid saying that the official experience of the
right hon. gentleman had made him the most perfect speci-
men of Ministerial caution ever heard in that house. (A
laugh.) The generalities of the right hon. gentleman were
really quite bewildering. He said that he was anxious to
obtain the aid of scientific experience in the matter. Well,
it surely was not to the Trinity Corporation that he
should go for scientific experience. Mr. Faraday was in
favour of the light—and if the right hon. gentleman
wanted further time for investigation, what time would
satisfy him ? The Portland Light wanted repairs, and so
also did the " Start" Light, and it became an important
question whether the commerce of the country ought ,to
be any longer deprived of the advantages of a great dis-
covery for reasons so unsubstantial.
Lord H. VANE drew a more favourable augury from
the statement of the President of the Board of Trade than
the right hon. gentleman opposite. It was true, the Trinity
Corporation had shown no great alacrity in the matter;
still, they were at the head of the navigation of the country,
and unless they took the lead, it was impossible for the
Board of Trade to do anything. His right hon. friend how-
ever, had admitted that he himself saw the advantage of
the light, and therefore it was to be hoped that before any
very long time the Trinity Corporation would be brought
round to the same opinion.

Mr. P. HENNESSY read extracts from the report of
Mr. Faraday, to prove that the opinion of that gentleman
was unmistakably in favour of the new apparatus.
The subject then dropped.

THE CASE OF SERGEANT-MAJOR LILLEY.
Mr. FORTESCUE rose to call attention to the circum-
stances attending the death, after four weeks' imprison-
ment, of Regimental Sergeant-Major Lilley of the 6th
Dragoons, at Mhow, in India, on the 25th of May, 1862;
and to the imprisonment at the same time, for a still
longer period, of Troop Sergeant-Majors Duval and Wake-
field, of the same regiment, without either of the three
having been brought to trial, or any formal charge having
been preferred against them ; and to ask whether the
commanding officer under whose authority those things
took place, was still to be left in command of the regi-
ment. The hon. member at the outset disclaimed all inten-
tion of making an attack upon the Commander-ir-Chief,
whose abilities and character he held in the highest respect.
He was quite sure that if the action of his Royal Highness
had not been in the first instance interfered with by the
strange course taken by the high military authorities in
India, not a day would have been lost in insuring that ample
justice was done. The hon. member then recapitulated the
well-known history of the case : the irregular arrest of the
three sergeants by order of the commanding officer of the
regiment (Col. Crawley), on the eve of their appearance as
witnesses at a 'court-martial which was being held on the
commanding officer, in consequence of charges brought
against him by Captain Smale, the paymaster of the regi-
ment; their being kept in most rigorous confinement, with-
out—as had been admitted by his Royal Highness the Com-
mander•-in-Chief--a shadow of evidence being brought for-
ward against them, a confinement from which one of them
—Sergeant•Major Lilley—was only released by death, and
anther to find himself lodged in an asylum as a raving lu-
natic. On the death of Lilley no inquest was held, and the
surgeon reported that his death was caused by apoplexy, in-
duced by the painful circumstances in which he wao placed.
The hon. member then described the place where the sergeant
was confined, and narrated all the circumstances attending
the death of his wife, which have long since been in posses-
sion of the public. It was too late to offer reparation to
Sergeant Lilley, for the poor fellow was dead, but it was not
too late to punish the man who had been the cause of his
sufferings. (Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") The hon. mem-
ber next adverted to the memorandum recently published
by his Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief, and ex-
pressed his astonishment at the strange leniency which had
been exhibited towards Colonel Crawley in permitting him
to remain in command of the regiment. In conclusion, he
stated that it was the fixed intention of the relatives of Ser-
geant Lilley to indict Col, Crawley for manslaughter in case
that officer ever put his foot in England.
Mr. CONINGHAM said that although the question of
Colonel Crawley's conduct had been already within the last
few days under the consideration of the house, the memo-
randum just issued by his Royal Highness the Commander-
in-Chief completely altered the aspect of the case. The
Horse Guards, by condoning the conduct of Col. Crawley,
had made themselves responsible for that conduct; and he
sincerely trusted that the full weight of the indignation of
that house would be directed against the course taken by
his Royal Highness. Having quoted portions of the me-
morandum of his Royal Highness, the hon. member pro-
ceeded to say that if his Royal Highness could issue such a
memorandum, he was not fit to be in command of the Bri-
tish army ; for if anything could tend to sap the high spirit
which animated our soldiers, it was to see conduct such as
that of Colonel Crawley remaining uncondemned by the
heads of the army. He trusted, therefore, that when the
noble marquis rose to make his reply he would address him-
self not merely to the justification of Colonel Crawley, but
like wise to the justification of his Royal Highness the Com-
mander. in-Chief.

The Marquis of HARTINGTON having explained that
the delay which had taken place in connection with the
ordnance survey of Scotland was occasioned by the difficul-
ties attending the survey of the mountainous districts, ad-
dressed himself to the case of Sergeant-Major Lilley, and
explained that the arrests of the three sergeants had been
ordered by Colonel Crawley, on a charge of conspiracy
against himself. It could not be denied, however, that their
examination previous to arrest had been most irregularly
conducted. When they were arrested, Colonel Crawley in-
formed the major-general in charge of the Mhow district,
requesting instructions as to bringing them to trial, and
requesting also his sanction for placing them under close
arrest. With regard to the placing the sergeant-majors
under close arrest, it was added that Colonel Crawley had
been insti ucted that, pending the investigation, the arrest
should be closet. On the 28th of April Sir Wm. Mansfield
wrote that the evidence did not appear to substantiate the
charges against the sergeant-majors. That opinion was
chiefly grounded upon the fact that the sergeant-majors had
not been warned before their examination that their evidence
might be used against them. He went on to say, however,
that their conduct had clearly been highly improper, and
that Sergeant-major Lilley ought to be dismissed, and he
directed that the latter should be kept in close arrest until
the end of the court-martial. Shortly afterwards, at the
begiinnifig of May, the court-martial had been unexpectedly
4°, ° riled in consequence of the illness of the paymaster,
'orreaPteatindum_Smale. . The sergeant-majors were kept in close
Lille, ~,:towg the interval. On the 24th May Sergeant-major
On the reported sick, and on the 25th he died. (Hear.)
the order
tha_, t he had bt!:are,,Sir W. Mansfield wrote to Gen. Farrell
" Sergeant-ft,. ''' through the public papers, of the death
martial Nyo,idity "Aley, but that he thought the court-
offtterrainated h • l
to :a be
s shortly after the arrival
and expressing hieet'Llbl in close
nicated with by etei'rt that he
arrestbad arrived at Mhow,
not_ been commu-
arrest. The memorandae l''''.;t° obtain a
rienced at the death of 1447 ate,ted release fromh the
' awl ills reaa'%B fo, coenejleu:

narrowly escaped (if
enyecessary to keep them out of temp-
great crime, and it was
That there might be no tampering
tation—(oh, oh)-2d,
the
with the witnesses ; and 3d, That it was necessary
by Col. Crawley should not
be condoned by the re
ins the close arrest, viz.th Ist,ha dTehaaetatpheed)stehrgeeeaoneatinmiasjeoiorhs hadof
a
evidence there was forthcoming.
Such were the facts of t
been discovered what eemof the prisoners until it had
The opinionof the Judge
r hoar.)
them was that Col. Crawley had
Advocate-General uponbefore him of the charges brought
chargefortun a broughtte,,
,a n d against
hea , l
he tae unfortunate occurrence. (" Un-
fortunate,"
not sufficient evidence
a.
that the arrests were il1e:;a1,
that some persons were to blame.
(Hear.) The quest
againsta(
lln de thea r. ) there
It ts so
wasenrsge acnl
allegedquestion was byr
SirBh' o how rt
.h
le
I blameail sfi
Mansfield
l was aws etr oe notbe valid.distri-
buted, st r i -
Mansfield evidently thought he was simply
buted.
Crawley felt himself justified by
ing a prisoner; an
superior officer. It was not to be forgotten
mdacgoisl.trate would have done in remand-
mofantdheeri.rind:thiniecfti;obnutanadelsaeinar-
vices, great caution
th e acting o
rdae srS ivarf pWhoils'i ce.
his Royal Highness and delicacy required to be observed by
cCeieMsrgeant-A114.0r Lilley been dis-
charged in dealing
who were persons. int poore
to award an allowance of about the same amount as would
the Government hadj thought it right
having
iroura relatives s
ta circumstances,
et,h
we
hs sergeant-major,
hadeant
been- m ajor,
having died. (Oh, oh.) It was to be
hly known, and the account of Lieu t.
yet become thoroughly de-
pendentohha
av
re
g ed been i
instead
payable aa ydh al
ombf; e
Fitz-Symons, who had Ji f a
victim rconctuuirmaddsihteaatnevdceessbeehveeanrda.ln pro-
duced in the chargest against Colonel
that
htl:terneiminpomrtianndt
dTohuabtt
wasnto o
trasaon;ybpersons l t would
inquiry
thpaartattellultah.usresctealrlra.itveedral,
Contradicted
could alone criminate the officers. Great as had been the
have been more satisfactory
Crawlefyor. punHeishdimdennott.
would be made into those collateral ciroumstances which
pain and disgust caused by that story of scandal and mis-
management, the Secretary for War ulna 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 explanation 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
reason that they enjoyed the
confidence of theirstrang Cora-
e
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 question. The subject was one of the
greatest
the reall import, and the investigation ought not to cease until
y responsible parties were discovered. (Hear.)
Captain ARCRDALL said that, as there was to be
further inquiry, he would merely express his gratification
Commander-in
with the vindication of the regiment pronounced by the
Chief.
was
Mr. HEADLANI said it was clear that Colonel Crawley
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 4-165,000 for harbours of refuge,
SUPPLY.
was not intended to extend the works at Dover beyond the
t i
ALforro. df
present plan,
moved the reduction of the vote by
amo, the sum proposed for the harbour of Alderney. It
wine unfit for a harbour of refuge, and would be useless in
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
was entirely out of the way of ships
boldly admit they had committed an error, stop the works,
any corresponding there was so
and thereby save a million of money. Every penny spent
LC:.::::::iaryernseayid, in answer to Mr. Lindsay, that it
Lord C. PAGET gave a detailed history of the progress
of the works at Alderney, from the commencement to the
btouhuenettdt
etGe
rhroetivhabeier
Govern
as lc::
advantage, moneythro into the water without
present time. Arrangements had been made with the con-
tractors to give them compensation for the plant, &c., pro-
cured,
and the expenses they had incurred necessary to carry
their substructure to a certain point, which was now just
Mr. EVANS 8i:
t au
rokuewfnat act t ere
hadofo theftaht
oestopped.
water,
ae eastern r ,
a.rnhade
They
f wereaolfl
ot hweoendhl harbour rob remain
rmaw inhi ci
completingwhich
its present state would be dangerous to shipping.
Sir J. ELPIIINSIONE thought the money might be
home,
be left unfinished. pimproving
vote.harbours
.rh
eof w refugeorks nearerecnad n
ot
After Bosse farther 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
foundsaotihoansngoanodf
osapiidniotnhse
wGiothve
for Alderney.
Lord C. PAGET replied that there was no intention of
extending the Dover pier farther than the limits of the
the eastern arm of the breakwater at Alderney.
Mr. BAXTER expressed his amazement at the noble
Government
tohaAdldaelrnso
lord'
years ago the noble lord the Alderney would be valu-
able as a 100k-out station, now it as an important naval station.
should hesitate to vote theAlderney.
given
i,
will:
Viscount PALMERSTON said he could understand if
the noble lord recommended
they were only beginning the Workwhy hon. members
the works had been some time in progress, and were al3-
preaching completion, he could not see why the committee
mouey—bt, considering that
should refuse to pass the present
The committee divided. vote.
Th
For the amendment .e numbers were—
. 62 Against it ...................
On the vote of £68,359 for works at Holyhead and Port-
patrick.
£5 Sir a CAIRNS moved the reduction of the vote byat----,000 on account of Portp rim,
, 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,
Mr. M. GIBBON, and the vote
Naa
Upon the vote for £89,618 balsas agreed to.
nce of the sum of £114,618
for public buildings in Ireland, after an explanation by
Mr, MAGUIRE proposed to reduce the vote by £3,000.
The committee divided—
Ayes.. .............................. 19
Noes ............................... 84
Majority for the vote
.•• . • —65
The vote was 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.
Mr' RENNESSY moved that the bill be re-co. mm. . for the
principle of arbitration in-
Purpose of having the
On the motion for the third reading of this bill,
re-committed,
troduced.
After some discussion,
Lord PALMERSTON moved that the debate be ad-
journed until Monday, and the proposal was agreed to.
The P
The Cayman Islands Bill passed through committee.
use was counted out half-past two.