The Sun.
London, England, 1863-11-26 00:00:00

THE CRAWLEY COURT MA.RTIAL.

EIGHTH DAY.

[The following appeared in the Third Edition of " The
Sun" of last evening]

ALDERSHOT, Wednesday.
The proceedings were resumed this morning, the members
being all present with the exception of Lieut.-Col. Lodder,
of the 59th Regiment, who was certified to be suffering
from an attack of lumbago, which confined htm to bed,
and would prevent his resuming his duties at the court
martial proceedings.
The following evidence was taken:—
Sergeant John Gibson recalled and cross-examined by
Col. Crawley—My wife attended Mrs. Lilley in her last
illness. and gave her both brandy and medicine. She also
rubbed liniment into Mrs. Lilley's chest and shoulders. My
wife is not here.
Colonel Sir Alfred Horsford, official prosecutor, requested
that the cross-examination of Private Reynolds, yesterday,
might be read over, and Colonel Pipon, officiating Judge-
advocate, read it aloud accordingly.
Mr. E. G. Syms, confidential clerk in the Adjutant
General's office, Horse Guards, produced a letter from Col.
Crawley, which was read as follows :
(Immediat2.).

Mhw, 4th Jae, 162
From Lieut. Col, Crawley, Commanding 6th DrnagooBns,. to
the Assistant Adjutant General, M.D.A.
Sir,--With reference to the telegram received this day
on the subject of which the major general commanding has
called for explanation, I have the honour to state that the
three sergeant majors of the Inniskilling Dragoons were
placed in close arrest with the sanction of the major general,
which was afterwards confirmed by his Excellency the
Commander in Chief ; that in consequence of the impossi-
bility of preventing communication being held with the
prisoners by parties in the interest of the prisoner (Pay-
masterSnaales) it was deemed advisable to place the sentries
in the room with the prisoners—not only to avoid the expo-
sure of the sentries to the rain and hot winds, but to prevent
the witnesses being tampered with during the remainder of
the trial. In the case of the regimental sergeant major (the
placedic anodve therehimwasshno
late Sergeant Major Lilley) who was a married man, there
were, I believe, three or four rooms in the house where he
wtha
wwhaaytevinetrertfheraet
ouldneicnessaintyy
essen
with histr d y quartered,
omest arrangements, or that his wife should
have been annoyed by the presence of the sentry. I learned
a few days after the sergeant major had been placed in
arrest, that the sentry had been moved injudiciously by
Lieut. Fitzsimons so as to give cause of annoyance to the
sergeant major's wife, and I immediately sent Mr. Fitz-
simons himself to withdraw the sentry from the pre-
sence of Mrs. Lilley, and to place him where he
could do his duty with equally good effect
without giving annoyance to her. Notwithstand-
ing the precaution of placing a sentry in the room
with Sergeant Major Lilley, it did actually occur that
through the neglect or connivance of some of these sea-
tries a communication was opened with the Sergt. Major
by a woman of the regiment. Immediately on the termi -
nation of•the defence by Paymaster Smales, on the 24th
inst., I addressed a letter, as you are aware, to you to re-
quest the major general's permission to enlarge the arrest of
the three sergeant majors from close to open arrest, as the
necessity for continuing the close arrest no longer existed.
This permission I received on the following day, and I
acted upon it forthwith. Unfortunately Sergeant Major
Lilley died of a sudden attack of apoplexy at four a.m.,
on the 25th of May, and thus has given a handle for the un-
founded statements contained in the newspapers as to
the penal character of the arrest of these non-commis-
sioned officers. I regret that owing to the variety and quart.
tity of official business placed upon my hands in reference to
the robbery of the books, &c., of Paymaster Smales, the
examination before a magistrate of private Walshe, the
trumpet major, and his wife, and other regimental business,
which can only be attended to by the Officers actually in
command, I have been unable to proceed with my reply to
the prisoner's defence as early as I could have desired, and
therefore his excellency's instructions relative to the final
release from arrest of the sergeant majors have not yet been
carried out, pending the final adjournment of the court.—l
have the honour to be, sir, your most obedient servant,
T. R. CRAWLEY, Lieutenant-Colonel
Commanding 6th Dragoons.
Cornet W. T. Snell, examined by Sir A. Horsford, said
that he was adjutant of the 6th Dragoons during a portion
of Sergeant Major Lilley's arrest—trom about the 4th till
the Bth of May, 1862. During that period Col. Crawley
sent for him to the mess room. He thought it was on the
7th of May, the day on which Sergeant Major Lilley gave
his evidence in court. On his arrival at the mess Colonel
Crawley said, "Mr. Snell, Sergeant Major Lilley has com-
plained in court of the manner of his arrest." He thought
the colonel said that the sergeant major had said that the
sentry was within two feet of his wife's bed. The colonel
asked whether this was true, and witness replied that the
sentry was on the bungalow next to Mrs. Lilley's bedroom.
The colonel then asked who gave the order. Witness re-
plied " I understood it was you, sir." The colonel said he
hed ordered close arrest, and inquired if his orders were
not carried out. He added "Do you know what close ar-
rest is, Mr. Snell!" Witness answered he thmight he did.
Colonel Crawley then said " Go and see that my orders are
properly carried out." Witness then left the mess. After
that ha went and saw Sergeant Major Lilley's bungalow,
and changed the position of the sentry, placing him in the
lobby or small room next to the dining room. It was the
room known as the servants' room. There was an order
that he was in no way to interefere with Mrs. Lilley, but
not to lose sight of Sergeant Major Lilley except he went
into Mrs. Lilley's bedroom. On the same day
after the court martial on Paymaster Smales
had adjourned he went to Colonel Crawley's bun-
galow with regimental papers. When the colonel had
seen these, witness handed him a written copy of the orders
he had given to the sentry over Sergeant Major Lilley.
Colonel Cre.wley passed it back without reading it, saying,
" Do you think, Mr. Snell, that I am a lance corporal, to
write out orders for a guard Ps' He had only done the duty
of an acting adjutant a few days, and he had not liked on
his own responsibility to change an order which was in
force when he entered upon that duty. He did not know
what had become of those orders.
Upon the witness being questioned as to the substance o
the orders, Colonel Crawley objected, on the ground that
the orders nog • ht be in existence, and that secondary ev
dente was therefore inadmissible.

After same discussion, the witness repeated that the
next
Witness
andh
e
orders were the same, except that he was not to interfere
with Mrs. Lilley, but to keep Sergeant Major Lilley in
sight, except he went
ainimtoenColonell papers
histawifep'e Crawley srbsedarsouosmu.al
ihnagduspoomne ctoamkimnguntihceatrioe n with morn-
ordered witness to issue a morning order that Lieutenant
Davies was to perform the duties of acting adjutant, and
tout resumeat, before
his
the
he duty.h,During
t washat
acting witness
wasaadsjntzitei
On thate
Sergeant
Major
e m
r and
Mrs. Lilley were in the office, or No. 2
room.
morning witness altered them as he had stated. Witness
remembered the sentry giving up his orders to him several
times while he -
was acting adjutant. Witness could not
remember the exact words of the order, but it was to the
effect that the sentry was to keep the prisoner in sight.
Colonel Crawley objected on the ground that the orders
were in writing, and should therefore be produced.
The court overruled the objection.
Examination continued—Witness was orderly officer on
or about the 10th, 16th, and 22d, when Sergeant Major
Lilley was under arrest. He did not remember the orders
on the 10th, but on the 16th and 22d they were the original
orders that the sentry was not to lose sight of his prisoner,
nor to allow anyone into the bungalow except the medical
officer, and he had a slight recollection of one native ser-
vant being mentioned.
Colonel Crawley—l beg most respectfully to repeat my
protest against the reception of this evidence, and upon the
same ground.
The President—The court has already decided.
Sergeant George Bernard of the 6th Dragoons, examined
by Colonel Sir Alfred Horsford, the official prosecutor—l
knew Sergeant Major Lilley for about eight years. He was
always a very sober steady man. I remember being in the
orderly-room very early in May, when I heard Lieutenant
Colonel Crawley call on Sergeant Major Cotton, and
check him for some irregularity in posting the sentries.
I heard Sergeant Major Cotton tell Colonel Crawley the
sentry was placed inside the house, and that Mrs.Lilley was
Very sick, and that Sergeant Major Lilley was a married
man. The colonel said he did not care, an order Was
would have it obeyed. I afterwards all
order, and he heard
either Mr. Fitzsimons or Quartermaster Wooden say that
Mrs. Lilly was very sick, and that she was obliged to have
applied to her shoulder or chest. liniment The Colonel
said he did not care a d—, those were the orders,
would have them carried out. and he
gm. Cotton, the wife of Sergeant-Major C
with Lilley when he died. He was Cotton, said she
was
of approaching death. as perfectly sensible
Oliver Barnett, assistant surgeon of
said he had attended Mrs. Lilley abthe 6th Dragoons,
the arrest of her husband. sh out six months before
consumption. Atter his and. was suffering from
arrest
her. The sentry was l he had leave to visit
When he knocked the s P aced in No. 2 room.
entry opened the door for
him. From No. 2 the sentry could see into Mrs. Lilley's
room, and also hear the conversation. Ho was painfully
impressed with the fact
of the sentry being placed over
Sergeant Lilley, whom he had knownthat so long, He consi-
dered the position of the
Mr. and Mrs. Lilley, sentry was an annoyance to
who wasfo seriouslyl ill. Mrs. Lil:ey
generally consumed three or uidrerginasstehseof brandy daily,
on his recommendation. Cons
Lilley's complaint, and her extremeg debility,' she ure ofml‘iirlasi
have taken three, four, or five glasses of brandy daily g with-
out producing any prejudicial effect. Lilley was a sober
steady man. Witness never saw any appearance about
Lilley of drinking, either before or during his arrest.
He was allowed to take exercise about the 30th of April,
and towards the end of May allowed to sit in the verandah.
Witness could not say how long before his death. On
the morning of the 19th June Colonel Crawley said to
witness as they were riding towards the parade•
ground, that Sergeant Major Lilley drank, while
under arrest, 23 bottles of brandy, and 12 pints
of ale, a bottle of port wine, and some gin' When
the parade was over, witness waited upon Colonel Crawley
and asked him if he wished any sedition to be made to the
report of the sergeant major's case in reference to the
quantity of liquor supplied to hip, during his arrest.
The colonel said no, and that he had done it, or
that he would do it in his report. That was the only con-
versation witness had with Col. Crawley about Sergeant
Maj 'n. Lilley, and he (witness) repeated the substance of
it to Dr. Turnbull. A poet mortem examination showed
that death resulted from heat apoplexy.
By the official prosecutor (Col. Sir A. Iloraford)---If