The Sun.
London, England, 1863-06-13 00:00:00

no dockyard in that country, as promised at the time of the
Union. Every statement he made on a former occasion
relative to Irish distress was substantiated by reliable evi-
dence. With regard to the religious question, he asked the
Protestants to leave Roman Catholics alone, and their
harmony would be complete. The conduct of the right
son. gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland in attending
an aggressive meeting of an aggressive body was an insult
to Ireland, and it was a gross violation of civil and religious
liberty. The right hon. gentleman had said that he was
induced to attend the meeting in consequence of his reading
a book entitled " Good News from Ireland." He (Mr.
Maguire) had read the book, and he declared it to be a mere
trap for the religious credulity and fanaticism of England.
The meeting was an attack on the Roman Catholic Church,
and the right hon, gentleman had acted imprudently in
attending it. The tenant question was one of the causes of
the misery of the country and the exodus of the people. He
supported the motion.
Mr. WHALLEY hoped the Government would accede
to the motion. Ho should vote for it, believing that the
inquiry might result in something that might assist the
house in the future discussion of the subject.
Col. DUNNE replied, and said, considering the period
of the session, he would not press the motion to a division.
The motion was then withdrawn.
THE CASE OF SERGEANT-MAJOR LILLE Y.
Viscount PALMERSTON appealed to the hon. member
for Brighton not to bring forward his motion on this sub-
ject, seeing that the Commander-in-Chief had decided upon
referring the conduct of Colonel Crawley to a court-martial.
(Hear, hear,)
Mr. CONINGIIAM replied that there were other per-
sons in high places compromised in this matter, and upon
this ground he could not agree to postponing his motion.
This matter was only a part of the whole military system,
and as long as he had a seat in that house he would stand
up for non-commissioned officers, whether against general
officers or royal highnesses and commanders-in-chief. The
bon. member then proceeded to call attention to the court-
martial held upon Paymaster Smale.

Col. NORTH rose to order, and asked whether the hon.
member was justified in referring to the proceedings of a
court-martial ?
Gen, PEEL supported the motion of order on the ground
that the hon. member was not justified in quoting from a
document not in the possersion of the house.
The SPEAKER ruled that the hon. member was in
order.

Mr. CONINGHAM then proceeded to read quotations
from the protest addressed to Col. Crawley by Paymaster
Smale on the subject of his court-martial and with respect
to the gross infringements of her Majesty's regulations of
which he had been the victim, and continued—Those quo-
tations, which have been corroborated by the. memerandum
just issued from the Horse Guards, conclusively manifested
that the mere trial of Col. Crawley by a court-martial would
but imperfectly fulfil that wide and searching investigation
in this country into the conduct of all concerned, which
public opinion demanded. They had never had the opinion
of the Judge Advocate upon the question, although that
opinion had been referred to in the memorandum of his
Royal Highness. He should like to know what was that
opinion. It was perfectly idle to attempt to burk and
suppress inquiry; the interests of justice, the discipline of
the army, required that it should take place. If non-
commissioned officers were liable to be treated as they
had been in India, not only by Colonel Crawley, but like-
wise by general officers, the disaffection would be wide-
spread through the army. He would therefore entreat
the noble lord at the head of the Government, if
he was without doubt as to the authority of the Secretary of
War, not to hesitate, but to enforce that authority to its
utmost limits; and that, notwithstanding his high position
and his high birth, his Royal Highness should be made to
feel, in common with the most humble individual in the
realm, that if he had done wrong he should not escape jus-
tice. He appealed to the noble lord not to make a scape-
goat of Colonel Crawley, but narrowly to investigate the
conduct of every one engaged in a most discreditable
transaction.
The Marquis of HARTINGT ON said that, although the
Speaker had decided that the hon. member for Brighton
(Mr. Coningham) was in order, there could be no difference
of opinion in that house as to the good taste and command
of temper which the hon. member had displayed in advert-
ing as he had done to the court• martial on Paymaster Smale,
when his motion only referred to the memorandum of his
Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief on the case of
Sergeant-Major Lilley. Now, ho did not think that was
the proper place to discuss questions of detail affecting the
discipline of the army. (Hear, hear.) Nor would it be
consistent with the feelings of hon, members generally that
an hon. member should come down to that house and make
detailed statements against the characters of officers who
were not present to defend themselves, mad against the cha-
racter of the Commander•in-Chief, who was not present to
defend himself—(hear, hear)—and when those whose duty
it was todefend his Royal Highness could not be adequately
prepared to do so. He utterly declined to follow the hon.
member in his observations, either with respect to the court
martial on Paymaster Smale, or as to the conduct of the
Commander-in-Chief in India or the Commander-in-Chief
at home, who had sanctioned the proceedings of that court-
martial. He would only say that he was corroborated in
that view by the opinion of the Judge Advocate-General, and
on the proper occasion he should be perfectly ready if neces •
sary to defend that opinion. The hon. gentleman had made
a somewhat violent attack upon his Royal Highness the
Commander-in-Chief. The grounds of the attack he was
utterly at a loss to discover, seeing that the finding of the
court-martial never came before his Royal Highness at all.
The final decision rested entirely witth the Commanders-
in-Chief in India.
Mr. PIGOTT—But the memorandum.
The Marquis of II ARTINGTON —His Royal Highness
did certainly, in that memorandum, make some general ob-
servations upon the discipline of the regiment, and stated
his reasons for retaining the two officers referred to in the
service, which he had a perfect right to do. The hon. gen-
tleman said he did not want a victim, or a scapegoat, The
course, however, now adopted by his Royal Highness
would probably be satisfactory to everybody. The officer
who was stated by Col. Crawley to be responsible for the
severity and cruelty of Sergeant-Major Lilley's imprison-
ment had made a directly contrary allegation, and it had
now been resolved, in justice to both, to summon Colonel
Crawley before a court-martial to decide whether he or
Capt. Fitz Simons was really responsible. (Hear.) He had
only to add that, pending such an inquiry, it was highly
improper and unjust that warm discussions should take
place in that house.
Col. NORTH also protested against discussion before
the inquiry took place. No one had heard with greater
astonishment and regret than himself the lamentable occur-
rences that had taken place in one of the finest regiments
in her Majesty's service, and he could only say that where
an officer converted what might and should have been a
bed of roses into a hell upon earth, the sooner ho was re-
moved from his command the better. The only question
was, was it really Colonel Crawley who was responsible for
that state of things. The honourable gentleman had quoted
from the proceedings of the court-martial, but he was pro-
bably the only member of that house who had seen
them, and it was hardly just to ask the house to form an
opinion on evidence they had never seen. (Hear, hear.)
So far as related to the Commander-in-Chief in India he
was one of his oldest friends, and he could assure the house
that whatever that officer did was what he sincerely be-
lieved to be for the honour and dignity and the interests of
the service. (Hear, hear.)
After a few words from Sir P. O'BRIEN,
Lord PALMERSTON much regretted the course taken
by the hon. member for Brighton (Mr. Coningham). He
stated that he was only standing up for justice, whereas he
had in fact done the greatest possible injustice himself. He
had launched into abuse of his Royal Highness the Com-
mander-in-Chief without the slightest ground, and no doubt
to-morrow morning when he returned to his ordinary
calmness of mind, he would be sorry for the expressions
he had been tempted into using while defending his friend
Captain Smile.
Mr. CONINGIIAM—Captain Smale is no friend of mine.
Lord PALMERSTON said he had only to add, that the
character of his Royal Highness, as Commander-in-Chief
of the BritiA army, stoco. far too high to be in the least de-
gree affected by the animadversions of the lion, member for
Brighton.
Mr. BOUVERIE complained that the hon. member
(Mr. Coningham) had attempted to make the house a court
of appeal from the decision of a court-martial. (Hear,
hear.) If such a course were pursued. there would be an
end, at no long time, to the discipline of the army in India.
(Hear, hear.) A more unwise, imprudent, unfair, or harsh
course could not have been taken towards any officer than
that which was adopted by the hon. member for Brighton,
and he trusted that, whatever might be the attempts to in-
fluence public opinion against Colonel Crawley, he would
still have a fair trial, and prove himself innocent of the ea-
cusalon with which he stood charged.
The subject then dropped.
The house then went into supply pro forma, and imme-
diately resumed.