The Sun.
London, England, 1863-11-20 00:00:00

times. Otherwise not, I one day met him in the streets
in London, and once here in the court martial room.
Colonel Crawley—On the occasion on which you saw Mr.
Smales, did you converse with him on the subject of this
trial?

Witness—l did.
Colonel Crawley—When did you last converse with Mr.
Smales on. the subject of this trial ?
Witness—The day before yesterday in the court martial

room.
Colonel Crawley—How came you to cease to be adjutant
of the Inniskilling Dragoons ?
Witness—l was suspended in consequence of my com-
manding officer reporting me.
Colonel Crawley—For what did your commanding officer
suspend you ?
Witness--I believe that it was for having partaken of
the paymaster's hospitality, and he also stated that I was
incompetent to perform the duties of adjutant. I have in
my possession the correspondence relating to it.
Colonel Crawley—On what ~ccasion did you partake of
the paymaster's hospitality when your conduct in that
respect was complained of ?
Witness—l do not recollect at what date, but it was
when the paymaster was under arrest at Mhow.
Colonel Crawley—Was Mr. Swales tried for insubordi-
nation to Colonel Crawley, as commanding officer of the

regiment ?
Witness—Yes.
Colonel Crawley—Do you regard the adjutant of a regi-
ment as the confidential and right hand man of his com-
manding officer?
Witness--Decidedly.
Colonel Crawley—Do you think it consistent with the
duty of a person in such a position to be living on terms of
intimacy with a person standing in such a relation to the
commanding officer as Mr. Smales then did ?
Witness--I consider that having known Captain Smales
and his family for a long time—since they came to the re-
giment—and having always been on terms of intimacy with
him, I was not wrong in partaking of his hospitality.
Colonel Crawley—Was your removal from the adjutancy
confirmed and approved by General Sir William Mans-
fieid ?

Witness—l sent in my resignation, and it was approved
and confirmed.
Colonel Crawley—Look at that letter, and see whether it
is the letter of Sir William Mansfield, in which your resig-
nation was approved.
The witness said at first he thought it was the letter, but
was not sure, but on the letter being produced, signed by
defendant's adjutant general, the witness said that, seeing
the signature to the letter, he supposed it must be the
letter.
The letter was then read, and expressed the opinion of
the Commander-in-Chief that Lieut. Fitzsimons had been
guilty of indiscretion in visiting the paymaster while a
court martial on him was in progress, especially looking at
the state of the regiment (Gth Dragoons) at that time, and
further saying that it was fortunate for Lieut. Fitzsimons
that he had been permitted to tender his resignation.
Colonel Crawley—Were you censured by the court mar-
tial at Mhow for the evasive character of your evidence on
that occasion ?
Witness—l was censured by the Commander in Chief,
I don't remember that I was censures by the Court.
Colonel Crawley said that if the witness were ordered to
withdraw he would put the Court in possession of the facts.
Witness was requested to withdraw, and Colonel Crawley
said it was impossible for him to conduct his dbfence if the
questions put to the witness were discussed by the Court in
his presence, and he was aware of their bearing.
The witness then returned.
Colonel Crawley—Do you not know that the court
martial at Mhow thought it right to reflect upon the eva-
sive character of your testimony ?
Witness—I really cannot at present say whether the
court martial made any remarks to me or not. I did not
read the report of the court martial through. I read chiefly
my own evidence in it.
Colonel Crawley—ls it possible that an officer can receive
a censure from a court martial before which he is witness
for giving evasive evidence, and yet forget the circum-
stance
Witness—l have already stated that I don't recollect it.
Colonel Crawley—Can you recollect conversations in the
orderly room, and even oaths which you have uttered, and
not remember a censure on your own character committed
to writing of the court martial before which you were a
witness.

Witness—l can. To the best of my recollection when
the remarks of the Court were made I was away on leave.
On my return when I saw the remarks of the Commander-
in• Chief it was the only thing I paid attention to.
Col. Crawley—Look at page 92 of the blue book (upon
court martial on Smales), and see whether you have before
read that passage which animadverts on your evidence be-
fore that court martial ?
Witness—To the best of my belief I have read that pas..
sage before, but I did not recollect my name being men-
tioned in it.
Colonel Crawley—Did the Commander in Chief, after
perusing your evidence on the court martial at Mhow, pro-
nounce it to be evasive and unsatisfactory, and such as
showed your entire inefficiency for the adjutancy ?
"Witness—He did pronounce it as such.
Colonel Crawley—You have said that I gave you a w: it-
ten order on the 26th April for the arrest of the sergeants.
Was any one present on that occasion ?
Witness—l really cannot say.
Colonel Crawley—You have stated the names of all the
persons you allege to have been present when the second
order was issued. Why cannot you equally state who were
present on the first occasion?
Witness—lt was in reference to the second occasion that
the Commander in Chief remarked on the position in which
the sentries were posted, and, as I understood at the time,
to write a letter of explanation for the information of the
Commander in Chief. I naturally inquired of numbers of
officers whether they were present or not, and whether they
remembered the orders I had received from my command-
ing officer.
Colonel Crawley—Then your statement as to the persons
who were present on the occasion alluded to depends upon
the information given to you by other people, and not from
your own knowledge ?
Witness—No. I believed them to have been present,
but inquired whether they recollected the order I had re-
ceived from my commanding officer,
Colonel Crawley—Was your belief as to their presence
on that occasion sufficiently strong to have enabled you to
depose to the fact without any other assistance ?
Witness—l should not like to have deposed to the fact
without previously asking. They might have been out of
the room when the order was given to me.
Colonel Crawley—What remark of Sir llngh Rose.
to
do
you allude to, and how does it appear that is referred
the first or second order ?
Witness—lt must have referred to the second order, as
the sergeant major could not have been inconvenienced by
the manner in which the sentry Was posted according to
the first order.
[The witness was under ctoss-examination when the
court rose,]

FEVER IN THE METROPOLIS.

-- _
The remarks which we made a few weeks since
as to the probability of there being a great in-
crease of typhus in the metropolis during the pr -
sent winter are being verified. The number of
patients admitted into the London Fever Hospital,
which in the month of June did not exceed 89, in
October amounted to 236. Of the latter number
155 cases were typhus, 24 enteric fever, 30 scarlet
fever, one measles, one simple continued fever, and
25 examples of other acute diseases. During the
first 16 days of the present month no fewer than
170 cases were admitted, the great majority of
which were typhus. The hospital, which contains
200 beds, was full on the 9th of October, and since
that date largo numbers of applicants have been
almost daily refused admission for want of room.
The typhus patients are still mainly derived from
omthetropolis, and
the south and east districts ofofthite
especially from the parishes
mondsey, Lambeth, St. Saviour's,
there
erhithe, Ber-
and St. G ,
in-the-East. At the same time,
are indica-
eorge 5-
dons of the disease becoming
parishes, s -
prevalent. Certain Ing _
London, more generally
and the City of
a few isolated i uca as Shoreditch
bated only which before contri-
ing a large number, cases, are now furnish-
while cases have been
brought within the last three weeks from other
parishes, such as Hack
had not furnished ney and Kensington, which
examples of typhus for months
before. Under these circumstances we are glad to
learn that the C
London Fever Hospital
of Management of the
Hospital have determined to increase
the accommodation
erection ofa afforded by the hospital, by the
60 temporary building capable of contain-
jug
°eds. The building is to be of wood; 2,000
Cubic feet are to be allotted to each bed, and at the
same time there will be thorough ventilation. We
understand that this building will be ready for the
reception of patients within a fortnight from the
time that the terms of the contract are agreed on.
Tne sooner the better, for every patient suffering
permitted to remain in his own
from typhus who is p
badly ventilated and, perhaps, overcrowded home
becomes a focus for the propagation of the disease
to a whole community. The Managing committee
of the hospital deAerve great credit tor the public
e typhus,
in this matter. In
spirit which they have
great prevalence of it
connexion. with this
is important to call attention to the distress at
present existing ainong our London poor, as evi-
denced by the large numbers who every night vainly
seek admission into the casual wards of some of our
metropolitan workhouste.—The Lancet.