The Sun.
London, England, 1863-10-29 00:00:00

wrongfully cashiered) late of that regiment—as the
wreaker of a fierce and overwhelming retribution
upon the head of that wretched Colonel CRAWLEY,
who is still, lamentable to relate, in command of the
gallant and outraged Inniskillings ! Col. CRAWL EY,
it is true, has yet to be formally and solemnly tried
by Court-martial. But already poor dead and gone
Sergeant-Major LILLEY, unfortunate Cap'.. FMALES,
in effect the great majority of the officers of the 6th
Dragoons, whether commissioned or nort-commis-
sioned, already have they all been, thrinli.s to" J. 0.,',
signally avenged upon their wantor, persecutor.
According to the written and pri.ar ed evidence of
that unhappily but too well known court-martial at
Mhow, Colonel CRAWLEY wou'.o. appear to have
striven at one time to goad his younger subordi.
mates, or rather insubordinat,2.F, as he chose then to
regard them, into a disgra'acful return to the old
brutal system of Duelling—to goad them back into
that wicked and obsolete folly, by sneers the most
supercilious. And now, as a pendant
irritatinglyt
to that
incident of Colonel CRAWLEY's endea-
vour to sneer the officers of the 6114 Dragoons
into a revival of Duelling, JACOB WINIUM
has so written of Colonel CRAWLEY himself
—has written cf him truths so dark and dam-
natory—that one might almost anticipate that a man
thus written of must succumb before the force
of so overwhelming an impeachment. The Court-
martial has yet to come on, however, and the public
will look with breathless eagerness to observe the
sequel of this lamentable travestie of a travestie,
thismis eraibnlywsheich a sickening rious miekliteanrigynversion of " Bombastes
Furioso,"
tragedy has arisen
out of the hectoring bubble of a burlesque.

It is a lamentable thing that our courts of law
will not recognise the incalculable difference that
ex;j'es between the different offences brought before
them. One would think that common sense would
show them where justice ought to exert its utmost
rigour, and where mercy might appropriately come
in and temper the verdict. As at present arranged
and carried out, there seems an universal tendency
to screen as much as possible the perpetrators of
cruel offences, and to be as severe as possible upon
those who have only committed some depredation
against property, or such like. Of course it is only
right and fitting that all these and similar misde-
meanours should be put down at once with a strong
hand, but surely a vast difference should be recog-
nised and maintained between them and those cruel
outrages that disgrace humanity. Some of the
cases that came recently before the police courts are
most extraordinary, and both in town and country
seem alike preposterous. It would be well if those
who hold responsible positions would act in their
judgment as men, as well as on their rules as magi-
strates or judges. Many decry any interference
with the prerogative of those whose office it is to
administer the law, and are very indignant with
those who presume to comment in any way upon
their exercise of power and their rendering of jus-
tice. This might be all very well if the results
around us were more satisfactory; but when a cry-
ing evil exists it is time to suggest, with all due
deference to superior wisdom, that some alterations
of a remedial nature should be made. The incon-
sistency seems patent to all of giving a sentence of
only two years' imprisonment to a man who had
nearly killed his wife, and entirely destroyed the
sight of both her eyes, and then inflicting double
that term of imprisonment on a mate who was con-
victed of stealing medals. This is rating property
against persons with a vengeance. It is the more
inexplicable, because a man who had stolen
watches and been previously convicted several
times, had a four years' sentence passed upon
him. Why, then, did the man whose
wife had been seriously injured by his brutal vio-
lence on several occasions, escape with such com-
parative immunity. It is really going the way tc
encourage crimes of the most debasing nature that
can disgrace and degrade mankind to persist in
this extraordinary and extravagant leniency. But
this case just cited is not a solitary one—it has
plenty to keep it in countenance, and to bear out its
enactment by precedent. In the court where one
man is sentenced to three years' penal servitude
for stealing a shirt, and another to three months'
imprisonment for nearly killing a child of tender
years with his ruffianly treatment, it might seem
that this system had reached its height. In a
sudden fit of passion or a moment of great irrita-
tion, many serious injuries may be inflicted, and
life itself threatened ; but still some excuse, if not
reason, may be urged, that the wrong was not
intentional. No such argument can be valid in a
case where a man takes up a " leather strap" to
beat a child only two years and a half old, That
man was guilty of murder in his heart, and it seems
almost a pity, in one way, that the little sufferer
was not released from the life of torment it must
lead with such a man—and then there would be the
further satisfaction that the wretch must have been
brought before a tribunal which would have meted
out to him the justice he deserved. No humane
person but will shudder as he reads this atrocious
barbarity the natural impulse of every one
would be to knock such a man down ; but they will
learn that the laws of England only inflict severe
punishments when tools, or shirts, and such like
articles are stolen : but the safety of the person, and
attacks on weak women and defenceless children
are very trivial and minor offences. It is absurd
to attempt to palliate such a mockery of justice,
and such a violation of the first principles which
should rule and regulate the working of the law.
Truth and right should be more important than the
pleasure of our judges and the fancies of our ma-
gistrates. It comes to this—there is now no de-
terring influence at work to check or retard the
spread and progress of these violent cffinces. The
brutes (if they think at all) can say to themselves,
" After all, I shall only get a month or so—it won't
be as if I stole a coat or a shirt." It is an insult to
our sense of propriety as a nation that such things
should be allowed to take place in our courts of
law—it is a
violation of the first principles of justice
that serious cr3 es should be ranked far below and
visited with fa
often becann lease v
er
bpenalties than offences that may
associated
with
Stealing extenuating circumstances,
com rehensible
enough.
be Justifiable, but it is often
p
cases to what shifts the
poor
Who can tell in many
wretches have been
reduced before they have transgressedt the law.
The hard pinchings of
poverty, h
propelled the
been so oftenBolllo necessary
so severely visited b
expenses of
sickness, and the desire to provide
f10,..trl
land
eae
di nwghi eht iarse
' hch
ave
ministers of the law. On the other hand,
nothing whatever can at all palliate the exercise
of cruelty. Talking of first offences is ridiculous,
because a man who is once cruel will be always
cruel, if he in not summarily visited for his offence.
It is his nature that has prompted him, and un-
less ho can be made to feel that a stronger than
be, even the law, will exact a penalty for his
crime, in some measure in unison with its °nor.
mitt', it is useless to hope or to expect that any
great improvement will be made in his conduct,
Society is not safe with such ruffians amidst

it. A iew years spent at home in the commission
Of these crimes, that are fostered by the leniency
of the law, and they rally forth on the world to
commit the lawless outrages and the desperate