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. CRAWLEY,
it is true, has yet to be formally and solemnly tried
by Court-martial. But already poor dead and gone
Sergeant-Major LILLEY, unfortunate Capt. SMALES,
in effect the great majority of the officers of the 6th
Dragoons, whether commissioned or non-commis-
sioned,: already have they all been, thanks to" J. 0., /
signally avenged upon their wanton persecutor..
According to the written and printed evidence of
that unhappily but too well known court-martial at
Mhow, Colonel CRAWLEY would appear to have
striven at one time to goad his younger subordi-
nates, or rather insubordinates, as he chose then to
regard them, into a disgraceful return to the old
brutal system of Duelling—to goad them back into
that wicked and obsolete folly, by sneers the most
irritatingly supercilious. And now, as a pendant
to that incident of Colonel CRAWLEY'S endea-
vour to sneer the officers of the 6th Dragoons
into a revival of Duelling, JACOB OMNIUM
has so written of Colonel CRAWLEY himself
—has written of him truths so dark end darn-
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,
this miserably serious military version of " Bombastes
Furioso," in which a sickening tragedy has arisen
out of the hectoring babble of a burlesque.

It is a lamentable thing that our courts of law
will not recognise the incalculable difference that
exists 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. Som© 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 man 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 offences. 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
that serious crimes shoefutlhde
bfirst
ranked principlesfar b
eolfojwu sat incde
visited with far less
penalties than cffences that may
often be associated with extenuating circumstances,
Stealing can never be justifiable, but it is often
comprehensible enough. Who can tell iv menu
cases to what shifts the poor wretches have been
reduced before they have transgressed the law.
The hard pinchings of poverty, the
expenses of
sickness, and the desire to provide some necessary
for an ailing relative, have often propelled th
fetal deed which has been so severely visited b 3
the ministers of the law. On the Other hand
nothing whatever can at all palliate the exereiss
of cruelty. Talking of first offences is ridiculous,
because a man who is once cruel will be always.
ly vibited for his offence.
cruel, if he ie not eurameii
It is his nature that has prompted him, and un-
less he can be made to fe,el that a stronger than
he, even the law, will exact a penalty for hi,
crime, in some measure in unison with its enor-
mity, it is useless to hope or to expect that an)
great improvement will be made in his conduct
Society is not safe with such ruffians amidst
it. A tow years spent at home in the commissiut,
of these crimes, that arc fosteeed by the leniency
of the law, and they rally forth en the, world to
commit the lawless outrages and the desperate

deeds that fill the prisons with hardened crimi-
nals, and scare respectable people from their pro-
priety. If nothing can induce the authorities to
enact the law with more justice, cannot the Legis-
lature appropriately interfere, and not leave so
much to the option of the magistrates? An arbi-
trary line might be drawn between cases where a
discretionary power may be safely exercised and
where any leniency would be fatal to the interests
of society and the cause of justice. If the present
reading of the laws relating to gross outrages and
excessive cruelty are not sufficiently stringent, in
the name of sense and reason let them be altered.
The state of things now prevalent will not be rec-
tified until it shall be no longer possible for the
perpetrators of barbarous inflictions on the weak
and helpless to escape scatheless, as it were, from
the grasp of the law. Civilisation is disgraced by
the commission of such crimes with such frequency;
and it is a blot on the vaunted laws of the land
that no power is sufficiently strong that is vested
in their hands to check, much less to put a stop to,
the commission of fearful evils, and the perpetra-
tion )f horrors that make one shudder to read of,
and deplore the inability or unwillingness to exter-
minate them,

The despatches relating to the recent transac-
tions which have ended in the removal of a very
competent and experienced public servant from a
post of considerable responsibility and importance
have just been laid before the public. The com-
plimentary letter, in which Earl RUSSELL bows
out the parting Minister, Sir JAMES HUDSON'S
courteous but cold reply, the Foreign Secretary's
explanatory note to Mr. ELLIOT, and that gen-
tleman's report of his audience with the KING,
are all open to inspection, and a very curious

page of official correspondence they represent
In the first epistle of the series we find Earl
RUSSELL informing Sir JAMES HUDSON that her
MAJESTY has taken the opportunity of his pro-
posed retirement to express her approval of his
long course of public services, by the bestowal of
the Grand Cross of the Bath. He further states
that the Royal approval has been obtained for
the grant of the retiring pension belonging to a
mission of the first class. After this declaration
of the Royal favours Earl RUSSELL goes on to
declare his own satisfaction with the exertions of
Sir JAMES, and his conviction that " no Lan has
obtained so completely the confidence and regard
of the Italian Government and people" as him-
self. " Nothing," says the Foreign Secretary,
"could have induced him to recommend the
QUEEN to appoint any other representative, but
Sir JAMES HUDSON'S own wish," and then comes
a somewhat singular passage, "had any of the
principal embassies been vacant I should have
asked her MAJESTY'S permission to offer it to you."

If Sir JAMES really wished to retire, from ill
health and long services, how was it the Secre-
tary of State esteemed it probable that he would
be willing to accept another and even more re-

sponsible post ? As no such convenient vacancy
was perceptible, however, Eirl RUSSELL thought
it advisable to forward Sir JAMES'S letter of re-
call. This letter, cordial and complimentary as it

seems, has yet one noticeable omission. We find
no expression of surprise or regret at Sir JAMES
HUDSON'S proposed retirement —no attempt
to persuade him to reconsider his deter-
mination. It was not to b© expected that
an ELLIOT was to be kept waiting for such com-
fortable quarters, and Earl RUSSELL'S satisfaction
at the convenient vacation of the coveted post is
pretty plainly perceptible under his plausible and
Complimentary phrases. Sir JAMES HUDSON, with
true diplomatic ingenuity, contrives in reporting
his interview with the KING, to remind Earl Rus
SELL of the cause of his resignation. VICTOR
EMMANUEL having very naturally asked of Sir
JAMES the reason for his retirement—a retirement
which his frequent intercourse with the KING must
have convinced his MAJESTY could not be ac-
counted for on any plea of age or infirmity—Sir
JAMES replied that he had thought himself bound
by an engagement with Earl RUSSELL. " Offered

promotion in March, 1562, I had obtained permis-
sion to decline it and to continue at his MAJESTY'S
Court till such time as my pension for public ser-
vice was due to me." It will be observed that Earl

RUSSELL'S allusion to the pension tallies very well

with this part of the suppo.sed agreement. This
Answer appears to have been too plain to give satis
faction, for the next news is that Earl RUSSELL
thinks it desirable to give his version of the affair

in a letter to Mr. ELLIOT, his successor. According
to this everything has been done out of pure kind-
❑ess and consideration for Sir JAMES. There was
a report ayear or two ago, says the noble earl, that
it was intended to appoint Sir JAMES to an em-
bassy, an intention which did not exist. In March,
last year, it was supposed that a vacancy would
soon occur in an important embassy. Thinking
Sir JAMES HUDSON the fittest person for " a diffi-
cult and very responsible post," Earl RUSSELL con-
sulted him privately about the matter, i.e., gave
him a gentle hint that his room would be better
than his company at Turin. Sir JAMES declined

the proffered embassy, but taking the hint given
had expressed his willingness to retire so soon as
his years of service entitled him to a pension, and
accordingly the required period having been
reached this autumn he tendered his resignation.
Now, Earl RUSSELL'S version of the story
does not explain away two or three
awkward facts. What should have made Sir
JAMES HUDSON, whose sagacity was keen enough
and.whose understanding was clear enough to steer
through all the difficulties of the Italian question,
take such an idea into his head as the engagement
with Earl RUSSELL, if really that noble Earl had
given him no foundation for it ? Why should he
be co firmly convinced on the point as to refer to
such an engagement openly in communicating
directly with Earl RUSSELL, and to feel bound by
it to resign an office for which he was eminently
adapted, and which he particularly liked ? It is
strange that if he was mistaken in such a supposi-
tion, the Foreign Secretary should have left him
under so singular a misapprehension during all
these months, and stranger still that when his re-
signation was at length tendered there was not the
slightest hesitation in accepting it. This readiness
to superannuate a valuable and active public ser-
vant could scarcely arise from a belief that his
working days were past, seeing that Earl RUSSELL,
by his own showing, thought him " a fit person to
recommend to her MAJESTY for a nifficult and very
responsible post" so lately as the spring of last
year. Unless, therefore, Sir JAMES'S health and
faculties have very suddenly failed him, he is at the
present moment more than equal to the fulfilment
of his duties at Turin. It could hardly have been
that he failed to give satisfaction in either Italy or
England, since we had VICTOR EMMANUEL giving
utterance to kindly feelings towards the departing
Minister, and the political chef himself proluse in
his expressions of approval. What, then, is the
answer to the riddle? Is it that the new corner at
Turin bears the charmed name of ELLIOT ? Mould
the same drama have been played, had the
patronymics been exchanged, and Sir J. HUDSON
expressed a desire to fill an offica held by Mr.
ELLIOT ? It is an unfortunate coincidence that the
gentleman who has superseded 4 lope tried public