The Sun.
London, England, 1863-11-25 00:00:00

- -
THE POLIO INSURRECTION,

BRESLAU, Nov. 25.—Advices received here from
tVarsaw, state that the son of the banker Baliez has
hung at Siedlee.
-nrgents have defeated the Russians at
nalatinate of Lublin.

bee
'rho in._
Leuezr.a, ilk the

'c,ading morning con-
..ement of " Mrs,
'-9 the title of

RATHER PARTICULAR!--A
temporary would nut insert the 10 art.._
Lirriper's Lodgings" till it was explained to kr,
the Christmas number of 414 the Year Rouno;

THE CRAWLEY COURT MARTIAL.

FROM OUR SPECIAL REPORTER,

EIGHTH DAY.

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 him 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. 111 y

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 Fipon, 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 :
(Immediate.)
Mhow, 4th June, 1862.
From Lieut, Col Crawley, Commanding 6th Dragoons, 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
.ommander in Chief ; that in consequence of the impossi-
).'.
of preventing communication being held with the
prisoners by parties in the interest of the prisoner (Pay-
masterSmalea) it was deemed advisable to place the sentries
in
the room with the prisoners—not only to avoid the expo-
suretthhee w
trial.itn eslnes thbeeincegee
of
the of the sentries to the rain and hot winds, but to prevent
tamperedreNgviimthendtual rineegrgtheaenrt majorema
(thederof
late Sergeant Major Lilley) who
w were, I believe, three or four rooms
were, aein a married
thea houseied man,where
he
e
u
was quartered, and there was no necessity whatever that
the sentry placed over him should in any way interfere
with his domestic arrangements, or that
have been annoyed by the presence of
a few days after the sergeant major the sentry.
been sentry. I learned
arrest, that the sentry had been moved
injudiciouslyplaced in
by
Lieut. Fitzsimons so as to give cause of annoyance to the
sergeant major's wife, and I immediately id sent r Fitz-
simons himself to withdraw the sentry from
pre-
sence of Mrs. Lilley, and to place himthe
where
ehe
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 sen-
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 quan.
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 he, 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—from about the 4th till
the Bth of May, 1862. During that period Cul. 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 thought he did.
Colonel Crawley then said " Go and see that my orders are
properly carried out." Witness then left the mess. After
that he 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 Crawley 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 ?" 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 of
the orders, Colonel Crawley objected, on the ground that
the orders might be in existence, and that secondary evi-
dence was therefore inadmissible.
After same discussion, the witness repeated that the
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 into his wife's bedroom. Witness
had some communication with Colonel Crawley next morn-
ing upon taking the regimental papers as usual, and he
ordered witness to issue a morning order, that Lieutenant
Davies was to perform the duties of acting adjutant, and
that witness was to resume his duty. During the time I
was acting as adjutant, before the 7th, Sergeant Major and
Mrs. Lilley were in the office, or No. 2 room. On that
morning witness altered them as ho 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 or
ant Najor
or about the 10th, 16th, and 22d, when
Sebregredie orders
Lilley was under arrest, He did not remember
the original
on the 10th, but on the 16th and 22d they. vr.
(411_8
i prisoner,
orders that the sentry was not to lose sigenp
t the medical
derly officer on
nor to allow anyone into the bungalow.
officer, and he had a slight recollect!on of
one native ser-
vant being mentioned,
lly to repeat my
Colonel Crawley—l beg most
resePectfuvidence, and upon the
protest against the reception of this
same ground.
f the 6th Dragoons, examined
The President—The court h
Sergeant Georgeßernard, c. official prosecutor—l
by Colonel Sir Alfred Iforsfofrortr bouta eight years. He was
knew Sergeant Major Litleynian.
I remember being in the
asalready decided.
always a very sober steadny
No,
when I heard Lieutenant
orderly-room very 0,411)71h sergeant Major Cotton, and
Colonel Crawley
00recealti::gularity in posting th© sentries.
Cotton tell Colonel Crawley the
check him for
I heard Sergeant
I",i,de the house, and that Mrs.Lilley was
sentry was placed itnsergeant Major Lilley was a married
very sick, and that
said he did not care, an order was an
men. The COl°onaled have it obeyed. I afterwards heard
order, and he :iruons or Quartermaster Wooden say that
Fits very sick, and that she was obliged to have
either
hire.
to her shoulder or chest. The
opliColonel
liniment
Aid t care a d—, those were the orders, and he
Liilllr; sv4ed,
said he not
carried out.
would have them
airs. Cotton, the wife of Sergeant-Major Cotton, said she
was with Lilley when ho died. He was perfectly sensible
--hno- death
of aPPr°aG i '
Oliver Barnett, assistant surgeon of the Gth Dragoons,
said ho had attended Mrs. Lilley about six months before
the arrest of her husband. She was suffering from
consumption, Atter his arrest he had leave to visit
her. The sentry was placed in No. 2 room.
When ho knocked the sentry opened the door for
him. From No. 2 the sentry could see into Mrs. Lilley's
room, and also hear the conversation. He was painfully
impressed with the fact of the sentry being placed over
Sergeant Lilley, whom he had known so long. He consi-
dered that the position of the sentry was an annoyance to
Mr. and Mrs. Lilley, who was seriously ill. Mrs. Lilley
generally consumed three or four glasses of brandy daily,
on his recommendation. Considering the nature of Mrs.
Lilley's complaint,
and her extreme debility, she might
ave taken three, four, or five glasses of brandy daily with-
out producing any prejudicial effect. Lilley was a sober
steady man. Witness never saw any appearance about
Lilley of thinking, 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.on
Witness could not say how long befbro his death. _ o
the morning of the 19th Juno Colonel Crawley said to
witness as they were riding towards the.
,P
while
ground, that Sergeant Major Lilley
ndr.en72
pints
under arrest, 23 bottles of brandy,
ia. do. When
of; ale, al bottle of; port: wine, and
.- ort to be made to the
the parade was over, witness waited.ut,
and asked him it he wished any addition
• reference to the
report of the sergeant major'so;Tiora
during his arrest.
quantity of liquor supplied ta,,,,
he had dune it, or
nß° Cu olonel Crawley
The colonel said no, and .
t That was the only con-
that he would do it in his
,repc°,r:.
1 Crawley about Sergeant
vwrsation witness had '
(witness) repeated the substance of
Major Lilley,
thud he
mortem examination showed
it to Dr. Turnbull.
f that death resulted fr
rosecutor (Col.exy Sir A. Hereford)--Ii
the official p
om heat apopl,

Sergeant Major Lilley had not been in confinement, aro
you aware of any medical reason for :supposing that he
would have died where he did ?

tioCnoalosnietlhCadrabweleenypoubtj.ected to the unfairness of the ques.
Colonel Sir A. Horsford—l will put in another form.
In your opinion were there any predisposing causes for the
heat apoplexy ?
Witness—Sergeant Major Lilley was an enormously stout
man, and predisposed to congestion.
Examination continued—Witness made a medical report
of Sergeant Major Lilley's case to Dr. Turnbull. (The
report was read, and stated that Sergeant Major Lilley was
37 years and 4 months old, had been in the service 18 years
and 4 months. Disease apoplexy. A strong muscular
man, who alway previously enjoyed good health.) Witness
also made a detailed medical report of the case in conjunc-
tion with Dr. Turnbull.
Mr. Syms recalled and produced the copy of the report—
The last paragraph stated that the excessive heat at this
period of the year, and the constitutional predisposition of
the deceased to congestion, the peculiar and painful
circumstances of his position, the serious illness of his
wife occasioning depression of spirits, together with.
bilious and nervous derangement, induced by a sedentary
1 life, eehsequent upon close arrest in a man of the sergeant
major's active habits, probably acted as an exciting cause
to produce the complaint from which he died."
After some further questions upon the report, the Court
adjourned.

HISTORY OF THE LITERARY FUND,

(From the Reader.)

In the year 1773 a Welshman, named David
Williams—whose body has now lain buried for
nearly half a century in the church of St. Anne's,
Soho, but who was then an eager man about Lon-
don, 35 years of age—read a paper to a small club
of literary men of which he was a member, and
which met in the Prince of \Vales Tavern, in Con-
duit-street, Hanover-square, on the feasibility of
founding an institution which should hold out to
every worthy literary man " the kind and generous
promise that his studies and efforts should not leave
him in misery." The president of the evening
when this paper was read was no other than Ben-
jamin Franklin. He rather threw cold water on
Williams's proposal. " Common charities," he said,
"spring from common feelings; or if some of them
should require a few ideas and reflections, theymay
be easily collected by ordinary and imperfect intel-
lects; but an institution for the relief of misery
which is so far from being obtrusive and obvious, so
far from pressing on the senses, that it withdraws.
from observation—is an institution whose object will
be ever lost to the common classes of subscribers to
public charities." In spite of this opinion of Frank.
lie, the other members of the litle club thought Mr
William's proposal worthy of further consideration;
:
and the was UB adjourned to another meeting,
Franklin winding up
the matter for that meeting
as follows:—" I perceive that our, friend does not
acquiesce in our opinions, and that he will under-
take h
this Institution.nou
r ab
l eto him;Li b
will The
utit event, b e it wwihat
ettluitai
that the
ay
be
so
left, tried
Williams
to kep
it nte to
r hises
t
much time, perseverance, and patience'
anvil may wear out the hammer. The anvil di:
indoetatalkedwear out
of theit
rhammerght
and; for
V t
Pitt, and Fox, and Burke in it, and, although he
did not succeed in persuading them the speculation
was practicable, yet at last got together a sufficient
number of humble men to start the institution. It
was in the year 1790 that the fund practically
began its existence; for iu that year it was able to
make a grant of £lO 108. to one distressed author.
Since that time it has increased steadily to its pre-
sent proportions. In 1801 the late Duke of Somer-
set became its President; in 1837 he resigned, and
was succeeded by the late Marquis of Lansdowne ;
and, on the recent death of the Marquis of
Lansdowne, the Earl of Stanhope was elected
to the presidency. During the long presi-
dency of the Duke of Somerset, the Fund had
so grown by accumulated bequests, and by
the increase of annual donations and sub-
scriptions, as to be able towards the end of his
presidency to expend sums of from £l,OOO to £1,250
every year in the relief of distressed authors, as
against sums of from £2OO to £350 at the begin-
ning of his presidency ; and since that time the an-
nual expenditure has not risen much. The year of
greatest expenditure in the history of the fund was
1858, when a sum of £1,840 was expended on 58

applicants. The total expenditure of the fund,
from the year 1790, when it made its first grant, to
the end of the year 1862, has been £7,130 98.,
distributed in the shape of 2,962 grants to persons
of literary merit, whose cases, in the course of these
72 years, had been brought before the society. The
expenditure for last year was £1,475, distributed
among 54 applicants as follows :--
CLASSIFICATION OF AUTHORS RELIEVED.

Grants,

Class I. History and Biography ll £350
11. Biblical Literature 1 20
111. Science and Art
IV. Periodical Literature
V. Topography and Travels 7 230
VI. Classical Literature and Education 2 65
VII. Poetry
-VIII. Essays and Tales..... ......... 12 255
IX. Political Economy ............1 30
X. Law ................. . ........ 1 25
XI. Miscellaneous ........ •

54 1500
2.5

£1475