The Sun.
London, England, 1863-06-16 00:00:00

PRISONS MINISTERS BILL.

The house went into committee on this bill.
Lord LYVEDEN moved an amendment to clause 3,
making the appointment of additional ministers to prisons
compulsory instead of permissive.
After some discussion the amendment was negatived,
and the clause was agreed to.
The bill then went through committee.
SALMON FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.

This bill went through committee.
THE CASE OF SERGEANT-MAJOR LILLEY.

The Earl of SHAFTESBURY stalled the Secretary of
War whether it was the intention of the Government to in-
stitute any further inquiry into the case of Lieutenant-
Colonel Crawley and Sergeant-Major Lilley. It was not
his intention to offer any observations upon the case at
present. He had no official information. But, right or
wrong as the rumours regarding it might be, he should
say that so dreadful a picture as the case to which he
alluded presented had never yet been brought before the
British public. Everything which had taken place re-
garding it as yet had been most unsatisfactory, and it was
of the very highest importance to the character of the
country and to the estimation in which it was held by
foreign nations that the case should be properly investi-
gated. He knew of nothing which had more deeply moved
the people of England. They were most anxious that the
case should be probed to the bottom. He should therefore
at present simply ask the question of which he had given
notice.

The Duke of CAMBRIDGE—Before my noble friend
the Secretary of State for War replies to the question put
by the noble earl, I think your lordships will permit me to
interpose, in order that I may make one or two observations,
not in reference to the circumstances connected with the
court martial upon the late Paymaster Smale, nor with re-
ference to anything that may occur hereafter, should it be
found necessary to have a court-martial on Lieut.-Colonel

Crawley; but so much has been said with respect to the
position I fill, and the line I have taken with regard to this
melancholy proceeding, that it is right your lore ships and
the country should know the exact relative position in which
I, filling the high position which I have the honour to fill,
stand with reference to the commander-in-chief in India,
and, in short, how I stand in reference to the whole matter.
Probably it is not known to your lordships that the conduot
of the discipline of the army in India rests entirely with
the commander-in-chief in India, and that, so far as my
supervision extends, it is merely in the position of a referee
in a last appeal. But so seldom is that appeal exercised,
that I believe no instances, or at least some very remote in-
stances, are on record in which any interference on the part
of the Commander-in-Chief in England has been .nade with
court. martials in India. To such an extent does this go,
that wherever the Commander-in-Chief submits to her Ma-
uttYthe name of any officer who has been tried by court-
martial in England and cashiered, though the actual cashier-
ingo:de nu ,ot h_e
„.
_does not take place until the Queen's pleasure has been
reference
of the. commander-in-chief in India is absolute
a;
thence is made to her Majesty at all. The noble earl
plain shortly,,b take notice of the affairs at all ? I will ex-
plain
Commander o doubt there is a last appeal to the
is thie...,whZia in England, and the course of proceed-
ingcourt-martial takes place in India the
circumstance is reportedln to the Commander-in-Chief at home
as have taken place, orderl that he may know how to
act in such proceedings,
the
ehej report of the court-martial
itself is transmitted to
Advocate -General in
England, and he forwards h t'loat7
at the that he may have an opportunity
of6iCoramander•in-Chief,
proceed-
ings and return it as a record t) the Jeekaine!
moat
tlt there was
::gee
IGmenuse-t
Gene-
ral. W hen these proceedings came to'ldo
confess that, like the noble earl oppo:i-tl:
something very peculiar and something
them. It struck me as so remarkable, that I thought it right
singular in
that the course adopted should, to a great extent, be
re-
viewed by the Commander-in-Chief at home, and his opin-
ion taken upon it. Having arrived at that conclusion, how
was I to act ? Was I to remove the officer chiefly
find implicated
in the charge, or not ? In reviewing
this case, I that it
is certainly in evidence that an unfortunate affair has occur-
red ; but, at the same time, I must say frankly.that my in-
formation on the subject is not perfect. At the time my me-
morandum was made, I was not in possession of all the facts
of the case. There was much left behind which I trust will
in time be elicited, and therefore I abstained from expres-
sing any decided or positive opinion on the subject. But
I stated very clearly, that unless I was satisfied on various
points on which I had considerable doubt, I should abstain
from the extreme course of removing the commanding offi-
cer from the command of his regiment. It has been said
that the reason why no action was taken was that two emi-
nent men were concerned in the transaction. Of course I
allude to Sir H. Rose and Sir W. Mansfield. There is no
doubt that those two eminent and distinguished officers were
concernedv in the transaction, and the question that arose
was, were they concerned in sach a manner as that I was
salted on to take action with regard to them ? 1 most poi-