The Sun.
London, England, 1863-11-24 00:00:00

Ascot
Chelmsford 2B Worcestr (Stuunicr) .. 30
JULY.

Newmarket July

Nottingham
,UST.

Egsding ......
ham
Yetk
23
SEPT:
Warwick ........... .•. 6
Leicester ....... .
Brecon...
Doncaster
19

Oxford
Derby 3O
Lichfield
.7%.18ER.

Richmond
Monmouth 22
Newmarket First October 27

OCTOBER.
Newmarket Second Oct. 10 Newmarket Houghton.. 21
Gloucester ...........
.olvB
NOVEMBER.
Worcester Worcester Autumn,........... 1

STEEPLECHASING FIXTURES FOR 1861,
JANUARY.

Manchester
1
FEBRUARY.

Lincoln

MARCH.

Liverpool

THE CRAWLEY COURT MARTIAL.

SIXTH DAY.
[The following appeared in the Third Edition of " Thq
Sun" of last evening] :

ALDERSHOT, Monday.

The inquiry was resumed this morning.
Troop Sergeant Major Robert Cotton, examined by Col.
Sir A. Horsford fcr the prosecution.—l have been.lo years
in the 6th Inniskilling Dragoons. I knew Sergeant Major
Lilley from the day I first joined the regiment till the
day of his death. In my opinion he was a hard-
working, industrious, and sober man. No orders were given.
to me to place him in arrest. I did not place him in arrest.
I believe he was placed in arrest by Lieut. and Adjutant
Fitzsimmons.

Q.—Do you know what the orders for his arrest were ?
Col. Crawley objected to theireoutents being stated if they
were in writing, unless they were produced. The CLurt
allowed the objection.
Examination continued—l am not aware whether the
orders were in writing or not. Lieut. Fitzsimons gave me
orders about the arrest on the day it took place.
Colonel Crawley submitted that the witness should be
asked whether the orders were in writing, and objected to
evidence being given of the contents of documents that
were in existence.
A long consultation ensued, which resulted in the exa-
mination proceeding, Colonel Crawley withdrawing his ob.

jection.
Witness—l cannot positively swear whether Lieut. Fitz-
simons gave the order verbally or dictated it. I took it
down in writing. I cannot recollect what became of it. I
copied the order into a small book I had at that time. I
have a slight remembrance of Lieut. Fitzsimons asking me
for a copy of the order, but whether I gave it or not I cannot
recollect, nor what has become of the small book, I paraded
the guard that was to be placed over the prisoner, and read
the orders to them. I then gave them over to the
sergeant of the guard. I remember Lieut.-Col. Crawley
making a remark in the orderly room about posting tlaa
sentries, but the purport I do not recollect.
Q. Did you make any remark to him F—A. I did. I re-.
marked that Sergeant Major Lilley was a married man,
Q. What did Colonel Crawley say?—A. He asked me
how I dared disobey his orders or the major general's.
Q. Did he then give you any order
I'posted,
posted, that is, insiae the gnu_
tees. I
t
A. Colonel Crawley then told me to
go and see
the sentrieshenP"refertlY the orderly-room. I remember
going with Cornet Snell to place the sentries. He
last saw Lilley on the morning of his death. He appeared
The surgeon administered some medicine
very sick.
short time afterwards he died. Mrs. ' to
him, and a
h waspresent Cotton was
now present, and 8 o at Sergeant INIa.O L"
j r iiley's

death.
that
while the
,serg,eant macjeonarsplwaienreed
amination of the witness was postponed.
The cwsg." -
major John Edward Swinley, of the 6th Dragoons, said
toirodnerhlaydrbeeoenin held wCirtahwtlheye prisoners, and asked Lieut. Fitz-
uthnadtera arrestcomm uinnitchae-
gowns whether he kn ew what was meant by close arrest. The
lieutenant said he did, and that it meant placing sentries
ever the prisoners. Col. Crawley remarked that it meant no
such thing, and that it meant that the prisoner should be
watched night and day. On that occasion Sergeant Major
Cotton informed the colonel that Mr. Lilley was a married
man, and liniment had to be rubbed on his wife's chest, upon
which the colonel remarked that, married or single, officer
or soldier, his orders should be carried out. Quartermaster
Wooder and other officers were present. I think Captain
Weir was one of the officers present. A complaint was
made to him that a communication had taken place be-
tween a person named Gibson and the prisoners, but find-
ing that there was no sufficient ground for the complaint
against Gibson, he ordered the private (named Liddell)
who was said to have allowed the communication
he
take place, to be released, The following mornmgion.
was reprimanded by Colonel Crawley for his decision.
his
He expressed his sorrow if he had erred is
judgment,and said he did not think he had,ashethe
theremo
was examined the witnesses, and decided
Cravit;nre.
was nothing against the prisoner. Colonelhe 'e
would try
marked that from the evidence he had heard
his recollection
the man by a court martial. To the best
be
ef
tried
by a dis-
he thought Col. Crawley said he woulddLiney
was the very
trict court martial. The character
complained
yaiwneeldl
witness added these
that he had defective eyesight:
out highest.
the Hd
Ito
tithoughtes
o f adjutant, that Mr.
butF i zTs ih* naehoofen slide iyde not
e
I do not care a
I will have my orders
winoarrdrise:d or single, Crawleyofficer
e r
soldier. r.

ed, said he
The colonel was talking in a loud
e,arrest means ?'' Mr. Fi Fitz-
simons,zcarried out." cTa lhi eed colonelan de x
said,am in
Captain Archibald 'Weir,
remembered that in 1362 be was in the orderly room when
voicebilr . Fwi Fitzsimons muyo:n:FztErt:Snast.
el 0
s. "
Mr.
do
"I think I do, sir. ' Colonel Crawley Fit
"
simony said, asked
him what it was, and then told him that it
meant
that the sentry was not to lose sight of him
that Lilley day
t Cotton said or night.
Sergeant e was a married man. The
colonel told Cotton to hold his tongue,
diet the orders he had given, or those of theandnut to contra-
General, but
to go and see those orders carried out.
told the colonel that Mrs. 1,11 Sergeant Cotton
went to be rubbed on her isy had liniment or oint-
stomach. The colonel then re-
plied, "I don't care a d—
that. Officer or —, Mr. Fitzsimons; I can't help
This conversation must Soldier, I will have my orders carried out,"
list have taken place early in May.
Atter some further evidence, the proceedings were again
adjourned,

The Second Chamber of the Grand Duchy
of Luxembourg has voted its repay to the
Speech from the Throne, The Adders is a
mere paraphrase of that document, with the
exception of the paragraph announcing the
approaching conclusion of a new Concordat. The
Chamber on that subject recommends the Go-
vernment to take into account the Concord t 5 of
18u1 and 1807. The clericals, it may be re-
membered, dispute the legal cxistence, of t
ventions, hcfx