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

THE BRAZILS.

The Earl of MALMESBURY gave notice that on Fri-
day next, in calling 'attention to eur relations with the
Brazils, he should move for copies of any papers shOwing
on what grounds the Government of the Brazil/3 resisted
the claims for £3,200 compensation.
• THE WAR IN-AMERICA.

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE moved for copies of
any report thaf may haVe been received from the 'Admiral
commanding her Majesty's squadron on the North Ameri-
can and West India concerning the protection from
seizure or visitation afforded to British merchantmen by the
Ariadne and other of her Majesty's: ships or gunboats or
otherwi'se, and asked 'what had been the result of the
remonstrances "made to the United States Government by
her Majesty's Minister against the seizure of certain British
vessels. He dwelt with particular emphasis ,on therreeent
condemnation' of th'e'Adeta, as contrary to all principles of
international law, and considered it was the duty of the
Government CO demand her restoration. The noble marquis
contended the country ought to afford adequate protection
to her commercial mains, and denounced the setZure_of
vesseld bound to Meta:sores and Naseau, as a means of
monopolising the trade tothe first mentioned plate for the
benefit of Naw York shippers, a state of things which
ought not to be recognised.
Earl RUSSELL said that his noble friend had given
them a lecture on international law, in which he had not
qUoted a single dictum of an Americanjudge in support of
statements which he had made entirely out of his ownhead.
As to the assertion of his noble friend that the captain of
an American man-of-war was bound -to give up a vessel
which he had seized became the reasons assigned for seizing
her were incomplete, he (Earl Russell) would not go so far;
neither would he say the contrary. But if the ship were
taken before a prize court, and, upon examination of her
cargo, goods were found in her sufficient to condemn her, he
(Earl Russell) would say that she might be condemned. His
noble friend said that vessels should be taken in the act
of attempting to break the blockade, and not on the open
sea; but he (Earl Russell) said that it was not necessary
the ship should be taken in the very attempt to break the
blockader. If she were taken with contraband of war in the
neiglibmrhood of the blockaded place she might be con-
demned. His noble friend said that the object of the Ameri-
can Government was to, vex our commerce and embarrass

our legal trade. But in another part he told them of the
successful breaches of blockade effected by British vessels.
The two things did not go well together. For his (Earl
Russell's) own part, he was not inclined to attribute to the
American Government an hostile attention. But he had

thought it necessary to send instructions to Lord Lyons to
state to the American Government that such a feeling was
entertained in this country. He had no special information

to give his noble friend:, but he could not agree in his

Munro doctrine as to the right of blockade of a coast.
We had blockaded the coast of France from Brest to

Dunquerque, and we had blockaded 2,000 miles of the
American coast, and we would still hold the right to do so
if we were at war again with America He had taken the

opinion of the law _officers of the Crown upon the construc-
tion of the treaty of Parisi and they held that under it
the blockade of the Confederate coast was consistent. It
might not be well to be too ready to resent an imaginary
affront ; but the noble lord might rely upon it that he
would not be satisfied with any decision that was not
based upon justice.
The Duke of SOMERSET said that the admiral on the
station (Admiral Milne) informed him that his officers bora
testimony to the uniform courtesy which they had ex-
perienced from the officers of Admiral Wilkes's squadron.
Those papers to which there was no abjection would be laid
upon the table.
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) FILL.

This bill went through committee.
THE CASE OF SERGEANT-MAJOR LILLEY.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY asked 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, 'lt 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 dreadfil a picture as the case to which he
alluded preeented 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 givdn
notice.
The. Duke of CAMBRLDGE—Before my noble friend
the Secretary of State for War .replies to the question pat
by the noble earl, I think your lordship& will permit me to
interpose, in order that I maymake one or two observations,
not in reference to the circumstances connected with the
court martial upon the late Paymaster Smale, nor with rice
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 lordships 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 matt6r.
Probably it is not known to your lordships that the conduct
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 made with
court-martials in India. To such an extent does this go,
that wherever the Couiraander-in-Chief submits to her. Ma-
ielty the name of any officer who has been tried by court-
mares., in England and cashiered, though the actual cashier-
ing dope not take place until the Queen's pleasure has been
t akenalie fiat of the commander-in-chief in India is absolute
and no refertlnce is made to her Majesty at all. The noble earl
2°ight B'7 then,why take notice of the affairs at all P I will ex-
plain myself shortly-Commander in-Chief
No doubt there is a last appeal to the
in England, and the course of proceed-
ing is this-_ When
repo et takes place in India the
circumstancet
to the Commander-in-Chief at home
as have taken
plate.
hie
order that he may know how to,
act in such proceedings. The
itself is transmitted report of the court-martial
to the lodgeth
Advocate -General in
England, and he ftrwarda ittoo Commander-in-Chief,
.that he may have an opportunity of
ee at the proceed-
irigs and return it as a record t the looking
Judge-Advocate
Gene-
raliewledge I must
When these proceedings came tom
Ykfelt
s there was
confess that, like the noble earl opposite, n
something very peouliar and something most
them. It struck me as so remarkable, that I thonginar
hf;l in
right
that the course adopted should, to a great extent,
be re-
viewed by the Commander-in-Chief at home, and hisopin:
ion taken upon it. Having arrived at that conclusion, how
was I to act ? Was I to remove the officer chiefly implicated
in the charge, or not ? In reviewing this case, I find that it
is certainly in evidence that an unfortune affair has occur.
red ; but, at the same time, I must say franklyhtithat my in-
formation on the subject is not perfect. At the
of
malel tmheyfinacet;
morandum was made, I was not in possesst
of the case. There was much left behind which I t t will
in time be elicited, and therefore I abstained from expres-
sing any decided or positive opinion on thefiesdubjo
I stated very clearly, that unless I was satisfied
stain carious
points on which I had considerable doubt, I should.absotin.
from the extreme course of removing the commanding m
cer from the command of his regiment. It has been said
that the reason why no action was taken was that two en-
nent men were concerned in the transaction. Of course
allude to Sir H. Rose and Sir W. Mansfield. There is no
doubt that those two eminent and distinguished officers were
concerned in the transaction, and the question that arose
was, were they concerned in such a manner as that I was
caned on to take ectionwith regard to them P 1 most POSi'