The Sun.
London, England, 1863-12-28 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

EXAMINER.—The question really interesting the
country is whether Sergeant Lilley was treated
justly, not the narrow issue whether the severity
exceeded what was necessary to the purpose of his
confinement. Was the man wronged ? Was any
right of a soldier contravened in the confinement
which hastened his end? The article of war limit-
ing duration of an untried man's imprisonment is
the main safeguard of the soldier's liberty; it is to
him what the habeas corpus is to the civilian.
This important law was violated in Lilley's case.
Colonel Crawley's defence in that respect, as in
others, is " Macbeth's "Thou canst not say I did
it!" The arrest was commenced by him without
any infraction of military law, but it was continued
by the direction of General Farrell indefinitely, and
afterwards of the Commander-in-Chief, Sir -Win.
Mansfield, in contravention of the articles of war.
We have advisedly used the word direction instead
of authority, because those Generals had no autho-
rity to set aside or nullify one of the articles of war
framed for the Government of the army, and to
control the highest as well as the lowest in the
service. The notion in Colonel Crawley's mind
was that he had to deal with a mutiny. There
had been mutiny in India, so mutiny was always
to be apprehended in India. There had been
mutiny in native forces, so mutiny was likely to
break out in an English regiment. '[he question
in his mind, as he avers, was mutiny or no mutiny,
because, forsooth, Mr. Smales had written an in-
discreet letter, and three sergeants bad read some
proceedings the publication of which was forbid-
den. In one of Dickens's novels two characters
go on the stage representing a general rebellion.
Here we have three sergeants bringing a regiment
within a step of mutiny, though the corps was
sound, the discipline intact. But nevertheless
" the crisis had arrived, the danger was immi-
nent !" The Colonel was in a dream, or in a
passion, and made mountains of mole hills.
It is a highly significant fact, that to clear Colonel
Crawley's character no less than seven reputations
must be destroyed. Four officers and three ser-
geants must be believed wanting in truth and duty,
in order that he may stand fair in the eyes of the
world. We cannot join in the praise that has been
given to the defence. In the conduct of it there
was, indeed, much of the Old Bailey cleverness,
and a success in disposing of it. As for the con-
cluding speech, which has been strangely admired,
it was tawdrily rhetorical, and in the prevailing
taste of works of sensation. Such passages as these
seem borrowed from the penny dealers in fine
writing:—" How in the dark and dreary night of
calumny and wrong have I longed for the day when
the truth might be legitimately known, and when
the foul vapours of malice and falsehood a% could dis-
solve like a morning mist before the sun !" Some
parts of his speech are more gravely reprehensible,
for instance, his insoltnt remark upon a statement
of Mr. Smales's," I think it just possible that upon
this occasion Mr. Smales told the truth." Now it
has been her Majesty's pleasure to reinstate Mr.
Smales in her service, a reparation which certainly
would not have been made if Mr. Smales had been
void of truth, and therefore unworthy of her Com-
mission and a place amongst men of honour. The
insult strikes higher than the restored paymaster.
And the man who deals in such foul imputations
mouths about libellers and calumny. From
such outbursts it is easy to understond
what be must have been in his regiment.
He has, however, been acquitted, honourably ac-
quitted, and will resume a command for which he
has shown such rare qualifications. But here the
matter cannot rest. The question evaded must be
raised, whether or not a wrong was done to Lilley,
and whether the articles of war do or do not protect
a good soldier against injustice. If it can be shown
that a court martial could not have been assembled
to try the prisoners, well and good, but they were
detained by direction of the two Generals without
any view to trial, and for another purpose. At the
meeting of Parliament more will be heard of this
question, and of the soldiers' rights involved in it.
LONDON REVIEW.—Summary justice seems likely
to overtake those violators of the law, Messrs.
Heenan and King. The magistrates of the county
in which they fought seem resolved not to let the
matter drop to the ground. They are quite right,
Even bad laws ought to be kept, and the law which
prohibits the brutality of prize fights deserves
especial conservation. The practice is itself demoral-
ising—the training, as has been shown by the
Lancet, is often thoroughly prejudicial to health—
and though Messrs. Heenan and King themselves
may not be worse than their ordinary associates,
there is no doubt that the prize ring is full of ruffians
and vagabonds belonging to all classes of society.
Bell's Life, the chosen organ of prize fighters, has
more than once seemed thoroughly ashamed of its
mission. The champions of England and America
themselves, who have nearly killed one another for
the amusement of a degraded and sensation--hunting
mob, know pretty accurately and measurepretty well
the depth of theirdegradation. WhatMr.Thos.Sayers
feels upon the subject may be judged by the reso-
lution he at one time formed of retiring definitely
from the Ring—a resolution which he has not
seemingly been man enough to keep. Heenan while
in training at Brighton expressed himself in no
light language of the occupation in which he is
engaged. "Isn't a bloody and brutal thing," he is
reported to have said, " a man like me to be getting
ready to stand up and knock another man about for
some money ?" Tha scene at the railway station on
the morning of the fight was thoroughly of a piece
with past experience, though the strenuous efforts
made by the Company, and favoured possibly by
the police, put it out of the power of the very
poorest ruffians to be present at the fight. The
character of prize fighting may be estimated by the
history of the police-courts the next day. To foreign
nations it perhaps appears incredible that, in de-
fiance of the la w, such rude and violent exhibitions
should with impunity take place on each occasioon
when it pleases the noble patrons of the sper..tat_.
back one man's muscles against the musclesulodt
not
other. They would conclude (and they `girt o.,es
be far wrong in cobcluding) that the faularlei
eawsrly"
the Executive. Ordinary law breaker In the case
reached by the strong arm of justic.e.gilant as their
of a street row the police are asini
to be, and the
native slowness of pace permits
he v
rizefighter scowls
severity which winks at the p taints of this
grimly at the pickpocket._
T
the Ring reply that it
does
description the advocates of
of the morality of the
does not do to be in advance
ia
which is as lu icrous as a pro-
age—a proposition w
Either the immoral age is
position well can be.
right or the moral law is right. If the age is not
all means the penalties
wrong, abolish by
unimpeachable,
and But if the law is unimpeachable,
and its defiers belong to the scum and lees of
so-
ciety respectively, let the law stand, and let the age
learn to obey or to submit to the fitting punishment.
That gentlemen and scholars should dare still to
uphold a practice oondemned by law and morality
alike, is enough to discourage most men. The
efforts of a minority must, however, prove
quickly
impotent before thesociety.
common opinion of
Why is prize fighting worse than cock-fighting on
Shrove Tuesday ? Both are *ens equally
equally
national, and equally table orts. The cock
isreputa esp
has been successfully taken under the wing of the
Legislature ; but human beings are still allowed and
encouraged—in the Legiolature'o despite—to prac.