The Sun.
London, England, 1863-12-19 00:00:00

%%HD CRAWLEY COURT-MARTIAL.

The proceedings in this protracted case w:re
brought to a close yesterday by the reply of the pro-
secution. As might have been expected, it did not
excite the same degree of interest as that which was
manifested in Col. Crawley's statement. The long
rows of reserved seats, which were crowded on the
preceding day, were nearly deserted, and amongst
the visitors of distinction we noticed Lord and Lady
Chelmsford and Mr. and Mrs. Headlam. The Court
having been formally opened,
Lieut.-Col. Cre.wley requested and was allowed to
make an unimportant correction in his address of

the previous day.
Sir A. Horsford, official prosecutor, then rose, and
proceeded to read his reply to the defence. He said
--Mr. President and gentlemen, —I propose in my
reply to confine myself as closely as possible to a
plain comment on the evidence; for in a case like
this a speech appears. to me to be of no value; ex-
cept when it serves as a clue to guide through a
labyrinth of evidence. I should wish, however, to

3 opportunity of expressing my concurrence

with what has fallen from the prisoner as to the
misstatements and exaggerations that have appeared
in print respecting him. Such misstatements and
exaggerations are extremely to be regretted, not
only for the sake of the prisoner, to whom they arc
most unfair, but also because they render the admi-
nistration of justice difficult by raising prejudices
and causing misapprehensions, whicn, when cor-
voted, by a knowledge of the actual facts, make
those facts seem less important and serious than
thi;y really are. In dealing with these facts it will
be well to begin with the orders for the arrest,
which the prisoner is charged with having car-
ried into effect with unnecessary and undue severity
Those orders were two in number ; first, that of
Major-General Farrell, dated 26th April, 1862, the
material words of which were these—
You are to keep regimental Sergeant Major Lilley and
Troop Sergeant Majors Wakci 31d and Duval in close arrest
under sentries, and to forbid any one to have access to them
except under your own express permission.
The other order was that of Sir William Mansfield,
dated 6,h May, 1862, of which the material words

are these :
The sergeant majors aro not to be releasod from arrest
until the proceedings in the trial of Captain Smales are en.
tirely closed, and the court of which Lieutenant•Calonel
Payn is president has been finally adjourned.
The proper mode of carrying into effect these two
orders appears to me to be the main question which
the Court will have to determine with reference to
the firsteharge. It has, I think, been correctly stated
by the prisoner, " That the nature of the charges on
which Sergeant INlajor Lilley Was arrested, and the
nature of, the orders the prisoner received from his
superiors relative to the arrest, are necessary ele-
ments in explaining and '
Justifying the manner in
which he thought it necessary to carry out that ar-
restl
;" ant, for that reason the prisoner put in evi-
dence Lieut.-Col. rr%. ,•
s letter of May 6, 1562,
in which is conveyed Sir Wm. Mansfield's opinion
that the prisoner "might fairly interpret the acts of
the three sergeant majors into a conspiracy against
late au:bority, and was amply justified in taking the
stringent measures he did for Vle obstruction of the
rurth.er pro7rcss of such conspiracy, and that it was
•• r, to do so." The date of this letter
_m Mansfield could not have
meant more than' that the prisoner was justified, in

his u

instance, in ordering tha arrest of the ser-
geant majors, for Sir William Mansfield could not
then have known anything more than the mere fact
of the arrest. It may seem strange that at the cem-
ent of the same letter Sir William Mansfield
c that " There did not appear, as shown by
the documents which had brea sent to him by
.:',l_-,j,)r-Cier.eral Farrell, any sufficient grounds for

3 that 6ir Willi

the fi

CeM

bringing the non-commissioned officers concerned
to trial for conspiracy," -and yet that the prisoner
was not miry deemed by Sir William Mansfield
to haTe acted rightly in ordering them into
arrest upon a charge for conspiracy, but was
further (in Colonel Thesiger's -letter of the
same date) ordered " not to releaso thorn till
the court of which Payn was president had
been finally adicurned." But, strange as this may
seem, the express terms of the order make it clear
that, as far a,-•, the arrest itself is concerned, the pri-
sone* was acting under the orders of his military
fors, and cannot therefore b 3 he!d responsible
it is also clear that Sergeant Mjcir Liiley had

s3per

for t.

2 origit

.ally placed in arrest on a charge for con-
ae y; that, from the 26th April, 1862, tothe 6th
May, 1862, Major General Farrell was responsible
for that arrest; and that, after the 6[ll May,
1862, until the final adjournment of the Mhow
court martial, Sir William Mansfield was respon-
sible for it. It further appears feci:n a letter
addressee by the prisoner to Major Champion,
dated 24th May, 1862, that the alleged grounds for
keeping two of the sergeant mejore—namely,
Lilley and Daval—in close arrest, with sentries
over them, were different from the alleged ground
for keeping Sergeant -Major Wakefield in close
arrest with a sentry over him. For, with regard
to Sergeant Major Wakefield, the prisoner says,
"The threat that ho would poison or otherwise
make away with the men who gave information
kheat the defence being read is still to be guarded
againet." It seems important to note this ciistiee-
lion, because it shows, by the best poseible evidence,
tchoes cagy, the prisoner's own statement, that althoughc
might in the first instance have been some
e
or severity in enforcing the arrest in the
el,Se “r,
pretest
ohp Sergeant Major Wakefield, no such
esieted in the case of Sergeant Major
Lilian as
had never been even charged with
threatening
that I have do violence to any one. I believe
terial facts
reWl_l.3,ld before the Court all the ma-
endtit©
groutX to the ordete for the arrest
think it may b, those orders ; and I
to consider what at this step of the reply
a commanding officer would
be dienceed to elder
iz:lttb, ere were consigned to
his custody, to be
regimental
Ear close . arrest, MY der
sentries, a
I:d.a..nt major belonging to
ent, who
another Mira
that time borne
the highest character, but to
1°- had been charged
with being concerned'a Sir a conspiracy Mans-
field's words—in
Suppose the authority
of his commanding officer. "Paose further, that
this regimental sergeant major had a sick
and
almost dying wife—_that a t the place Was,
ltha—the
time of the year one of its hottest mlar "us
d man of plethoric e--
geant major a large-framehabit
of body, accustomed to ride about a great deal
or,
a pony, and to be always engaged in Unties which
required him to be active and stirring. -'crhaps 1
shall not be deemed presumptuous if, even
in
presence of this high tribunal, I venture to
offer an opinion that the proper mode of en-
forcing an order for close arrest under
sentry in such a case, would be that which, consis-
tently with the safe custody of the prisoner, was the
least severe which the custom of the service would
warrant. I will now proceed to draw the attention
of the Court to what actually took place : Firstly.
However, I will substitute for the commanding
officer of another regiment the commanding efilehr
of Sergeant Major Lilley's own regiment, namely,
the prisoner. Secondly, It is to be observed that
the alleged offence of conspiracy was committed
against that commanding officer's authority, namely,
the prisoner's. Thirdly. That a trial was then
pending where the commanding efficer, namely, the
l'tl'°fler, was at one and the same time both a pro-
eeeotor and defendant. Fourthly. That the sergeant
wasone f
ba,
.0 0 the „tecseea who would probably
calledmanc:in,toilive evidence unfavourable to his com-
That during the the prisoner, Fifthly.
liinder in
cilie,,eroohrse of the confinement the Com-
d declared that there was no
sellieient evioete to e
Sizthly, Tait
tettihoport the charge of conspi-
terms of the orders for the
st left it diseretie:
rY with the commmding
el 3", the prisoner, , to permit the sergeant
rvior to have free eonsesanicei
\v
Mr• S on ita any one,
Seventhly, that Taiest who l' . •
sergeantclu"ed the uvi-
ecrico of the major for his defence, was
entitled by law as freely to communicat_ with the
was
4- '9r as the prisoner now
sergean ma],nude- trial has
,-nunicate no.- •
been allowed to cc.l,. only with his own
vvi:nesses, but even vial the witnesses for the pro.
se,^ution. These seven matters• seem open to the
following observation. 'l'n'-et a commanding
who foiled himself' r, quilled to keep such a sergeant
--102 sucn circumatzti„,

r. ,

.jo in C 1 ',.)4a grz:;',4 Uuus--

would naturally find himself placed in as delicate
and responsible position as can well be imagined
—a position where, on the one hand, all the noble
qualities which go to make up the character of an
officer might be nobly illustrated ; and where, on
the other hand, all the undefined and dis-
cretionary powers which are necessarily en-
trusted to a commanding officer might be
terribly abused, For in this case those
large discretionary powers might be employed
for three several purposes—first, to gratify feelings
of anger and dislike towards an individual; se-
condly, to obstruct the defence of another indivi-
dual against whom the prisoner was then acting as
prosecutor, and for whom the first-named indivi-
dual was a witness; thirdly, to facilitate his own
justification, in his character of defendant, before
the Mhow court martial. Let me now, by a refer-
ence to the evidence which is on record, show you
that the :prisoner actually did
tending officer,
' order
employ the discre-
tionary powers which he had as comm
and which Major-General Farrell'
arreat for the
arreat expressly left him free to use, precisely in
this manner and for these purposes. Let us
follow the course of the arrest through its
several stages of severity. The course of the arrest,
as proved by the evidence, was this :—At the com-
mencement—on the 26th of April, 1862—it was
simple arrest. Liter in the same day it was close
arrest, under a sentry placed outside the quarters.
Shortly afterwards it was close arresetnenadnetrAEsyeinatnd sentry
placed inside the quarters, for srg
proves that this order was given on the 28th April,
and the date of Corporal Blake's offence, as shown
by the record of his court-martial, that it must have
been given before the Ist of May, 1862, for Corpo-
ral Blake on that day disobeyed it and was reduced
by the prisoner for doing so. Shortly afterwards
it was close arrest under a sentry, placed in the
same room with the sergeant-mejors, with positive
orders not to lose sight of the prisoners by night.or
by day. And this last order must have been given
on or before the 4th of May, 1862, because it was
given while Lieutenant Fitzsimon was doing 'duty
as adjutant; and from the evening of the 4th of
May down to the 16th of May he was sick and off
duty, as is proved not only by his own evidence but
by that of Cornet Snell, and also by the regimental
order-books. This gradually increasing scale of
severity was ordered by whom, and under what
pretext ? What says the evidence ? That the
placing of the sentries inside the quarters, instead
of outside, was done by order of the prisoner is
proved by his own letter of the sth June, 1862, to
the Deputy Adjutant-General, Mhow Division, in
which he says that in consequence of the impossi-
bility of preventing communication being held with
the prisoners by parties in the interest of the pri-
soner (namely, Paymaster Smales), it was deemed
advisable to place the sentries in the room with the
prisoners, not only to avoid the exposure of the sen-
tries to the bun and hot winds, but to prevent the
witnesses being tampered with during the remain-
der of the triah In this letter we have proof not
only of the fact that the sentries were posted itside
the quarters in the very room with the sergeant-
neejors, by the express orders of the prisoner, but
also the reason assigned, which, in his (the prisoner's)
opinion made this rigorous proceeding due and ne-
cessary. It is clear—First, that the real object of
the close arrest, and of the placing of the sentries
inside the rooms with the prisoners, had reference
solely to the defence of Pay master Shales, whose
witnesses they were. Secondly, that the object
was to prevent the sergeant-majors being tampered
with, as Mr. Smales's witnesses against the prisoner.
Thirdly, that by being tampered with was meant,
being communicated with by parties in the in-
terest of Mr. Smiles." For this is clearly shown
by the prisoner's letter of the Ch June, 1862, ad-
dressed to the Assistant-Adjutant-General, iu which
the prisoner uses these words, " in consequence of
the impossibility of preventing communication being
held with the prisoners by parties in the interest or
the prisoner, namely, Paymaster Smales, it was
deemed advisable to place the sentries in the rooms
with the prisoners, not only to avoid the exposure
of the sentries to the sun and hot winds, but to pre-
vent the witnesses being tampered with during the
remainder of the trial." These facts being thus
established by the prisoner's own written state-
ments, let us consider the exact bearing of the facts
upon the present ch ergo s. In order to understand
this thoroughly, it will be necessary to call the at-
tention of the Court to the proceedings of the Mhow
court martial (page 90), from which it will be seen
that on the lOtti May, 1862, Paymaster Smales had
closed his case and finished the examination of his
witnesses, and that therefore, by the prisoner's own
showing, the only reason assigned by him for keep-
ing the sentries inside the rooms of two of the ser-
geantensjors, at all events, viz., bergeent-Mejors
Lilley and Duval, totally ceased to exist on that M
day, and could not by possibility revive. For they
could no longer be tampered with as witnesses for
Paymaster Smales, seeing that als his witnesses, in-
cluding Sergeant-Major Lilley (who had, indeed,
been called as a witness on the 7th May), had been
called, and that part of Paymaster Smales's case
absolutely concluded. I need hardly observe,
also, to this Court that this prohibition of
all communication, verbal or written, between Mr.
Smales and his witnesses, by whomsoever it was
ordered, was absolutely illegal ; nor need I contrast
with that proceeding in India the proceeding of the
Crown here with regard to the free access which
the prisoner has been permitted to have, not only
to his own witnesses, but also to those for the pro-
secution. But it is material to call special attention
to the fact that neither the orders for the close
arrest as given by Major-General Farrell, nor the
orders respecting the duration of the arrest, as given
by Str Wm. Mansfield, in any way whatever
authorise this proceeding, further than what Major-
Gen. Farrell's order forbade access to the sergeant-
mejors except under the prisoner's own express
permission, thereby expressly leaving the prisoner
free to act as the law requires, namely, to allow
Paymaster Sinales to have as free communication
with his witnesses as the prisoner has been allowed
to have with all the witnesses both for the prose-
cution and for the defence, in India, as well as in
England. Therefore all the portion of the written
orders given by the prisoner to the adjutant on the
26th April, 1862, which are comprised in the fol-
lowing words, " with orders to allow no person
whatever to hold communication, verbal or written,
with the prisoner," are in truth the prisoner's
orders, and not either Mejor-Sen. Farrell's cr Sir
Wm. Mansfield's. For Major-Gen. Farrell's order
left this matter absolutely iu the discretion of the
prisoner, cud Sir Wna. Mansfield's order was en-
tirely silent on the subject. Therefore these orders
would have in no way operated to debar Mr. Smales
;ittitleesergeent-inejors from freely communicating
power le ta„,,e,
1%;
itett other, as they were entitled to do by
right. •
26th April
1 hpttrisoner had not used his discretionary
Mejor Li by Q 4
Comm aniCalitte°l tt'ael 1;:iel 11:
tine day'
those who acted ttitiniyer as to deprive them of this
does it appear that from the
of his death was Sergeant-
deprived of his right to
for.e!i.th Mr. Smales, or with
deprived of his eigilti'lm, • and ho was illegally
alone. But
t,137 the direct act of the
the part of the ft,rl,lloineertrange proceeding on
prisoner
by any means. It was 'lces not rest here
cereied a great deal
.m
trial
strange
at deal
during the course of Mr. seam_ ,
Mr Smalee h
further, and became a I.e
• For, as I
have said before, ~ . .... 5..1
his witnesses ou the late e.
so, concluded the
examination of
therefore from zt that the
that day the only pe": Ma and
ors e.rgeant-maj v.,
prisoner himself alleged for placing the aentries in-
side the quarters of the s
at an
end; for how could jr. Smales's witneseea
be
tampered with when he had no longer Ray wit-
nesses to call, and that portion of the case, as well
on the part of the prosecutor
.
as on that of ai
Smiles, was finally closed ? Ticrefore, from the
r
l
1 :•a was the clay
10th of May to the 25th of May, which . for a
of . Sergeant-Major Lilley's death—that is. . a
space of 15 days,—it is proved beyond all passibility
of question, by the prisoner's own showing, in his
own written cfficial statements, and by the record
of the proceedings of the Mhow court-martial (page
90), that the sentry was kept inside Sergeant-
Major Lilley's quarters absolutely without reason
as hetever, and kept there by the mere arbitrary
psisoner as a
exercise of the discretionary power Cili7llteed to the
commanding vilic9r. CJatr.st this