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

THE BRAZILS.

Tha Earl of MALMESBURY gave notice that on Fri-
day next, in calling attention to our relations with the
BrazilF,, he should move for copies of any papers showing
on what grounds the Government of the Brazils resisted
the claims for £3,200 compensation.

THE WAR IN AMERICA.
The Marquis of CL ANRICARDE moved for copies of
any report that may have been received from the Admiral
commanding her Majesty's squadron on the North Ameri-
can and West India station concerning the protection from
seizut e or visitation afforded to British merchantmen by the
Ariadne and other of her Majesty's ships or gunboats or
otherwise, 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 the recent
condemnation of the Adele as contrary to all principles of
international law, and considered it was the duty of the
Government to demand her restoration. The noble marquis
contended the country ought to afford adequate protection
to her commercial marine, and denounced the seizure of
vessels bound to Matamoras and Nassau, as a means of
monopolising the trade to the first mentioned place for the
benefit of New 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 American judge in support of
statements which he had made entirely out of his own head.
A. 23 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 because 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
blockade. If she were taken with contraband of war in the
neighbourhood 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 Paris, 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 bore
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 objection 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 prison;
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 &shed 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 Linty. 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 unsatisfaalory, 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 oneortwo observations,
not in reference to the circumstances connected with
with with the
o i
court martial upon the late Paymaster sra
re-
ference to anything that may occur hereafter, n
should
found necessary to have a court-martial on Lieut.-Colonelt be
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 matter.
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 Commander-in-Chief submits to her Ma-
jesty the name of any officer who has been tried Ly court-
martial in England and cashiered, though the actual cashier-
lag does not take place until the Queen's pleasure has been
taken,the fiat of the commander-in-chief in India is absolute
and
ui.,;u:Leference is made to her Majesty at all. The noble earl
.I', then,why take notice of the affairs at all? I will ex-
plain myself shortly. No doubt there is a last appeal to the
Commander
ing this_whin-Chief in England, and the course of proceed-
ircursatanca
is reported
a court-martial takes place in India the
as have taken, place,
to the Commander-in-Chief at home
proceed:hilt order that he may know how to,
act in such
itself is transmitted Is. The report of the court-martial
forwards
Judge
England, and he fo Advocate 'General in
that hared have an
oppoartit to the Commander-in-Chief,
ings return it as a recorudnittY of looking at the proceed-
ral. W hen these proceedings 0 thee Judge-Advocate Gene-
confess that, like the noble earl to my knowledge I must
something very peculiar and somc'eTi'ite, I felt there was
them. It struck me as so remarkable, thatl Imcßt singular in
that the course adopted should, to a greatthought it right
viewed by the Commander-in-Chief at home, and
be re-
ome, and his
ion taken upon it. Having arrived at that conclusion' nPhw
in-
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 I
n unfortunatesay frankly that my in-
affair has occur.
red ; but, at the same time, must
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 emil
-
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
called on to take action with regard to them 1 most 1/05i-

tively and most conscientiously believe that those two dis-
tinguished officers have had every desire to do what was
right, but that they committed a very serious error of judg-
ment. That is my conviction ; and I believe that this will
eventually be found to be the case. But even to the case of
the irregularity of the imprisonment, considerable import-
ance is attached. That irregularity was not known to
me when my memorandum was written. It is only recently
that that has come to my knowledge, and of course it was
impossible for me to decide in the case when I really and
truly did rot know the circumstances. I cannot believe
there can be any personal feeling in this matter with
regard to two such distinguished men—men not merely of
high military but private character in the various positions
which they had filled. Considering their positions and re-
putations, I thought that if they had erred it was only in
judgment, and certainly not out of the desire to do any act
of injustice, cruelty, or wrong. That consideration un-
doubtedly had weight with me, and I appeal to your lord-
ships whether it ought not to have had weight with me.
(Hear, hear.) Would any official have been justified in
coming to a rash conclusion in so very delicate a position ?
The result of this, I trust, will be to prove that, in both cases,
I have not acted so unadvisedly as I am accused of having
done. For what occurred ? Why, at a very recent period,
circumstances have come to my knowledge that render it
necessary we should bring Lieutenant-Colonel Crawley to
court-martial. lam not going to enter into the case which
is pending a judicial trial; but the circumstances to which
I allude have only come to my knowledge quite recently.
Within a few days I have been placed in a position to advise
that that trial should take place on the merits of the case.
A great deal of time has elapsed since the circumstances of
the case first occurred. I may be asked why so much delay
has occurred. I answer that the whole affair occurred in
India—it takes three months to communicate with India and
get back a reply. Hardly a single letter has been written
upon this subject that has not required another question on
the answer and a fresh delay for another reply, with another
delay of three months, The result is that a longer period
has been suffered to elapse than I could wish or your lord-
ships expect. A still further delay must oecur on this ac-
count. Sir William Mansfield, under whom the regiment is
serving-, is stationed in Bombay. But the command of all the
troops in India is vested in the commander-in-chief, who is
stationed in Bengal. The consequence is that every ques-
tion of this description goes officially from Bombay to Ben-
gal before it can come to us. This adds to the delay. I
have felt bound to point out this, in order to show that what
has been done has not been done with a view to shield or
screen any one, but with a strict and earnest desire to do

justice to all—not alone to do justice to the generalfeeling
of distress at the painful circumstances which have occurred,
and which are most natural, but to do justice to those who
have been implicated, and to whom I am sure your lordships
would wish to give every possible opportunity of defending
and justifying themselves, if it be possible for them to do so.
That is the only feeling I have ; and as for saying there has
been any pressure put upon me, of course I spurn the idea.
But it does happen that the question was never discussed
by me with a single individual, except in the most official
manner, and then only with one on whom I was able to rely
for advice and information, and a sound and just and safe
conclusion. (Hear.)
The Earl DE GREY and RIPON observed that the
speech of the royal duke relieved him of the necessity of
saying more than a few words on the subject. In regard
to the court-martial en Lieut.-Col. Crawley, the precise
nature of those charges was now under the consideration of
the proper authorities, and it would be improper for him to
express any opinion upon the subject. Every step would
be taken to ensure that the inquiry should be conducted in
the most open manner, and with perfect fairness to all
parties concerned.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY hoped the inquiry would
take place in England, and not be transferred to India,
where in fact it had already been prejudged by the allega-
tion that Sergeant-Major Lilley's death was the result of
habitual intoxication.

The Earl of MALMESBUEY said that he had that day
seen a letter from Sir Hugh Rose, stating that his assertion
to the effect mentioned was grounded on the statement of
the surgeon of the quantity of spirits supplied to Sergeant-
Major Lilley while under arrest.
The subject was then allowed to drop.
The Vaccination (Ireland) Bill was read a third time and
passed.
The Bleaching and Dyeing (Ireland) Bill was read a
second time.

The Redemption of Rents (Ireland) Bill was considered
as amended, and agreed to.

DUCHY OF CORNWALL MANAGEMENT BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
Their lordships then adjourned.

HOITSE OF COMMONS—Last Evening.

The SPEAKER took the chair at the usual hour.

The following bills were read a second time :—Lands Im-
provement Company—London (City) Traffic Regulation—
Sligo and Eallaghaderreen Junction Railway—Meux's
Estate.

The following bills were read a third time :—Birming-
ham and Sutton Coldfield Extension Railway—Devon

Valley Railway—Haddingtonshire Roads—London and
North Western Railway (new branch lines)—Tendring
Hundred Railway—and Wexford Free Bridge.
The following bills were considered and ordered to be
read a third time :—Athenry and Ennis Junction Railway
(Extension of Time), Bishops Waltham Railway, Bonnelli's
Electric Telegraph Company, Galway Water, Kettering
and Thrapstone Railway, London and North Western
Railway (additional powers), Midland Railway (Bristol
line), Mistley, Thorpe, and Walton Railway, and North
British Railway (Wansbeck Railway, &c,)