The Sun.
London, England, 1854-08-24 00:00:00

The formal discussion on Lieutenant Perry's
case before the last Windsor Court-martial is no w
at an end, and the first decision upon it remains in
the hands of the members of that Court. From
the beginning of July until the present time this
subject has pretty constantly occupied our atten-
tion—for so long has this young man been baited
in one form or another by his Lieutenant-Colonel
and brother officers. We trust it is needless for
us to say that we have no interest in the case
one way or another. The names of Colonel Garrett
and Lieutenant Perry were as unknown to us
before this series of inquiries began as those of
two inhabitants of Patagonia. We have taken up
this young officer's defence simply upon the
grounds of justice and of public interest, and in
so doing we have been supported by such an over-
whelming, amount of public opinion as we do not
remember to have seen displayed upon any similar
occasion. Not only is it evident that Lieutenant
Perry is entitled to an acquittal upon every ground
Hof law and right, but, if full justice is to be done,
matters cannot stop there. There are two courses at
the present moment open to Lord Hardinge ; a
cautious man would adopt the first—a bold,
perhaps an over-bold man, the second. He may,
in the first place, hush up the present scandal as
quietly as may be, give Colonel Garrett 'and his
friends a forcible hint that they must adopt a very
different line of conduct for the future, and gradu-
ally, distribute them through other regiments, so
sparsely that their presence will not-be sufficient to
leaven the mass. The General Commanding-in-
Chief may adopt that line of conduct, and, doubt-
less, he would be supported in it by the opinion of
many men. Another and a bolder course would
be to cause a public investigation to be held upon
the conduct of the officers of the 46th Regiment,
in the course of which especial inquiry should be
made into what Colonel Garrett's own conduct
has been for many years past. It is needless to
say that the whole machinery of trial, the forms
of proceeding, and the witnesses to be summoned
must be very different indeed from what they
have been on recent occasions. There must be
no identity between prosecutor, Deputy-Judge-
Advocate, and accused—by the accused we mean
Colonel Garrett ; there must be no summoning
of his accomplices to prove his innocence ; no
stoppage of cross examination to test the value
of testimony ; no gossiping and hospitalities with
the members of the Court. The witnesses, too,
must be of a very different kind, as women of
the town, police-officers, and so forth. It may
well be that the testimony of this class of witnesses
might serve to refresh the recollections of the
gallant Non mi Ricordos of the 46th upon
many most material points. Matters are said to
have occurred in Ireland and elsewhere, a bare
recital of which would tend much to public edifi-
cation, and which, at least, might merit inquiry
with the view of eliciting the truth or falsehood of
the reports. Dare Colonel Garrett face a tribunal
of this kind, he and his young friends ? If Lieu-
tenant Perry were out of the army, and plain Mr.
Perry once more, there could be no difficulty in
bringing the matter to a speedy issue before a civil
Court by a judicious use of legal machinery, or by
compelling his adversaries to have recourse to the
Queen's Bench to clear their characters. For the
moment his hands are tied with red cloth. Let us,
therefore, confine ourselves to the charge recently
under consideration at Windsor.
Our impression of Saturday contained a full re-
port of the answer made by the prosecutor to poor
young Perry's defence of his own conduct. Con-
sidered as the act of the counsel for the prosecu-
tion, whose duty it is to make his client's case pre-
vail at all events, no doubt this production is en-
titled to considerable praise. General Wetherall
assumes all that it is convenient for his argument
that he should assume, forgets to notice all that
tells against him, speaks of his opponent's witnesses
with contempt, and of his own as though they had
not made some slips which may actually expose them
o very unpleasant consequences before the civil
' ribunals, and pronounces a commendation upon
impartial spirit in which he has conducted
he prosecution. The last is the only point on
which we feel inclined to challenge the official
prosecutor's statement. No one can blame him for
struggling for a conviction a bit more than
Lieutenant Perry's legal adviser can be blamed
for seeking an acquittal. The misfortune has
been throughout that the General's medals and
feathers have weighed more with the court than
the attorney's black coat and round hat. The
consequence has been that General Wetherall, the
counsel for the prosecution, and a most persevering
Ind able one lie has shown himself to be—has
been allowed to decide mere mote upon what
points the court should consider, and what should
he refused, upon the rejection and admission of
evidence, and other such matters, which every court
with which we are acquainted is in the habit of re-
sulating for itself. As often as we have recurred to
this subject we have endeavoured to do justice to
the remarkable kindliness of demeanour and dig-
fifty of manner with which Colonel Kelly has pre-
sided over this inquiry. Of the other gentlemen
composing the Court-martial, we are not in a po-
sition to speak, for their office apparently is that
of well-nigh passive spectators until the evidence
is over and the doors are closed. We trust that
they will not take it as disrespect to any of their
number if we say that if there was one thing
more obvious than another to the most casual by-
stander it was that as judges iu a cause of this na-
ture they were entirely out of place. Had any
member of the court possessed but an ordinary
Lcquaintance with the common forms of justice,
the prosecutor would not have been allowed to
smuggle his witnesses out of court until they had
!ieen properly cross-examined. Proud—and well
'lO may be so—of this successful feat, General
Wetherall falls back upon the credit of his wit-
nesses. If they have all spoken the truth, Colonel
Garrett, he maintains, is a cherub unattached. We
are not so sure of the value of the proof, even if
it could be made out, but have they spoken the
truth ? That is the real point—a point upon which
we must be content to remain in perfect ignorance,
for the prosecuting General took excellent care
that his united band of witnesses should not be ex-
posed to anything that savoured of "recrimina-
tion." A few of them stumbled though despite
of his friendly assistance, and in such a way as all
men who attach any importance to the character
of an English officer are not likely to forget. Now,
what does,General Wetherall's defence of Colonel
Garrett amount to ?—and what are the facilities
which he has tendered to the young Lieutenant for
his defence ? General Wetherall produces a batch
of witnesses who " don't remember" anything to
Colonel Garrett's disadvantage. What if those
persons had been 50 or 500 in number, in place of
12 or 14 ? If the prosecutor rest his case upon
this testimony as reported we fear it will be found
by the minutes of the evidence--tainted as they
are—that a more positive feeling than incredulity
will arise in the mind of any one who reads it with
an impartial eye. On the other side young Perry,
in addition to his own testimony, produces the
officer under whose advice he acted when the
transaction took place, a year ago. From the.
evidence of this gentleman it follows that Lieu-
tenant Perry, so far back as that, imparted to
him in confidence that Colonel Garrett had
called him a fool for reporting, and that he (Lieu-
tenant Perry) had written a letter to the General
of the District. Now, of three things one—either
Lieutenant Perry, a year ago, through a mere
natural taste for lying, went through the farce of
such a declaration with tears in his eyes in Pay-
master Corcoran's office, long before the present
inquiry could have been anticipated, or Paymaster
Corcoran is a perjured man, or both he and Lieut.
Perry are speaking the truth. We incline to the
latter theory ; and, if our belief involves any un-
courteous hesitations as to the strict veracity of the
bulk of the officers of her Majesty's 46th Regiment
of Infantry, we can only regret the necessity of the
alternative. Much in the same !manner we may
speak of General Wetherall's method of disposing
of the charge concerning Captain Nicholas. With
Lieutenant Waldy's letter staring him inthe face,
he winds up with—" As the prisoner has asserted
in his letter that he was prepared to substantiate
by evidence all 'that he had said against Captain
Nicholas, it is surely matter of grave observation
that he has not even attempted to substantiate
those charges by calling a single witness, or pro-
ducing any evidence of any sort or kind." There
are some minds so strangely constituted that they
will accept Lieutenant Waldy's letter for evidence
as decisive as that of the purse of the murdered
man with the fresh blood-stain upon it. Are
we to believe that the gallant individual who
is proved to have styled a brother officer " a
d— son of a b—" at the mess-table, is to be ac-
cepted as a Sir Charles Grandison at other mo-
ments ? As far as oral testimony is concerned, pro-
bably atthe timehisletter was handed in young Perry
was not aware that the officers of the gallant 46th,
like our army in Flanders, were ready to swear so
extremely hard. General Wetherall's explanation
of his own motive for not tendering Nicholas may