The Sun.
London, England, 1854-08-18 00:00:00

AY EVENING, AUGUST 18, 1854.

connection in the course of a clay or two. The Work.
ing parts have proved highly satisfaAory.

THE 57TH FOR CORFU.
Lieut.-Colonel Sha.dforth'a division of the 57th at
Cork will embark there in the Mauritius, SOO tons,
screw-steamer, for Corfu.

The officers and men of the 40th and 57th; at Lime-
rick garrison, aro nursing the moustache, under the re-
cent general order.

The 71st, at Cork, gave 400 volunteers to the 57th
for Turkey. ,

DRAFTS FOR THE EAST.
Nine hundred rank and file are held in readiness to
proceed from the depot battalion at Ferrnoy to Cork, for
conveyance to Turkey, to join the 30th, 33d, 49th,
and .50th.

SZCON D COURT-MARTI AL ON LIEUT.
PERRY, AT WINDSOR.

FIFTEENTH DAY—TienneDev.
The general court-martial appointed to try Lieutenant
James Edward Perry, of the 46th Regiment, re-assem-
bled this morning in the officers' messroco, at the In-
fantry Barracks, Windsor ; Colonel T. E. Kelly pre-
siding. Major-General Wetherall attended as prose-
cutter ; and Brigade-Major Dalgetty officiated as Deputy
Jud ge-Advocate.
After some preliminary conversation, e- •
The President said, the Court is now prepared and
ready to hear you (addressing the prisoner); are you
prepared with your defence ?
Prisoner—l have neither the means nor the intention
to prolong this inquiry ; I will put in the states of the
diffegent companies of the regiment the day before the
two companies embarked for Turkey, with the excep-
tion of those of the light company, which, I understand,
are either lost or destroyed. These are the certified
extracts of the evidence given by me on the trial of T.
F. Greer on the 21st of July last, and I wish those por-
tions to be read, inasmuch as they bear on my trial.
Tim Deputy Judge-Advocate read a portion of Lieut.
Pen y's evidence on the trial of Lieutenant Greer, and
afterwards the Court decided that the whole of Lieu-
tenant Perry's evidence should be read. The proceed-
ings were signed by the Judge Advocate-General, Steven
Charles Denison, and they related principally to the
gambling transaction between Lieutenant Greer and
Lientsnant Perry.
Prisoner—l wish after that being read to state that
I have never received one farthing of the money I
stated I won from Mr. Greer, nor do I ever expect to
receive it.
Tao prisoner, on being called upon, delivered the
following defence, which was listened to with the greatest
interest, profound silence being preserved in court dur-
ng the whole of the time.
" Arr. President and Gentlemen of the court-martial,—
Borns. down with fatigue and anxiety, I am now called
upon to defend myself beforo this tribunal, not against
clear, open, and written charges only, but against vague
insinuations, which hostile and vindictive witnesses have
thought fit to invent for the purpose of tarnishing my re-
putation and prejudging me before this Court and the
public; but, nevertheless, I cheerfully rise in my own
vindication, because lam persuaded that I shall meet with
a countenance of that patience which has hitherto been so
generously displayed by the Court, and because I know I
shall meet with sympathy and justice at the hands of my
gallant and honourable military judges. If I had not been
supported during these protracted and harassing proceed-
ings by a consciousness of innocence, I should long since
have sunk exhausted, humiliates, and disgraced ; but,
with conscious rectitude, I have, as a subaltern, been
enabled to sustain this unequal contest, with only one
friend to cheer, to advise, and to encourage me. With all
the unkindness which has been exhibited by the witnesses
for the prosecution, I am sure you will believe that all that
could be said has been said against me. It is not to vindictive
slanders and calumnies on my reputation without founda-
tion and support only that I have been subjected before
this Court, but I have had to contend with concert, pre-
arrangement of evidence, and conspiracy. When Lieu-
tenant Duncombe is asked whether, since that inquiry was
instituted, and it was known that he would be called upon
to give evidence, he had been spoken to relative to the
nature of the evidence he would give, and who spoke to
him, and what they said, he sled' .• . . .•es. t. : cues-
tion. How many more witness
eeifie•
confessed to discussing the eyi. e e
dined to give the names of the parties Wi ILIAC= they so
discussed it How many answers are given in the same
stereotyped. phraseology ! Are not these proofs of concert
and pre-arrangement of evidence, for if there had been no
concert or pre-arrangement to conceal, why were not all
my questions frankly answered? Again, I say, I have to
contend with a conspiracy in the regiment against me.
After the letter on which the two first charges are
founded was sent to the President of the court-mai•tial oil
Lieutenant Greer, Colonel Garrett called the officers
together, and, as they were anxious au far as possible to
clear the colonel and vindicate themselves, they signed
each of them papers, answering certain questions in re-
ference to my letter, on the supposition that the Horse
Guards would thereby be satisfied and the colonel relieved
from further censure, little anticipating at that time that
court-martial was ordered upon mo these volunteers of
I should be the object of another inquiasftcpymhge.cueeptaiatrtosti When a second
ignorance to the Horse Guards are called upon to give
evidence. They have already committed themselves in
their written answers. How is the difficulty to be over-
come? Simply enough. Only speak to the best of your
recollection—non ricordo—and the problem is solved.
The difficulty is got over, but lam the victim. If there
had been no conspiracy, why did Lieutenant Curtis, a re-
lative, 1 believe, of the Colonel, state, first, that the officers
did not assemble, and, when pressed if the officers were not
in deliberation an hour, say that the meeting was for
auditing the mess accounts. Whereas Lieutenant Hesketh
says the officers were assembled simply to discuss what ap-
peared in my letter, and the mess accounts were never
audited on that occasion. Will any member of this Court
give credit to the witnesses fur the prosecution—that the
evidence from time to time was not duly discussed, and
tonte
ahfva
eentiryi
tee•yee
if:oaelhlrlsbesoeycolhettioiadcoi ntnadi
tidcineaaontuutdbylaydeNkvmnhe
as
attacked
attempted to be stopped by an-
swers stereotyped and arranged, till, driven to desperation
tt
umpeeyrffae
entpcertni alesvtdae
si character ao rwuacshtet
ignorancerm.
tabaoynl
dcbmi
eowaul
aisagnt
I feel persuaded that as a young officer, without
a father or relative to sustain or advise him while
compelled •to defend i himself almost helpless and
alone against charges so /pave and numerous, I
shall bespeak the manly and generous sympathy of every
and when it is shown that I have
awbm ieai edetvmnne
thateba 11teitresasohe,Ifekwdhet
ahhadt
teothsapCabnhetoodeaeutdvnsurroundedy
treatedt
calumny, and perjury, may I not ask for more than sym-
pathy—foren
trigh:
no
from
prosecu-
tion
mees couldeamenu 1.
tion had been confined simply to the charges against me,
faithful friends, the paltry reasons for shunning me. I feel
it but just to myself to mention that
my case has been in-
jured in consequence of my being from time to time stopped
in my cross-examination of witnesses when I was following
out and exposing a vein of prevarication
or some ramifica-
tions of falsehood or malice, and told by the Court that I
could call such witnesses in my def . •
ence, as if it were in my power to break down, by an examination in chief a hostile witness in the same manner as by sifting cross-
this
Court, soldiers, were
not aware at the time of the difficultieass.such a course
would entail on me. And I submit that I shave another
just cause of complaint, for when I sought for the produc-
tion of Lieutenant Shervington's letter, to shake the testi-
mony of Captain Campbell, and to prove that I was not
actuated by any desiree to set at nought authority or to dis-
rage my superiors, nd that What he
Pa -referred to was a
mere jest, and had throughout been so treated by Lieu-
tenant Shervington, the whole of the letters were carefully
broright out, put upon record, and published, as if I had
been on my trial for every peccadillo of my life. With the
exceptions just referrel to, I am bound in justice to this
Court to observe that I have been treated with great for-
bearance, kindness, and consideration. The course pursued
by the President will evere_V tje him
-`) ray warmest respect
and gratitude, for never d I witness more dignity com-
bined with justice, uprightness, and kindness. The observa-
in
tions that I have felt due to myself, in reference to tho
honourable
withuYp a
bers
yoeP iracY, combination,
proceedings of this Court, I am sure
eeiticise and show
will not be allowed by
innocent man.
particu-
so gallant and honourable a body to militate against sue.
I 30 supported ; after
Nor will military esprit de corps be permittinedytooernbtyerthpreeir-
judicially into the bosoms of those wieo sit here as judges
eitherllvatercwdyii
el ltot
nottoehwceo
pronouncebenesicagorngn
become
ems memymta to
eaadianni
gsfgiaunri
painful
injured
retue
duty
adayneta,donnarcninedfaf aentr snoreh e
evidence by
wwhhiiech.h.
Ithsohsaie
ichaess
the worthlessness of that evidence.
.The 01,13
made
against me are, in substance,. the folltoewr 6.
"1. That I falsely stated in ale t to Colon 1 kII to
e p n
yt es de
andto
that Colonel Garrett reproached and called tee a fool for
my pains after I had reported to him.
" 2. That it was false that I made any threat to Colonel
Garrett, either by word of mouth
district.
rm writing, that I
endeavourr toat taslT al
would appeal to the general of the
"3. That I stated falsely, in my
_evidence on Lieutenant
Greer's trial. that Captain Nicholas had illtreated other
officers on joining.
Pi on t
"4. That in nay letter to ColonelP, , he Deputy-
Judge-Advocate on Mr. Greer's court-martial, had falsely
imputed to Captain Nicholas that he illtreated young of-
ficers, or aided and abetted others in doing so.
The first witness called on, the first and second charges is
Colonel Garrett, who stated that he does not rinneraber the
particular cause of my complaint to him, but thinks it had
reference to pulling my bed about; and that he had no
re-
collection of having on that or any other occasion reproached
me and called me a fool for my pains. But 'When pressed,
in cross-examination, distinctly to deny that he ever used
the words in the- presence of any one, says, in a most
qualified manner, 'I really don't think I ever did; it is a
long time ago; I cannot charge my memory with ever
having made that observation.' And when subsequently
asked if he had in any instance used reproachful language
to any of the officers' after a complaint of being pulled out
of bed, begs to decline answering the question. When
again asked if he • recollected, or whether the acting
adjutant told him, that I threatened to report the
circumstances to the general of the district, he said,
' I do not recollect.' The next witness examined for
the prosecution, on the first and second charges was
Major Maxwell. When asked whether it was within his
knowledge, or had he any reason to believe, that Colonel
Garrett did call me a fool for my pains, or reproach tnefor
making a complaint, he says he never heard Col. Garrett
call me a fool for my pains, and never heard Col. Garrett
reproach rue for making a complaint. And in a subse-
quent part of his evidence he speaks of the reprimand
given to the officers of whom I complained, and that the
reprimand ws s so strong that the only instance of a prac-
tical joke that he knew of afterwards was that of Lieut.
Dunscombe; yet, so defective in the memory of Major
Maxwell, that, although he could recollect Dunscombe's
blutAtios iu 1853, and nolloct Dunicicbtio Appeal—

Major, will you stand this ?" still he knew not afterwards
of any instance of an officer being pulled out of his bed at
Weedon, although that occurred only in the month of
Msy last. But when further pressed as to an officer
being brought down in his shirt, and placed on the table,
he says—' I have some slight recollection, now it is
brought to my memory, of something of the kind happen-
iug at Weedon, but it made no impression on my mind at
the time.' And this witness, in his evidence !relating to
Dunscombe's affair, would have left the court to believe
that all was settled amicably, for he says that Mr. Duns-
scombe appeared in his uniform in the ante-room about
1 five minutes afterwards, although it is proved by Lieut.
Dunscombe and Major Fyffe that Lieut. Dnnscombs threat-'
ened by letter to,appeal to the General of the district the
following morning. The next witness for the prosecution
"
is Major Fyffe, who, when asked bo the prosecutor whe-
ther it was within his knowledge that Colonel Garrett did,
on the occasion of my making a complaint, or on any
other occasion, call me a fool for my pains, or reprove use
for making complaints, stated certainly not, within his
knowledge, nor did he. ever hear that Colonel Garrett had
so done. And when asked if he knew that I had ever
sent a letter to Colonel Garrett threatening to appeal
to the General of the district, stated he never heard of
such a threat, either by letter or word, but that Colonel
Garrett might have received such a letter without his know-
ledge. And subsequently, after great hesitation and several
equivocations, he said he had beard in casual conversation
that Lieutenant Dunscombe had complained to the General
of the district by letter. I next come to Captain Sand with,
who so discreditably attempted to assail my private cha-
racter, and who appears to have some enormous feeling of
prejudice against me. He never heard Colonel Garrett call
nee a fool, or reproach me for making complaints. He does
not know that I threatened to complain to the General of
the district. Ho does not know that I ever was persecuted.
This witness, who was adjutant, stated that no system of
persecution could have existed without his knowledge, yet
it appeared, subsequen'tly, by his evidence, that the persecu-
tion of Waldey and Knapp took place without his know-
ledge, and he afterwards boldly stated that Lieutenant
Dnnscombe's letter was not to the General of the district,
but to the colonel only, whereas Lieutenant Dunscom be and
Major Fyffe both proved that it was, through the colonel,
to the General of the district. This evidence is therefore
worse than useless. The next witness called against me is
Captain Nicholas. He never heard me called .a fool for my
pains by Colonel Garrett, or reproached for reporting. He
never heard that I threatened by letter to appeal to the
General of the district. Lieutenant and Adjutant M'Alister
is then called. He has no recollection of being present when
an officer was reprimanded, never heard me called a fool
for my pains. Never did I, to his knowledge, threaten to
appeal to tho General of the district. When, however,
asked questions in reference to Dunscombe's affair, ho
heard that Colonel Garrett had not reprimanded him for
making the complaint, but for improperly wording it,
whereas Lieutenant Dunscombe says that he was blamed by
the colonel for making a threat before applying to him.
Lieutenant Dunscornbe is the next witness against me, but
I shall forbear making any further observation on his evi-
dence beyond stating that when asked in cross-examina-
tion whether since this inquiry was instituted, and it was
known ho would be called as a witness, he had been spoken
to relative to the nature of the evidence ho should give,
and if so, by whom, and what did they say, ho replied, ' I
decline to answer the question ; ' but the effect of this pre-
concert with the witness is remarkable, for when asked if
since the regiment left Dublin he had been annoyed by the
officers forcing their way into his room and pulling him
out of his bed, he replied, I have by the prisoner himself,
at Manchester and, when urged upon the point, admits
that he was not even pulled out of his bed, but that his
door was broken open, and he believed that I did it; as if
its were possible for him to depose under the circumstances
to such a fact. The next witness against me is Lieut.
Curtis, a relative, I believe, of Colonel Garrett. Now, he
speaks strongly on the first charge, and he states positively
that Colonel Garrett never reproached me for-making a
complaint, or called me a fool for my pains, and he does
not know that I ever sent a letter to Colonel Garrett,
threatening to appeal to the General of the district. This
witness's evidence, however, is not entitled to either weight
or credit, for when asked if? the officers' assembly was not
sounded, and if all the officers were not called together to
refresh each other's memory, he stated at first Certainly
not !' and if the officers' assembly was sounded for any
other purpose, he was not there. But, on re-consideration,
he said he thought the officers' assembly did sound, but he
had forgotten the day; it was for auditing the mess
accounts that the assembly was sounded, and that the
meeting was a day or two before the court martial
assembled—the day Colonel Garrett went to the Horse
Guards. Now, Lieutenant Hesketh expressly denies this
and says that the officers were assembled simply to dis-
cuss what appeared in my letter. This witness, how-
ever, does not deny he said to me, that I think you got the
worst of reporting this time, old fellow ; and again, al-
though this witness did not recollect Colonel Garrett call-
ing me a fool for my pains, an independent witness Capt.
Chambers, has sworn that he told him that Colonel Gar-
rett had called me a fool for my pains for reporting, and
that the cb onmstance was referred to by several officers of
the mess. Colonel Garrett is again called in reference to
the second charge, and says he never received any letter
threatening to complain to the General of the district, al-
though he positively stated that he did not recollect ; but
when asked if he had no clearer recollection of my letter to
him than ho had of calling me a fool for my pains, and if
1 proved he was in error when he said he did not call me a
fool for my pains, would he not think himself equally in
error when he said I did not write him the .letter, he re-
plied that if it should be proved that he was mistaken on
either one or the other of these points it would be for the
Court, but not for himself, to pass its own opinion. Still
there is no groat confidence in Colonel Garrett's recollec-
tion, and he admits that if in error in one case he may be
in the other. The next witness is Lieut. Hesketh, whose
evidence amounts to nothing against me. _Lie was not pro-
sent when the reprimand was given. He does not know
whether Colonel Garrett called me a fool for my pains, and
ho never heard that I had written to Colonel Garrett,
threatening to complain to the Genes-al of the district.
The effect of all which evidence on the first charge is,
that Colonel Garrett does not recollect calling me a fool
for my pains; Major Maxwell never heard him say so;
Major Fyffe had no knowledge of it ; Captain Sand-
with never heard it ; Captain Nicholas never heard it;
Lieutenant and Adjutant M'Alister never heard it, and
Lieutenant Ifesketh never heard it. There aro, there-
fore, eight witnesses, all of whom state they either
did not hear Colonel Garrett call me a fool for my
pains, or did not recollect Colonel Garrett calling me
a fool for my pains. Two witnesses, Lioutenauts Duns-
combo and Curtis. speak more distinctly, but, for 'the
reasons before stated, their evidence is loss than worthless.
The first charge therefore, on the evidence brought to sup-
port it, has positively failed. My statement is an affirma-
tive statement, and is not only true in fact, but in law is
presumed to be true until its falsehood is shown. , But no
quantity of non mi ricordo evidence can amount to truth.
No accumulation of nothings can produce an unit, for it is
perfectly consistent with my statement that all the eight
witnesses may neither not have recollected nor have heard
Col. Garrett Call me a fool, and still ho may have called,
and slid call me a fool notwithstanding. I come now to a
summary of the prosecutor's evidence on the second charge.
Col. Garrett says he never did receive my letter threatening
to complain to the general of the district, having previously
stated that he had no recollection of the circumstance; Ma-
jor Maxwell gave no evidence on the paint ' • Major Fyffe
never heard of my so doing; Capt. Sandwith does not know
of myso doing; Capt. Nicholas never heard of my so doing;
Lieut. and Adjutant M'Alister had no knowledge of my so
doing; Lieut. Dunscombe has no knowledge of my so doing;
Lieut. Curtis has no knowledge of my so doing; Lieut. Hes-
keth has never heard of my so doing; so that, in fact, the
only witness who attempts to prove by any shadow of legal
evidence the second charge is Col. Garrett. I proceed now
to the evidence produced on the part of the prosecutor to
the 3d and 4th charges. Sixteen witnesses have been called
with the endeavour to prove a negative to support those
charges. Ensign Coote denies in his evidence that Captain
Nicholas on any occasion called him "a d—a son of a
of an ensign," but Lieut. Waldy shows that those oppro-
brious epithets were applied by Captain Nicholas to the
witness. 'Ensign Hutton does not remember ever having
heard Captain. Nicholas use opprobrious language towards
young officers. Lieutenant W. T. Waldy, though he
denies Mitt he ever said or even wrote that Captain Nicho.
laeienllea Deign Coote za-cl--d son of a of an ensign,'
is convicted by his own letter of having prevaricated, for
.in that letter, written immediately after the occnrence, he
expressly says. hat Captain Nicholas did use those oppro-
brious words to Engsign Coote at the mess table, and that.
he never saw such fun; the evidence therefore of Lieuten-
ant W. T. Waldy and Ensign Coote is rendered worthless,
and the evidence of Ensign Hutton, who only deals in a
non mi ricordo relative to Captain Nicholas's opprobrious
language, does not, therefore, support either the third or
fourth charges made against me. Lieutenant Dunscombe,
when asked if he ever heard Captain Nicholas use oppro-
brious language to him for reporting, replies, Never to
my recollection;' and when asked whether Captain Nicho-
las was not present when he (Dunscombe) was pulled out
of his bed by Captain Webb, made the qualified reply,
I do not remember that he was.' When again asked,
if any officer ever stated to him or in his presence
that he would be revenged for indignities heaped
upon him by Captain Nicholas, he replied, Never to
my recollection ;' and when again asked who the officers
were of whom he complained, he said there were four,
but he only recollected Greer and Knapp; and when
further pressed as to who the other two were he said,
Captain Nicholas was not one of them.' Now, how is it
possible for Lieutenant Dunscombe to say that Captain
Nicholas was not one of those officers when he declares
he does not know who they were. He subsequently, how-
ever, endeavours to account for recollecting Greer and
Knapp, only because Knapp was in Turkey and Greer
under arrest, and his answer is very remarkable, for he
says the very circumstance of one being in Turkey and the
other being under arrest served to impress their names
on his memory. Now, will any reasonable man believe
that an ex post facto circumstance would serve to impress
the names of two of the parties on the memory of this wit-
ness, and yet that he should still continue oblivious as to
the rest? Lieutenant Ford is then called, but exhibits
total want of memory, for when asked whether Curtis and
Fans were not in his room when he was pulled out fo bed,
by Ensign Castles of the 17th, he stated that there waso only
one officer of the 46th there, and that was Lieut. Greer, and
that upon his attempting to lay hold of the bedclothes, he
caught hold of him and thrust him out of the roe foundcm;
thst
but on
reference to Lieut. Curtis's evidence it will be
ho states that he and two other officers of tuhteE4tiestilzNarerepr Castlese -
sent, and that Ford thrust, not Greer,
out of the room, and, as Lieutenanit bttartnisopirjotteudniiattyelayi.
succeeded Lieutenant Ford, and had
what that eituuss
looking into the newspapers and seeinhg
spoke the truth,
stated, ho no doubt, in this instance,ber
rearkably forgetful
Lieutenant Curtis appears only to
for when examined on the third and fourth charges, upon
which he specks strongly, he admits that, on alleging, when
he last gave his evidence, that the meeting of the officers
to canvas my letter was merely to audit the mess accounts,
he totally forgot such
meeting
had been held. How is it
possible that any weight can be given to the testimony of
such a witness when he forgets so momentous otmoeanutbo7utsi
tau tmeeting
t asze that which was held, and attempts
meeting for auditing the mess accounts, which it was after-
wards proved never took place at all? I will not trouble
the court further as to the prevarication of this witness on
the third and fourth charges. Lieut. Lluellyn is then
called ; he simply says that he had never seen or heard
that Capt. Nicholas aided and abetted in the annoying of
Yom aorgl, and, whin% asked wilt:4lloz Captain Nicholas

[]PRICE SD,

had any hand in throwing the things out of Knapp's and
Walcly's room, said he had not, to the best of his recollec-
tion. When again asked how many officers assisted—
he says, to the best of his recollection, he only remembered
one; but when pressed with a question that detailed an
amount of work that would have occupied a number of
men for a considerable time, he answers that he thinks
there were some officers in Waidy's room, but he only re-
collects himself being engaged in throwing things out of the
window, although Captain Chambers states that he was
the person who threw the things out of the window, and
that he (Captain Chambers) took them beck again. Lieut.
Fane, when examined and asked if ho ever heard Captain
Nicholas use opprobrious language to any other officer,
replied, not to his knowledge. The next witness examined
is Lieutenant Greer (whom I heartily forgive for his treat-
ment of me, and on whose account, indirectly, I am now
in my present situation), and he speaks with a degree of
positiveness to all that tells against me ; but when I asked
him if he did not say quite recently to an officer who is
now gone to Turkey that I had been an ill-treated and
badly-used man ever since I joined the regiment, he replied,
' I have no recollection of it and when further ques-
tioned, states that ho had discussed the nature of the
evidence given with one or two officers of the regiment,
but, when strongly pressed, thinks there were six or seven
officers with him, but declines to mention their names ;
and, when asked if Lieutenant Shervinton had been au-
thorized by him to deliver any message to me, said he did
not recollect authorizing him to deliver any message to
me. It will be observed that to every important question
that was put to this witness that would tend to my benefit
and support my case, he replied by Non mi recordo.'
Lieutenant and Adjutant M'Alister, when examined
against me on these charges,
simply says that he was not
aware that Captain Nicholas aided and abetting in annoy-
ing young officers, as if that evidence, which is equivalent
to a non mi ricordo is sufficient to prove the falseness of my
statement. Captain Campbell is the next witness ex-
amined, but with all his injustice towards me, and with
all his desire to produce an unfavourable impression against
me, he does not attempt to say more than this, that
Captain Nicholas does not aid or abet others in annoy-
ing young officers, to the best of his belief; but
when pressed by me with this question, Have you never
hoard of any practical jokes in which Capt. Nicholas has
been concerned ?' replied—and may I beg you. to mark the
reply?—' A practical joke is a wide term; I have never
known him join in a practical joke to annoy any one.' To
the rest of Capt. Colin Campbell's evidence I will not refer ;
but this I will declare, that the attempt on the part of the
prosecutor to produce a series of letters containing charges
against me that hid been condoned, forgiven, and forgot-
ten. was an act of injustice I little expected at his hands ;
and the attempt of Capt. Campbell to neutralise the
effect of Lieut. Shervinton's generous admission, Y that,
as well when he reported as afterwards, he was always
of opinion that I acted in a thoughtless and inconside-
rate manner, without the most distant intention of showing
ing contempt for authority or committing a breach of disci-
pline, is as mean as it is malicious. Out of 16 witnesses who
were called to prove the third and fourth charges, seven I
have convicted of prevarication. Two others of them, when
asked as to oporobiotis language used by Captain Nicholas,
simply answered !elroes mi ricordo.' Another answers that
he was not aware ; and Captain Campbell does not deny the
participation of Captain Nicholas in practical jokes. The
rest are so young in the service I never knew them until I
came to 'Windsor. Can such evidence as this bo relied upon
as a logical and legal proof of Captain Nicholas never having
ill-treated brother officers ? There was a clearer and more
distinct, a more definite mode of proof, and the only
positive, moral, and legal proof to support the third and
fourth charges, and that was the evidence of Captain
Nicholas himself. Colonel Garrett. who was immediately
affected by the first and second charges, was examined by
the prosecutor in support of those charges, and why was
not Captain Nicholas examiced to support' the third and
tourth charges ? Because the practical jokes referred to by.
Captain Campbell, the aiding and abetting of which Lieu-
tenant M'Alister was not aware of, and the opprobrious
language so many did not recollect, but which was in one
instance, unfortunately for the prosecution, committed to
writing, would all have been made manifest, and myself
vindicated, and Captain Nicholas shown to have illtreated
other officers on joining. I have now dissected the evidence
given on the part of the prosecution in support of al! the
charges against me, and I venture to assert, as I am told
by the higest legal authorities, that on such evidence no
civil judge or jury of my country would hesitate a moment
to find me innocent of all the charges laid against me ; and
I am confident that, when you shall have weighed the
evidence and observed the animtcs of the witnesses, with
the concert and conspiracy to crush me, you will, even on
the case as made out by the prosecution, unanimously find
me not guilty. I will now proceed further to trespass
upon the patience of this honourable tribunal by referring
to the indignities I received at the hands of my brother
officers, which I was ultimately induced to resent, and
which has ended in this inquiry. When I first joined the
46th I was 20 years of age. It was on the 14th of April,
1853, that I came fresh from my tutor to the barracks.
My father was then serving hie country as an officer in the
Royal Irish Fusiliers, in India. I had no friends nor near
relations who were interested in me ; and I was placed in
the regiment to fight my own way in the world, with the
limited pay of an ensign, and such slight pecuniary as-
sistance as my father could afford me out of his pay.
As officers, you must see that I was not a rich man. I
,_had none of the advantages which wealth commands,
and was therefore nnabie.ao 'support the character of a
fast man consistently with that of an honourable one.
On the contrary, I was necessarily deb,rred from many
pleasures and many comforts which I gladly saw others
enjoy. My time I, however, occupied not in low de-
bauchery, not in drunkenness and riot, not in dis-
turbing the comfort and wounding the feelings of
My brother officers by practical jokes, as some have en-
deavoured to insinuate, but in the study of my profession ;
and during the short period I have been in the regiment I
have rendered myself tolerably conversant with fortifica-
tions and other branches of the service. I have occupied
my leisure hours chiefly in the improvement of my mind,
and in the cultivation of music, drawing, and the modern
languages ; and I did look forward to the time when I
eight have served my Queen as a brave and able officer. No
sooner had I joined the regiment than I became the object
of continued indignities and annoyances. I was pulled out
of my bed, and on many occasions made to go through the
sword exercise in a state of nudity. My shirt was torn from
my back ; I was beaten with an umbrella ; I was compelled
by force to get into my tub ; and these indignities were
practised upon me, not merely in the presence of officers;
but privates in the regiments were witnesses of the pro-
ceedings. I experienced for some time thsee-dagradatione,
and asked the advice of an old officer, who told me to put up
with such treatment as well as I could until younger
officers joined, when I should be relieved. I was not,
however, relieved, and I at last complained to officers of
the regiment—to Major Maxwell, and oven to my corn-:
mending officer, and met with no redress. I would cheer-
fully have submitted to any fair share of annoyance ; but
there is a limit to human forbearance, and to the for-
bearance of a fl•iendless subaltern. On the last occasion
which occurred I dressed in full uniform, and came down
rbetl.veea 2 and 3 iu the morning, insisting on seeing Col.
Garrett, when I was met in the passage, and threatened
Oven with personal violence if I reported, and I was pro-
vented from entering the room in which the colonel and
others were regalinhemselves. I sent in a written letter,
through the colonel', to the general of the district, report-
ing the conduct of the officers towards me, the next day.
He called me a d—d fool for reporting anything to my
commanding officer, and added, I wos just like a child
escaped from my mother's apron stings. But I was
earnestly entreated by several of my brother officers to for-
bear ; and I was asked by Col. Garrett 'if I wished the
letter to go before the general ; and I replied, I did not wish
to ruin any man's prospects, and would be satisfied if
Col. Garrett would give him such a reprimand as would
cause all future annoyance to cease. I consulted, on many
occasions, with Paymaster Corcoran. Ho advised me to put
up with the indignities, and pointed out the course I
should pursue in applying to the general of the district.
And when I found that the complaint to my commanding
officer was treated with scorn, and I was called a fool for
my pains, and likened unto a child escaped from his
mother's apron strings, I felt overwhelmed, and went im-
mediately to Mr. Corcoran, and told him the reception I
had met with from Colonel Garrett, how I had threatened
to report to the General of the district, and how I had
consented to forbear. Ever since may determination to
resist the personal attack upon me became known, I have
been treated with coolness and my society shunned. I
became a marked man thenceforth. After repeated acts
of violence by the officers of the 46th, I reported the cir-
cumstance .to Colonel Garrett, and through him to the
General of the district ; he reproached me, and called nee
a fool for my pains ; and Colonel Garrett gave the
offenders so weak a reprimand, that, although the acts
other
er
of
aggression were discontinued, I was persecuted in
ways. On the 29th day of June last the unfortunate affair
with Lieutenant Greer took place. I felt myself to be in-
nocent ; still I was tried first, and had to take the whole
force of public opinion upon myself, until I was enabled
to vindicate—nay, justify myself. Although I was on my
trial,
evidencepreventedal,ry neoefsrsoam tporomcyurdinefge,nfeero, iiianaddoveiarseopwiniit
opinion was
the
trial was se ac
by
sye thed.
LieutenantD epu Deputy Judge-Advocate tid g
Greere-A dwrasostc aa_tfi
afterwards
r air General,ddsid tried.
smoy
I was compelled to give evidencelagam b
other evidence, l spoke nothing but the truth
how-
ever,legal friend
ca ll e called oo nf
mine Lieut fromena Lieutenant
amrneede
hswathur
oi
supporta waslwas
present,tthoughthet boy
be
snore to criminate.
o prosecu-
tionn m;y Din.arvia sitia,taenodf
ncorgnedsidtehraatbalel
letter
rgsnhaotuird
be written to the President of orfwthaes Cworiutrtte-Mn
anartdiahlo.wYoituollamvee
already heard how asnoldichiteocral,
into the public journals. The statements in that letter are.
however, substantiallytrue; and although I was not morally
responsible for its contents and never read it, I signed it at
the request of my friend, who delivered it to Colonel
Upton. I did not seek by any mean subterfuge either
to avoid the substance or the consequences of that
letter, for although the letter is not literally correct
in the precise narrative of the circumstance, it would have
been more correct if it had stated what I have previously
said about Colonel Garrett calling me a fool for my pains.
I have now stated how the causes of the first and second
charges against mo arose. As to the third charge, I have
only again to state that the evidence I gave on Lieutenant
Greer's trial was true, and nothing but the truth ; and the
statements for which I am now tried were extracted from
me rather than volunteered by me. As to the fourth
charge; I wish only to observe that the letter to Lieutenant
Colonel Pipon, which was the basis of the fourth charge
against moo was written as a privileged communication and
is unfairly used against me. On My first trial Major Pack,
the Deputy Judge-Advocate, called on me, and told me he
was as touch my adviser as thej adviser of the Court; and I
thought, of course, that Colonel Pipon, as Deputy Judge-
Advocate on the second court-martial, was also my adviser,
and therefoce wrote to him, in consequence of the unfair
course ad )pted in the endeavour to criminate me on a trial
in which I was not the prisoner. That letter, however, I
see no occasion to retract, nor do I seek to retract it. I
now come to the evidence called in my defence. It was not
in my power to produce any evidence in the regiment on
which I could confidently rely. My brother officers were
committed ; and their independence as witnesses was lost
to me. Captains O'Toole and Hardy, and Lieutenants
Shervinton and Knapp are in Turkey. Ensign Stretton
is in the service of the Ottoman Porte. Mr. Lennard, late
of the 46th Regiment, was seized with diarrheas in Ir.?:
land and could not come. To ascertain why those
t-
nesses left, I have carefully gone
,through the states or
the ampules in the regiment on the 14th of JulY ittui the

day the two companies left for Turkey. The regulations
direct that companies for service shall be taken from the
senior captains downwards. Now, it is somewhat remark-
able that in the present instance this regulation should
have been departed from, and that that departure should
have removed from me some most important witnesses.
The senior company was on detachment at Kensington.
The next company (Captain Wombwell's) had 41 men on
detachment, and therefore could not be expected to
embark for Turkey. The next company (Capt. O'Toole's)
were all at head quarters. The next threecompanies in suc-
cession of seniority were Capt. Campbell's Capt. Garrett's,
and Capt. Piper's, each of which have only 1 officer, 1 ser-
geant, and 1 private on detachment; so that they were
ready and fit to embark yet still they were passed over, and
Captain Hardy's company taken, in which were two of my
most important witnesses—Captain Hardy and Lieutenant
Shervington. Ido not say that this partial and unex-
plained selection, contrary to the regulations, was inten-
tional; but I do say it was suspicious and has lost me the
aid of much valuable evidence ; and it is somewhat re-
markable that Lieutenant Shervinton, the senior lieu-
tenant, should have been attached to a company the cap-
tain of which was his junior in the service. If, however,
I have not been fortunate enough to secure the attendance
of those officers of the regiment who would have befriended
me by honest and unbiased testimony, I have produced
before you witnesses so uninfluenced and unprejudiced
that their evidence is above suspicion ; and I have opposed
to all the non mi rieordo evidence of the prosecutor the
evidence of witnesses whose moral testimony is unanswer-
able. Paymaster Corcoran, who is as free from the influ-
ence as he is above the corruption of my opponents, has
given evidence which leaves with it the impress of perfect
truthfulness. He speaks of facts which could not have been
concerted ; he states what took place in May, 1353, when
no one could have anticipated this inquiry. He has shown
them that he was acquainted with my persecution, that he
gave me advice and told me how to act, • and that he ad-
vised nio to write through the colonel to the general of the
district, and that I told him I had done so ; and that I
went to him the following morning much excited and in
tears, and told him that I had reported certain officers to
Col. Garrett, and that he had called me a fool for so doing,
and that I was like a child escaped from my mother's apron
strings. Could all this have been invented by so staid and
respectable a witness for this occasion? Could I have in-
vented it in May, 1853, to meet the present purpose ? But
havingorelt o of said,
reporting
is not the evidence supported, not only by Capt. Chambers
but also by the unwilling evidence of Lieutenant Curtis,'
ins whom ns
ya is d e l
fh)ehdaivdensont
got the
w
y
"Ithink you (mean-
this time, old
fellow." Captain Chambers, now an officer with the
Fourth West Yorkshire Militia, and a...gentleman of con-
siderable
fortune, who was in the 46th, has given evidence,
not only that Lieutenant Curtis told him that Colonel
Garrett had called me a fool for my pains for reporting,
but that the fact was openly spoken of •among the offi-
cers. This evidence is above suspicion ' • and, if what he
says be true, it shows that the truth has been suppressed
by all the witnesses for the prosecution, which impresses
the whole of the evidence against me with suspicion, if it
does not stamp it with conspiracy and perjury. The evi-
dence of Major Stuart shows that all the witnesses have
not only been unjust towards me, but have strained that
injustice into falsehood when they stated in their stereo-
typed answers, that I was shunned for my overbearing
and swaggering manner. He also shows that redress for a
subaltern in my situation, when complaining of personal
annoyance, was hopeless, and that practical jokes were not
repressed but encouraged, and were common in the regi-
ment for many years. The witnesses called on my behalf
have also spoken to my credit and my honour, and could
not have done so had I been the infamous character repre-
sented by some of the prosecutor's witnesses ; who, in their
zeal to crush me, proved too much when they endeavoured
to blast my reputation and to create a prejudice against
me. When I was accused of impertinent familiarity, it
transpired that I had once, in kindly addressing a brother
officer at the dinner table, called him by his Christian
name. Then I was accused of supposed debauched habil',
which turned out ultimately to have been a slander upon
me. My disgusting conduct towards a friend of one wit-
ness was so discreditable that the vindictive witness
who asserted it was reluctantly compelled to acknowledge
that his friend regarded the whole affair as a joke ; and
when this witness discovered a general difficulty in keep-
ing me within the bounds of discipline, it turns out that,
while on leave at Cork, I had gone to, Middleton, and had
written to my servant, with directions either to get an
extension of my leave or to give me notice of its refusal ;
and that leave was given, and my attendance not required.
This witness must have been sadly in need of breaches of
discipline to have distorted so simple an occurrence to my
disadvantage. These are my antecedents referred to by Col.
Garrett. Again, I was assailed by another witness far
disgraceful conduct in a money transaction ; and I appeal
to this assembly of British officers, and I ask them
whether the charge, so maliciously insinuated against me,
was not as groundless as it was dishonourable ? Although I
have been assailed by vindictiveness and calumny beyond
the charges made against me, I have exhibited an amount
of forbearance in the disclosures I have made, which ought
to insure me the generous sympathy, at least of Col.
Garrett and many of the officers of my regiment.
I have called no evidence on the third and fourth charges,
although I could have maintained those charges by the
evidence of absent witnesses ; but I submit that the pro-
secutor's own witnesses have proved the statement made
by me in reference to Captain Nicholas to be true, for Cap-
tain Campbell does not deny Captain Nicholas' participa-
tion in practical jokes, and Lieutenant Waldy proves the
coarse and opprobious expressions used by Captain
Nicholas; for will any member of this Court believe that
the expression at the end of that letter, ' I never saw such
fun,' did not mean that Lieutenant Waldy was present
and saw and heard what took place ? And if, as he says
in his letter, this took place at the mess, how can the wit-
nesses for the prosecution be believed who state they never
heard Captain Nicholas use opprobious words towards any
young officer ? But, as I before observed, the evidence
against me on the third and fourth charges simply amounts
to no witness having recollected Captain Nicholas ill-
treating young officers, or aiding or abetting in so (king,
but the glaring, obvious, and manifest defect in the prose-
cutor's evidence is, not the prevarication of his witness, but
the suspicious absence of Capt. Nicholas in support of the
third and fourth charges. I must crave the patience of
the Court for a few moments in drawing attention to three
important features in the evidence for the prosecution.
There are two circumstances which took place before many
officers—one of them was the public conversation after
mess of Colonel Garrett having called me a fool for report-
ing ; another was the fact of Captain Nicholas having
called Ensign. Coote a -- son of a bitch of an ensign at
the mess. Now, all the witnesses for the prosecution
deny having heard either of these subjects referred to,
or profess not to have recollection of them. Now, I leave
it to this Court to conceive how it was possible that such
circumstances could have escaped the observation and the
memory of so many men ; and, in my case, is it not far
more likely that my memory should be more accurate and
retentive, when I was the subject of reproach and sought
my only remedy ? Is not the one who receives a wound
mare likely to recollect it than he who with careless-
ness and indifference deals out the blow ? The other
fact to which I beg to draw attention is, that when
my reputation was assailed by specific charges I was
able to refute them. I have refuted them, and
I have, moreover, refuted the charge of being overbear..
ing and swaggering in my manner. Many witnesses swore
to my overbearing and swaggering manner, which is denied
by Major Stuart ; now, are they to be believed on other
points to which they have attempted to speak ? Again,
there is another important circumstance. Colonel Garrett
said that all the subalterns were assembled to hear the
reprimand he gave to Lieutenant Curtis on my complaint;
yet it is very remarkable that only one subaltern has given evidence of his being present and having heard that repri-
mand, although there were 18 subalterns in the regiment
at that time. Captain Chambers, who was then a lieute-
nant, has stated in evidence that he was told on that occa-
sion he was not wanted ; but where is the evidence of any
one witness for the prosecution who attempts to say that
Colonel Garrett did not use the opprobrious epithets to-
wards me, or who has attempted to say I did not write a
letter to the General of the district in reference to the in-
dignities I received, and who has attempted to say that
Captain Nicholas never did ill-treat young officers, or aid or
abet in so doing ? Not one. I, therefore, under all the
circumstances, respectfully submit that the case as at-
tempted to be made out against me has failed, and has ex-
hibited all the vindictiveness, preconcert, and perjury of
which I complained when I first opened my defence. The
case of the prosecutor is either sound in all the charges or
sound in none. Falsehood on one charge contaminates all
the evidence on every charge. I have felt great difficulty
in the preparation of my defence, and only closed my own
evidence yesterday; and I have found the amount of evi-
dence before me so extensive and so diversified in its nature,
character, and incident, so contradictory and inconsistent,
and so tainted with vindictiveness, forgetfulness, and sup-
pression of the truth, that I trust every allowance
wi" be
made for my feeble and inefficient defence. n forbearing
to call distant witnesses, I have had regard to the public
interests and to you, for I desired no longer to fatigue you
with a prolonged and delayed consideration of my case. I
have now done, and cast myself upon your sympathies and
your love of truth and justice ; for I solemnly declare, in
the presence of this imposing assembly of British officers,
country and my final Judge,
the charges preferred against me;
thatand iln
a m the
innocentpresenceaoff my
and I leave myself, my conduct, and my reputation in
your hands, with a consciousness that you will do me jus-
tice; and may God defend the right 1"
At the conclusion of the address there was a loud cheer
from the audience, which was speedily repressed by the
Court.

Major-General N'Cretherall—As I cannot admit the truth
of some of the statements made by the prisoner and the
inferences drawn therefrom, I must request that the Court
be adjourned until half-past one o'clock to-morrow.
The Court was then adjourned.

DREADFUL MURDER EY A BROTHER-IV-LAW—Near
the Kirby-station, and within a few miles
of the spot where
the railway accident occurred ten days ago, the follow-
ing brutal murder has been perpetrated :—lt appears
from what has transpired that a man namei Henry
Shocklady lived with his brother-in-law, Henry Mercer,
farmer, of Kirby Hill. They were always on the best
terms, unless when Mercer drank, when he became vio-
lent, and quarrelled with Shocklady. On the day in
question, and just after his wife's confinment, Mercer
drank excessively ; and under the influence of drunken-
ness hurried out of the house, armed with a heavy
fork, towards a gate upon which Shocklady was sitting
—the latter's sister following Mercer, and begging of
him to return. Martha Webster, the sister,
seeing that
Mercer was making for her brother, called out to him
to make off, and asked Mercer if be was going to
kill her brother ? Without giving an answer, he pur-
sued her brother, who ran off, and coming up with
him dealt him such a blow on the head with the dung-
fork that he felled him to the earth, when he twice
again struck him. The poor fellow never spoke, and
after a few heavy sighs expired. Mr. Woods, sur-
geon, opened the toly, and a found a clean rut two-
and-a-half 'inches long at the left side of th) head,
and another wound an inch long below the left ear,
besidei a severe Wound on the shoulder. The skull
was fractured to the length of two-and-a-h!:111
which produced congestion and
'effusion on the brain
that e tused death. The coroner s jury returned a ver-
dict of wilful murder against Henry Mercer, who was
accordingly committed to gaol for trial.
LIGHTS IN THIRD-CLASS CAPRIAGIS.-011 the occa-
sion of a recent charge of an indecent assault on a fe-
male while passing through a railway tunnel, the Leeds
magistrates strongly animadverted upon the present
very reprehensible system, on many lines of railway, of
without
lamps, the third and fourth class carriages ithOut
lamps, thereby depriving female and other passengers
in those carriages of all protection against the brutal
depraved, or dishonest with whom it
may be their mie:
foamy:, to be pined in pro merowy,