The Sun.
London, England, 1854-08-01 00:00:00

ROYAL ARTILLERY.

Thirty-four gunners of the Royal Artillery arrived in
the garrison at Woolwich, from Portsmouth, on Satur-
day, at 7 p.m., in charge of a non-commissioned officer,
having volunteered to pin the companies under orders
for service in the East.
Captain M‘Lean's company, 3d battalion, assembled
in heavy marching order on Monday for the com-
mandant's inspection, having been placed under orders
to proceed to Jersey to-day (August 1), to relieve Cap-
tain C. Dixon's company, 4th battalion, ordered to
head-quarters at Woolwich.
A detachment of Royal Artillery, consisting of four
officers and 123 men, embarked on Saturday at Devon-
port, on board the ireussischer Adler, steamer, for con-
veyance to Cork.

The proceedings of this remarkable case were resumed
this morning in the officers' mess-room at the Infantry
Barracks, Windsor. The Court was presided over by Col.
Thomas Edwin Kelly, of the Provisional Battalion; Major
Dalgetty officiating as Deputy Judge-Advocate.
The opening minutes having been read over, and the
Court being , tuly constituted,
The Deputy Judge-Advocate announced that Major-
General Wetherell, Deputy Adjutant-General of the
Forces, appeared as prosecutor.
Lieut. James Ed ward Perry appeared in answer to the
charges brought against him, but his legal adviser (Mr.
Darvilt, of Windsor) was not present. .
Major-General Wetherell addressed the Court as follows :
—Mr. Presi ient and Gentlemen—By the desire of Viscount
Hardinge, I appear before you on behalf of the prosecution;
and I think it important for the interest of justice to ob-
serve, at the outset, that this Court has bees convened by
his lordship, not only with a view of giving the prisoner
an opportunity of substantiating the charges he is charged
with having made, either by cross-examining the officers
of his regiment, or by any other evidence which he may
be able to adduce, but also with a view of giving Colo-
nel Garrett, and other officers who are affected by these
statements, an opportunity of meeting them, by an-
swering on oath, in open Court, any questions that
may be put to them, either by the prosecutor, the pri-
soner, or the Court. It appeared to 'his lordship that
the ends of justice, and the discovery of truth, would
be more satisfactorily attained by convening this Court
than by any investi;ation that could be made before a
Court of Inquiry—first, because, before a Court of Inquiry
the witnesses could not be examined on oath; secondly,
because the attendance of civil
tv.ltrusaspa cou,kl-not. be en-
forcee ; thirdly, because, by the •invariable custom of the
service, a court of inquiry is a closed court. If, therefore,
the very grave matters which will be brought before you
to-day were to be inquired into at all, the fitting mode of
doing so seemed to be by arraigning Lieut. Perry before a
court-martial; and, as Viscount Harding() felt it to be his
duty, as General Commanding-in-Chief, to institute as
prompt and searching an inquiry as possible into the truth
of those matters, not only in justice to Lieut. Perry, and to
the officers of the 46th regiment generally, but for the
maintenance of good conduct and gentlemanly behaviour
among all the officers of the army holding her Majesty's
commission, I may perhaps be permitted to observe that
all these ends will be best attained by your conceding to
the prisoner, throughout his trial, the largest measure of in-
dulgence that can reasonably be permitted to a prisoner con-
sistently with regularity of procedure, and by entering on
the inquiry with minds entirely free from any prejudice,
either one way or the other. But while I feel it to be my
duty respectfully to recommend you to approach this inquiry
in a spirit which will be the very reverse of vindictive against
the prisoner, I also feel myself called upon to state, on be-
half of Col. Garrett and the other officers of the 46th Regi-
ment, whom these proceedings most nearly concern, that
they expressed an anxious wish to have an immediate and
fully inquiry instituted into the various matters alleged
against them by the prisoner, either by a court of inquiry
or by a court-martial, or in ~uch other manner as Viscount
Hardinge might deem expedient. I shall now proceed, as
briefly as possible, to give you an outline of the matter which
will be brought before you od the part of the prosecution.
The prisoner is charged in the first and second instances
with having kna.wingly male certain fa!se statements re-
specting his commanding officer, Colonel Robert Garrett.
Colonel Garrett is alleged, in the first place, to have been
guilty of positive actsof gross injustice; and, in the second
place, he is impliedly charged with having been kept in
the path of his duty by threats of exposure conveyed to
him by the prisoner. This letter was directed to Colonel
Thomas
riUpton,tini ,t
Feignshi
te
bears
peraersi l
st r,h,
eneetrs
I.;ogfi
alitt,hul ear
el
tcohofouuLr
gti-hemui atter
is
siaa o
not
,‘tti
in
Perry.
Lieutenantthe han d
Colo-
nel Gariett will be called, and all the officers of the regi-
ment, with the exception of Lieutenant Greer, and the
officers who have recently embarked for the seat of war iu
the East (Captains O'Toole and Hardy, Lieutenants
Ensigns Sher-
will dtig,!
from
their H e
evidencelyer and To w
whethernshentdh)e,
snaanttlgragtche cnse asCa,rnoe:al prhiCtie•or‘e•e,Cl
aopr atoatihnerNwiiesheo.laslni
stheehatrhgier,(ll
wanitdhfogurarythine
misconduct by the prisoner, the fact of the charge having
been made will be proved by a certified extract from the
records of the Judge Advocate-General; the original
minutes cannot be produced before this Court. The fact
of the first and second instances, of charges made by Lieut.
Perry, will be proved by the production of the letter in
question. On the part of the prosecution, I may say that
numerous witnesses will be called before you, and it is my
desire that the prisoner should have every reasonable lati-
tude in cross-examin .tion. I shall forbear making any
further observations. Whether all or any of the several in-
stau es are proved by the evidence will depend upon the
judgment of the Court.

The witnesses were all here ordered to withdraw.
James Hanipson, orderly-sergeant of the 46th, was then
called and sworn, and the charge (which appeared in our
impression of yesterday) having been read, deposed as
follows :
Prosecutor—Did you, on or about the 24th of July, de-
liver a letter to Colonel Upton, president of the court-mar-
tial then sitting-on the trial orLieutenant Greer?
Witness—Yes.
Prosecutor—From whom did you receive that letter ?
Witness—From a gentleman I eid not know, and I be-
lieve Ido not see him in this room. I saw him here last
Saturday.
Piisoner—Shall I state who it was ?

The President—No; there is no necessity.
Prosecutor—Did Lieut. Perry give any directions re-
specting that letter ?
Witness—He did not. I did not see Lieut. Perry at all
on that occasion.

Prosecutor—Was it a civilian or an officer that gave you
,hat letter ?

Witness—A civilian, to the best of my knowledge.
Tho prosecutor said he had no further questions to ask.
Prisoner- Are you eertaifi you saw that gentleman on
Saturday, and where ?

Witness--Quite certain. Here, in this room.
Col. the Hon. Arthur Upton, of the Coldstream Guards,
was then called and sworn.
Prosecutor —Were you the president of the court-martial
which sat here on or about the 20th of July, on the trial of
Lieut. Greer ?
Witness—l was.
President—Do you remember receiving a letter on that
occasion, signed by Lieut. Perry?
Witness—l received a letter signed by Lieut. Perry.
The Deputy Judge-Advocate—ls this the letter?
Witness—That is the letter which I received.
Prosecutor—ls the letter now iu the same state as when
you received it ?
Witness—Yes, it is.
The following letter was then read :
To Colonel the Hon. Arthur Upton, President of the
Court-Martial.
" Sir,—lt has been communicated to me that, since I gave
my evidence, Major Maxwell has bed called by Lieut. Greer
rather to impeach the truth of my evidence than to speak to any substantive part of the present charge, and I beg most respectfully, as I can expect no support from the prosecu-
tor (which last words were up
acts
to submit to
your honourable Court that if I had been permitted, in my'
own defence, and in vindication of word and truth-
fhualviree sbse,etnoi hnausvpeog
inctruoawstshi-
oiecnxha
to bring nbaerpipn
appears
rlt
sjo °
tro his b
e Maxwell,recollection
unfortunately Ishould
cir-
cumstancesoblivious. I way further submit, that the addition that
I, on
would have brought to light the following facts :—First,
That after repeated acts of violence by other officers of the
46th, while the regiment was
quartered in Dublin, I re-
ported the circumstances to Colonel Garrett, who re-
proached me, and called me a fool for my pains. Secondly,
I then patiently submitted to a series of
similar indignities,
when I complained to Major Maxwell, who represented the
facts to Colonel Garrett, upon which he gave the offenders
a reprimand. So weak was the effect of the reprimand
or caution given by Colonel Garrett, that though the acts
until I threatened to appeal to the general of
of aggression were discontinued, yet 1. was persecuted in
and sent a letter to that effect to Colonel
was earnestly entreated by several of my
brother offi..e any complaint. I did
0 bear and from that time I was relieved from any repe-
titionfr of the annezances and indignities under which I
officers to forbear making
substantiate by evidence all that I have stated
pre-
pared to
Ca pt. Nicholas ; and I place myself in the
hoGthtaahecrlerrftelotirillr'eyicrsllt:y, laboured. I may also add, that lam
with regard to P • justice to me, because I find that
similar ones, which I sought to put when
the questions, or
:jai
h were rejected, have been put,
on my trial, and
wbefore the present co * Of
court-martial. without objection,
but, as far
witnesses, the evidence Ido not complain; as the court-
martialthis course
tried is concerned, I do most seri-
ously by which I
was
as I was necessarily prevented
complain, inasmuch
hands of the Court to do
• e• from adverse
from procurinoessen-
tialirienceTrusting that my painful position
to my defence.
for thus troublingl
sir, your most obdient humble ser-
have the honour to be, 44 j. B.
Peggy,
vent,
21."
" Windsor Barracks, July
will be received as my excuse you,

Colour-serjeant John Ellis called and swore,
Prosecutor—Are you acquainted with the handwriting
of Lieut. Perry ?
Witness—Not particularly.
Prosecutor—Are you in the habit of seeing him write?
Witness—l am in the habit of seeing his signature.
Prosecutor—This is a letter which has been handed in to
the Court and received as evidence ; is the signature to
that letter in the handwriting of Lieut. Perry ?
Witness—l should say to the best of my knowledge it is.
By the prisoner—Did you ever see me write my signa.
ture, and on what occasion?
Witness—l did. I have seen it in signing the
reports
in the temporary absence of the captain, and on some other
occasions.

Another question was here handed in by the prisoner,
but on the advice of the president he did not press it.
Corporal John Smith was then called, and in answer to
precisely the same questions as bad previously been put by
the prosecutor, positively swore to the handwriting of the
prisoner when he was shown the signature to the letter.
Lieutenant and Adjutant Charles Somerville 31`Alester
was then called and sworn.
Prosecutor—Are you adjutant of the 4Gth ?
Witness—l am.
Prosecutor—Do you know the handwriting of Lieut.
Perry ?
Wi tiles's —I do.
Prosecutor—Are you in the habit of seeing him write,
or write his name?
- - -

Witness-1 have seen letters written by him, and I have
seen what I believe to be his signature.
Prosecutor—ls the letter handed to the Court in Lieut.
Perry's handwritin;; ?
Wituess—Yes, I should say it is ; the signature only.
By the prisoner—What is this meaning of " what I be-
lieve to be his signature?" Am I in the habit of having
my signature imitated by others?
Witness—What I meant was, that I have seen Mr.
Perry write ; I have seen letters which I knew to be in
his handwriting, and bearing his signature. That sigua-
turn and those letters were in his handwriting.
Colonel Robt. Garrett, commanding-officer of the 46th,
was then called and sworn.
Prosecutor—Did Lieut. Perry, at any time, whilst
quartered in Dublin, complain to you of repeated ads of

violence committed against him by ether officers of the
regiment.
Witness—l do not recollect that his complaints amounted
to repeated acts of violence, but he complained to me on
more than one occasion while the regiment was quartered
in Dublin.
;Prosecutor—What was the result of the complaints
Lieut. Parry made to you, as stated in my first charge ?
Witness—To the best of my recollection, the first com-
plaint came in the shape of a private note to me when I
was sitting with-a number of guests in the ante-room of
the Linen Hall,Barracks, Dublin. , It was a hurried hasty
*de, complaioing that o':icers were then, or had been just
before, annoying him in his room. I requested Major
Maxwell either to go himself or send the adjutant to see
about it. Major Maxwell told me he had sent the acting
adjutant, who reported after a time, and reported either
to me or Major Maxwell (which of us I do not know, upon
my honour) that the matter was settled.
Prosecutor—l wish to confine my questions and your
answers to what occurred to Lieutenant Perry in his bed-
room. What was the nature of the act of violence of
which Lieutenant Perry complained ?
Witness—l do not remember any particular nature of
the comp'.aint, but I think it had reference to putting his
room about.
Prosecutor—Did you on that, or on any occasion, re-
proach him, or call him a fool for his pains?
Witness—l have no recollection of having on that or any
other occasion, reproached him, or called him a fool for
his pains. Had I done so, lam sure I must have remain-
, bered. I mean for making reports.
Prosecutor—Did you on that occasion reprimand any
officer for annoying Lieut. Perry?
Witness—Not on that occasion, but on a subsequent one.
Prosecutor—clad you any personal conversation with
Lieut. Perry on that complaint, and after Capt. Maxwell
had reported to you the affair was settled
Witness—l think not. I took no further notice of it;
it was supposed not to have-comelefore me.
The prisoner here, in answer to the president, said he
had several questions to put to Col. Garrett ; and he asked
for a copy of the charges, as his solicitor was absent, and
had the copy with him.
The.President—By all means. (Copy handed in.)
Prisoner (to witness)—How many times do you think I
complained either to yourself, or Major Maxwell, or other
officers?

Witness—l cannot say as to other officers. I can only
speak to those which came to my knowledge, and which
were made either to Major Maxwell or myself. Of that
kind I recollect three cases.
Prisoner—Do you not think it was the duty of senior
officers to attend to any complaints made by junior officers?
Witness—lf they were intended for the commanding-
officer, but it must depend very much upon the nature of
the complaints, whether they were sufficiently grave.
Prisoner—My being pulled out of my bed nearly every
night, my shirt pulled off my back, and myself beaten by
an umbrella, is that the nature of a complaint for a com-
manding-officer to take notice of?
Witness—Certainly.
Prisoner—Was my being made to get into ray tub, by a
number of officers of the 4iith, and in their presence to be
laughed at; my door burst in, although my servant and
myself endeavoured to prevent the intrusion, by holding
the door against them ; was not this a proper matter to be
reported by the senior officers to you (Colonel Garrett), the
commander of the reg,iment, if complained of ?
Witness—l think it is of great importance, to prevent
amongst the officers, by having thfin brought before
the commanding officer, and therefore something must be
left to the discretion of intermediate officers to settle
matters without referring them to the commanding
officer.
Mr. Darvill, the solicitor to the prisoner, here arrived.
Prisoner—When I complained to you of the treatment
from Curteis and others, did you not call me a fool
for bothering you, and say I was like a child just escaped
from his mother's apron strings?
Witness—Certainly not : I am sure I should have recol-
lected, if I had so said, teat is, to Lieut.. Perry.
Prisoner—What expressions did you make use of to-
wards me, in the presence of Curteis, Escott, and Adjutant
(now Captain) Sandwith, after my complaint?
Witness—l hardly think I made any observations to
him ; but I think my observations were addressed to the
officers against whom he complained generally.
Prisoner—Then do you undertake distinctly to deny
that you ever said the words I name in the presence of any
one ?

Witness—l really don't think I ever did. It is a long
time ago. I cannot charge my memory with ever having
made that observation.

Prisoner—Will you undertake to swear you did not ?
Witness—l am on my oath.
Prisoner—Do I understand you to swear that you did
not?

Witness—l will swear as positively as a man's recollec-
tion can go. My firm conviction is that I did not.
The Court was then cleared for 20 minutes. On the re-
•admission of the public,
The President said the Court had decided not to put the
last question handed in by Lieut. Perry.
The prisoner said he wished to save the time of the
Court by handling in a statement. The Court was again
cleared, and, on the re-admission of the public, the Presi
dent said the statement was inadmissible.

The cross-examination of Col. Garrett was then resumed.
Prisoner—Have you, in any instance, used reproachful
language to other officers, after their complaining of being
pulled out of their beds?
Witness—l could answer the question ; but as it does
not hear upon the case of Lieut. Perry. I beg to decline.
Prisoner—Did you not, after reponing the case of Cur-
teis, call the the malefactor? And was I not afterwards
called the malefactor by my brother officers, and was not I
shunned by my brother officers in consequence ?
Witness —I did not call you malefactor. I have heard
the term malefactor used, but I am not certain whether it
applied to Lieutenant Perry, or to another officer who has
since left the regiment. I cannot say that his company
was positively shunned, but ho was not on such intimate
terms with the rest of the officers as others. He has not
been under my command since December, when he was
sent on detachment.

Prisoner—Did you not, in the ante-room, sitting over
your grog, call me a malefactor, before Lieutenant Knapp?
Witness—l have no recollection of it.
After a few more questions of the soma character, the
Court adjourned, Colonel Garrott being still under ex-
amination.

PERSECUTION OF LIEUT&NANT PERRY.

(From The Times.)
We supposed that after having recorded our opinion
on the two Courts-martial held at Windsor we had en-
tirely done with the subj._lct, unless, indeed, it might be
necessary to recur to it when the finding and sentence
should be made known. We weie, however, it seems,
entirely me-taken. It has been thought fit a second time
to subject Mr. Perry to trial, the charge on this occa-
sion arising from certain statements made by Lieutenant
Perry on his former trial and on that of Mr. Greer, on
which he was examined nominally as a witness, but in
which he was almost as much a defendant as in the case
which hears his own name. When we consider the nature
of the first charge against Lieutenant Perry, and re-
member that, from that time to the present, he has
with the exception of a few visits to his legal
adviser, been kept a close prisoner, we must consider
the proceedings against this young officer as deeply
stained with harshness and injustice. The opinion
of the public has already anticipated the tardy justice of
the Court-martial, and has pronounced in the first case
a verdict of triumphant acquittal. No blame attaches
to the authorities for directing such an inquiry. The
great injury sustained by one officer at the hands of an-
other naturally demanded investigation, and that inves-
tigation necessarily took the form of a charge against
Lieutenant Perry. His vindication was, however, so
complete, that we feel quite sure no judge or jury in
this country could have come to any other conclusion
than that his assault upon Mr. Greer, violent as it was,
was snore than justified by the provocation, and the au-
thorities ought therefore to have felt that the necessary
inquiry had inflicted on Mr. Perry much undeserved
suffering, and thrown upon an innocent man the burden
of proving that guilt for which his accusers ought in the
first instance to have been called upon to answer.
Under these circumstances, the clear duty of the mi-
litary authorities was to terminate the unjust persecu-
tion of Lieutenant Perry as soon as possible, to restore
him to his liberty, and to take immediate and effectual
measures for eradicating the spirit of tyranny among
subordinates, and laxity among chiefs, for which the
46th Regiment has become so unhappily remarkable.
Had Mr. Greer and Mr. Perry been civilians, a preli-
minary investigation before magistrates would have
done justice to the merits of the case, and relieved Mr.
Perry from the necessity of going any further into the
circumstances of an assault which the bare recital of
the facts so completely justifies.
Necessity excused the first trial, but where shall we
find the palliation for the second ? In which of the
darkest periods of history shall we search in order to
find the parallel for accusing a man of an offence of which
he proves himself entirely innoc •nt, aial then treating
the statements he puts forth in his excelpation as libels
on which to ground a series of fresh accusations ?
This is a refinement of oppression to which even
Scroggs or Jefferies never aspired. Popham, on the
trial of Sir Walter Raleigh, bade hint " be valiant
for his life ;" and the worst of our judges, however
ready to catch at an unguarded admission of the
prisoner, never thought of making his statements
the grounds of fresh proceedings against him. The
charges against Lieutenant Perry did not, it is true, point
specifically to matters alleged by hint on his own trial ;
but the subterfuge is merely technical. Lieutenant
Perry had been tried for assaulting Lieutenant Greer
Lieutenant Greer was then tried for assaulting and abus-
ing Lieutenant Perry. The finding and sentence on
Lieutenant Perry were stiil unknown, and he Ae.,,,ts we
have remarked, still virtually, though not technically,,
on
his defence. Being contradicted on Mr. Greer 's trial
by witnesses whom lie had not the opportunity of cross•
examining, and from whom the prosecutor was not dis-
posed to protect him, Mr. Perry took the course, neither
unusual nor improper, of addressing a letter to the Presi-
dent of the Court-martial, explaining away and refuting
ei
the statements of the witnesses. This was nothing more
than making a supplemental deface to a suppinental
accusation. If ever a communication was privileged,
surely such a letter, the effort of a man under accusa-
tion to clear himself from additiooai charges by the
only means in his
power, oug.ut to have been
considered so ; but the justice which is extrude 1 to the
meanest criminal is denied to officers and gentlemen, and
we are shocked with the spectacle of a young man first
made the victimof a most cruel and unmanly outrage,
then upon his trial fora mere act of self-defence, and then
re-accused because those whom his defelice crnuinated
will not subscribe to the truth of his censures I How
could it be known that the statements contained in Mr.
Perry's letter and evidence were infamous, scandalous,
and false ? Every probability is in favour of tlileir truth.

It is not improbable, considering the infamous treatment
to which young officers in the 46th were undoubtedly
subject, that captains had assisted and colonels connived
at it, nor that the victim, driven to desperation, should
have threatened an appeal to the General of the district.
Where such things take place, the commanding officer is
sure to be in fault; and the very injustice with which Mr
Perry is now persecuted shows how little he has to hope
from the men whose position constituted them his natural
protectors. If there was to be a second investigation,.
and we are far from denying its justice, the prisoner
ought to have been, not Lieut. Perry, but the Colonel
commanding the regiment; and a man once wrong accused
ought not to have been a second time subjected to a
contest in which all the power that rank, influence, and
position place at the disposal of the commanding officer
was sure to be employed against him. The proceedings
are of a piece with their institution. The Court met on
Saturday last at half-past 11 o'clock to enter on the
consideration of a charge which had only been delivered
to the accused that morning. Major Maxwell and
Captain Nicholas, two of the principal witnesses to be
called against Mr. Perry, were most improperly allowed
to be present. His stateinent that some of the witnesses
he wished to call were in Turkey was received by the
Court with a laugh, and a jocular remark that they
"thought so !" The third and fourth charges were
based on the evidence given by Mr. Perry on the trial
of Mr. Greer. He most reasonably applied for the
minutes of that evidence. The application was refused,
and he was referred to the newspaper reports. At last
he obtained an adjournment of the case from Saturday
till Monday-48 hours, as he was consolingly reminded.
We would advise the military authorities, both central
and local, to cut short as speedily as possible this de-
grading persecution, and to remember that in the eyes
of an impartial public the judges and the prosecutor are
quite as much on their trial as the prisoner.

PARLIAMENTARY DIVISION.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—JULY 31.
PUBLIC HEALTH ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
Order for second reading read ; motion made, and question
proposed, " That the bill be now road a second time."
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word " now," and
at the end of the question to add the words "upon this
day three months." Question put, "That the word
`now' stand part of the question." The house divided ;
ayes 65, noes 74.