The Sun.
London, England, 1854-08-19 00:00:00

of Moldavia but of Bessarabia, have I
been defeated again and again by the
heroic Turks under OMER PASHA—a sudden
obstruction has started up between the vic-
tors and the vanquished by the apparition
of the Austrian troops from beyond the southern
frontiers of Transylvania. All is not such "smooth
sailing" in the waters of war, upon which the
Allies have adventured. All is, after all, not so
easy of accomplishment either in the direction of
the provinces, or in that of the Caucasus. On
one side it is essential that prompt good faith
should be shown towards 5C11413171,, the valiant
" warrior-prophet." On the other, it is more
than ever requisite that no cajollery should be
tolerated on the part of the Vienna Government.
There is much talk now in diplomatic circles
about the sincerity with which Austria is at length
about to adventure upon a decisive line of policy as
in the interest of the Allies, and as directly opposed
to the Russian Government. Whatever may be
said to the contrary, we discredit the sincerity of
the councils of Schoenbrunn. We have done so
from the outset. We do so still. We look for
no good from credulity in the Austrian Govern-
ment. Better, as we have maintained all along,
better for England and France would it be were
they impeded for the time by the open hostility of
the German Powers, than were they encumbered
with an insincere show of alliance and a false af-
fectation of friendship. There is danger in the aid of
Germany. There is none, we believe, absolutely none
in its direct opposition. Away, then, with this pal-
tering with the sacred interests of humanity and
Christendom for the sake of a hollow complicity on
the part of Austria—a complicity which, if seri-
ously connived at, can only lead to the lamentable
embarrassment and disastrous cajollery of the
Western Governments.

We had hoped that there would not have been
any necessity for further comment on the proceed-
ings of the pending Windsor Court-martial, until
it became our pleasing duty to record the
complete and honourable acquittal of the perse-
cuted prisoner from the charges so unfairly and
improperly preferred against him. The voice of
public opinion has already proclaimed his perfect
innocence, and the public press has repeated the
general verdict with strong and almost unparalleled
unanimity. We should then have patiently
abided the decision of the military tribunal, cer-
tain that it could not have wandered very widely
from the justice of the case,' but for the partial
and one-sided address delivered by the prosecutor,
Major-General WETHERALL, who, while professing
an anxious desire to elicit the real facts of this
melancholy case, exhibited as much bias in
favour of the superior officers as the most
zealous advocate could display on behalf of
the client from whom he had received
a liberal fee, and for whose interest he was ready
to distort the evidence in any possible manner.
It is perhaps natural that the advocate should,
to a certain extent, identify himself with the cause
for which he has been retained. Every man
struggles for victory in any contest in which he
may be engaged, and perhaps unintentionally and
imperceptibly attaches undue importance to the
points which he himself has made, and the argu-
ments he has adduced ; nor does he accord the
fair weight to the replies of his opponent. Major-
General WETHERALL might have intended to hol.d the
scales with an equal hand, but the very circum-
stances in which lie was placed rendered the car-
rying out of that intention a matter of the utmost
difficulty, if not an absolute impossibility.
Now, in the first instance, we must earnestly
and emphatically protest against the appearance
of such au officer of such rank and influence iu
the capacity of prosecutor. He was the senior in
1 years and experience—the superior in official rank
to every one of the judges. As Adjutant-Gene-
ral, his opinion would necessarily have great
weight, if it were not absolutely conclusive
at the Horse Guards. His views might affect not
merely the destiny of the unfortunate young man
who was placed on his third trial, or of those by
whom he had been so grievously ill-used, but even
of his judges, if they decided against his impres-
sions. We know that the members of courts-
martial have frequently been reprehended for in-
judicious findings or sentences ; and the appear-
ance as prosecutor or advocate of the party who
could bring down such a censure on their heads,
and in fact control the entire proceedings, was, to
say the least of it, a very untoward occurrence.
The Adjutant-General would, in all human pro-
bability, be consulted by higher authorities on the
question ; and any appointment that could pre-
judice his mind must be regarded as a very ill-
considered and improper one.

Having thus shown the impropriety of the ap-
pearance of Major-General WETHERALL as prose-
cutor, we may briefly allude to some matters in
his reply which he has, in our humble judgment,
regarded through a very erroneous medium, and
placed before the Court in a wrong point of view.
fie states that Colonel GARRETT and Captain
NICHOLAS are " practically placed in the situation
of defendants !" Now this is not true (we do not
use these terms in an offensive sense, as implying
any wilful falsehood on the part of the gallant
officer, but simply as indicating a grave "mistake"
on his part). If Colonel GARRETT and Captain
NICHOLAS had been defendants, they could not
have been examined or given in their versions of
the case. This might not have been very im-
portant so far as they themselves were concerned,
for the extraordinary failure of memory of one,
and the no less extraordinary non-appearance of
the other, would, before an impartial tribunal, have
been very prejudicial to their cases ; but had they
really been so, the testimony of Lieutenant PERRY
could have been received, and his sworn statement
should have received due consideration and just
weight from the military Judges. They are to
decide on a transaction which occurred only
between Colon el GARRETT and Lieutenant
PERRY ; they exclude the testimony of the
one who could have spoken distinctly, unequi-
vocally, and positively as to the fact, while they
are to give their verdict on the evidence of the
man who could " not charge his mind," with
having done so, and " who did not think it
occurred." Which of the parties was most likely
to have his mind impressed with the occurrence,
the senior who administered, or the junior who
received, a sharp rebuke ? Colonel GARRETT might
really have forgotten the " wigging," as it is
technically termed, but not so the subaltern who
repaired with tears in his eyes, and in great excite-
ment, to complain of the conduct of the Command-
ing-officer, to the only one of his brethren from
whom he received the slightest degree of consi-
deration or counsel. Major-General WETHERALL
takes upon himself most unwisely and injudi-
ciously to assert, that the evidence of Paymaster
CORCORAN is only hearsay of the most objectionable
kind—being hearsay from the prisoner himself.
Now this surely proves the total and unqualified
ignorance of the gallant officer of the very com-
monest rules of evidence. He ought surely to
have known that in cases where one party has
been injured by another, there being no third
party present who could give direct testimony,
the prompt complaint of the sufferer affords the
strongest possible corroboration of the statement.
Is it possible that, for the purpose of making
evidence in August, 1854, on charges which could
never have been anticipated until they were actu-
ally preferred, Lieutenant PERRY could, in June,
1853, have assumed an appearanee of intense ex-
ritement, and actually brought tears into his eyes,
when complaining to Paymaster CORCORAN ?
it possible that, having been advised to write a '
letter of appeal to the General of the District, he
should have stated that " he had done so, and
been called a fool for his pains ?" Major-
General WETHERALL may call that " hearsay evi-
dence of the most objectionable sort," but he can
get very few disinterested persons to join in the
opinion, more especially when we find it the sub-
ject of ordinary conversation in the regiment, and
made the ccca6i°ll of a vulgar taunt by one of the..