The Sun.
London, England, 1849-06-09 00:00:00

CASE OF CAPTAIN DOUGLAS.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.
SIR,—In your issue of the 11th ult. you, write, with
regard to the case of Captain Douglas, late 16th Foot,
—" Nothing can possibly tend more to degenerate the
character of a nation like England than occurrences
conducing in any degree to the diminution of that exqui-
site sense of honour which, as the last vestige of chivalry,
is as essential to the well-being of our distinguished
services, both naval and military, as the qualities of
valour or the principles of patriotism." True. And is
the extent to which accusations of falsehood have of late
years been brought against officers of the British army
not to be deplored ? I had hoped that such charges
were confined to the soil of Hindostan, and it is with the
deepest regret that I find that the system begins to ob-
tain in Great Britain. In the former country it is no
uncommon occurrence (vide Indian General Orders) to
find an officer charged with scandalous and infamous
conduct, unbecoming the character of an officer and a
gentleman in having made false statements, tried by a
general court•martial, found guilty, sentenced to be
cashiered, and recommended to mercy by the same Court.
Permit me to instance two cases—two out of many.
Paymaster Walshe, late 2d or Queen's Royal
Regiment, was in 1845 (I think) pronounced
by a general court-martial guilty of conduct of a
scandalous and infamous nature, unbecoming the cha-
racter of an officer and a gentleman, in that he hsd
made several false statements, sentenced to be cashiered
and recommended to mercy. The sentence was con-
firmed by the Commander-in Chief in India, but the
Duke of Wellington advised her Majesty to attend to
the recommendation of the court. Paymaster Walshe
was restored to the service, and he is now serving. The
late Lieut. nant Pilford was found guilty of falsehood by
four different courts-martial, and was afterwards
sip-
pointed by the Duke of Welfingten to the 96th Regi-
ment. This took plice. from 1810 to 1845. Strange to
say, in rot one of these cases WAS he sentenced to be
cashiered or dismissed the t emir:v. But, on this officer's
fifth trial, the sentence of the court was, to be cashiered.
The charge against him was, that he had been heard to
say that Sir Thomas M'Alahon, late Commander in-
Chief in Bombay, might be d—:l. It was after the
latter occurrence that Lieutenant Pilford was appointed
by the Duke to the 96th Regiment. Now, it is not to
he supposed that the Da ke of Wellington for one moment
conceived that these officers had been guilty of false•
hood. It is obvious from what I have stated, that there
is a monstrous defect in the constitution of courts-
martial. It is usual to take officers from a roster to
sit as members, no regard whatever being had to their
being possessed of a re quisite degree of intelligence for
the due performance of the high duties they may be
called on to perform; and when it is considered that the
highest military authority in the country has recently
found it necessary to prescribe an examination in the
most common and most boyish branches of education
for young men prior to their being appointed to corn
missions, it is surely not reasonable that courts-martial
should be composed of officers whose only qualification
fur sitting as judges and jurymen, in cases where the
lives, liberties, honour, and character of their brother
officers and fellow-men may be at stake, is, merely that
they are the first on the roster for the duty. It is a trite
saying, that it is the fool of a family who is sent to the
army, and there is, perhaps, more truth in it, in many
instances, than people imagine. I recollect an instance
of an officer of 25 years standing being examined as a
witness before a court-martial, when the following scene
occurred. Let the officer in question be known as Cap-
tain Royal:—
_ _

Judge-Advocate—Did the prisoner do so prior or
subsequent to the occurrence you have stated?
Captain Royal gives no reply.
Judge• Advocate repeats the question.
Captain Royal—What do you mane by prior or sub-
saaquent

Judgf-Advccate—Don't you know the meaning of
the words prior or subsequent? they are common words
in the English language.,
•
Captain Royal—No.
Judge-Advocate—The words prior or subsequent
mean before or after.

Captain Royal—Before or afthur ! I understand be-
fore or afthur, but who ever heard " before or afthur'
called " prior or subsaaquent," until now.
Captain Royal had, during his long service, sat as a
member of innutn(rable courts-martial.

The system calls loudly for a remedy, particularly, as
you very justly observe, in these times, " Any officer,
every dficer, is open at any moment to find himself
charged with this verbal culpability, exactly as any
one crossing the parks of London after nightfall
runs the hazard of becoming the innocent victim
of the most infamous and ruffianly imputations." I
say, without the fear of contradiction, that if there is even
one case on record in the whole army, and of a recent
date, of a general court martial having pronounced an
officer guilty of scandalous and infamous conduct, unbe-
coming the character of an officer and a gentleman, and
having recommended that officer to mercy, it is at least
sufficient to demand inquiry. Putting the most generous
construction on the principtes of the members of such a
o )urt, it is a virtual admission that they found the pri-
soner guilty of a charge of which they did not beLeve
h in to be guilty.
I venture to say that had Captain a tights's court-
ma dal honourably acquitted him, the Duke if Welling-
ton would have recommended an approval of such finding
all the same. The Duke has always acted on line and
rule principles, and his attachment to old institutions is
well known.

In conclusion, I may observe with respect to Captain
Douglas's case, that the findinc, is illegal. The finding
is cashiered, whereas it should' have been dismissed the
service. To be cashiered is a much more severe sentence
than to be dismissed the service, and, by the articles of
war, Captain Douglas could only have been cashiered
had he teen found guilty of " scandalous and infamous
conduct, unbecoming the conduct of an officer and a
gentleman." He was not even charged with scandalous
and infamous conduct. Why should the country pay
the Judge Advocate-General 3,0001. a year, if his know-
ledge of the articles of war was not sufficient to enable
him to bring under the notice of the confirming authority
a point so simple, so clear, and so well understood as
this. I know nothing whatever of Captain Douglas, and
I have not read the proceedings of his court-martial, but
I would recommend him to bring his case before the Le-
gislature of his country, and he may yet be restored to
the position which he so honourably held in the army.
It is well know in the service that the findings of courts-
martial are no criteria of the real guilt of the prisoners.
June 5, 1849. AN OLD OFFICER.

P.S.—ls it not odd that the system of making malig-
nant accusations of falsehood against officers of the army
should have sprung up about the period that duelling,
one of the last vestiges of chivalry, was abolished?--
He who runs may read.

REBELLION LOSSES.—CANADA.--It appears from
a Parliamentary return just printed that the number of
persons in Canada whose claims for compensation for
losses sustained in the rebellion of 1837.1838, fi!ed
fore the Commissioner is 2,176. The aggregate amou t
of their claims is '241,9641. The account of property,
real or personal, damaged or destroyed, was 180,0881.,
and the amount claimed for speculative, or other losses,
is 61,876/.