The Sun.
London, England, 1849-08-09 00:00:00

TILE SThN,

Chief Commissioner, in delivering his judgment, de-
clared that "he was happy to exonerate the insolvent
from any charge of contracting his debts by false
representations, or by any means that trenched on
morality and gentlemanly conduct, beyond his having
involved himself in unnecessary expenses." Even
that extravagance was confined to the very beginning
of his career, while he was yet a minor, and when he
could have availed himself of his nonage to defeat any
claim that could be made if he had chosen to avail
himself of such a plea. Mr. RANDALL himself stated,
in his evidence, that " the supply of goods were such
as an undergraduate in the insolvent's circumstances
might fairly require, and that after the first year
e. when the unfortunate young man was nineteen
years of age), he became more sparing of his orders,
and only had what was necessary." Neither could it
be said that the debts had been contracted without
reasonable expectations of being able to pay them.
Mr. Tnnoswr, sen., was supposed to be a gentle-
man of considerable wealth, who could easily
spare his son sufficient to pay these debts. He
had in the first instance sent over 6001. out of the
7501. due by his son, and it was not until a recent
decision, adverse to his interests, had considerably
reduced his resources, that the claims of his remain •
ing children, twelve in number, were taken into con-
sideration, and the offer was reduced to 3001, and
that only on condition of a full release being granted
by all the creditors. The insolvent bad, therefore,
committed no offence against the insolvency code; he
had not committed any act to subject him to a
remand, in fact a more meritorious case sel-
dom came before the court, for we regret
to say that the instances are rare indeed where the
petitioning debtor's conduct is wholly free from
blame. The law was made for foolish as well as
for unfortunate men; and if none but the latter could
avail themselves of its provisions, the business of the
Court would become very scanty.
Under such circumstances, then,
a judgment is
pronounced, the effect of which may be to doom the
unfortunate young man to a protracted imprisonment)
far more than would be inflicted if he
had been guilty of reckless and unprincipled
conduct. He can himself have no means of paying
the required sum. Everything he bad in the
world
had already been surrendered to his creditors.
If his
father's solicitor should still consider himself not au-
thorised to pay over the 300/. that hal been entrusted
to him, in the event of the creditors being willing to
accept it in full satisfaction of their demands, he must
still languish in a prison until his father can be com
municated with in Australia—a period of ten
or eleven months; and even then, if the
father should refuse to pay the money, he
may be detained in perpetual confinement. In fact,
he may be imprisoned for a longer period than is
authorised by the insolvent law for the most flagrant
violation of its provisions. We know not on what
clause or section of the Act the judgment has been
founded. But we feel that it is one of the most
dangerous tendency, and the more so as proceeding
from a Judge so eminent and so experienced in the
law of debtor and creditor as the Chief Commis-
sioner of the Insolvent Court.

Matters of more startling and conspicuous import-
ance have latterly obscured in the public mind an
instance of grievous injustice and of peculiar hard-
ship. The case is one to which we have already
directed the attention of the community, and which
we shall not cease to regard as a fitting theme for the
disquisitions of the journalist until the affair has
undergone a complete and definitive revision. That
revision, according to a rumour prevalent for some
time in military circles, is understood to be actually
in • contemplation. It is presumed that a decision
so fraught with impropriety as to be visible
to the judgment of the population cannot pos-
sibly be held good by the honourable and
dispassionate principles by which the authorities at
the Horse Guards are believed to be ever actuated.
Need we premise, before we go further, that the case
to which we are now once again making especial
reference is no other than the case of Capt. GEORGE
DOUGLAS, late of the 16th Regiment ? That unfor-
tunate gentleman, whose name, though erased from
the Army List, is still regarded as unsullied by every
right-thinking man in her MAJESTY'S dominions, and
whose character, though impugned by the monstrous
sentence of the court-martial held-on him at Guern-
sey, is still viewed by those acquainted with
the particulars of that deplorable trial as
wholly unstained and irreproachable—has suf-
fered through the informalities of the examina-
tion a punishment such as under all circumstances
is beyond the limits of anything at all like adequate
reparation. He has been subjected to treatment, the
effects of which can never be erased from his recol-
lection, can never cease to embitter his existence, no
matter how emphatic may be the reversal of the sen -
tence, no matter how earnest the compensative eulo-
giums.
Although we have twice argued the point at issue,
and have each time demonstrated the impossibility of
any sane man coinciding in the view taken by the
immense majority of ONE in the court-martial at
Guernsey, the question is very far indeed from
having been exhausted in reference to the
injustice of the sentence passed on Captain
DOUGLAS. In testimony of this, we shall here
again briefly analyse the case throughout, doing so
in a manner altogether dissimilar from that in which
we erewhile commented upon the transaction. Such
a course will be sufficient to prove beyond all objec-
tion that in its various phases the judgment is com-
pletely unjustifiable.

Remember at the outset, therefore, that the charge
on which the accused was tried is divided into
four counts or instances. Those four counts
we shall consider separately and consecutively.
To substantiate the first of them, it was abso-
lutely essential that two facts should be
clearly proven upon evidence. Now, neither of
those were proven. It was not proven-Ist, that
Constable RENIER did positively at the time, and in
the place specified, ask Captain DOUGLAS the question
embodied in the charge ; or, 2,11 y, that Captain
DOUGLAS did really give the answer therein stated.
As to the accuracy of our assertion upon this point,
we simply refer to the details of the court-martial,
those details affording an incontestable corroboration.
Let us ask, whose evidence was taken up on this
count ? Why, the sole witness upon this important
instance was Constable RENIER ! And, in regard to
this person, it was distinctly asserted by Judge GAU•
DION, one eminently competent to form such an opi-
nion, that (p. 10) he doubted the man's capacity for
comprehending expressions in the English language I
Couple this assurance coming from the lips of Judge
GAUDIOI with the circumstance that RENIER, a petty
farmer of Alderney, whose vernacular is a corrupted
patois of the French tongue, was delivering his tes-
timony in reference to expressions which passed
between himself and Captain DOUGLAS in an inter-
view of between two and three minutes' duration, and
one which had taken place no less than three months
prior to his examination before the court-martial—
couple these things together, we say, and tell us how
much consideration this single witness is en-
titled to ! Again, as to the second count
of the charge—a count divided into an
offence before the civil, and another offence before the
military court of inquiry. Now, as to the former,
Captain DOUGLAS has been formally acquitted of
having objected to acknowledge that he had been
firing at the time indicated on Frying Pan Battery.
Besides which, it has been stated by Judge Geu-
DION (p. 7) that he did not explain to Capt. DOUGLAS
when that officer was brought before him in the civil
court, on the 9th of January, that one of the objects
of the investigation was to ascertain the identity of
those who had been practising with pistols at Longy.
As to the offence before the military court of inquiry
it may be seen, from one part of the evidence
given on the court-martial (p. 24), that until the
last day, namely, the 17th
of the natureFebruary,ofthe instructions, and
the prisoner
was not apprised
28), that directly
the
ch
from another (p.
observed that when Judge GAUDIOaN' rge,
it
why he had required Captain DouGLA
for the newspaper found on the batters
acquainted with these instruec
was re
at once and
quired. Re-,
will be
being asked
to account
with bullets, replied that he did so " r
hfo Ylreasonsperforated of his
t own" (p. 6) ; the Court never pressed at question'
although upon it the proof of this, the third instance,was
entirely dependent. Lastly, as.to the fourth Count of

LONDON,

the charge. The culpability implied in that instance is
altogether dependent on the construction which may
be put upon the tone of the letter written by Captain
DOUGLAS in allusion to a document penned by
order of General BELL, bearing date the 6th of
February, and addressed to the Town-Major of Alder-
ney. Now, considering that the letter of General
BELL mentioned eight circumstances, from
which eight circumstances that officer then
deduced, what he pronounced to be
an "unavoidable conclusion" that Mr. Bts•
SET'S bullock was killed either by Captain
DOUGLAS, or by Ensign PARKER, and subsequently
hurled from the rampart into the sea—we cannot but
conceive that Captain DOUGLAS was especially justi-
fied in abstaining from the voluntary verification of
the accuracy of those eight circumstances ; and we
cannot, moreover, but feel satisfied that the epistle
penned by the accused in reference to those accusa-
tions (pp. 16 and 17) will be viewed by every unim-
passioned reader as singularly fair and judicious, as,
in short, at once guarded and straightforward. Upon
such flimsy and trumpery charges as the fore-
going has Captain GEORGE DOUGLAS been tried
and cashiered—his sentence being pronounced by the
most insignificant of all possible majorities. The
egregious injustice of the whole transaction, the in-
formality of the proceedings, and the illegality of the
sentence peremptorily demand a searching inquiry
and an immediate revision.