The Sun.
London, England, 1840-10-02 00:00:00

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 2, I@4o,

lon
'4URT-MARTIAL ON CAPTAIN I

R. A. REYNONDS.

„, THIRD DAY.
ticWlG' "fON lIIIRSDAY, OCT. I.—The Court-mer-
ge:salt Captain R. A. Reynolds, of Prince Albert's
er.,iers,.adjourcied over last 'Tuesday at the request
eievter Prisoner, was resumed this morning. About
that ; ()dock, the hour named in the adjournment on
at uSY, the members of the Court began to arrive, and
hfs",tluarter-past eleven, the Court being then assein-
ta. the proceedings were commenced. There was the
0441,, impatient crowding on the part of the public as
511 tu_apreceding days, although the morning was not at
whn'° vourable as on the previous occasions to those
se4 [ProC the distance from Brighton to the barracks,
halo ae interest excited by the case appeared not to
ir0...! le the least degree diminished by its postponement
time to time, but, on the contrary, to have greatly
asreased.
8 ide(ifHercules Pakenham, K.C.8., as heretofore,.pre-
tiens arid Major G. Pipon discharged the arduous lune-
lao or Judge-Advoeate as on the former days, each
St Worthily
The - •
teed , 1-443‘'le Prosecutor, the Earl of Cardigan, was at-
55,4:4,4 his counsel, Mr. Sergeant Wrangharn ; the
iia,iel, Captain Reynolds, by Mr. 'Watson, his legal
k'vr.; the attorneys in the Case being for the former
Ti 11.1 e, for the latter Mr. Penn.
1,11: Court being assembled,
golds President addressed the prisoner—Capt. Rey-
Za are you ready for your defence
T, Ptzlin Reynolds—Yes.
ce President—Proceed then.
beePtaia lisynolds—Mr. President and gentlemen,
elder t 0 feel embarrassed in addressing you in an-..
the s• ° the present charge, not only from the novelty of
incurs
tesfe_
in which I am placed, but also from the
e.ardi;°` the charge I am called on to answer. Lord
as ps:sannesa3s that he is placed in a painful situation
/gust he 4tgart How much more painful and. anxious
ftotq attet:Yensintitipaluti::, when I am here defending myself
Pros,e "'are affecting my prospects in the army ? The
P hi , s that calumnies have been poured
Jest . 410 Y the public Press, and that he has been sub-
tevi, t° a torrent of misrepresentation.” I declare, upon
qon
Part cur, that I never, directly cr indirectly, have been
IrPon Yoe Privy to any publication whatever reflecting
iciest tt'le conduct or character of Lord Cardigan. I
fal,eho'serve that, if the Press has published any such
toil=thiee° or misrepresentations, surely this is not the
Lord u,° cornplain ; and it is impossible to suppose that
Whiste''rrligan has no means of defending himself else-
topic- against such attacks. Why or wherefore this
(14ceil'.1°„ wholly irrelevant to the charge, was intro-
tisclet.Yleept for the purpose of prejudice, I cannot
eard-i°4(l. Ido not precisely know of what Lord
is the
only ,711 " complains ; but I must say that he
beet Dan
officer in the British army who has
,aseefo,s,°, attacked. I do not consider the prose-
h ighe •` Justitie d in stating that the decision of the
fityou
it st -
military authority had been pronounced in his
sak,
.iI cannot believe that such a decision was ever
e-se" in this whilst it was in the course of
help„ case
tliere),°MUniitted to your judgment. If the observation,
fredn°re, does not apply to this case, why was it in-
tlefence I here at all % 1 was prepared as part of my
that e With a very large body of evidence, as well
tire of officers who have been, as of those who now
tan, i° the 11th Hussars, to prove that Lord Cardi-
the; °°.ctitict towards me and to the other officers of
Wesepnent had been very irritating and offensive. I
Pasta prepared to cross•examine the witnesses on the
de the prosecution to the same effect. The Court
Ned
Inadre'that such evidence on cross-examination. was
Iha issible. To that decision 1 most respectfully bow.
if tote still that direct evidence ready, and shall offer
or no the Court, who will decide whether it is admissible
and tßut I am bound, in explanation to the Court,
%Lea's° for the benefit of the law advisers of the Crown,
reasoweill have to revise these proceedings, to state the
en reasons
ant on which I submit, and advised by my
-
that this evidence is admissible. Upon
eeornf"rile evidence as given each member of the
I J., • is to determine two things. First, whether
if 411 guilty or not of the charge ; and, secondly,
er
the the amount of the punishment. In
attic
sf
Li.
Place, as I shall show that the second
Of Li. "as written under irritating conduct on the part
tati,r(l Cardigan, it is obvious that the degree of
lai-
n materially affects the degree of my offence, if I
tiffeng,MltY of any. And it follows that provoking and
lilap"lve conduct on this ocasion is to be measured and
formedof lay Lord Cardigan's conduct on other ar,d
rtki .x' occasions. In that view such evidence is mast.ei-
tetrii,° •awarding, the quantum of punishment., if puniit lis-
teb lais to be awarded. But this is also evidence,.
shatlireited, es affecting my guilt or innocence of the
hay ac itself. The question is one as to the admissibi-
sas:l4t as to the effect, of the evidence. The‘ Court
1446°,1 judge of the effect until the evidence is at
(Is e's The true mode of testing whether such es -
S 4„•° Is admissible or not, is to put an extreme case.
trurs4'irtg that Lord Cardigan had been in the habit of
soeu-lamt my services in India with reproach—that 1
and- ,slioa, a series of haughty, vindictive, offensive,
srietatiog conduct on the part of Lord Cardigan—
kees47ll that this is material evihnee to he con-
litti to with conduct in the particular transaction,
hint I prove
tae motives which actuated him in that
Lord Cardigan has in h's address
se4l4otre:rll thearduct•
„ we were " not on terms," in order to affix
%tat v-s `l3 my conduct in writing the first letter. If this
thafeTent Is to have any weight, it seems to follow
on which former conduct will account for the terms
th'essedleib' we then stood. These observations are ad-
to, ta, rue with the utmost deference and respect
able ra- Court, and are points on which I mit! not
turtlse-Isell to form an accurate judgment. V% ithoout
tn,ent ornPr',face I will at once proceed to state and ccharge.
'fte the circumstances connected with the
anon ja'ing served in India without reproach' for ten
ve Years 1 returned with my regiment to Lieo ~d
r the Year 1835. Lord Cardigan had succee.
05 i °,""land of tile regiment about three months be-
the ee:en.arture from India. From that time, with
9"trvea e
`Pti°4 of a few months on half-pay, I have
4"der his command. I returned in the middle
,
%Irti,ilt onto of August to the head-quarters of the re-
,%l Weadt Brighton, from an out-quarter at Chichester.
urPr—nesdaY the 26th, I heard with indignation and
Lord that a
hive eardi. report was. circulated in Brighton that
t 4aia lAtt, at a private party at his own house,
1,4i0 JOh" that as long as he lived. neither 1 nor Cap-
William Reynolds should ever enter his
414 a I trust that I then felt as every gentle-
%ll.l oe ria(l; every atan of honour would feel upon such
Ct 3's ei"n• 1 felt that such report, uncontradicted,
311een4iljeulatcd to rob me of my good name, and that
g-4:T injure me in s• station of society. I felt,
asetiaii
' ;eel, that such mattert came with double force
outset rePorted as emanating front my commanding
tetdra' end that commanding officer a Peer of the
t,,,d1.14 in, litre must pause, and call upon each indi-
leet rolher of this Court to reflect on the nature and
hen °`. such aagainst an officer situated as I
hie iw;a/' Lordrt report
• hadperfect right to choose
4rv-34Mir• but neither nana or a commanding offi-
st,4les4bs: justifietderinassaaying that I should " never
-'s doors ' I that necessarily implies
„• I had agaln ; °r
• een guilty of some improper,dishonourable,
rt!light 41 conduct. A slight quarrel, or a shyness,
ittle' 1, elude me from Lord Cardigan's house for a
;gain watt! to S 4),
that I never was to enter his doors
ior that to insinuate strongly that I was no longer Oa
t
,(Ijustimeiety in which I had hitherto moved, for I
ithi 4 arrived in Brighton for the first time ; those
R7,gsle ti;11,1 I was likely to associate would readily
fair acquaintances among the officers of the re-
tesa / to the opinion of the commanding offil ecirel
4,1'641 all almost inevitably should have been exc e
siee,t.s°ciety. 01 all species of defamation that of
teeter, I°l° is the most insidious and destructive to cha-
-`q, ail If it had been reported that Lord Cardigan.
hact boldly I could have met it,
y specific ,
11.44ati0 Y I could have answered it ; but in a dark in-
efteri of this sort I had nothing to grapple with. Of
ier.,t °I such insinuations no man of the world can
-411 t 14.18_t4rit doubt. Lord Cardigan must have known
ttngth report would rapidly circulate, and acquire
:IPitlion, and addition in its course. Such were my
-41101 rid feelings upon that subject ;.and acting, on
trat le tt ens, and under such feelings, did I write the
e° ray to Cardigan. I owed it to myself,
''°ll shari "Y, and to my station, that such re-
b°
r,41 to°u'd be speedily contradicted ; and I ap-f.
1;11°4 'cry man possessed of a sense. itso
tae se Whether I did not view that report innthat
40e '4l
e f legitimate light ; and I feel confident .
that I° the members of this Court will even think.
ale__ the
in be.ng
shit;e4PUtesion I over sensitive in the defence of
and my honour. I certainly do not agree
414 mau is to feel or to act, on the view of Cape
litts Qi..nres, according to the quantity of evidence he
krt inflicted
the original slander. To my mind the re-..
toa first the the wound. I hoped that on receipti of
by ue.tter common justice would have be.enbt done
C°
enur7.o
.Cardigan. The letter I wrote is before
t;ourt , must be judged by its contents. Tl
defy the no no other legitimate ground to judge of it. 1
roore pro wit and ingenuity of man to couch a letter in
that letterer' More ,e
I.or more respectful terms than
pathwd it
4 -Al • I " Brighton Barracks, Aug. 27, 1840.
l'uesil l'°rll).—A report has reached me that, on
het, sas):_ie',st, at a large party given by your Lordship,
len, (I why the Captains Reynolds were not pre-
:rhnll _oes..,re Lordship replied, ' As long as I live they
this
re4po‘rtr enter my house.' I cannot but consider
coavey an .irighlY objectionable, as it is calculated to
therefore HuPression prejudicial to my character, and I
„altheirise trust Your Lordship will be good enough to
arn le to contradict it.
'l°Y Lord, your Lordship's obedient servant,
ANTHONY
Tailletlyt,;lllAßD ANTHONY REYNOLDS.
...11:.0t Hon. the Earl of Cardigan,
There Brunswick-square, Brighton."
I declare:4,, he hut one opinion of the letter itself, and
tlat I had
hat ' no other motive in writing it than
tis exPreasad It is only b the uncharitable, ex-
14°r(linar •
Y' arid forced reasoning of Lord Cardigan

that any other Interpretation can possibly be suggested.
Much, if not all, of the future proceedings depend upon
the propriety or impropriety of that letter, and so the
prosecutor undoubtedly felt in framing the charge, and
in his opening address, from the labour he used to prove
it to be improper. I might have spoken to Lord Car-
digan, but I submit a written communication was better,
as being more respectful, and lees liable to be misun-
derstood, or to give rise to angry feelings. Is it de-
rogatory to a man in any station to do justice to an-
other whom he has wronged or is supposed to have
wronged ? A commanding officer with any sense of
justice would have denied, justified, or explained such a
report according to the truth ; but this Lord Cardigan
never thought of doing. It will be for the Court to
judge whether or not Lord Cardigan's refusal to
answer proceeded from a just and proper motive. I
have the advantage, in this respect, of addressing many
commanding officers of regiments, and I appeal to them,
if they can imagine the possibility of being similarly
situated, how they would have acted. I am sure their
experience will say that it is the duty and practice of
commanding officers not only to command and to or-
ganise their officers and men as soldiers, but also to
conciliate and uphold the officers as gentlemen and men
of honour. I ask, ought not Lord Cardigan to have
sent for me if he douLed the propriety of my letter, point-
ed out its impropriety, and questioned me as to rny mo-
tives ? If Lord Cardigan could not trust himself in a pri-
vate interview, why did he not employ the services of
his friend Captain Jones, or the Adjutant ? Such is the
unjust suspicion of Lord Cardigan's mind that he can-
not conceive that I meant what I expressed in this first
letter ; but he supposes first that it was written in order
to obtain an answer whereon to found a charge at the
Horse Guards, and lie says that it was obviously unfair
to obtain from him such an admission. I could hardly
believe my senses when I heard Lord Cardigan make
this observation. What! does he mean to say that he
will cast aspersions and make observations tending to
injure the characters of his offieers, without being at all
times, and in all places, ready to avow such expressions,
and to defend and to justify himself before any tribunal ?
Lord Cardigan puts forward a second supposition, that
the letter was meant to bring him into personal, if not
hostile, collision with me. What right has Lord Car-
digan to impute any such motive to roe'? What
ground has he for drawieg such a conclusion ? None.
This statement seems very strange when coupled
with the evidence of Lord Cardigan, in which he
says that most certainly he never used the offensive
words, "to the best of his recollection." If that be
so, why did he not, either by letter or verbally, or
by the medium of a third person, communicate to
me that he had never used such words. This could
not by possibility have led him into the dreaded cor-
respondence, and it is out of the question to conceive
that a denial of the truth of the report could have been
the ground-work of a charge to the Horse Guards, or
of " a personal, if hot a hostile, colllsian." If he denied
the truth of the report, neither charge, nor collision,
nor any correspondence could possibly have ensued.
My case is this :—I, the senior captain of the regiment,
respectfully solicited denial from Lord Cardigan of a
report affecting my character. He now says the report
was untrue. He could, but would not, deny it. In
effect he says—" I can, but I will not, do an act of the
commonest justice to an officer of unimpeachable cha-
racter under my command." This is Lord Cardigan's
own case! I know of no principle or rule of the ser-
vice which prevenLed my writing or Lord Cardigan an-
swering this letter. Such a rule would be repugnant to
every feeling of justice, and would be destructive of the
honour and independence of the officers of the army.
Surely I must now have most fully satisfied every ho-
nourable member of this Court of the propriety of my
first letter, and the impropriety of Lord Cardigan's
not answering it. I would submit to your better judg-
ment that the feelings of justice, ay, of duty, would and
ought to have prompted him to have placed in my hands
the fullest and most ample contradiction to such report ;
still stronger and more urgent was such a line of conduct
on his part if we were not " on terms," as Lord Cardi-
gan suggests ; for in that case there would be more rea-
son to believe the truth of the report. The Court must
bear in mind that I never charged Lord Cardigan with
uttering those words, but merely pointed out to him that
such a report was in circulation, and asked him to be
good enough to authorise me to contradict it. If I am,
then to take it that Lord Cardigan never used those
words, and might easily have denied the report, bow am
I to characterise his conduct to me on parade on the
morning of the 28th of August ? To say that it was un-
just and most tyrannical is using but gentle terms. With
the means of contradicting that report, and removing
unjust aspersions from the Senior Captain of his regi-
ment, without a word of advice, a word of explanation,
without a word of contradiction, he tells me, where I
have no power of answering, that he is my commanding
officer, and that my mouth must be closed. According
to Lord Cardigan's evidence, no explanation need have
accompanied the denial which he ought to have given.
How, then, I ask, is it possible that any correspond-
ence could have ensued'' It is a gratification to me
that I ant relieved from, the necessity of calling before
you the young lady with whom Lord Cardigan held the
conversation. I did not charge Lord Cardigan with
having used the words. I stated, amid shall prove, that
such a repot.: was in itirctilation. The strength of my
case, and my justification for writing the second letter,
consists in Lord Cardigan never having used the
words, and contemptuously refusing to do me the
commonest justice in the world when the report
was respectfully brought to his notice. It seems,
however, doubtful upon the evidence whether
Lord Cardigan used the words or not. He does
not in his evidence give an unqualified denial thereof,
but says that, to the best of his recollection, he did not
use them. It seems odd that words of such a nature
and import should so soon escape the recollection of
Lord Cardigan, more particularly as his attention was
specially called to them within three days after the
event ; and his memory seems retentive as to some
words he used in that conversation. It is worthy of
observation that the first letter was shown by Lord
Cardigan to Captain Jones after theeparade, and before
the conversation at the Pavilion stables on the 28th of
August. When he showed the letter to Captain Jones,
with the matter quite !resit in his recollection, he does
not appear to have denied the expressions imputed to
hint. The Court will recollect an extraordinary expression
used by Capt. Jones in his evidence, " that I could not
prove the words." The Court must judge whether Capt.
Jones's memory is accurate when he states those words
to have been used in the conversation coming from the
field. It is much more probable they were used, as I
assert, at the Pavilion stables ; and if so, the just in-
ference is that Lord Cardigan never denied the words
to Captain Jones, but merely said that the words were
incapable of proof. And I ask again, why on that
occasion, why, if Lord Cardigan had riot used the
words, as a man of honour and a gentleman, did he not
state so to Captain Jones? Had he done so, Captain
Jones could scarcely have failed to communicate that to
me, and then there would have been an end of the nut-
ter. It is not material to my case that Lord Cardigan
should have used the words. If Lord Cardigan did use
the words imputed to him, even in his " ordinary tone
of voice" it was very improper conduct on his part ;
and still more improper was it in him, when invited by
a temperate and proper letter, which he might have
used officially or not, as he thought fit, not to avow
them, and refer me to the Horse Guards at once, and
then none of that dreaded correspondence, that " per-
sonal, if not hostile, collision," could have ensued.
That such should have been the conduct of Lord Car-
digan I doubt not will be the opinion of every unpreju-
diced mind. Instead of that the scene which has been
detailed to you on the parade on the morning of the 28th
of August took place. I was indeed much surprised at
the line of conduct of Lord Cardigan. It seems like-
wise to have astonished both Captain Jones and the Ad-
jutant, for the former tells you We looked the other
way, and the Adjutant galloped back to his place as
quick as possible. I ask, why was the parade selected
for this communication ? It is the practice of Lord
Cardigan since he has conarnanded the regiment to
compel the silence of officers upon any observations
made by him to them when called out of the ranks in
front of the regiment. Although I felt the tone and
manner of Lord Cardigan to be offensive and irri-
tating towards me, I could not offer a word of ex-
planation. Can Lord Cardigan for that reason
have selected that place ? If not, why did lie
not, either before or alter parade, at the orderly-
room, or some other place, in the presence of those
officers, make the communication to me, where I
might have explained and justified that first letter ?
But Lord Cardigan's conduct was unjust to me, be-
cause he denounced the first letter as of a " very im-
proper nature," without hearing my reason for writing
it. Without the opportunity of hearing me, and hav-
ing pronounced the first letter to be of a " very inn-
proper nature," he then ordered that in future all
communications from me to him should be " strictly
official." This I submit was at once to order me not to
address him at all on the subject of this report. How
could I address him "officially," even if ho had pri-
vately spoken disrespectfully of me ? It was impossi-
ble so to do on the mere report then in circulation. The
report which attributed to Lord Cardigan the words
in question was emphatically of a private nature. My
inquiries on that head must, I conceive, have been
private or not made at all. This report concerned not
the public service or military discipline. The decision
of Lord Cardigan on parade was to condemn me un-
heard to submit to the ruinous consequences of that re-
port. This line of conduct necessarily bad the effect of
wounding my feelings. Here the reguletiors of the
service are explicit, for they provide (p. 103) " That
every officer who has had the benefit of experience in
the service must be sensible of the effect produced
upon the inferior by the mode in which eiththeer reproof
be-
or
encouragement is conveyed. Whenever former
comes indispensable, the commanding-officer should bo
cautious of unnecessarily wounding the feelings of the
individual by the use of harsh language, or a severity of
unle sr
thh
tone which the circumstances or exteourt obftheexfaouslitnorhthime
bererinorrecohiinsminitreterlorm,,,aoyr ni,ovtencallilise
for,q y p s
u
ractee of the fault shall call for public reproof.e ca-
An
admonition conveyed privately will always have more

! effect Upon the individtiel who has a proper feeling and
a due regard for the maintenance of his own character;
and if he ceases to have that regard for it, or if he
feels it to be wantonly lowered in the estimation of
others, he will become reckless, and will cease to en-
tertain for those who are set over him the respect which
he no longer feels for himself. Approbation, on the
other hand, should, when it is merited, be expressed,
without reserve, and the individual receiving it should
not only be gratified by such open manifestation of
the approbation and good-will of his superiors, but it
should have the effect of encouraging others to adopt
the conduct which has obtained it." Such are my ob-
servations which I present to you on the subject of Lord
Lord Cardigan. Whether his eulogy on his own '
judgment was deserved or not is a matter for your deci-
sion. I then considered, and do consider, and always
shall consider, that Lord Cardigan's conduct to me in
this matter was most arbitrary and tyrannical. Under
these feelings I wrote the second letter. This does not
depend upon my statement ; for Captain Jones has al-
ready told ycu how grossly I felt myself insulted.
Much is due to subordination on the part of an inferior
to a superior officer ; but there are extreme cases when
submission ceases to be a duty. If my superior officer
attempts to stab me am I to submit, or to raise my hand
to disarm him ? If my superior secretly attempts to stab
me in that which is dearer to me than my life, am I not
justified in disarming him, by expressing in a strong and
forcible manner the opinion I entertain of such conduct,
provided I do so at a time, and in a manner not to
excite other officers or men to act with insubordination ?
And now I beg the Court to carry in their minds
throughout this case that on parade, and when put in
arrest by the Adjutant, I never uttered an expression or
in any way acted improperly or offensively towards Lord
Cardigan, which is fully proved by the futile attempt
made by the prosecutor to take advantage of au un-
guarded expression which might have escaped me when
the Adjutant conveyed his orders to me, In the letter
which I wrote there are strong and what, under other
circumstances, might be considered offensive expressions;
but whether " insolent " or " offensive," under the parti-
cular circumstances, must be judged by the aggravating
conduct of Lord Cardigan. Each case must stand or
fall by its own circumstauces. There is no general rule
by which to judge whether a particular letter !se objec-
tionable or not. I fully and freely admit that there are
words and expressions in that letter which I never
would have used to Lord Cardigan or any other man
excepting stung as I was and goaded by the injuries
heaped on me by Lord Cardigan. There is no sugges-
tion made in the charge or in the opening address that
the two circumstances mentioned in the letter did
not happen. The concluding words of the letter
arc alone difficult to justify ; but surely no man can
say that a commanding-officer who refused to do
the justice to one under his command of denying or
justifying the report of an aspersion like this
holds that rank by his merit or capacity to com-
mand others, for little indeed is a person able to com-
mand others who cannot govern himself. The Court
will judge whether the words of the letter arc too strong
or not. If they consider them too strong they will still
have to say, in their honest judgment and opinion,
whether they arc not excused under the peculiar and
aggravating circumstances under which they were writ-
ten. 1 shall call before you several officers who served
with me in India in the I Ith Light Dragoons, some
of whom are still in the I 1 th Hussars. They will
prove to you that during the time they have known
me I have ever been an attentive and active elTicer in
the discharge of ray regimental duties ; that I have
been subordinate and ever respectful to my superiors ;
that I have been upon excellent terms with those of
equal or junior rank to myself. Some of them will tell
the Court that I have been the cause of allaying their
feelings when irritated. They will prove to you that up
io the time of the return of the regiment to England
the greatest harmony existed between the commanding
officer and the officers at large. I use this evidence for
the purpose of showing that if for nearly fifteen years
passed in the regiment, and in my younger days, when 1
was more likely to err than now, 1 had never been guilty
of insubordination, or what Lord Cardigan calls " disre-
spectful and insolent conduct, unbecoming the character
of an officer and a gentleman," my act on this occa-
sion proceeded, not from an insolent or insubordinate
spirit, but from the goading and oppressive conduct of
Lord Cardigan. In addition, I shall produce very warm
and strong testimonials fro% my former commanding
officers and others, whose personal attendance I cannot
obtain. When, amongst others, I mention that I have
testimonials from Colonel Childers, and from Colonel
Bruton, I may safely defy any officer in the British army
to have stronger or better testimonials. I shall, in ad-
dition, by the solemn oaths of several as honourable
men as any in the service, prove that Lord Cardigan's
conduct at the head of the regiment, since his return to s
England, has been irritating and insulting in the extreme.
I shall now advert to the charge itself. So much of it as
relates to the first letter is untenable, as I to test I have shown
that that letter was not improper, and that indeed it was
the only preceding I could take under the circumstances.
It is obvious that Lard Cardigan cannot stand right be-
fore the Court unless he shows that first letter to be
improper. In that 1 trust he has, in your opinion, most
signally failed. With regord to she rest of the charge,
hope 1 have shown to the satisfaction of every intelligent
and impartial man that it was not "a most disrespectful,.
insubordinate, or insulting letter." What the n.caning
of Lord Cardigan is in the charge that the letter im-
puted to him conduct calculated to excite him to de-
pat t from his duties as commanding officer is so
extremely vague as to convey no precise or de-
finite accusation. If it means that it was to excite
Lord Cardigan to a " personal, if not a hostile, col-
lision," that matter was out of the question, for be
had already debarred we from taking any such steps.
My letter was a comment—no doubt a strong one, as
the occasion required—upon his conduct throughout
this transaction. I therefore trust that the Court will
come to this conclusion, that, on the one hand, had I
left the report unnoticed, my conduct would have been
most properly considered unbecoming the position in I
society which I am entitled to hold ; and, on the other,
in noticing it as I did, I was not " guilty of conduct
unbecoming the character of an officer or a gentleman,
prejudicial to the interests of the service, or subversive of
good order or discipline." I have gone through the whole
of my case. I hope that 1 have established the propriety
of my first letter, the crying injustice of Lord Cardi-
gan's conduct, and the tyrannical proceeding which
produced the second letter. Although looking to a
favourable decision, yet, at all events, I have the con-
solation that my conduct throughout has been that of a
man of honour and a gentleman, whilst that of my
ovion
eirpyde,:eitplly savirilelansottialegaiiinoncoluiarraaentderiinszpeAr'doeunreseleoc.s
of
the
officers of the British army. An officer compelled
to leave unnoticed such an aspersion would necessa-
rily lose his station in society, and would soon be obliged
to abandon the army. If he attempt to ward off an in-
jury is be to be charged with impropriety of conduct ?
Must he be sent before a Court-martial? if he exer-
cises the privilege of every sufferer is he to be deprived
of his rank ? If under such difficult and maddening
circumstances he happens to use some very strong ex-
pressions towards his persecutor is this the justice which
is to be the lot of the'officers of our brave army ? Is
the laurel of our veterans, won by a life of honour and
of danger, thus in a moment to be blasted for ever?
Scan not my letter too closely—that was the offspring
of excited feelings ; but look carefully at the conduct
of Lord Cardigan, for that, according to his own
statement, was the result of reflection. The army
looks with intense anxiety—the public also take a
lively interest in your proceedings, for they watch over
the conduct and character of those who have been
their defenders against foreign aggression, and their
protectors in times of civil commotion ; and they will
look with a vigilant eye to the result of this case, for all
mankind are united on one point—in the horror of op-
pression. Up to this time, whatever annoyance I had suf-
fered et the hands of Lord Cardigan I had borne from
a sense of duty ; but when his oppressive conduct was
pushed to the extreme my patience • teas exhausted, my
feelings overcome, and 1 hope by your verdict of " Not
guilty" you will prove to Lord Cardigan that wealth
and rank do not license him, although the commanding
officer of a regiment, to trample with impunity upon
honourable men, who have devoted their lives to the ser-
vice of their country.
At the conclusion of this address, which was delivered
in a clear manly manner and with great firmness
throughout, there seas a general cheering and clapping
of hands among the audience, with which the Court
wns crowded almost to suffocation ; whereupon
The President at once called them to order, and said
—1 shall clear the Court this moment if order is not
kept. I will have no such ebullition here.
The Judge-Advocate—The speech of Captain Rey-
nolds has been handed in, signed, and marked " F."
Lieut. Cunningham (of the 11th Hussars) was then
called.
The Judge Advocate here read the charge against
Capt. Reynolds, for the information of this witness. The
witness, having been sworn, was examined as follows:
Are you a Lieutenant in the Ilth Hussars ?—I am.
Did you hear a report on the 26th of August relating
to me ?—I did.
What was the report you heard ?—When I was
with the band a young lady asked me if I heard any
conversation at the Earl of Cardigan's party the night
before ? 1 said no ; and I naturally asked what it was?
She said she had heard a lady ask Lord Cardigan why
it was the Captains Reynolds were not at his house ?
that she asked him twice, when he replied, " They
should never enter my house as long as they lived."
Did you communicate this report to me ; if so,
when ?—I told you of it when you came into my room
on the evening of the same day, being the 26th of Au-
gust last.
Cross-examined by Lord Cardigan—Wes any one
present at this conversation with Captain Reynolds?--
Yes, my brother-in-lave, Mr. Lewis.
Was any ono else there?—There was nobody else
there then.
Have you stated the whole of what you have heard
from the young lady, and repeated to Captain Reynolds ?
"—Yes, to the best of my belief.
Did not the young lady say that she thought the lady

must have known that Lord Cardigan was not on terms
with Captain Reynolds ?—Yes, she did.
Did you tell Captain Reynolds that she said so ?—I
cannot say that I did.

What did Captain Reynolds do when you told him
of this report?—He went out of my room.
Did he appear much concerned or excited ?—Not at
the time.

Did he not laugh ?--I cannot remember if he laughed
or not.

Did Captain Reynolds say any
on the following day ?—Yes. he said he should write to
Lord Cardigan and ask him to allow him to contradict
the report. more on this subject

Have you never stated that Captain Reynolds made
no remark, but laughed, when the report was first com-
municated to him ?—I made some remark to Major
Jenkins, but I do not recollect what it was. I made
the remark about this matter; but I do not remember
what it was.

Was your remark to Major Jenkins about Captain
Reynolds having laughed ?—No ; I went immediately
and told the whole story to Major Jenkins.
Did you not give your statement in writing to Major
Jenkins and sign it ?—I did

Here, a question having been handed in, the Court
consulted together for a few moments, and then ordered
the room to be cleared.

After a consultation of about half an hour the public
were again admitted.

Major Epon—On this question being put a written
statement was handed in by Captain Reynolds, which
stated—" I object to any written statement being put
in by Lord Cardigan at this stage of the proceeding,"
The Court ruled that it could. This was the query
objected to :
"Is this paper the one which you signed. ?'' Answer
—" Yes."

Here the Judge-Advocate read this statement, which
was to the effect that a conversation ensued in wit-
ness's room on the 26th of August last, which re•
peated the conversation already detailed in his exami-
nation while he was with the band. It ran thus :
" I was sitting in my room with Mr. Lewis, the day
after Lord Cardigan's ball, when Captain A. Rey-
nolds came in. The conversation turned on Lord Car-
digan, and I said, He is not over fond of you ; for
when I was at the band a lady said, ' What a very
curious woman Mrs. Cunningham is.' I said, Why?'
She replied, I heard her ask Lord Cardigan twice
why the Captains Reynolds were not at the ball 2 He
gave her no answer for some time ; at last he said,
' They shall not come into my house as long as I live.'
Then the lady said she thought Mrs. Cunningham must
have known that Lord Cardigan and the Captains Rey-
nolds were not on good terms. This was at half-past six
in the afternoon. Captain Reynolds made no remark,
but laughed. On the following day Major Jenkin ssaid I -
must take notes of what I said the day before. I
merely mentioned this in the way of conversation, not
expecting it to go further, as Captain Reynolds did not
seem to take it originally in an offensive light.
(Signed) "JOHN CUNNINGHAM."
Having heard that paper, do you think it is a correct.
account of what passed ?
Here the Judgc.Advocate read over the cross-exami-
nation.

The written statement of Lieutenant Cunningham
was handed in and marked " G." •

Re-examination—When (lid Major Jenkins ask you
this question ?—When I was in his room on the 27th
of August, the next day.
Had Major Jenkins more than one conversation +sith
you on this subject ?—Yes.
How many, when, and what were they ?-lle told
me he was desired to ask me to give a written state-
ment of what passed. Major Jenkins had one more
conversation with me two or three days after the first ;
he said he was desired to ask me for a written statement
of what had taken place.
Did Major Jenkins tell you he was desired by Lord
Cardigan to ask you these questions ?—He did.
By whom was the statement written ?—lt was writ-
ten by Major Jenkins.
Were you told that the statement was to be used
publicly ?—No.
Did Major Jenkins give any reason for asking of
you this statement?—None.
What is your age ?—I shall be twenty the 4th of
December next.
Lord Cardigan here put in a paper, which we
suppose was the following question, which was then
asked :

By the Court—Who corrected the written state-
ment ? My brother-in-law, Mr. Lewis.
Examination by the Court continued—Were these
corrections made with your concurrence, and when ?
Yes, they were made with my concurrence, at the York
Hotel, the same day I sizned the statement.
Did you, in your first conversation with Major Jen-
kins, consider that conversatioa official or private ?
Private, as there was no one else in the room.

Was any opportunity given to you of refreshing your
memory by the statement being shoen to you at any
time ?—No.
Did you repeat the report respecting him to Captain
Reynolds on the did.
Did-yakatva-Majoys CTlk:lab taut -va Was:Latted tleet.
conversation private ?—No.
Hero this witness's examination closed.
Major Mosse Cooper was next called, and the charge
having been again read over, he was sworn.
The Judge-Advocate—You arc on half-pay, I believe?
—I am a Major unattached.
Major Cooper examined by the prisoner—Are you -a
Major unattached, and were you in the army since the
battle of Waterloo ?—Yes.
Were you any part of that time in the 11 th Light
Dragoons ?—Yes, twenty-one years.
During what part of that time did you serve under
Lord Cardigan ?—About eighteen months.
Here a paper was banded into the Court, on perusing
which the room was again ordered to be cleared.
After a delay of about three-quarters of an hour the
public were again admitted.
The Judge Advocate—On the fourth question being
put to the last witness by Captaia Reynolds, the Court
have thought proper to consider whether it should be
put, and on the Court being re-opened they declare the
following to be their decision The Court have
• fully considered the question which has been put by
Captain Reynolds, and they are of opinion that it can-
not be admitted, and cannot therefore be recognised.
They With to convey their desire to Captain Reynolds
that he would in his examination confine himself to the
aerra,ntthte Court not being authorised by
her o carry their investigation into
The Court further said, that they were
coilltsirerl\groleutanjbs aceotsitft.oe:gr'esi:''ci'hm
u g the prisoner every latitude consistent
with their duty under the Royal warrant by virtue of
which they were now assembled.
Examination resumed—Hol,v long have you known
me ?—I first knew Captain Reynolds when he was
under my command on board ship in 1831. Ile was
then a lieutenant.
During the time you were in the regiment had you an
opportunity of examining my conduct as an officer and a
gentleman ?—Frequently.
What is my character and conduct with reference to
my regituental duties, and to subordination and respect
to my commanding and superior officers ?-1 have every
reason to think C iptain Reynolds is a man of the highest
honour, strictest integrity, and gentlemanly bearing as
an tfl'ieer ; most active and zealous in doing all that
could be required of hint, and, in my estimation, a man
incapable of an iusubordinate act, unless under some pe-
culiar circumstances. Have
)u 'eroakincoe,rss,n
the totry to allay the irritable
feelings in
of other regiment,‘
and persuade
them from acts which would be regarded as insubordi-
nateo
?—Yes, I know two remarkable instances, one of
which was when a lie had been given from one officer to
to the other--
Here the witness was stopped, and the Court con-
sulted together, when the President observed that the
Court had already decided that they could not enter
upon any extrarmons matters, liTid they should not travel
out of the immediate charge before them.
The room, however, was again ordered to be cleared.
The Court then adjourned to 10 o'clock to-morrow,
reserving their decision 00 this question, it being four
o'clock. r.

TRIAL OF PRINCE LOUIS NAPO-
LEON AND ACCOMPLICES.

SITTING OF THE 2.9T11 CONCLUDED.
Rinck, a sergeant of the 42d, said—Lieutenant Ala-
denize entered the barracks and cried out several times
" Aux arnies I" I placed myself near the soldiers of
my company, and several of the Prince's officers shook
hands with me, as did also the Prince. I replied that
I would remain with my chiefs. The Prince offered to
the other sergeants and myself to make us officers, which
we declined.

Aladenize—All that this witness says is false. He
put the soldiers in order of battle himself, and made
them cry " Vive l'Empereur 1" •
Geoffroy, a grenadier of the 42d, deposed to the
attack upon the barracks, and stated that he had been
wounded by the pistol which was fired by the Prince.
President—Prince Louis, have you anything to say ?
Prince Louis—l have to say that I sincerely regret
having shed the blood of a French soldier.
Captain Col-Puygellicr gave evidence to the follow-
ing effect :—About hall-past five in the morning of
August 6, I was preparing to get out into the forest of
Boulogne, when one of my grenadiers came to inform
me that he had met with a number of soldiers, headed
by several general officers. I advanced to the barracks,
and seeing a grenadier with the number 40, I told him
they were leading him to treason. On entering the
arched door of the barracks, a person, wearing the uni-
form of a General, advanced towards me and said, " I
am Prince Louis, Captain. Be one of us, and you
shall have whatever you can desire." I answered,
" Prince Louis or not, " Napoleon, your predecessor,
destroyed legitimacy, and you are wrong to come for-
ward now and make a claim under it." The Prince ap-
peared to be intimidated, but they pressed upon me
more closely. I exclaimed, " You may kill me, if you
please, but I will do my duty." They said they did not
wish to kill me. At this moment Lieutenant Made-
nize covered me with his arms, and said with animation,
" Respect the Captain, lam answerable for his life." I
then advanced further, and several of my non-commis-
sioned officers came to release me from my enemies, who
then withdrew into the street. I then turned to my
men with the intention of giving them orders to act if
the Prince did not withdraw. I heard the report of a
fire-arm, but did not see by whom or at whom it was
discharged, being too much pre-occupied.
M. Alexandre Adam, the Mayor of Boulogne, repeated
the facts stated by him at the time in his official report.
Colonel Sansot, of the National Guards of Boulogne,
confirmed the deposition of M. A. Adam, and having
done so, complained of the charge brought against the
National Guards of Boulogne by some of the Paris
Journals, of having fired on unarmed men, and having
assassinated a man who was in the act of surrendering
his sword. He said that Colonel Voisin acknowledged
that the National Guards had done their duty.
Colonel Voisin—l did not acknowledge that all the
National Guards had done their duty. I do not think
that the National Guard which fired upon us, without
our having acted on the offensive in the slightest degree,
did its duty.—(Murmurs among the Peers.)
President (with war►eth)—lt is impossible to allow
these words to pass. What, were not the landing and
the invasion of the barracks hostilities? The National
Guard were right in repressing crime and punishiog the
authors of it. There is also another fact proved. A
pistol was fired from the boat as it left the shore.
Coluncl Voisin—l affirm, upon my honour, that no
pistol was fired at that time.
The President—Ti►e aggression came from the men
whom we have the misfortune to see before us, and it
is not for them to make it a crime of the National Guard
to have used means to repulse their criminal attempt.
M. Ferdinand Barrot—l render homage to the he-
roism of the National Guard of Boulogne.—(Violent
murmurs.) I admit that the National Guard did its
duty when it fired, when my client was struck behind
as he was retiring, after having thrown away his arms.
—(Prolonged murmurs.) The murmurs of the Court
having cut short the words of the defence, 1 declare
that the defence is no longer free, and I sit down.
The President—lt is I only who can permit or pre-
vent the Court from being addressed. I declare that I
have not interrupted the counsel ; he can continue if he

pleases.
M. Ferdinand Barrot said nothing more.
THIRD DAY.—SITTING OF WEDNESDAY, SEPT. 30.
At a quarter past twelve the prisoners were intro-
duced into Court in the same order as on the two pre-
vious days. They all appeared cheerful, nor was there
any visible alteration in their dress.
Bernard Pierre Maguan, Marechal du Camp, com-
manding the department of the North, and provision-
ally the 16th military division. His evidence went
principally to inculpate the prisoners Lombard, Meso-
nan, and Parquin. lie delivered his evidence as if he
was addressing a mob, instead of the highest Court of
the realm, and was exceedingly vehement in his language.
On the conclusion of this evidence Mesonan got up and
denied la Coto the correctness of the evidence of this
witness.

The evidence for the prosecution having been gone
th i ough,
The Plocereur-General, M. Franck Carve, then pro-
eeeded to deliver his requisttoire, and addressed the
Court. He stated that, after the evidence that had
been adduced on the part of the prosecution, there
could be no doubt as to the charges with which the
prisoners stood implicated, and which was a project that
would cause them to be visited by the severest penalty
of the law. The Procureur-General then recapitulated
all time facts and details as connected with the insur-
rection on Aug. 6, specifying minutely the degree of
crime which was attached to the various individuals who
were now before this Court. Ornanocamenext in rotation;
m
But, observed the Procureur-Gcncral, what language
can depict the guilt of the principal actor and conspi-
rator' in this affair, Prince Louis Napoleon Bonaparte,
wile ought to have been bound by the most sacred in-
violability of a promise, who had experienced the indul-
gence of the King, and whom the dictates of honour
and of his conscience ought to have restrained from
ever making another attempt to overturn the Govern-
ment and the institutions of the country ? He was
bound to state, that though the Prince seemed to dispar-
age the justice of the country, justce would not be
withheld from him, and the Court would therefore re-
quire that the law should take its course.
M. Berryer then thus proceeded to address the
Court on behalf of Prince Louis Napoleon and General
Muntholon :—" Gentlemen, when I heard the Procu-
reur-General exclaim, with regard to the Boulogne at.
tempt, ' These are deplorable crimes ! ' I could not re-
press the sad reflections which were stirred up in my
heart. It is to be lamented that during so short a course
of years this country should Lave fallen a prey
to so many successive revolutions, each in its turn
violating and overthrowing the chartered and esta-
blished rights of the nation. These, gentlemen, are
misfortunes which have left appalling uncertainties in
the minds and hearts of the people. What ! can we
successively have been under a Republic, an Empire,
the Restoration, and a July Royalty—can we have been
under these rapidly-changing Governments without our
dignity, consciences, and, I may say, the majority of
our laws, having suffered heavy detriment ? As long
as the house of Bourbon reigned in France there was
an order of succession regularly established. But as in
1830 the Chamber of Deputies thought fit to change
the dynasty, this principle was overthrown. The Prince
Louis thought that he was justified in attempting the
restoration in France of those rights which his uncle
obtained from the constitution of the Empire—rights
which had been consecrated by the vote of four millions
of 17renclneen. I do not see before me judges and
men to be judged. Observe the inconsistency of the
Government in calling upon you to judge the Prince
Louis. In 1836 this maxim was applied to the Prince
Louis, that no judgment could be recorded against a
Prince who had reigned. When, in 1836, it was
acknowledged that the Prince was without the
pale of the law, how can he this day ap-
pear before you ? A law forbids him to set foot
on the soil of France—this was the law of 1831.
I opposed this law at that period. I demanded that
the Napoleon family should enjoy the same rights with
ourselves ; but you repulsed my application ; you made
this law, and shortly atter you expelled this Prince
from Switzerland, from the bedside of his dying mother.
I say, therefore, that he is a man without the pale of
the law. If you wish to sit in judgment upon him let
us cast a stray glance at some recent facts. A splendid
mausoleum is being erected to the memory of the hero
of the Empire ; a squadron has been scut forth to fetch
his remains ; his memory is resuscitated, covered with
laurels, and now you wonder that some men who had
shared the glories of the Empire should have been car-
ried away by the same illusions which have now brought
this young Prince before you. This young Prince has
said,' It is my province to make this glorious name re-
echo across the frontiers. I should be the chief mourner
in the forthcoming funereal ceremony, for I are the Em-
peror's nephew. I will go to his tomb, and there will I
lay his arms, and exclaim, ' France, I offer myself to you,
will you accept me ?' —(Great sensation in the Court.) If
there be any crime in this it is your men of the Govern-
ment who have caused it. You will not allow the name
of Napoleon to appear at the same time on a tomb of
glory and on a scaffold. You will not associate the
name of Napoleon with the punishment awarded to in-
famy. It cannot be possible that you should do this.
Cease to be judges, and become men. You are called
up en to pass sentence on Napoleon's nephew. You—
who are you if we pry into the secrets of your fortunes
—yori, Counts, Dukes, Barons, ye who were Marshals ?"
M. Berryer, whose speech was one of the most mag-
nificent pieces of elocution ever uttered within these
walls, then sat dawn, and, after the cheering and im-
mense sensation excited by this gorgeous display had
somewhat subsided, General Montholon attempted to
read his speech, but, being unable to continue it on ac-
' count of his infirmities, one of the glrefers read it for
twin, It merely reiterated his assertion thaftPe thoughtance
the Prit:Ce was going to Belgium instead 0
M. Berr;er spoke in favour of General 111rontholon
and concludeei by laying on the table several leittters,
which clearly prod that the General thought was
merely a party of pleoure.
The sitting then closed at a quarter past four,