The Sun.
London, England, 1833-07-12 00:00:00

letter desiring him to attend the courtmartial with a de-
tachment of his company, and in that official letter be
enclosed a private letter of his own, which in his (Dr.
Lushington's) opinion was nothing else than an attempt to
intimidate that witness from giving the evidence which he
was generally expected to give. The House would allow
him to read those letters, and when he had read them he
thought that every gentleman who heard him would be of
opinion that he had substantiated grounds for the motion
with which he intended to conclude. The official letter was
dated Ist of April, 1833 (..o Dr. Lushington said—but it
was evidently a mistake), and stated that the Lieutenant-
Governor having directed an inquiry to be made into the
conduct of Captain Robison, had instructed him to sienify
his desire to him (Lieutenant Sweeney) that he should
afford every facility by the presence of his detachment to
the fulfilment of the orders of the courtmartial. In
the same envelope was the following letter, headed with
the words " strictly private and confidential." In this
letter Captain Strutt stated that " he could not allow
the inquiry to proceed without discharging the disagree-
able duty which had fallen to his lot." "I am anxious
for your sake," continued the writer, " to warn you of
the precipice on which you are standing. Circumstances
have come to the knowledge of the Lieutenant-Governor
which implicate you jointly with Captain Robison. He
may be right or he may be wrong, on that I give no
opinion ; all that I wish to call your attention to is the
consequences which may attach to you individually. Your
name has been mentioned in some of the despatches ad-
dressed to the Lieutenant. Governor, and has not escaped
his notice ; but hitherto I have parried the subject. An
honourable line of conduct is now open before you, and I
hope you will follow it." Now, he begged the House to
consider when, and by whom, this letter was written.—
(Hear, hear.) What object could the writer have, except
to intimidate the individual to whom it was written ?

(Loud cries of " No, no.") He said the warning to
Lieutenant Sweeney, that he was standing on a precipice,
and that he was implicated with Captain Robison, was
nothing but an attempt to intimidate him into the sup-
pression of such evidence as might be unfavourable to the
prosecution. The most singular part, however, of this
case n-as yet to come. When this letter of Captain Strutt
was communicated to Ciptain Robison, he wrote a remon-
strance to General Darling against the tendency of such a
letter to sap the foundation of all justice. That remonstrance
was afterwards made the subject of a fresh charge against
Captain Robison. He submitted that if there was a shadow
of truth in these allegations, tie grossest injustice had been
done in these particulars, and further investigation was
absolutely necessary. He knew that General Darling
disavowed all knowledge of Captain Strutt's letter to
Lieutenant Sweeney.—(Hear, heir.) It might be true
that it was written by the imprudence—no, that was
too light a term—of Captain Strutt himself ; but by
whomsoever written and from whatsoever motives, it made
no difference to Captain Robison. General Darling had
called on Lieutenant Sweeney to account for the letter
written to him by his military secretary, Ciptain Strutt
Now, Sweeney was a man in distressed circumstances, and
on receiving that demand saw that his all was at stake.
In the agony of the moment he wrote a letter to General
Darling, scarcely knowing what he was writing, and that
letter was subsequently produced by the prosecution to
contradict the testimony which he afterwards gave upon
oath. He now came to another of the charges preferred
against Captain Robison, and which was not less extra-
ordinary than any of those which had preceded it. Whilst
Captain Robison was commandiug a detachment at a dis
tart outpost, be gave orders that the mail-bags, in which
he expected some despatches of his own, should be opened
in the absence of the post-master. For doing this a
charge was brought against him before the magistracy,
who, on hearing the facts, dismissed it as frivolous and
vexatious. This charge was again reiterated before the
courtmartial, which expressly acquitted him of every part
of it which implied either dishonour or discredit. Another
complaint which he had to urge on behalf of Captain
Robison was, that in violation of the law, the questions
put to the witnesses were not taken down in writing, in
order that the Government at home might be enabled to
judge of their relevancy and pertinency. Now, unless
such questions were reduced into writing, how was it
possible for his Right Hon. Friend, the Judge-Advocate
at borne, to decide whether all had been done that was
necessary to the elucidation of justice? He now came to
another f xt, which appeared on the minutes of the court-
martial, and which to this moment remained uncontra-
dieted. Captain Strutt had been permitted by the Judge
Advocate to read over the minutes of his own evidence,
and to refresh his memory as to what he had sworn pre-
viously, before he underwent cross-examination. That was
another violation of justice. He therefore asked the House
to let the minutes of this courtmartial be laid upon
the table, in order that every gentleman might judge for
himself of the justice of its proceedings. The sentence
which it passed upon Captain Robison was, that be should
be dismissed from the army, in which he had served for
twenty-five years, after having served throughout the
Peninsular campaigns,—after having been thrice in India,
anti after having gone out to New South Wales with as
high terimonials to character as any officer could desire.
Mr. GRANT admitted conclusively that the
House had the power to supervise the proceedings not
only of courtsmartial, but of all judicial tribunals, and
that in exercising that supervision it was to be guided by
no general rules, save the immutable principles of justice,
But the House, which might exercise its supervision in
all instances, ought in his opinion to be cautious how it
exercised it in any. The question, then, with regard to
this courtmartial resolved itself simply into this :
" Does there appear in its proceedings a case so pregnant
with injustice and oppression as ought to induce the House
to take the first step in the career of censure by laying
the minutes of it on the table ?" His opinion decidedly
was, that there was no such case, and therefore he thought
that the House would be well advised in not acceding to
this motion. The charges which Captain Robison had
preferred against this courtmartial were numerous; but
yet they resolved themselves easily enough into three
heads. There were, first, the objections to the con-
stitution of the court, next the objections to its
proceedings in admitting and rejecting certain evi
deuce, and, last of all, the objections to its decision
and sentence. The first objection contained in the
paper of this unfortunate man—for unfortunate he cer-
tainly was—respected the constitution of the court. That
paper state-I that the court consisted of a president and
eight officers only, the ordinary number of officers upon
courtsmartial being thirteen. Now nine officers were four
more than were required by the Mutiny Act and the Ar-
ticles of War to constitute a courtmartial. Considering,
therefore, the numerous duties which the military hail to
perform in New South Wales, it was favourable to Gene-
ral Darling, and a mark of respect to Captain Robison,
that his courtmartial consisted of a greater number of
officers than the law required. There was another cir-
cumstance connected with the constitution of the court,
which he felt it necessary to state in justification of the
court itself. With the exception of one officer, who was
junior to Captain Robison, all the rest were his superiors
in rank. His Hon. and Learned Friend had told the
House that the courtmartial sat from the 11th of July to
the 15th of September, two whole months ; but lie had
not told them that four-fifths of that time had been taken
up by the defendant in cross-examining his witnesses, and
that this oppressive court had given him three weeks out
of those two months for the preparation of his defence.
The next objection of Ciptain Robison was that
he bad been compelled strenuously to object to two
members of the court, but that his challenge had been
overruled and disregarded. Now, he (Mr. Grant) be-
lieved that this petition had been framed in London ; and
therefore he must suppose that in the lapse of time Cap-
tain Robison had forgotten the facts, or else he never could
have so misrepresented them. It was true that Captain
Robison bad objected to one member of the court ; but
his other objection was to the Judge-Advocate ; and if he
reckoned the Judge-Advocate as a member of the court,
as undoubtedly he was, then the courtmartial consisted of
ten officers. Captain Robison stated, " The officer who
acted as Judge-Advocate of the court was not an impartial
and unprejudiced person, having been a member of the
court of inquiry, and he acted in that important capacity
in defiance of my solemn protest against it." H's (Mr.
Grant's) answer to this objection was, that the Judge
Advocate was not removed fiom the court, because, by
objection Act of
fioParliament, be was not challengeable. As to the
that the court n as blameable in having received
as evidence the letter of the Chief Justice of the colony, he
must say that could form no ground for revising the pro-
ceedings of the court, for the letter was of no importance
whatever to the case but he would add, that if the re-
ceiving of evidence which would not be received as evidence
in a court of law was to he an objection to the proceedings
of a courtmartial, it would stand the test, for it was an
object with those courts to let in any evidence that was
tendered. Indeed, in the 1,050 pages which these pro-
ceedings occupied, four-fifths might be said to consist of
inadmissible evidence, but this nas owing to the indul-
gence of the court, in allowing the defendant to go into
matters which were irrelevant. There was, he would admit,
evidence admitted for the prosecution which, strictly speak-
ing, was inadmissible, but it was not of that material nature
which would justify a revision of the proceedings.
The next objection of the defendant was, that the prose-
cutor was permitted to object to the testimony of his own
witness, and to bring a previous letter of that witness to
shake his own evidence. Now, on this point, it was dis-
tinctly stated by Captain Strutt, and also by the. Gover.