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

nor, that he (the Governor) knew nothing whatever of t
the private letter written by Captain Strutt to Lieutenant
Sweeney . The letter was marked " private and confi-
dential," and in opening the other letter in which it •
was enclosed, it fell out, and was picked up by Captain
Robison, and though so marked was read by him.
When Lieutenant Sweeney found that it had been so
read, he in great agitation begged that he would not say
a word about it, which Captain Robison pledged
his honour not to do; but the first step he took was to
write to the Governor making a complaint that such a
letter had been written. It was not unnatural that
Captain Strutt should have written this confidential
letter to a man with whom he was on intimate terms,
whom be knew to have been in some degree ex-
posed to risk from some of the proceedings against
Captain Robison, and whom he also knew to be in a
great measure under the influence of that officer. When
the complaint of Captain Robison was received respect-
ing the private letter, a letter was written by order of the
Governor to Lieutenant Sweeney, calling on him to
explain. In answer to this Lieutenant Sweeney wrote
the letter which had been afterwards produced in Court,
and in which, after giving an account of what occurred,
which it was unnecessary for him (Mr. Grant) to repeat,
he added—" I farther beg to pledge myself on my honour
as an officer and a gentleman, that what I have here
stated is consistent with the truth." This was written in
May, but in the July following, when be was called upon
as a witness to some of the same facts, he gave evasive and
reluctant answers, which brought upon him the public
censure of the court. Now, in point of law, he (Mr.
Grant) must contend that a prosecutor was perfectly au-
thorized to bring evidence to contradict the testimony of
his own witness, not to discredit his general evidence, but
to contradict him in the particular parts of it where he may
have given evasive and reluctant answers, as in this case,
and to show that at another period he had given a different
account of the same transaction. This he stated on the
authority of Mr. Phillips, in his work on evidence, who
quoted the opinion of Lord Ellenborough as authority
for the rule thus hid down. This, then, was the
whole of the case as to the letter, with the exception that
it was not pulled from his pocket by the president of the
courtmarial (who was a most honourable man and an
excellent officer, and who knew his duty better)' but
was produced by the prosecutor. There was, therefore,
he contended, no ground for ceiling the proceedings of the
court in question on this objection. There was in the
papet which the defendant had circulated amongst the
Members of the House another and most important ob-
jection, on which he would say a few words : it was,
that one of the witnesses, a private soldier, named Budd,
had been tampered with by General Darling, and promised
rewards and promotion if he gave evidence against the ac-
cused ; but supposing that this fact was as the defendant
had stated, it would still form no ground for calling the
proceedings of the Court in question, for though the
Court had discredited Budd, yet the facts to which he
spoke against the accused were proved by other witnesses,
against whose testimony no imputation had been made.
He (Mr. Grant) had referred to this fact, not as any
willing impeachment against General Darling,—he ad-
mitted that, if true, it was a blackening and a serious
charge against him, but he had mentioned it solely in
reference to the case before the House. It should, how-
ever, be added, that the story told by Budd was improba••
ble, to an extent bordering on romance. The Right Hon.
Gentleman then referred to several other points contained
in the paper circulated by Captain Robison—but not
mentioned in the statement of the Hon. and Learned Gen-
tleman (Dr. Lushington)—and contended that they were
not borne out by the evidence on the minutes of the
Court. When first Captain Robison felt himself aggrieved
by having what be considered an unjust charge made
against him, he should have sought an inquiry at
the hands of the governor. If the governor refused, he
should have transmitted copies of his application, with his
complaint as to the refusal, to the authorities at home; if
that were refused or delayed, he then might send his com-
munications and complaints home by any way he could,
taking care not only to apprise the governor that be had
so done, but also to send him copies. Without adopting
this course, he sent not only charges of his own, but also
written charges of some of the veterans against the governor.
When written to by order of the governor to know
whether he bad sent any such charges, be gave evasive
answers to the first and second letters, and it was not
until a threat was used in case of farther refusal that he
gave an answer that he was not bound to criminate him-
self. If the court had sentenced Captain Robison to be
dismissed for sending home charges clandestinely, there
could be little doubt that the authorities at home would
have restored him to his rank; but his dismissal was not
for that; it was for refusing to obey the orders of his
superior officer, in not making a return when he was
legally called upon so to do. The objection of Captain
Robison as to the court having refused to erase questions
and answers objected to by him from the minutes was not
better founded than the others; the court had undoubtedly
the power to allow such questions and answers to remain,
though they might not be strictly evidence, for they were
aware that the whole case would be revised before a final
decision. One of the great errors of Captain Robison i■
conducting his defence, which he did with much ability,
was, that be thought he bad a right to repel charges made
against him by recriminating on General Darling. A
great part of his statements were made up of such charges,
in which be also introduced charges made by some of the
veterans. The court had properly refused to record
matter of a recriminatory nature, and tending to inculpate
absent parties. Such being the case, there was no pre-
tence for saying that the dismissal of Captain Robison was
an act of cruelty or injustice. In conclusion the Right
Hon. Member expressed his intention to resist the motion.
Sir F. ♦INCENT, without going the length of
accusing the members of the courtm 11114 with gross mis-
conduct, expressed his opinion that their proceedings had
been highly irregular.
Sir H. HARDINGE, under all the circumstances of
the case, gave his voice with the Right Hon. Judge
Advocate General for the rejection of the petition.
Major BEAUCLERK thought, that if the House re-
fused to have the minutes of the courtmartial laid before
them, it would be an act of gross injustice,
Major HANDLEY, after detailing the services of
General palling, pronounced an eulogium on the cha-
racter of that officer, which he declared to be wholly above
suspicion.
Mr. AGLIONBY observed, that Capt. Robison had
been convicted of misconduct with respect to the letter,
solely on the evidence of Lieut. Sweeney, which testimony
was of an equivocal nature.
Sir J. SCARLETT considered that the course pursued
by the courtmartial, in respect to the evidence of Lieut.
Sweeney and the letter, had been correct. In his opinion
there was no just ground for calling for the minutes of the
courtmartial.

Mr. O'CONNELL said that the House would do an
act of injustice it it did not call for the minutes.
An HON. MEMBER defended General Darling and the
conduct of the courtmartial.

Sir E. KERRISON challenged any instance in which
a courtu►artial had been intimidated from giving a just
sentence. He bore testimony to the conduct of General
Darling, as a man of honour and an excellent officer. He
should vote against the petition. .

Mr. HUMS protested against the character of General
Darling being brought forward to stifle an act of justice to
an individual. The character of Captain Robison stood
as fair as that of Gener4l Darling, and perhaps purer in
the present matter.—(No, no.) No courtmartial in any
colony had been regarded as more oppressive than the one
in question.

An Hozr. AIEMBEIL, whose name we could not learn,
defended Captain Strutt from the severe reflections of Dr.
Lushington.
Colonel EVANS observed, there was great difference
of opinion in the House on this subject. It was quite as
essential to the honour and character of General Darling
and the Court, in his opinion, as to Captain Robison's,
tint the minutes should be produced. If ever the produc-
tion of such documents was necessary, it was necessary in
this case.

Dr. LUSHINGTON replied.
The House then divided—
For the motion
Against it
Majority —3l
CALTHORPE STREET AFFRAY.

Lord ALTHORP rose to move fur the appointment of
a Select Committee to inquire into the conduct of the
police on the occasion of the meeting in Coldhath-fields.
He eb'erved, the verdict of the jury on the coroner's in-
quest, and the decision of the jury on the subsequent trial
at the Old Bailey, rendered this course desirable. The
meeting in question was clearly assembled for an illegal
object, and did not become illegal in consequence of tu-
tnult. The police consequently were instructed to prevent
the assembling of the meeting, but were ordered to use
no violence in the discharge of that duty, except it were
necessary for the arrest of any persons who might take a
lead in the proceedings. But they were assailed on their
appearance ; they were pelted with stones before they ex-
ercised any violence whatever towards the assembly. It
was possible that, under these circumstances, some of the
body might have behaved with more violence than the
occasion required ; he believed, however, that upon in-
quiry it would turn out that they did, as a body, conduct
themselves conformably to the instructions they received,
and did not use any violence until attacked, He believed