The Sun.
London, England, 1867-07-10 00:00:00

Volunteer Investigation.

Yesterday a Court of Inquiry, directed by reso•
,utions passed at a recent Court of Lieutenancy of
the City of London, was held at the headquarters of

the Royal London Militia, Finsbury, into certain
charges preferred by Lieut.-Col. Lawrie, of the 3d
City of London Rifle Volunteer Corps, against
Captain Clark, of the same corps. The charges
were officially stated as follows :—First, that Capt.
William Robert Clark had been guilty of insubordi-
nation and conduct unbecoming an officer in writ-
ing a letter dated May 9, 1867, to her Majesty's

Commissioners of Lieutenancy, imputing to his
commanding officer personally malicious motives in
his conduct towards him (Captain Clark). Second,
that in such letter Captain Clark had untruly stated
that Lieut.-Col. Richards had given and continued
to give false certificates of efficiency to members of

tho regiment to enable them to compete for prizes
at Wimbledon and at regimental prize meetings.

The Court of Inquiry was composed of Lieut.-Col.
Warde, London Rifle Brigade, President ; Lieut.
Col. Walmisley, Ist London Artillery Corps; Lieut.
Aikman, 2d London Rifle Volunteers ; Capt.
Courtney, 2d London ; and Captain Stilwell, Ist
London Engineer Volunteers ; and it was attended
by Mr. Henley Smith, Clerk to the Court of Lieu-
tenancy, in his official capacity. Both Lieut.-Col.
Lawrie, who preferred the charges, and Capt. Clark,
against whom they were made, were present, the
latter being accompanied by Mr. Hannen as his
counsel. The evidence taken had reference almost
exclusively to the second charge, in which Captain
Clark was alleged to have untruly stated that Lieut. -
Col. Richards 11:-.1 given false certificates of effi-
ciency to members of the regiment to enable them to
compete for prizes at Wimbledon and at regimental
prize meetings. The inquiry turned principally on
the efficiency or otherwise of Lieut. Cooper, lately,
if not still, a member of the Third London Volun-
teer!, and on that point the sergeant-m ij )r of the
regiment, who was the chief witness, produced the
books of the corps to show the times, varying in
number, Lieut. Cooper had attended battalion and
company drill in 1861, '65, and '66, and other evi-
dence was given to show in which of those years he
shot for prizes. Capt. Clark, in reply to questions by
Col. Lawrie, stated in substance that Lieut. Cooper
shot iu 1866 in the Wimbledon competition, but not
on certificate, because there had been an alteration
in the rules of the National Rifle Association ; but
in his (Capt. (Mark's) letter to the Commissioners

of Lieutenancy he had stated that false certificates
of competency had been given by Col. Richards to
" a member" of the regim-nt, not to " members ;"
that the books of the regiment produced before the
present court showed that the colonel had given such
certificates to the officer in question in 1863, '64,
and '65, for the purpose of enabling him to com-
pete for the Queen's prize at Wimbledon, which in-
cluded other prizes ; and he (Capt. Clark) could not
produce the certificates of efficiency in respect to
Lieut. Cooper in 1863, '64, or '65, but he remem-
bered seeing the one for 1865 ; that, to the best of
his recollection, he saw the one for 1864, and to his
cA-tain knowledge he saw that for 1865, which was
in the usual form. Capt. Clark, still, replying to Col.
Lawrie, said he made no objection at the time to
Lieut. Cooper shooting at Wimbledon in 1866, and
that with respect to 1865 he did not know but that
the lieutenant was then efficient. Col. Richards was
then called and examined by Col. Lawrie. He said
he believed he was present at the meeting of the
shooting committee last year relating to the Queen's
prize, and that Lieut. Cooper's name was included
in the list of names forwarded by him last year of
representatives of the regiment at the shooting. On
19th June he made a special application in writing
to the National Rifle Association with respect to
Lieut. Cooper, stating in effect that from illness and
other causes which prevented him completing his
drills he was not efficient in 1865 and 1866, but that
he was efficient in 1863, according to the Volunteer
Act of 1863. That application was made under an
exceptional rule of the National Rifle Association,
which said, "As cases may occur in which intending
been unable
munbaebrloef fdrorimllswnaencetsosaf
roypfportu -
or effi-
ntyto competitors
c om p
ciency, the council will be prepared to deal excep-
' tionally in such cases, at the instanceof the command-
ing officerscompetitors NtirhhaiCth
ca intending
sesthe
belong,o f
th e providedcorps t
in all
corps under the Volunteer Act of 1863." To his
competitor has been returned as an effective of some
application he had a reply stating that Lieut. Cooper
might shoot subject to the articles of association.
That was the only occasion to his (witness's) know-
ledge that he ever forwarded the name of a non-
efficient member. He thought Lieut. Cooper did
not shoot for the regimental prize last autumn. On
perusingoi h
ler so
ft
Le i
cu tletterena on fCa
Lieutenancy,
y, dated
Clark
t. e
dtthe
e theof
May, In n
he
was completely at a loss to know what the captain
meant by such accusations. In cross-examination by
Captain Clark, witness said he did not know whether
Lieut. Cooper was efficient in 1864, and he did
not take any steps to ascertain that he was before he
wrote the letter to the council of the association to