The Sun.
London, England, 1867-02-12 00:00:00

BOW STREET-THIS DAY.

EXAMINATION OF GEN. NELSON AND LIEUT. BRAND.
This morning General Nelson and Lieut. Brand
attended before Sir Thomas Henry to meet the
charge of the wilful murder of Mr. Gordon in
Jamaica.
The Court was crowded to excess. Mr. Bristow,
from the Admiralty, appeared for Lieut. Brand, and
Mr. Clode, from the War Department, appeared for
Gen. Nelson.
An application was made that the defendant
(Gen. Nelson) might have permission to stand in the
body of the Court instead of the felon's bar, but
General Nelson said he had not the slightest
desire to remove from the position he then occupied.
Mr. Rose said, before the case commenced, he
desired to correct a statement which had been
generally made, that he had given a promise that
Mr. Eyre should be in attendance.
Sir Thomas Henry said no such statement had
been made in that court.

Mr. Rose said it had appeared in nearly all the
newspapers. All he had done was to forward the
address of Mr. Eyre to the solicitors for the prose-
cution.

Mr. Clode said, as he had not been in attendance
on the first occasion, what he proposed to do was
to hear the whole of the matters brought before the
Court that day, and then, a remand, of course, being
granted, he would apply for a copy of the deposi-
tions, which he would submit to the law officers of
the defendant, and on the next occasion he should

be able to state the course he proposed to take.
Mr. Stepheis, the counsel for the prosecution,
said he had in the performance of his duty to enter
somewhat at length into the circumstances con-
nected with this case, and in doing so he should
have to travel over ground which had been gone
over before. The inquiry that day was a
legal and not a moral inquiry, and that Mr. Gordon
was executed in Jamaica, in the month of October,
1865, was admitted, and the great question was
whether that was legally done or not. Military
power, no doubt, was legal in certain cases ; it
was legal for the suppression of revolt, but it was
illegal when applied to the punishment of persons
for having taken part in that revolt. The
broad proposition, therefore, that ho laid down
was that military law in acts of repression was legal,
but as a punishment it was altogether illegal.
Martial law became law on a declaration of war
being made, but he contended that it was not in
the power of any Governor of a colony to declare
war, especially upon her Majesty's subjects; such
a proceeding would bo contrary to the fundamental
law of England. He contended that there
was no martial law in Jamaica until after
the promulgation of the proclamation of the 30th
of October, 1865, and therefore there could be
no offence against it prior to that period. It ap-
peared beyond the possibility of question, therefore,

that no person engaged in the disturbances in
Aforant Bay on the 11th of October could be brought
under military power proclaimed for the suppres-
sion of open revolt. That was the great principle
involved in the prosecution. With respect to Col.
Nelson, he felt it right to say that he as
animated but with one feeling, and that was

to prove the illegality of his conduct. With re-
spect to Lieut. Brand he had no evidence of per-
sonal malice beyond the making use of a few indis-
creet expressions, which he did not think worth
while to urge. He did not accuse him of any im-
propriety of conduct in what he did, but that being
concerned in the court-martial he was, to a certain
extent, liable for the actions of that inquiry, lie
then argued that the court-martial was illegal, and
that the execution of Gordon could not be called by
any other term than wilful murder. The question
a jury would ultimately have to determine wag
whether the sacrifice of Gordon's life was necessary
for the restoration of tranquillity in the island ; but
he felt he should be in such a position as to be
enabled to prove that Gordon's punishment was a
penal act, and not a measure of repression; that
the sentence was carried into execution as an act of
punishment, and not, as was alleged, to put down
an open rebellion against the authority of the
Crown. The charge against Gordon was drawn
up by Gen. Nelson. The court itself, he contended,
was altogether illegal, as it had not been constituted
according to the form of law observed in the forma-
tion of similar tribunals in England, and therefore
the whole of the acts done were in direct opposition
to the law. The learned gentleman concluded by
stating that he considered the act of the court-
martial altogether contrary to law, and therefore he
should ask eventually for the committal of the de-
fendants e. He expected to receive
some evidence from Jamaica by the next
on
further the c harg
mail, so that that would compel him at the close of
the proceedings that day to ask for a remand till
it arrived.

The following witnesses were then examined :--

Dr. Fiddes—He said he was a medical man and a justice
for the city and parish of Kingston, Jamaica. He was
medical adviser of William Gordon, who was a member of
the House of Assembly for the parish of St. Thomas-in-
the-East. Ho was not a melancholy man. Shortly before
the outbreak in tho island he saw Gordon. It was about
15 days prior. His health was then very bad. He saw bin'
at his own house, after which they went to the head-
quarters of General O'Connor. The General, Governor
Eyre, and Dr. Barbank were there. Tho Governor ar-
rested Gordon, and told him ho would not allow him to
leave the premises unless under escort. Dr. Barbank af-
terwards took him in charge. On leaving the Govern-
ment-house he saw Gordon driven off in a carriage, fol-
lowed by some mounted volunteers. There was no
disturbance or riot at the time in Kingston. Tho house in
which the arrest took place was in the centre of Kingston.
Mr Bristow—Dr. Fiddes, I shall trouble you with but
ono question. On either of these occasions TO
Liutena.nt Brand present ?
Witness—He was not.

Mr. Clodo said, on the part of General Nelson, ho ro-
served his cross-examination.

Mr. Andrew Lewis said he was in Jamaica in 1866'
He was a member of the Assembly and a justice of OA
peace. He attended the council of war at head-quarters
on the 13th of October, 18G5. In consequence of what was
static' by Governor Eyro he (witness) was a consenting
party to the declaration of martial law. After the procla-
mation ho wont on board the Clarabol steamer in company
with Governor Eyre and General Nelson. In the first
instance they landed at Morant Bay. It was on the
same day that the proclamation was issued. Governor EY,
Gen. Nelson, and the whole of us remained there until
9 o'clock, and then went to Port Morant. Next morning
we returned to Morant Bay and from thence to Kingston.
Gen. Nelson was in command in Morant Bay. After be
had been several days in Morant Bay ho saw Gordon 0°
board the Wolverine on October 21 ; he was then return-
ing from Port Antonio to the bay. He was then in C°s-
- Ho had a sentry over him. Ho saw hint afterwards
at Morant Bay ; ho was still in custody. lle saw him again
before the court-martial, which was held on a 53117
day, the 21st. Tho court martial was composed of Veil::
Brand, Lieut. Errington, and Ensign Kelly.
evidence, and Gordon made a defence. Mr. Gordon hart;
say was there, and acted as provost-marshal. Ile took past
in the proceedings. He saw Gordon the day he was to
hung. He was in custody of the provost-marshal, awl
largo number of sailors were present. Gordon was
under the centre arch of the remains of the court-hone
General Nelson was present when tho body was cut
the next morning. lie was at Alorant Bay en the 2301_
There was then no resistance to the troops that he sanr.:'o
heard of. Had there been he must have heard of it. 111,_
could not recollect whether Lieutenant Brand was prese
at the execution.
t•
By Air. Bri§toy—Wito only ccosi9A that 1.410.1
They won