The Sun.
London, England, 1866-10-31 00:00:00

Eir W. Mansfield on tLe Jervis Case.

Sir WILLIAM MANSFIELD is a clevei man. His
rise in the army has been almost unprecedented
in its rapidity, when unsupported by powerful
family interest. Not many years ago he was a
major in a foot regiment, and was said to have
almost decided on accepting the post of manager of
a bank, which has since ceased to exist. His whole
career has been marked by ability, and that sort of
ability which should have guarded him against the
fatal series of blunders by which he has lately, at
Simla, damaged his reputation. Sir 'WILLIAM is not
a good soldier, though he is a good diplomatist. He
is not a good general, though he is an able states-
man. Ile is not a good commander in the field,
but he is an eloquent speaker in the forum. His
talents were of so high an order that, though in a
wrong career, he has become the most successful
soldier of the British army. Nothing can more show
the damaging effects of the climate of India on a
man's mind, as Well as his body, than the mess he
has made of it in the JEIWIS case. Had he been in
strong physical health, it is difficult to believe that
his judgment would have allowed him to be betrayed
into such a position. The effect of India is to
weaken the constitution and to render a person
nervous, irritable, and excitable. The finer the
mind, the more likely is this to be the result. It is
almost incredible that Sir WILLIAM did not -see the
impropriety of awarding judgment in a case in
which he was plaintiff, and in which his feelings had
been excited to an overwhelming extent. After doing
his beat to obtain a conviction from a court selected
and constituted by himself, every member of which
was under his own personal control, and having
failed in proving the guilt of the priSoner in the
really damaging charges he had preferred, he has
committed himself to remarks condemning this
court, because it failed to detect a guilt which he
does not hesitate to ascribe to Capt. JERVIS, in spite
of the " finding" of the court. Proteeding from the
most unjust reiteration of his charge of petty larceny,
he goes on to comment on the breaches of discipline
committed by his late " aide." He declares that
" extenuating circumstances" cannot be considered
by an authority in awarding justice to a military
culprit. Now, we deny this, most emphatically, as
subversive of justice, and we maintain that what de-
feats the ends of justice in civil cases defeats it also
in military cases. Sir WILLIAM says " that a plea
" of extenuating circumstances to a private soldier in
" disobeying the orders of his superior is never
" allowed, and is simply unknown." If this were so,
the army would be a school of tyranny unknown to
any community of Englishmen. A commanding
officer, in considering a case, is bound to entertain
the circumstances under which the case occurred,
otherwise he is not administering justice, but is a
mere instrument for enforcing a penalty that the
malice of a superior may have extracted from an in-
ferior soldier. Suppose, for instance, a sergeant was
in charge of a party receiving the rations of the com-
pany. Suppose the sergeant, actuated by malice, sud-
denly accused one of the privates with making away
with his comrades tea orsugar for his own private use.
Suppose the accused, in a fit of anger at au accusa-
tion afterwards proved to be unjust, were to throw
down his load, and refuse to take further charge of
the articles committed to his care. Is this man to
be tried by a court-martial, and awarded the severest
punishment that the law allows for disobedience of
orders ? When the case was brought before his
commander, however strongly that officer might
censure the disobedience of orders, and a want of
temper on the part of the private—if he knew him

to be a good soldier—he would certainly not sold
the case to a court-martial. There are no men more
keenly alive to just dealing than the soldiers of her
MAJESTY'S army. And if they found their com-
manding officer a mere machine for enforcing the
malice and tyranny of his subordinates, instead of
protector, they would regard him with conten3pt.and
dislike and themselves a mere body of slaves. If the
case was between the colonel and his own military ser"
vast, and his own feelings were strongly interested,
his clear course would be to absent himself from the
orderly-room, and direct his second in command to
conduct the investigation. Sir WILLIAM undertakes
to show that the alleged extenuating circumstances
—the ground of the Court's recommendation to
mercy—had. no existence. In arguing out this
point, his Excellency has evaded the real ground.
It would strike the most superficial observer that
the point weighing in the minds of the Court was
the deep-seated anger and indignation excited in
the prisoner by the " frightful" charges suddenly
brought against him by his former friend, Sir
WILLIAM himself. The argument he uses is that
his orders were disobeyed not on hasty impulse, but
deliberately and with premeditation. I'he more
Captain JERVIS pondered on the "frightful" charge
the more savage he grew, and the more unreasoning
he became. It was the prisoner's misfortune to be
thus constituted, and it is clear that if a hasty bli"
pulse be recognised at all, it should have been ex-
tended to this gentleman throughout these proceed-
ings. The Court evidently held that Captain J ER-
vis was excited to insubordination by unjust charges,'
and that his feelings of indignation were kept up an
continued by a series of petty annoyances and in-
dignities. Sir WILLIAm evades this—the real point •
—and shows that after he had had time to cool be
still continued his insubordinate opposition to autho-
rity. It is strange that the effect of the worry 011
his Excellency, which is said to have seriously
damaged his health, should not have taught hint
that the effect was likely to be still greater on the
accused. Sir WILLIAM stands convicted of having
excited an officer with whom he had long been living
on terms of friendship to acts of military insuborcli'
nation, by preferring against him " fright f ul" charges
proved by his own court to be untrue. He stands
convicted of having made use of the insubordins"
Lion he had excited to ruin the officer against who°
he had directed the unjust charges. He stands 01-
victed of having used the power with which her
MAJESTY had clothed him to gratify a pre-conceived
feeling of enmity against this gentleman, al-
though against all sense of English law and jus-
tice. He stands convicted of having brought 11Pe°
the British army a gross scandal, and weakened
throughout India the bands of discipline IPy
great errors of judgment, tact, and temper. gli3
own words condemn him ; for if he escapes the con"
sequences of his acts it will be said, not only through;
out every barrack-room in India, but through°
every English home, that there is one law for
the commanded and another for the commander.'
Anglo-American Times.