The Sun.
London, England, 1866-10-03 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

TIMES.--Towards the close of last August we in-
troduced our readers to a story of Indian life, which
had already created much scandal, and which, what-
ever might be its issue, could only furnish matter
for regret. The case in question has now been
closed, but closed in a manner so unsatisfactory that
the attention of the public at home must be invited
to it anew. It will be remembered that Sir William
Mansfield, the Commander-in-Chief of the Indian
army, had suspected Captain Jervis, one of his aides-
de-camp and a member of his military household, of
improper and dishonest conduct in the discharge of
certain duties intrusted to him. On conceiving these
suspicions Sir William had not put himself personally
in communication with his aide-de-camp to hear
what would be said, but had assumed the probability,
if not the truth, of the charges, and had brought
Captain Jervis before one tribunal or another, until
in the end a court-martial was held for the public
trial of the whole case. The charges against Cap-
tain Jervis had in the meantime been seriously mul-
tiplied, until at last he stood accused of misappro-
priation, embezzlement, and fraud. He was said to
have made free with the wine, beer, and other stores
of his chief ; to have made false entries in the house-
hold accounts, and to have been guilty of disgraceful
deceit and downright robbery. Under these imputa-
tions the aide-de-camp lost his self-command, forgot
what was due to the discipline of the service, and ex-
posed himself to the further charges of contumacy,
disobedience, and insubordination. That was the
position of the case when we last left it, with the
court-martial still sitting, and the issue altogether
undetermined. Since then the telegraph, but only
the telegraph, has informed us that Captain Jervis
was found guilty by the court-martial on three out
of the five charges framed by the prosecution, that
he was sentenced to be dismissed the service, and
that, though the court added a recommendation to
mercy, this recommendation was rejected by the Com-
mander-in-Chief, who confirmed the sentence in all its
severity. The report as thus given would appear—
at any rate in the absence of fuller information—to
suggest little material for comment.Theprisoner would
seem to have been found more guilty than innocent,
the prosecution to have been sustained rather than
invalidated, and the impartial sentence of a lawful
Court to have been confirmed by a lawful authority.
But the actual facts are very different indeed. The
results of the trial, even as now briefly communicated
to us, present, upon a little closer examination, so
startling and yet so plain an aspect that it is hard
to imagine how the more complete intelligence on
its way can alter their substantial purport. To
convey this impression to the reader we need only
say that though Capt. Jervis was indeed convicted
on three charges and acquitted only on two, the
charges on which he was acquitted comprehended
the entire indictment for dishonesty and peculation,
while those on which he was convicted related ex-
clusively to his intemperate behaviour under• such
offensive imputations. According to the deliberate
judgment of the Court, after a most patient inquiry,
Capt. Jervis had not embezzled Sir William Mans-
field's stores, he had not kept fraudulent accounts,
he had not refused to produce his books and his
vouchers, nor had ho done those acts of larceny
with which he was charged. Of all this he was not
guilty. But he was guilty of disobedient conduct
and insubordinate language in meeting the pro-
ceedings taken against him, and thus, but thus only,
did he fall under the sentence of the Court. It is
impossible to deny that these facts—facts which
seem hardly to admit of qualification—furnish mat-
ter for very grave reflection, and constitute at first
sight a case which Sir William Mansfield will be
expected to explain. No doubt Captain Jervis
conducted himself unjustifiably towards his supe-
rior officer, and the sentence of the Court, heavy
as it may appear, was no doubt in conformity
with military law. But whereas the Court itself,
after thus discharging its inevitable duty, made al-
lowance for the prisoner's natural indignation, and
recommended him to mercy, this recommendation
was rejected by the very man whose injustice, un-
conscious though it was, had created the resentment
of the sufferer. It is hardly too much to say that
Sir William Mansfield himself was the cause of the
only offence which was brought home to Captain
Jervis. He had accused his aide-de-camp wrong-
fully, for so, after the verdict of the Court, we must
necessarily believe, and if under this wrongful accu-
sation Captain Jervis forgot what was still due to
his Commander-in-Chief,that Commander-in-Chief
ought surely of all men to be the first to condone
the fault. Yet Sir William would not even adopt
a merciful course when it was pressed upon him by
the Court which tried the case, and Captain Jervis
is thus punished by the sole voice and authority of
the man whose unintentional provocation drove him
to the commission of the wrong. We must still
remind the public, in justice to the Commander-in-
Chief, that his own explanations have yet to be
received ; but we must also, in justice to Captain
Jervis, and in the cause of right, repeat our opinion
that a defence of Sir William's severity under such
circumstances is almost impossible. We can con-
ceive that Sir William, in his own conviction©, dif-
fered from the finding of the Court on the first two
charges ; indeed, he appears to have been impressed
with an ineradicable belief in his aide-de-camp's
guilt from first to last. But in this case he was, un-
happily, prosecutor as well as judge of appeal, and
it was especially incumbent upon him to dismiss
from his thoughts all that might warp, his mind
from judicial impartiality. It may be that, not-
withstanding the conclusion of the court-martial Sir
kl'illiarn was firmly convinced of the prisoner's sub-
stantial unfitness to continue in the service of the
Queen, but even thus it will certainly be the opinion
of the public at home that he should have submitted
his own judgment to that of the court after its
solemn cognisance had been invoked. All that Sir
William knew or thought about the deserts of his
aide-de-camp he had an opportunity of stating to the
Court ; and he did state it, for he appeared as a
witness, and did his best to sustain the prosecution.
In this, however, he failed, and, having failed, it
would surely have been wiser if he had surren-
dered his own opinions, instead of indulging in what
would infallibly be regarded as vindictiveness rather
than inflexibility. It is not without sincere reluc-
tance. that we make these remarks upon an officer
whose honour and principle are well known, and
whose judgment and discretion have, up to this
time, been held in high esteem •, but we see no escape
from the conclusion. It would be the most chari-
table, and we imagine also the most correct, hypothe-
sis, if we supposed that Sir William Mansfield, abso-
solutely convinced in his own mind of the prisoner's
demerits, and holding himself still ultimately respon-
sible for the issue of the case, had refused to exercise,
against his convictions, the prerogative of mercy
with which his office invested him. Perhaps this is
the truth of the matter, but even so the decision was
ill-judged and wrong. The Court had pronounced
that Sir William was originally mistaken in the
opinions he had formed of his aide-de-camp's pro-
ceedings, and as these opinions had undoubtedly
given rise to the real offences which followed, it was
obviously the better course for the Commander-in-
Chief to accept the judgment of the Court, even in
opposition to his own, iu the one part of the case, and
to concur with its recommendation in the other.
PosT.—Foremost amongst the institutions of this
country with which it has become the fashion for the
more advanced section of political reformers to find
fault stands the House of Lords. Decency, respect
for the Sovereign, and possibly a wholesome dread
of the law, prevent Mr. Bright and his immediate
followers from attacking the occupant of the Throne;
but none of these considerations have sufficient
weight to deter them, whenever the opportunity
presents itself, of having a fling at a branch of the
Legislature, the status and privilege of whose mem-
bers depend on the accident of birth and not on the
expression of the popular will. It is, as Mr. Bright
has frequently expressed it, an opprobrium to a peo-
ple having any pretensions to being considered civi-
lised to entrust legislative functions to an hereditary
peerage ; and, by a parity of reasoning, we suppose
it might be equally suggested that it is barbarous to
elevate into a distinct branch of the Legislature an
hereditary monarch. Dismissing, however, from
consideration arguments which are directed against
the House of Lords, inasmuch as it forms a portion
of our monarchical system, and which are intended to
prove that republican institutions are superior to all
others, there are other arguments which have of late
years been advanced by men who do not necessarily
desire to see our present form of government
exchanged for a democracy. Of what use, it has
been asked, is the House of Lords—what good pur-
pose does it serve ? And assuming that it was
abolished, would any material change be effected in
our mode of government? Questions similar to these
have not unfrequently been put of late years, and
it must be confessed that it has not been easy for
those who believe in the excellence of the existing
order of things to advance conclusive reasons for
entertaining that belief. On the other hand, those
who would gladly see our institutions assimilated
to those which flourish on the opposite side of the
Atlantic have arguments ever ready at their fingers'
ends to demonstrate that the. House of Peers, if not
mischievous, is at least practically useless. Though
possessing co-ordinate jurisdiction with the House
of Commons, it is urged that the House of Lords is
on all matters in which the bulk of the people are
interested obliged to confirm the opinion expressed
by the other House of Parliament, and that, for all
practical purposes, its functions consist in ratifying
the measures to which the Commons have given
their assent. Considering the two houses as re-
spectively representing the aristocracy and the
multitude, those who ject to the House of Lords
contend that it is unable to vindicate the rights of
those who are its constituents, because, whenever the

interests of the few and of the many come in colli-
sion, those of the former are inevitably sacrificed.
In a word, it is said that the. English people would
not tolerate for a single day an hereditary peerage
with legislative functions if it ventured to assert the
rights conferred on it by the constitution, and to
put its veto on measures which the Commons in-
insisted on being passed into law. A legislative
chamber which performs its duties on sufferance,
and which is only permitted to have a will of its own
on unimportant occasions, or when the counsels of
the remaining chamber are divided, is not, it is said,
a serviceable element of any political organisation.
This, however, is not all. Some who watch the
manner in which the Houses of Lords and Commons
discharge their respective duties pretend that the
former, by its own conduct, admits that its func-
tions are comparatively unimportant. Although
every enactment which at the end of each session
finds its place in the statute-book must have been
formally submitted for consideration an equal num-
ber of times in each chamber, still the time occu-
pied in the House of Lords in discussion does not
equal one-twentieth part of the time similarly passed
in the House of Commons. The Lower House sits
four evenings in the week at 4 o'clock, and seldom
rises till after midnight, besides having a morning
sitting on Wednesdays from noon till 6 o'clock.
The House of Lords, on the contrary, sits but three
or four times in the week, and on each occasion, in
the large majority of cases, disposes of its business
in the course of one or two hours, and very fre-
quently in a few minutes. The Lord Chancellor
takes his seat on the woolsack at 5 o'clock, and,
unless on very exceptional occasions, any debate
which happens to supervene is brought to a close
before dinner time. If any peer springs to his legs
when the hour-hand of the clock approaches seven,
he invariably apologises for addressing the house at
so late an hour, and if he does not bring his remarks
to a conclusion before the clock strikes he will pro-
bably find himself with no other auditors than the
Chancellor and one or two of the other Ministers of
the Crown. As to the peers themselves, their ene-
mies allege that they are personally indifferent about
the important functions allotted to them by the
constitution, and, with the exception of such as are,
or hope to be, Ministers, never attend in their place
in Parliament. If, however, any young nobleman
just emerged from a minority should chance to re-
gard the work of legislation as a really serious occu-
pation, and should venture to introduce or to take
part in discussions on the merits of any measure
before the House, the cold looks of surprise with
which he will be greeted by noble lords apprehensive
of seeing their chamber converted into a debating
club will, in the majority of cases, deter him from
repeating the experiment. The House of Lords
cannot he an efficient branch of the Legislature if
it is thus that it discharges its duties, and if, even
in the opinion of those who are anxious to preserve
it, it is considered a fitting receptacle for worn-out
statesman who have passed their working years in
the House of Commons. There is no doubt much
weight in these charges, and those who recognise
the value of an hereditary peerage as part of our
political system would wish that they could be con-
clusively met. It is not in itself a valid objection
to the retention of a House of Lords that its mem-
bers do not do their duty as efficiently as might be
expected, nor is it any reason for depriving all peers
of their right to act as legislators because many of
their number, except on isolated occasions,- do not
care about availing themselves of their privileges.
It may, however, be fairly questioned if the neglect
of which some complain is not more apparent than
real. Supposing that peers attended in their house
in large numbers, and that the debates there, as in.
the House of Commons, occupied the entire even-
ing, would the actual result be much different from
what it is at present? It is not suggested that any
measures which have passed the Commons are al-
lowed to fall through from the unwillingness of the
Upper House to take them into consideration, and
if the peers are willing to accept them without ques-
tion because they have received the sanction of the
Lower House, it is not for the advocates of popular
rights to complain. The debates are of greater
duration in the House of Commons than in the
House of Lords, but the amonnt of bills passed in
both houses is the same. In the Upper House many
useful measures are originated which are approved
of by the Commons, and which otherwise might
never have found their way into the statute-book.
But although in practice the House of Lords may
be now found to fill as important a place as it did
in early times, we think that its members would do
well to recollect that it is the tendency of human
nature to judge by appearances, and it might act
wisely in evincing a little more interest in the gene-
ral work of legislation.

COUNTRY MARKETS.

-0-

GAINSBOROUGH-TUESDAY.

Our market was tolerably supplied with wheat to-day.
There was au improved trade at rather more money than
this-day week--old, 60s to 625; new, 50s to 565. Barley in
moderate show, and trade brisk, at fully late prices. Oats
and beans scarce, and quite as dear.