The Sun.
London, England, 1866-10-23 00:00:00

IN-CHIEF.

" Ist Charge.--It is to be regretted that in accord-
ance with precedent., and the advice of the Judge-
Advocate General of the Army, the court did not
find a special verdict with regard to the facts ad-
mitted by the prisoner and the intention denied by
him. Putting aside the question of form, it is now
the duty of the Commander-in-Chief to say that his
excellency is advised that the proof for the prosecu-
tion is complete in the several instances of the first
charge, with the exception of variances as to certain
items. This was shown in the careful analysis of the
evidence and the law regarding it which was sub-
mitted to the court on revision. The court, in its
discretion, having nevertheless recorded an acquittal,
his excellency may express his personal gratification
that the character of one he has long befriended will
have the advantage of this verdict in time to come.
His Excellency can only regret that serious military
misconduct on the part of the prisoner should have
deprived him, before the trial, of the benefit of the
doubts on which the court has apparently acted.
" 2d Charge.—His excellency is further advised
that the verdict on the second charge is contrary to
clear and sufficient proof. In this instance the pri-
soner disobeyed orders which were reasonable, In
accordance with the custom and regulation of a
army, and without obedience to which he could not
possibly clear his character of the most serious im-
putations. According to the principles of mili-
tarydiscipline and the dictates of the English judges,
all officers and soldiers are bound to obey orders
which are reasonable, and not contrary to the law
of the land.
" RECOMMENDATION TO MERCY.

" The Commander-in-Chief might perhaps earn
a cheap reputation for clemency and liberality by
attending to this recommendation. His Excellency
is compelled to show how such action on his part
would amount to a betrayal of his duty. The court,
if it considered the prisoner a fit and proper officer
to retain the commission of a captain in her Ma-
jesty's service, could have awarded punishment
other than dismissal. With respect to the alleged
extenuating circumstances, as being the ground of
the recommendation, his Excellency is under the
necessity of showing to the court that they have no
existence. If in doing so his Excellency's remarks
appear to press hardly on the prisoner, the respon-
sibility must rest on the recommendation, it being
most painful to his Excellency in any manner to
aggravate the situation of the prisoner. The whole
of the proCeedings show that a strong prima facie
case of the conduct stated in the first charge was
presented to the court by the prosecution. It was
this case against the prisoner of which he refused
to clear himself according to his obligations as a
military officer. In doing so he disobeyed orders
on various occasions. This disobedience was not
the result of momentary passion. It was deliberate,
it occurred at different times, and therefore it may
be held to have been premeditated. In short, the
prisoner showed a resolute determination to set
aside the orders of his military superiors, however
those orders might be expressed, and however he
might be warned of the illegality and danger of
the course he was pursuing. He finally committed
himself to a threat that he would not attend
the court-martial assembled for his trial unless
compelled by physical force ; measures having been
rendered necessary to convey him under a guard to
the court, if the threat should be executed. Thus
giving the prisoner the full advantage of the ac-
quittal on the first charge, the court cannot escape
from the dilemma of having recommended to mercy
an officer who, by his insubordinate conduct, com-
pelled the Commander-in-Chief to have recourse to
a court-inartial, which might have been saved by
obedience to orders on the part of the prisoner, the
same prisoner having set an example of deliberate
insubordination, which has already found its
imitators in the ranks, even in the very details of
the crime set out in the last charge of which the
prisoner has been found guilty. The court should
have asked itself, if it ever happens that a private
soldier, with his disadvantages of imperfect educa-
tion, is allowed to plead extenuating circumstances
when he wilfully disobeys a military order which
has been more than once repeated. Such an occur-
rence is simply unknown. The discipline and in-
tegrity of the army forbid the possibility of admit-
ting such a plea ; and the private soldier always re-
ceives the severest punishment for the offence which
a court-martial can award. What, then, can be
said of the disobedience of orders of the experienced
commissioned officer, who has acted deliberately and
of insubordination aforethought, and has thus set a
fatal and far-spreading example ? It is, his Excel-
lency thinks, abundantly clear that, if he were to
listen to this recommendation, it would be justly
said in every barrack-room in India that there was
one law for the officer and another for the soldier
in the vital point on due regard to which depends
the entire military system of her Majesty's forces,
and with it safety to her Majesty's arms and sub-
jects. To exercise mercy under such circumstances
belongs solely to the prerogative of her most gra-
cious Majesty the Queen.

" PROCEDURE.

"In 'the course of this long and unduly pro-
tracted trial there was much requiring unfavourable
comment in the matter of procedure. The Com-
mander-in-Chief trusts that the faults of procedure
to which he ala,des involving great loss of time, the
abuse of the right of cross-examination, and the
making use of a court-martial to propagate attacks
on witnesses not in presence of the court, will not be
drawn into precedents hereafter. This matter will
be more particularly dealt with in detail by the
Judge-Advocate-General of the Army, for the guid-
ance of general officers and courts-martial.

" W. R. MANSFIELD, General, Commanding-

in-Chief in India.

" The name of Captain Ernest Scott Jervis will
be struck off the returns' of her Majesty's 106th
Bombay Light Infantry from the date on which this
order may be communicated to him.—By order of
his Excellency the Commander-in-Chief.

" 11. E. LONODEN, Colonel."

TOLLS AT HIGHGATE ARCHWAY.—Yesterday a
decision was given at Highgate Police-court on an
important question—the right to take tolls at Highgate
Archway. Mr. Potter, clerk to the Hornsey Highway
Board, summoned one of the collectors, W. Knott, for ille-
gally taking 6d. from him for his horse and chaise. Mr.
Michael, barrister, attended for the complainant, and Mr.
Pattison, solicitor, for the company. A question was raised
as to the jurisdiction of the magistrate to hear the com-
plaint, under the Act 50 Geo. 111. obtained by the Arch-
way Company. Mr. Michael submitted that as the parti-
cular clause was copied into the general Turnpike Act
passed in the subsequent reign of Geo. IV., the court had
jurisdiction. Mr. Pattison maintained that as the road was
private property the bench had no jurisdiction. It appeared
that the question turned on the words, " each and every
end of the road," and as there was a railway station in the
course of erection the question was important. The bench
eventually decided they had no jurisdiction to hear the
case. Mr. Potter said an application would be made to the
Court of Queen's Bench for a mandamus. The chairman
(Mr. Bodkin), Mr. Croll, and Colonel Jeakes thought it
would be more satisfactory that the question should be
settled by that court. The summons was dismissed.
Mu. HOME, THE SPIRITUALIST, would appear
from the following to have become indeed at last, a Lyon.
The most animated gossip of the week, at least iu "spiri-
tual" circles, refers to Mr. Home. An octogenarian lady
of spiritualistic tendencies, having been forewarned by her
deceased husband of the man and the hour that were to
come together for her good, recognised them both in the
above demonstrator of spiritualism. The current story
adds, that the old lady had transferred much of her largo
fortune to the gentleman in question, has promised to make
over the remainder, and that Mr. Homo, becoming the
lady's adopted son, will speedily assume the name of Lyon.
If Mr. Home had only told us a year or two ago that the
spirits had this fortune in store for him, what additional
respect would now have waited on the cause of spiritualism!
THE NIECE OF OLIVER GOLDSMITH, Mrs. John
T. Hanson, whose case attracted some attention a short
time ago, and for whom a fund was raised to rescue her
from indigence, died on the 21st ult., at her residence,
West Hoboken, New Jersey, in the 81st year of her age.

,--7,,,
tilt,, ,:,..-: r\-4..0,
.
.
-44,$
61114 t IC% DIE. /A 4
ttruhr