THE CRAWLEY COURT-MARITAL.

Southland Times, 2 March 1864, Page 5

THE CRAWLEY COURT-MARITAL.

(From the Times, December 24.) The promptitude of military justice in condemnation and punishment is proverbial, bnt few expected that so short a time would elapse between the trial of Colonel Crawley and his acquittal. That he must at last be acquitted, however, and honourably acquitted, of both the offences alleged against him became apparent to those who watched the case, at a very early stage. It is not too much to say that not only the charges formally made by the prosecution, but ever}' imputation on him that was tested by legal evidence in the course of the inquiry, signally broke down. He was accused of having aggravated the close arrest of Sergeant Lilley and the sufferings of his innocent wife by gvievioits and unnecessary hardships, and of having deliberately shifted his own responsibility for this detestable act upon a subordinate. Such conduct, if proceeding from the motives suggested, would have been feebly described as " unbecoming an officer and a gentleman f it would have indicated a disposition of monstrous malignity, and this disposition Col. Crawley's accusers did not shrink from attributing to him. Let us see how far this view of the case was supported by the facts. It was proved to demonstration that during a great part of his arrest, when Lilley was supposed to have been confined in a bomb-proof dungeon, he was actually living in a comfortable house, on a larger scale than suffices for many clergymen and half-pay officers in this country. During the remainder of it he occupied quarters inferior to the former, but equal to those of other married sergeants in India, and infinitely above the old level of barrack accommodation. In short, he Avas lodged well, tinder the cirenmstances, and, what is more to the purpose, it came out that it was not his Colonel's fault that he was not lodged better. His wife, being ill, might have been admitted to the female hospital, but naturally preferred to stay with her husband. Had she, therefore, been subjected to any inconvenience incident to the sergeant's position as a prisoner, there would have been no pretence for magnifying it into an outrage upon humanity. As it happens, however, there is really no reason to suppose that she experienced any inconvenience or "indignity" whatever. We would not utter a harsh or unfeeling Avord of Mrs Lilley, for whose character Colonel Crawley himself expresses a high respect ; but truth is truth, and we cannot help saying that a great deal of false delicacy has been wasted, in our opinion, upon this part of the subject. Privacy is a relative term ; a sergeant's wife is not accustomed to the 'same sort of privacy as a flue lady, and to say that Mrs Lilley' s modesty Avas wantonly insulted because a sentry might possibly have seen her lying in bed if he chose to look through the lining of a " chick" or the folds of a curtain appears to us absurd. There is not .the slightest proof that the sentry •ever stood within several, feet of her, .bed; there is positive .proof that they need not have done so, that it Avas contrary to. the spirit^ of their orders to do, so, and- that no complaint was ever made by her or. her husband 'after their removal into the second bungalow. ; It is time that the public should openly re,cpgnize that Avhich many have long suspected,— that the whole story of the "blackhole" in which Lilley was ' J <confined and of Mrs Lilley's is 'It was no "doubt honestly believed, 'by those Avho first circulated it in England, but'it must have been false to the knowledge of those who originated it on the spot. If it did not prejudice

his judges ' against Colonel Crawley, it tf as npt -only that their honour and impartiality iwere proof against it, but- that the exaggeration was so .enormous as to. defeat its own object. The whole case for the ; prosecution was of a piece with' the "grievous hardships" to which" we have , referred," and. when,. tUey melted away into the annoyances inseparable from close arrest, "the bottom," as the Americans say, "fell out of it.'.' This relieves us from the duty of analyzing the voluminous testimony bearing on the exact tejrms of >.the', orders given by Colonel Crawley to .the , Adjutants, ' and of those given by then! to the' sentries. ,We consider it to be clearly established that Colonel Crawley had np intention to' persecute Lilley, bus * ttia't no persecution was practised is the sufficient answer to the whole charge. So conclusive was this evidence, arid so "emphatically had eyery plausible "ground which could justify a conviction been negatived, that the prosecutor had recourse in his reply to a very questionable piece of tactics. Having originally admitted the legality of the close' arrest, and the duty of Colonel Crawley to carry out strictly the orders of his superiors, however unsatisfactory they may' have been to, a legal mind, he turned round and charged h'irii with ; not exercising a discretionary power of suspending or modifying those orders. It would have been easy for the defence to show, if they could have anticipated this line of argument, that no such discretion was believed by General Farrell to be vested in Colonel Crawley, or even in himself. We do not contend tha"t General Farrel was right, still less that Sir W. Mansfield's despatches were logical ; but, for the purpose of exculpating Col. Crawley, the fact that his commanding officer . declared his inability to change close arrest into simple arrest without referring to head-quarters is surely conclusive. But, even though this .• .subtle, argument had not been as hollow as it is, the unfairness, of such a " departure" from the case opened by the prosecution would be equally flagrant. It is a .first principle of legal procedure that no new matter is to be introduced in a reply, and if we could believe for a moment that this point was held back to be sprung upon the prisoner at the last, we should hold Colonel Horsford and his legal advisers guilty of a gross impropriety. Now that. a,. searching inquiry has taken place, a ; nd Colonel Crawler's complete acquittal has received the approval of bis Sovereign, he may. rely on the justice of his countrymen. That justice ought to be and will be as ample as the indignation against him was deep and widespread. We are far from thinking that this sentiment was in itself unjust or even hasty. Positive statements. uncontradicted, must carry conviction, and this is why men of the most exalted character cannot afford to leave definite calumnies to refute themselves. There can be no reason to doubt, after what has now been proved, that Colonel Crawley might have cleared himself long ago; but he is, at all events, entitled to the benefit of the plain fact that the only charges brought against him — doubtless the most damaging that could be devised — have crumbled away under cross-examination. We are bound to judge of the unknown from the known, and to dismiss from our minds all vague surmises as to the cause of disorganization in thelnniskilling Dragoons. It would be most unfair topresume that it was Colonel Crawley's fault, when he has again and again challenged inquiry into this delicate topic, and. the documents to which he appeals arc withheld by the, Horse Guards. Colonel Crawley may not have been always jitdicious; few men are ; but everything points to the conclusion that he was more sinned against than sinning, and succeeded to a command which would have tried the sagacity nf a statesman and the patience of a saint. He has suffered enough to atone for more errors rii judgment than he had time to commit. It is not for us to say whether, or how, tt_ is fitting that he should receive compensation for the sacrifice of his whole fortune in de- | fending his character. That is a question which, like the changes to be made in the (ith Dragoons, must be considered, in the first instance, by the military authorities. h\ the meantime, it is for the authors of the cruel slanders that have cost the country this vast expense and their victim such unmerited obloquy to stand on their own defence, and for those who have believed them to make the only reparation in their power by expressing without reserve their sense of the injustice that has been done.