§ MR. BUTTsaid, he wished to ask the Attorney General or the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether, on the return of Colonel Crawley to this Country, it is intended to prefer the charges against him before a Court Martial, or before the Court of Queen's Bench, or some other of the Common Law tribunals? The Government had determined to bring Colonel Crawley home to be tried on a charge of exceeding his authority. Any military officer who abused his authority in such a manner as to cause the death of a man was amenable to the charge of manslaughter. He (Mr. Butt) would carefully refrain from offering any opinion as to the case, but he believed that a constitutional principle of some importance was involved in it. He held, that the moment Colonel Grawley put his foot upon the soil of this country, he was amenable to the criminal courts. Colonel Crawley was now being brought home to be tried by court martial, but that tribunal had no cognizance of the charge of manslaughter, which, must be investigated by a civil court. The cases of Governor Wall 238 and of Sir Thomas Picton established this principle. Governor Wall, having unjustly subjected a man abroad to a drum-head court martial, and the man having died under the flogging inflicted, was brought to England, and, after being tried at the Old Bailey, was executed for the murder. He thought that a verdict, by a criminal tribunal, on the charge against him, would be more satisfactory than the decision of any court martial.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he could not but complain of the prejudice which such discussions excited against an officer who was yet to be put on his trial. Before Colonel Crawley had been found guilty, he was hunted down in that House and in the newspapers. As to the charge of manslaughter referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman, every military man knew that Colonel Crawley was not responsible for the confinement of Sergeant-Major Lilley, which took place by the order of the General in command, and from which the Colonel had not even the power to release him without permission. He wished to know on what charge Colonel Crawley was being brought home?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that the question, whether the charges should be preferred against Colonel Crawley before a court martial or a civil court had been very fully considered both by the Horse Guards and the War Office, and it appeared, that as the charges against him were of a military nature, the proper course was to try him by court martial. He could only follow up the appeal made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite—namely, that these discussions on Colonel Crawley's case should not be continually brought on, because, whether hon. Members wished to prejudice the case or not, such discussions could have but one effect—namely, to prejudice the minds of persons who would, perhaps, have to examine it judicially. With regard to the Question of the hon. Member (Mr. Cox), he had before had occasion to inform the House that the complaint made by Mr. Smales of the imprisonment of his witnesses by Colonel Crawley had been submitted, with all the allegations of Mr. Smales, for the opinion of the Judge Advocate General. ["When?"] These allegations had been submitted at different times, for Mr. Smales had made many at different times. [Mr. CONINGHAM: Subsequently to his being cashiered?] Yes, some of them. As to the remainder of the Question, whether the Judge Ad- 239 vocate General had given any opinion or advice on the subject, he could only repeat what he had stated to the House the other night—that the communications between the Judge Advocate General and the Horse Guards were all of a private and confidential nature, and it was not for the public interest, and was not conducive to the ends of justice that such opinions should, before they were acted upon, be published either by communication to this House or in any other way.
§ MR. CONINGHAMdenied that he had lightly made any attack on Colonel Crawley. He was one of the first to protest against that officer being made the scapegoat when officers of high rank were so deeply compromised. It must be remembered that the trial of Colonel Crawley gave no satisfaction to the deeply injured paymaster of the Inniskilling Dragoons. To cashier an officer simply for writing an insubordinate letter was almost unprecedented, and he could scarcely conceive how a body of English officers could find Captain Smales guilty on the charges preferred against him. His efforts had been directed to obtain a revocation of what he believed to be an unjust sentence. He believed there had been another court martial held upon Corporal Blake, of the Inniskillings, who was sentenced to forty-two days' hard labour, and loss of good-conduct stripes, for permitting a sentry to be outside the room in which Sergeant Major Lilley was confined, instead of inside.
§ MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, he rose to order. The matter under consideration was not that of Captain Smales, concerning which the hon. Gentleman had given a notice of a distinct Motion. He protested, in the name of the hon. Gentleman's own client, against his case being prejudiced by such observations.
§ MR. CONINGHAMIt is the hon. Gentleman is out of order, and I recommend him to confine his attention to the Irish Church, and to be more accurate in his facts the next time he brings it forward.
§ MR. BERNAL OSBORNEI rise again to order. The hon. Gentleman has no right to travel out of the question.
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid, he wished to know the exact point of order in question.
§ MR. BERNAL OSBORNEThe hon. Member is introducing the case of Captain Smales to prejudice that of Colonel Crawley.
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid, it was difficult to draw the line on a Motion upon going into 240 Committee of Supply; but if notice of a distinct Motion upon a particular subject had been given, it was not proper to enter upon it when another question had been raised.
§ SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he would appeal to the hon. Member for Brighton whether it would be advisable to continue the dicussion.
§ MR. CONINGHAMsaid, he wished to say that the treatment of Captain Smales had been such that he was not surprised that the authorities in India and at home were not anxious to have the question reopened. The hon. Member for Liskeard had not always been so well disposed towards the Horse Guards. The tongue of the hon. Member was then untied; but it was strange how silent he was when sitting on the Treasury Bench. He then came down to interrupt independent Members who had grievances to bring forward. He hoped that the noble Lord at the head of the Government would take compassion upon the hon. Gentleman, and give him a place in some of the outskirts of the Administration.
§ SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he would express a hope that the appeal made by the hon. and gallant Member for the Queen's County (Colonel Dunne) would be responded to; and that the House would refrain from further discussion on the subject of Colonel Crawley's case. He trusted that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Coningham) would, on reflection, regret the observations he had made. Personalities were not creditable to the House.
§ MAJOR GAVINsaid, that having been connected with the army of India, he could not remain silent when such charges were made against officers of the army. It was said that Captain Smales had been treated infamously, but no army in the world did its duty better than the army of India, and he felt bound to contradict the injurious assertions of the hon. Member.