THE MHOW COURT MARTIAL.—COLONEL CRAWLEY'S CASE.—QUESTION. (Hansard, 25 June 1863)

§ MR. CONINGHAM
said, he rose to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether, subsequently to the Memorandum of the 18th of December, a second Memorandum or Letter embodying the opinion of the Commander-in-Chief on the Mhow Court Martial had not been issued; also, whether the proceedings alleged by Paymaster Smales to have taken place on his Court Martial were submitted to the Judge Advocate General in England for his opinion, and whether that opinion was obtained before the Paymaster was gazetted out of the service?

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON
said, that in reply to the first part of the Question he had to state that no second memorandum or letter embodying the opinion of the Commander-in-Chief on the Mhow Court Martial had been issued; no public memorandum, at least. With regard to the second part of the hon. Member's Question, its terms were so extremely vague and indefinite that he did not think he should be justified in giving any answer. The hon. Member did not state to what "proceedings alleged by Paymaster Smales to have taken place" he referred. [Mr. CONINGHAM: The illegal proceedings.] The word "illegal," it would be observed, was not upon the paper. If the hon. Gentleman wished to have a specific answer to his Question, he must be good enough to state what the illegal proceedings were to which he referred, and how these bad been alleged by Paymaster Smales.

§ MR. BENTINCK
said, he would beg to ask his noble Friend a question on the subject. It might be in the recollection of the House that a few days before he had 1438 asked his noble Friend if he was able to state whether there was any precedent for holding a Court Martial in this country upon proceedings which had taken place in India. His noble Friend said he was not aware of any precedent on the subject. He now wished to ask his noble Friend, whether he had in the interval discovered that any such precedent existed; and, if not, to state whether the proposed course of proceeding did not involve a reflection upon, if not an insult to, the officers of the Indian army?

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON
I am not aware at the present moment that there is any precedent for the action taken by the Government in this case. I certainly cannot state as a matter of fact, but I can give it as my opinion, that this course of proceeding will not involve either any reflection or any insult upon the Indian army.

§ SIR DE LACY EVANS
observed that the noble Lord had stated that no "public" memorandum subsequent to that of the 18th of December "had been issued." Was the House, then, to infer from that that possibly some communication or memorandum not of a public character had been issued, which had not been produced?

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON
The Commander-in-Chief may have written privately to Sir Hugh Rose on this subject; but, if so, the communication has been wholly of a private nature, and such as I am unable to produce.

§ MR. CONINGHAM
said, he wished to ask whether he was to understand that, the noble Lord did not like the form of the question, or whether he declined to state whether the proceedings of the court martial were submitted for his opinion to the Judge Advocate General?

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON
said, that before he answered the question he must beg the hon. Member to state what the proceedings were to which he referred—either to state what was their purport, or describe where they were to be found.

COLONEL NORTH
said, that the question was not one of illegality. He begged to call the attention of his noble Friend to this, that two verdicts of these courts martial had been published. ["Order!"] He would beg, then, to move the adjournment of the House. The case was a very serious one. He had sat upon a great many courts martial; and be wished to ask bow it was possible, if the proposed court martial were held in England, to 1439 bring over from India all the evidence which they ought to have before them. It was a positive reflection upon the officers of the Indian service to suppose that there could not be found in India a sufficient number of officers whose honour could be depended upon to conduct the necessary inquiry fairly. It would be necessary to bring over Sir Hugh Hose and the other general officers concerned in the case. He did not know Colonel Crawley, but he must say, he thought the hon. Member for Brighton had behaved very unfairly towards that officer the other evening. The hon. Member for Brighton the other evening produced and read to the House—

§ MR. SPEAKER
said, the hon. and gallant Member was out of order in referring to a past debate.

COLONEL NORTH
He would then merely state that there were two versions of the proceedings at the court martial on Paymaster Smales—one published at Poonah, the other from the Judge Advocate's notes. He wished to know which of these versions was to be laid on the table. He hoped, in fairness to Colonel Crawley and all concerned, that the proper official proceedings would be laid upon the table.

MR. HEADLAM
said, that the original record of the proceedings was in his office, find he had no knowledge of any other copies. An official copy of that record would be laid on the table.

§ MR. CONINGHAM
, in seconding the Motion for adjournment, said, he wished to observe, by way of exemplifying the sort of illegality of which Paymaster Smales complained, that when he was placed on his trial, his witnesses were impounded, and he was unable to have access to them for the purpose of preparing his defence. There were several instances, and he only mentioned that as one of them.

§ MR. DISRAELI
There is one point on which, I think, some explanations are due from the Government—I mean with regard to the expenses of this inquiry. I do not know whether Colonel Crawley is to be burdened with these expenses. But there is a more important consideration with regard to the administration of justice than even these expenses—with regard to the country itself—which I think ought to be considered. When these witnesses are brought over to this country, they will be in the presence of each other, 1440 and of many other persons. Probably the Commander-in-Chief in India and other officers in command will be required. This will cause an amount of expenditure of which the House has at present no idea. I will not say that the trial will last as long as that of Warren Hastings, but it will last much longer than hon. Members suppose. This is a consideration which I think ought not to be absent from the mind of the House.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
The Commander-in-Chief has directed that the inquiry shall take place in England. I apprehend, that if any officer is ordered home by the military authorities from any part of the world, he is considered to be on duty and receives his pay.

§ SIR DE LACY EVANS
said, he differed altogether from the opinion, that if the court martial were held in England, it would be necessary to summon the Commander-in-Chief from India. All that Sir Hugh Rose and General Farrell did was to make a written communication on the subject of the court martial. The Commander-in-Chief was not one of the actors or witnesses, and he saw no valid reason for requiring his presence in this country. But he felt sure the country would not be satisfied unless the trial took place in England. Nor was any considerable expense, in his opinion, likely to be incurred. He humbly thought that the Government ought to commence the matter by ordering the regiment home. The regiment was alleged to be in a bad state, its term of service in India was nearly expired, and the only consideration was the expense, which need not be very great?

§ MR. E. P. BOUVERIE
said, he regretted that the discussion had been raised in so incidental a way. It would be much better if hon. Members would give notice of such questions, so that the House might have an opportunity of expressing an opinion. He wished to know distinctly, whether any communication had been addressed by the Commander-in-Chief to Sir Hugh Rose through the Adjutant General, the purport of which was to qualify the memorandum that had been laid on the table of the House?

§ MR. BENTINCK
said, the question before the House was more military than civil. The hon. and gallant Member (Sir De Lacy Evans) proposed that the regiment in question should be ordered home for the purpose of Carrying on the court martial. ["No!"] Then, for what other 1441 purpose? What would be the consequence? It would amount to a premium on misconduct. A regiment would only have to misconduct itself sufficiently to give occasion for a court martial, and then it would expect to be immediately ordered home, That would be a remarkable way of con ducting the affairs of the army. The hon. and gallant Member added that the people of this country would not be satisfied unless the court martial were held in Eng land. Now, as one of those who had the honour of a seat in that House as a representative of the people, he would express his belief that all that the people of this country had a right to require, and all that they would ask, was that justice should be done on both sides. He ventured to think it would be impossible for justice to be done if a tribunal were to try in this country proceedings that had occurred in India. It was obviously necessary that a hundred witnesses should be ordered home, and it would be impossible to do justice to both sides. Notwithstanding what had fallen from the noble Lord, it was quite impossible that, a course which appeared to be entirely without precedent should be adopted without offering a strong reflection, if not a positive insult, on the officers of the Indian army.

COLONEL DUNNE
said, the 8th Regiment was the first to come home, but that only nine months would elapse between the return of the 8th Regiment and the Inniskillings. As the expense had been alluded to, he would remark, that if the Government would change the rota, and order home the Inniskillings instead of the 8th, there would be no difficulty in regard to expense. At the same time, that kind of interference with the discipline of the army was most prejudicial to the service. He know that some of the stories which had been circulated in regard to the conduct of Colonel Crawley had been extremely exaggerated. The House had been told that Seregant Major Lilley was confined to one room, and that a sentry was put in his room. He believed that the sergeant major had a house of four rooms, and that the sentry was placed in the verandah, because in India sentries could not be placed in the sun. He thought that Paymaster Smales had been most properly dismissed the service for writing a most insubordinate letter. It was not the practice, he was informed, for commanding officers of regiments to muster their regiments in India. An officer, now 1442 a Member of that House, who had served in India, stated that it was not the custom to do so. A great deal had been said by the public press on the matter, but the House ought to yield, not to the public voice, but to the voice of justice.

§ MR. HUNT
said, he wished to ask whether it would be necessary to examine any native witnesses before the court martial; and, if so, whether any law existed which obliged them to come to this country for such a purpose against their will.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON
was unable, without notice, to answer the question just addressed to him. It was impossible to say what course the court martial would take. If the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie) would put his notice on the paper, he would answer it another day. He apprehended, however, that he should be compelled to repeat the answer which he had given on a previous day, that there was no public or official memorandum in existence on the subject except that which had been published. The hon. Member for Brighton had stated one portion of the proceedings taken against Paymaster Smales which he alleged was illegal. If, however, he was expected to answer questions of that kind, he must request hon. Members to state distinctly on the Notice Paper what they wished to know. In his opinion what had taken place showed the extreme inconvenience of discussing topics in this manner. There were very few evenings lately on which the hon. Member for Brighton had not placed some question on the Paper; and considering that he had given notice of his intention to bring the subject forward on the Motion for Supply, and that the Government had promised to lay the proceedings of the court martial on the table, be could not see what advantage could arise from these small incidental discussions.

§ MR. D. FORTESCUE
said, that what he had stated was, that Sergeant Major Lilley was at first confined to his own quarters, where he had several apartments; but that when he was ordered under confinement, he was removed from his proper quarters to others, where he was confined to a single room. It was in the single room that the sentry was posted. On that point he spoke from the testimony of two eye witnesses.

SIR FREDERIC SMITH
said, he much regretted that his hon. and gallant Friend bad raised the question, as it was very inconvenient to discuss matters of the 1443 kind pending the investigation that was to take place. He was one of those old officers who rejoiced very much at the course which the Government were going to take in bringing home the persons who were to give evidence. The trial ought to take place in this country, otherwise public opinion would not be satisfied. Sometimes when out of England, and the army had not the advantage of the presence of the Judge Advocate, everything was done in an irregular manner. But in this country, where that high officer was present, matters were properly and legally conducted. He was sure, if his hon. and learned Friend had been in India, the case would not now have to be tried in England. But it was because the persons who were to conduct such proceedings abroad, and who might be very excellent officers, were not acquainted with the law, that the irregularities which were complained of occurred. While he agreed with his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir De Lacy Evans) that the trial ought to take place in England, he did not agree with him that the regiment ought to be brought home. No doubt, Colonel Crawley and other officers, and even Sir Hugh Rose, the Commander in Chief, if considered necessary witnesses, would be ordered home.

§ SIR JAMES FERGUSSON
said, he should be sorry the discussion should close without noticing a remark which fell from the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just sat down. If it were true that it would be impossible that a court-martial—[Sir FREDERIC SMITH: I did not say impossible]—well, if it were probable that a court martial could take place in India without a reasonable prospect of justice being done, might not public opinion call imperatively many times a year for the transfer from India to this country of persons whose evidence might be considered necessary? It might be that the habits and mode of life incidental to service in India might generate scandals and serious inconveniences which did not often occur in England; but the House would establish a very dangerous precedent if it tacitly assented to such a doctrine as that such cases should be brought home in order that public opinion might be brought to bear upon them. But the House would do no such thing. That House and the country had confidence in the honour of courts martial, and believed they would do justice.