§ MR. D. FORTESCUEsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether, inasmuch as the Plans published with the Proceedings of the Court Martial on Colonel Crawley are liable to mislead the House, by representing the quarters in which Sergeant Major Lilley died as containing more than double their actual amount of accommodation, he would object to reconsider his former decision, and allow hon. Members an opportunity of inspecting the Models?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONI cannot admit, Sir, that the plans which have been published with the proceedings of the court-martial at Aldershot are in any degree calculated to mislead the minds of hon. Members. I think that if they will look at the plans in connection with the evidence referring to them, it is impossible that any misconception can arise as to the quarters in which Sergeant Major Lilley died. The reasons stated by me for not removing the models from the custody of the Judge Advocate General remain as strong as they were when I first explained them; but, at the same time, I have to state that if any hon. Member is not satisfied with the plans produced, my right hon. and learned Friend is quite willing to afford him the opportunity of inspecting the models at his office. Having answered that Question, perhaps the House will allow me to appeal to it, and to ask whether hon. Members intend to re-open the trial of Colonel Crawley, and to enter into minute details which have been already decided at Aldershot. It was considered by the Government that, as the proceedings of the court-martial in India had been published, and as they were supposed to reflect considerable blame upon Colonel Crawley, it would be most unjust to that gallant officer if the proceedings at the court-martial held at Aldershot were not given as full and wide a circulation as those which were supposed to implicate him so much. The conduct of the Government in ordering the court-martial at Aldershot has been the subject of criticism, and the Government are perfectly prepared to afford the House all the materials that could be possibly desired to form a judgment upon the merits of their conduct. But the Government did not expect, and I think the House will hardly hold it to be right, that when a full and ample investigation has been gone into before the only tribunal to form and pronounce a decision upon the case, it is hardly fair, or honourable, or consistent with our notions of fair play, that the evidence should be again gone over in this House, and that the country should be invited to arrive at a different conclusion from that already formed.
§ MR. D. FORTESCUEI entreat the House not in any way to prejudge the question of the court-martial, or the Resolution which I intend to bring forward, I beg now to ask the Judge Advocate, whether he can explain the circumstances 1657 under which an important passage in Dr. Barnett's evidence (between questions 591 and 592), relative to an alleged curtain in Sergeant Major Lilley's second quarters, which appears in The Times report of the court-martial on the 26th of November, 1863, has been omitted in the official Report of the Proceedings?
MR. HEADLAMIn consequence of the notice given by the hon. Gentleman, I have compared the report contained in The Times newspaper with the original record in my office, and I have to state that the original record is identical with the papers which have been laid before the House. But on comparing the original record with the report contained in The Times, I find that the passage in The Times' report is not in the original record. The passage referred to is as follows:— "To the Court—I have no recollection of ever seeing a curtain in Sergeant Major Lilley's second quarters." I cannot state how those words appeared in The Times and not in the official record.