§ SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, he rose to ask the Under Secretary of State for 1819 War, What opinion of the Judge Advocate General on the subject of the Mhow Court Martial was cited by His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief in his Memorandum of 18th December, 1862; what was the date of the opinion in which, as stated by the Under Secretary of State on the 29th and 30th. June, 1863, after consideration of the whole of the proceedings, the Judge Advocate General advised that the sentence of the Mhow Court Martial was legal, and in consequence of which opinion Paymaster Smales was, "after a time," gazetted out of the regiment; whether he will lay upon the table the evidence upon which it was determined to bring Colonel Crawley to a Court Martial; whether that evidence was previously submitted to the Judge Advocate General for his approval; and whether, before the court-martial was ordered, any statement was received from Colonel Crawley in answer to ex parte evidence?
MR. HEADLAMsaid, he would himself answer the question of the hon. Baronet. What he stated on a former occasion was, that he considered the proceedings of the Mhow Court Martial of such a kind that if the trial had occurred in this country he should not have advised Her Majesty that they should be confirmed without revision. But he did not upon that opinion advise Her Majesty to grant Mr. Smales a pardon. In point of fact, he stated as his opinion that, although the proceedings would have been submitted for revision, they were legal. The date of that opinion was the 27th November, 1862. He did not think that the evidence upon which it was determined to bring Colonel Crawley to a court-martial could be laid on the table of the House; but he would now read an extract from a letter written by himself—
The papers submitted to me appear to disclose evidence which, in the absence of contradiction or satisfactory explanation, would, in my opinion, warrant a conviction.With respect to the question as to whether any answer was received from Colonel Crawley in reference to the evidence, he had to say, that there was not time to have received an answer from him after the notice sent out that he was to be put upon his trial.
§ LORD HOTHAMsaid, he wished to know what was the date of the letter containing the extract just read?