§ THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYMy Lords, although I have given notice of my intention to put a Question to the Secretary of State for War, relating to the cases of Lieutenant Colonel Crawley and Sergeant Major Lilley, I do not propose to introduce it by any preliminary observations. I have no official knowledge of the matter, and I must be careful to say nothing, nor to make any observations that might give rise to unfounded suspicions or unjust impressions, But, at the same time, I think your Lordships will admit, that whether right or wrong, so frightful a picture as that presented in the case I have alluded to has never yet been brought under the notice of the British public; and I must add, that as far as I can judge, what has taken place hitherto is most unsatisfactory, and such, I believe, is also the judgment of the public. It is a matter of the very highest importance—it is of the highest importance to the safety and the discipline of the army—it is of the highest importance to the honour of the country, both of itself and in respect of the estimation in which it is held among foreign nations. I do not recollect in my experience any matter which has more profoundly moved the public feelings of the country. It is most desirable that further information should be given, and the whole matter should be further searched into and the facts laid bare before the public. Therefore, I will simply, in the words of my notice, ask the Secre- 891 tary of State for War, Whether it is the intention of the Government to institute any further Inquiry into the Cases of Lieutenant Colonel Crawley and Sergeant Major Lilley?
§ THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGEMy Lords, before my noble Friend the Secretary of State for War replies to the Question that has been put by the noble Earl, I think your Lordships will permit me to interpose in order that I may make one or two observations, not with reference to the circumstances connected with the court martial upon the late Paymaster Smales, nor with reference to anything that may occur hereafter should it be deemed, as I believe it will be found, necessary to have a court martial upon Lieutenant Colonel Crawley. But so much has been said with respect to the position I fill, and as to the line I have taken with regard to this melancholy proceeding, that it is right that your Lordships and the country should know the exact relative position in which I, filling the high position I have the honour to occupy, stand with reference to the Commander-in-Chief in India—and, in short, how I stand with reference to the whole matter. It may not be known to your Lordships that the conduct of the discipline of the army in India rests entirely with the Commander-in-Chief in India, and that as far my supervision extends it is merely that I stand in the position of a referee—in the position of a last appeal. But so seldom is that power exercised that I believe there is no instance r—or, at least, but a very distant one—when there has been any interference on the part of the Commander-in-Chief in England with regard to any court martial held in India. To such an extent does this go, that whereas the Commander-in-Chief in England submits to Her Majesty the name of any officer who, having been tried by court martial, is sentenced to be cashiered, and the actual cashiering does not take place until the Queen's pleasure has been taken, in India the fiat of the Commander-in-Chief in that country is absolute, and no reference is made to the Queen's pleasure. As I have taken notice of these proceedings, the noble Earl may say, why take notice of them at all? I will explain. As I have said, there is, no doubt, a last appeal to the Commander-in-Chief at home. The course of proceeding is this. When a court martial takes place in India, the circumstance is reported to the Commander-in-Chief in England, in 892 order that he may know how to act in such proceedings. The report of the court martial itself is transmitted to the Judge Advocate General, who forwards it to the Commander-in-Chief here, who has an opportunity of looking into the proceedings. He then merely returns it as a record to the Judge Advocate General's office. When these proceedings came to my notice, I must confess that I felt, as the noble Earl appears to feel, that there was something very peculiar and most singular in these proceedings, and they struck me as being so remarkable that it was right that the course which had been adopted should be, to a great extent, reviewed by the Commander-in-Chief at home, and his official opinion obtained upon them. Having arrived at that conclusion, how was I, my Lords, to act? Was I to act by the immediate removal of the officer chiefly implicated? In reviewing this case, it certainly appeared to be evident that very unfortunate and melancholy circumstances had occurred as regards this sergeant major; but, at the same time, I must frankly say, that it is only very recently that the real facts of the case have come to my knowledge. At the time my Memorandum was drawn up I was not in possession of the whole facts of the case. I knew some of the facts, but much was left behind that I had no doubt would in time be elicited; and I therefore abstained from doing more than expressing a very decided and positive opinion upon the whole case as regards Lieutenant Colonel Crawley. At the same time, I reserved myself to this extent—that unless I was satisfied on certain points on which I had then considerable doubt, I should be compelled to remove that officer from the command of his regiment. Now, it has been said that the reason why no action was taken was that two eminent men were concerned in the transaction—Sir Hugh Rose and Sir William Mansfield. No doubt these two distinguished general officers were concerned; but the question arises, were they concerned in such a manner that I was called on to take action with regard to them? Now, I most conscientiously believe that these two distinguished officers had every desire to do their duty, but that they committed a very serious error of judgment. That was my conviction, and I believe that to be the real state of the case. I believe that will come out as the result of any further investigation that may take place. But even as to the question of the irregularity of the impri- 893 sonment, to which such importance has been given, the facts connected with that imprisonment were not known to me when my Memorandum was written. It is only very recently that they have come to my knowledge. Of course, it was impossible for me to decide in the case, when really and truly I did not know the circumstances. I could not suppose that there could be any personal feeling in this matter on the part of these distinguished officers—Sir Hugh Rose and Sir William Mansfield. Not their military reputation merely, but their high character in the various eminent positions they had filled, led me to the conviction that they had erred in judgment, and certainly not from a desire to do what was cruel, unjust, or wrong in point of law. Their high character, I admit, had weight with me, and I must say I cannot conceive that either I or any other official person could have been justified in coming to a rash conclusion in so delicate and important a question. As to the result, I hope to prove in both cases I have not acted so undecidedly as I see I am accused of having done. Because, what has occurred? Why, at a very recent period circumstances have come to my knowledge which render it not only desirable but necessary to bring to a court martial Lieutenant Colonel Crawley. I am not going into the case, which is pending a judicial trial. It is only, I repeat, within a very few days—ten days—that I have been in a position to advise that that trial should take place upon the merits of the case. A great deal of time has elapsed since this case was first brought before the court; and I may be asked why such delay has occurred. Now, it must be recollected, my Lords, that the whole of these occurrences took place in India. It takes nearly three months before an answer can be had to any question that may arise here. We have had hardly a single paper from India with reference to this subject that has not required on our part fresh questions to be sent and fresh replies to be received from India. This going back and forward of communications, with three months' interval between each question, has protracted this unfortunate business longer than I could have wished, or than your Lordships perhaps may have expected. And now a further delay must occur. Sir William Mansfield, under whom this regiment is serving, is stationed in Bombay; but, as the Queen's troops in India are under the command in chief of the General Officer in Bengal, the conse- 894 quence is that every question of this description must go from Bombay to Bengal before it can come back officially to me. I have been obliged to point out these facts to your Lordships in-order to show that whatever has been done has been done with a view not to screen any person, but with the strictest and most earnest desire to do justice to all—not only to do justice to the feelings of distress naturally occasioned by the painful circumstances that have occurred, but also to do justice to those who have been implicated, and to whom your Lordships must wish to give every possible opportunity of defending and justifying themselves, if it is possible for them to do so. That, my Lords, is the only statement I have to make. As to any pressure being put upon me, I of course spurn the idea. It does so happen that I have never discussed the matter with any single individual except in an official manner, and then only with those parties on whose judgment I was enabled to rely in coming to a sound, just, and safe conclusion.
EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, that the speech of the illustrious Duke entirely relieved him from the necessity of saying more than a very few words on this subject, because, as their Lordships had been told, the intention of his Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief was to bring Lieu tenant Colonel Crawley to a court martial for the circumstances attending the death of Sergeant Major Lilley. As to the precise nature of the charges and the mode in which the trial would be conducted, these matters were now under the consideration of the authorities, and the case being handed over to a competent judicial tribunal, he should feel it his duty to refrain from expressing any opinion on the subject. He would only assure their Lordships that every step would be taken by the Government to insure that the inquiry should be conducted in the most open and fair manner, in order to secure the ends of justice as between all parties.
§ THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYhoped the inquiry would take place in England. It would be most unsatisfactory if it were transferred to India. In India the question had been almost prejudged by the allegation that Sergeant Major Lilley had died of apoplexy caused by habitual intoxication. He therefore repeated the hope, which was shared by a very large portion of the people of England, that the inquiry would take place here, and not in India.
§ THE EARL OF MALMESBURYwished to state, in justice to Lieutenant General Sir Hugh Rose, that he had that day seen a letter from that officer, stating that he should not have made the remarks he did, as to the death of Sergeant Major Lilley having been occasioned by intemperate habits, but for the written statement he received from Dr. Turnbull, the medical officer who attended him in prison, which mentioned the number of glasses of spirits which were drunk and which were certainly sufficient to lead to his death, from apoplexy. He thought it but fair to mention this. Whether it was true or not, Sir Hugh Rose had received that statement from the medical man who had attended Sergeant Major Lilley in prison, and that must; to a certain degree, vindicate Sir Hugh Rose in the remarks he had made.