MR. HUGHES' REPLY.
To THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR."
Stn,—I am much obliged by your courtmy in sending me proofs of " J. O.'s." letter. I never undertook to refute his story. I said it was unfair and ill timed, and I cannot alter my opinion.
I hed read the Duke of Cambridge's memorandum of December 18th, 1862. In it I find the praise of the Inniskillings since their return to India qualified by the admission of "unfavourable reports of individuals when off duty and at mess," which had called down his severe displeasure. And, valuable as the Duke's opinion on the point must be, I cannot put it so high as evidence of the real con- dition of the regiment at Alhow, when Colonel Crawley joined, as the official statement of the Brigadier who inspected the corps a fortnight only before that time.
I had also read Colonel Crawley's " reply," to some words from which "J. 0." triumphantly refers. In answer, I say, that a few words taken from a long speech, apart from their context, do not generally give the speaker's real meaning. They do not in this case. Further, I say, that the best evidence of what Colonel Crawley's real opinion was when he joined, must be official documents written by hini at the time, which I quoted, and not a reply founded on what he remembered a year afterwards, which " J. 0." prefers.
1 know that the old issue is net to be tried over again, but " J. 0." knows that the old and new issues are so interwoven that his story has almost as direct a bearing on the latter as on the former.
I find one slip only in my former letter, which I gladly take this opportunity to correct. Mr. Smalea did not sign the roll for January 1st, as mustering officer, it was loft unsigned.
I am yours faithfully,
Previous page
