COLONEL CRAWLEY'S ACQUITTAL.
MOST men have, probably, at some time of their lives, taken part in a game of football. At the commence- ment of the match the ball was plump, round, and buoyant, and the most vigorous of kicks seemed to make no impression on it. But as time wore on, the air little by little made an im- perceptible escape, and at last it became a mere flaccid leather- bag, incapable of being lifted a yard from the ground. Sooner or later a similar catastrophe awaits all wind-bags, and it would be unjust to deny that the case against Colonel Crawley —at least as it existed in the public apprehension—is pretty much in that plight. It had been depicted as a case of gross oppression and tyranny, amounting from a moral point of view to wilful murder, and it has now been reduced to the dimensions of an ordinary regimental squabble. By what fatality it is that the squabbles of cavalry regiments assume such gigantic dimensions, and that all the officers concerned in them cut such remarkably poor figures, is a question which, like that raised by the lady whose happy fortune it was to be introduced by a Pogram to a Hominy, is "too large to be dis- cussed here." But even without the confidential letter from the Horse Guards to Colonel Shute or Sir Hugh Rose's his- torical memoir of the 6th Dragoons (a literary dainty which, we trust, will not always be denied to the curiosity of man- kind), the public, having heard the evidence of the officers of that distinguished regiment, will have no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that they largely partook of that wilfulness which, in the opinion of the author of Eothen, is the most marked characteristic of English gentlemen. In excess, this noble quality scarcely renders its fortunate possessors amena- ble to discipline, nor is it, perhaps, one which peculiarly fits them for the discharge of the duties of subalterns in her Majesty's army. On the other hand, the public will readily understand that a Colonel who defends himself in the words of Cassius had also Cassius's faults of temper, and that if errors in the discharge of minute regimental duties are reproved with "choleric phrases," that Colonel's influ- ence with his officers is not likely to be extensive. When the combustible materials are thus carefully heaped to- gether any spark will produce a flame, and the quarrel once commenced will be fought a l' outrance. The minds of the belligerents are distorted, and the smallest incident, which in a calmer mood would scarcely attract attention, is regarded as a deliberate attempt to injure or insult. When once this state of things exists it is suite useless to expect that there will not be faults on both sides. Of course, if either of the parties to the quarrel steps beyond the law, the natural conse- quence must ensue. Anger is no excuse for illegality, but the errors of an incensed—in some sort a justly incensed man —must be great indeed to be of a sort to affect his reputation as a gentleman. And we do not hesitate to say that it seems to us that the errors of Colonel Crawley were not errors of this sort.
There does not appear to be the slightest reason for sup- posing that the unfortunate Serjeant-Major Lilley was regarded with enmity or even dislike by his commanding officer. A great war or court-martial was waging between Colonel Crawley and Paymaster Smales, and the Serjeant- Major was a warm partizan of the latter. In the warmth of his heart he even defied the order of the Court, which forbad the witnesses access to the evidence which had already been given, and publicly made use of most insubordinate language against his colonel. There are just the same excuses to be gade for poor Lilley as for Colonel Crawley himself, but he- had clearly overstepped the law, and the Colonel took advan- tage of it, just as he would have taken advantage of an enemy's blunder in the field of battle. The matter was- brought before the district commanding officer, and finally before the Commander-in-Chief at Bombay, and Lilley was. ordered into arrest. While in arrest, as all the world knows, he died, and the question is whether Colonel Crawley in executing these orders did not in his turn overstep the law by the exercise of undue and unauthorized severity. Let us first see what the orders were. General Farrell.
directed that Lilley should be kept in "close arrest under sentries," and that no one should have access to him without Colonel Crawley's express permission. This was on the 28th April. On the 6th of May, Sir William Mansfield further- ordered that he was to be kept "in arrest" till the proceed-- jugs of the court-martial against Mr. Smales were 'finally closed. It was contended first, that this order is altogether- illegal under the Article of War which provides that no soldier shall be kept in arrest for more than eight days, or• until a court-martial can assemble. This may be so, but Colonel Crawley is not responsible for that, at all events in a military court. Whether he is so in a civil court, the action which Lilley's companion in misfortune, Serjeant-Major- Wakefield, has brought against him will probably determine ; but we should be disposed to think that it is a case- to which the common-law maxim of respondent superior applies. Again, it will be observed that Sir William. Mansfield's order in terms only directs simple arrest, and this was pressed rather unfairly by the prosecution in reply, con- sidering that they had taken a different view in opening thefl case. On the whole, the construction originally put on the second order seems to be the correct one, for it was certainly meant as a confirmation of the first. If Sir William had meant to say to General Farrell, "I confirm your order, only I substitute simple for close arrest," he would surely have said so in terms. The fair construction of the second order would be that "arrest" in it means "the arrest" in which Lilley was. Sir William's object is to prescribe a term to the arrest, not to vary its nature, and in a criminal proceeding the accused should have the benefit of the doubt. This being taken to be the order—that Lilley was to be kept in close arrest till the end of the court-martial—we next inquire whether the authorities on the spot had no discretion. entrusted to them. Could the order under no circumstances. be varied ? It seems perfectly clear that Colonel Crawley, at all events, did not think so, for he applied to General Farrell to terminate the arrest before the proceedings of the court- martial were closed : and equally clear General Farrell did not think so either, for he acceded to this request. We may,_ therefore, take it that the authorities on the spot had a suffi- cient discretion entrusted to them to justify them in releasing: Lilley as soon as the object of his arrest was attained. What, thee, is the undue severity with which the Colonel ire charged ? For the arrest—legal or illegal—he is not respon- sible. The Serjeant-Major's first quarters, bad or good,. appear to have been such as the Government provides for serjeant-majors. That the sentry kept his prisoner constantly in his sight seems to be consistent with military usage in cases of close arrest, and if this rule pressed with peculia- , hardship on a married man, with a sick wife, it murit 11 remembered that Lilley, after all, had risen from the 'e. ranks, that the life of a married private soldier is unfortnr .:stely not consistent with very fastidious notions of domestc „rivac removed to that if the sentry's presence had been a gTealkr e'il th v separation, Mrs. Lllky could at any time have to the hospital. However long the Serjeant-i een mor awn doub continued—and long arrest in a hot climate; is:
a trying punishment—the doctors do not seem to have con- sidered that his health even was endangered up to the time of the seizure of which he died; and Colonel Crawley can hardly be expected to have had more foresight than the medical men. All that can be proved against the Colonel in the way of harsh words, "choleric phrases," and the like, show only that he considered Lilley to be a man who had no claim to considera- tion, and who must look only for strict justice at his hands. Still, when the proceedings of the Mhow Court-Martial were inordinately prolonged, it does seem that if Colonel Crawley's anger had not blinded his eyes he would have recognized that the time for exercising the discretionary power entrusted to General Farrell had come as soon as the evidence was finally closed. Unfortunately, he did not recognize it till a fortnight later, when, to Lilley at least, it was too late to be of any avail. Every reason Colonel Crawley gave them for termi- nating the arrest had been equally valid a fortnight sooner. And it was during that last fortnight that it became necessary to remove the Serjeant-Major to the smaller quarters, where all the inconveniences of his position were aggravated. To this we see no answer. An officer in command of a regiment is bound to think for his men, and especially is he bound to do so when they are suffering punishment for offences against himself, and in which his feelings are likely to engage him on the side of severity. Colonel Crawley, as it seems to us, was placed in circumstances which made the discharge of this duty very difficult, and he failed to discharge it, but that this failure caused the death of a good soldier was rather his misfortune than his fault, and certainly would not have justified the court in finding him guilty of gross and grievous cruelty.
We reject the charge of drunkenness brought against the unfortunate Serjeant-Major—not the smallest of the rather numerous indiscretions by Which the defence was marked— but a very little alcohol might easily have brought on apoplexy in a man of Lilley's bodily habits when depressed by long confinement and the illness of his wife, and Colonel Crawley cannot be held responsible for Lilley's imprudence. So if Captain Smales had a right to have access to his witness, it does not appear that he ever asked for it. And we shall never know whether the intercession of the officers of the regiment would have been of any service to Lilley, because the state of feeling was such that they would ask no favour of their Colonel. But, on the other hand, the Colonel had scarcely so conducted him- self towards them as to have any right to expect services of this sort at their hands. The charge of maligning Lieu- tenant Fitzsimon by saying that if there was any cruelty he must have caused it, was never a very serious one. The ex-Adjutant was another of the Smales party, and when the army learnt that Colonel Crawley thought him very likely to have made a blunder, they probably learnt no more than they knew already. Lieutenant Fitzsimon has, we imagine, been equally frank with reference to the Colonel.
Taking this view of the case, we have no kind of quarrel with the decision of the Court ; but there is some danger lest the feeling of sympathy for Colonel Crawley should be carried too far. It is certainly hard that mere indiscretion should be tortured into tyranny and cruelty, and that it should cost a man his fortune to refute the calumny. But it is well, never- theless, that the charge should have been sifted to the bottom before a tribunal which is above suspicion, and in the full light of day. If the notion had gone abroad that a non-com- missioned officer can suffer such gross injustice as to eluse his death, without even inquiry following on it, the service must inevitably have suffered. Distrust would have spread among the classes to whom we must look for our best soldiers. No inquiry in India could have obviated this evil, for public sus- picion, once aroused, is not easily allayed. And whatever the cost of this trial to the country, every shilling will be well spent if it establishes in the heart of the nation the conviction that, while public indignation may be appeased without a victim, no rank will be permitted to screen injustice.
Previous page
