Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

ness does not recollect whether there was a "chick," or bamboo screen, to the doorway between the outer and inner rooms. The chick admits the circulation of air, but does not allow a passer-by to see into the apartment. It is usual to have such chicks. Witness does not consider the second bungalow to be more unfavourable to health than any other quarter of the establishment. The first bungalow was pulled down. There was a correspondence between Colonel Crawley and the authorities as to pulling it down and providing other quarters for Lilley. Witness read that correspondence, and brought it from India, and gave it to the adjutant-general of the forces.

This correspondence showed that if Lilley did not obtain the comfortable quarters desired, it was not Colonel Crawley's fault. The witness referred to other letters, which were produced, including one from the commander-in-chief (Sir William Mansfield), condemning Lilley's language to his commander, as being unsoldierlike, ordering him to be displaced from his position as sergeantmajor, but not sanctioning a court-martial upon him. The letter also justified Colonel Crawley for charging the non-commissioned officers with conspiracy against him.

On the 24th of May witness received-twelve hours before Lilley died-a letter from Colonel Crawley, stating that as Paymaster Smales's defence had closed, there was no reason for keeping the sergeant-majors longer in close arrest, and asking witness to consult the major-general as to placing them in simple arrest, and witness replied on the 25th of May that the major-general permitted the enlargement of Lilley from close to simple arrest. The witness added, "Several times while Lilley was confined, General Farrell spoke to me relative to terminating the close arrest, and the major-general regretted that he could not terminate it, owing to orders from the commander-in-chief at Bombay that they were to remain in close arrest till the final adjournment of Paymaster Smales's court-martial. With that exception Colonel Crawley was, I think, the first person who represented the matter through me to the major-general. The ground on which, as far as I remember, Colonel Crawley suggested that the close arrest might terminate was, that the evidence for the defence being concluded, there was no longer any danger of the sergeant-major being tampered with."

Major Champion, in further cross-examination by the prisoner, said he was in constant communication with Colonel Crawley during the arrest of the three sergeants, and he never remarked any vindictive feeling in Colonel Crawley towards them. On the release of the three sergeants General Farrell, in the presence of the officers and non-commissioned officers, read an address written in witness's handwriting, as follows:-" Colonel Crawley, officers, and non-commissioned officers: His Excellency the Commander-in-Chief desired me in a letter, dated May 6, to dispose of the case of the late Sergeant-Major Lilley, and Troop-Sergeant-Majors Wakefield and Duval, when the court-martial should have finally closed its proceedings. The object of your being here assembled this morning is to have read to you those instructions, and also a despatch which reached me yesterday evening from the commander-in-chief. The assistant adjutant-general will now read first a memorandum dated June 2, and secondly, a letter, No. 13,747, 6th May. (Read accordingly.) Sergeants Wakefield and Duval, you are now released from arrest and from the consequences of your folly. Circumstances over which I had no control have lengthened the period of your arrest and confinement, and by the will of the Almighty your comrade, Sergeant-Major Lilley, has been taken away from among you,

and I deeply deplore his sudden death, and that he cannot have the consolation of forgiveness granted him in your presence. All of you must bear this in mind, and remember it to the last day of your service, that subordination to authorities placed over you is the golden rule of conduct for all soldiers serving her gracious Majesty. The late transactions, so clandestine and improper, so closely resembling mutiny towards your commander, have brought all this sorrow and trouble upon you. The consequences of such conduct were inevitable, and I trust you will hereafter show by your conduct that you have seen your fault in its true light, and strive to regain the confidence of your commanding officer. To the rest of you I have to say, that discipline and your own honour and happiness can only be maintained by your individual conduct in right feeling and subordination." Sergeant-Major Wakefield was present when the address was read, and appeared in perfect health. He did not seem to me at that time to be a "raving maniac."

On re-examination by the prosecutor, a plan was handed to the witness showing that the second bungalow was 9 feet 9 inches high, and he was asked if he still adhered to his statement that it was 12 feet 6 inches high. He said, “The height of the wall is 10 feet 4 inches by scale, but if measured on the outside it is 8 feet. The measurement of 9 feet 9 inches is 7 inches less than the height of the model. During my residence in India I do not remember that I ever occupied government quarters as small and confined as those last allotted to Sergeant-Major Lilley, but I have lived in smaller and worse ventilated rooms in a private bungalow. I define a close arrest to mean that a sentry must be over the prisoner's quarters. It is a mode of arrest resorted to when serious crimes are charged. There are no local orders on the subject in the Bombay Presidency. The matter is discretionary altogether. In the case of Lilley it was necessary to prevent communication with outside parties. To the best of my belief General Farrell was not aware that the sentry was placed inside Lilley's room. Colonel Crawley's order for the arrest stated that no one was to have access to Lilley's room, except by his (Colonel Crawley's) express permission."

A considerable number of commissioned and non-commissioned officers of the regiment testified to being present when Colonel Crawley gave the order that the sentry should not lose sight of Lilley night or day, and, in reply to remarks that the prisoner was married and that his wife was sick, said, "he did not care -married or single, his orders must be carried out." One of the sentries, however, stated that the orders were that the sentries should not go into Mrs. Lilley's bed-room.

These officers were cross-examined at some length on behalf of the prisoner, the object of Colonel Crawley being to show that they bore a grudge against him, and had been reprimanded for the animus they showed in the course of their examination on the former trial. Several witnesses, including Colonel White, spoke most highly of the late sergeant-major.

Private Blake stated that he posted the sentinel outside, according to the usual practice, and was arrested for doing so, and tried by court-martial for neglect of duty.

Sergeant Miles spoke strongly in favour of the prisoner; stated that no undue severity was used to Sergeant-Major Lilley, and that the sentries were posted in the usual manner. Sergeant-Major Lilley drank hard, but witness had never seen him drunk on duty.

Among other witnesses called was Troop-Sergeant Gannaway, who occupied

the quarters in the second bungalow before and after Lilley's confinement in them. He stated that, for accommodation and comfort, they were as good as those of any other sergeant-major in the regiment; indeed, they were cooler, having a canvas roof under the tiles. Whilst Lilley occupied them there were wet mats in the doors and windows to keep the room cool. He said Mr. Lilley was in the habit of taking stimulants, and that one morning he drank seven or eight glasses of brandy and soda-water. On the other hand, the highest testimony to the sobriety and general character of Sergeant-Major Lilley was borne by Lieutenant-Colonel Frederick Fitzwygram, of the 15th Hussars, a letter from whom, as follows, was given in evidence:—“I knew Sergeant-Major Lilley well from his entry into the service up to the period of my exchange with Lieutenant-Colonel Crawley. I can honestly say that during those many years, whether in the lower grades, or as my troop-sergeant-major, or in his after more important capacity as regimental sergeant-major, he was one of the best men I ever met. With regard to his sobriety, to which point I presume your inquiry is more immediately directed, I believe that my intercourse with him, from the time he became my sergeant-major up to the time I left the regiment, in 1860, was so constant and so continuous, that it is impossible that he could have been addicted to drink without my having some knowledge, or at least suspicion of it."

A good deal more evidence was given by soldiers of the regiment respecting the mode in which the close arrest was carried out. A number of corporals and privates who had acted as sentries over Lilley were examined. They did not think the position of the sentries caused any annoyance to Mrs. Lilley. Neither the Sergeant-Major nor Mrs. Lilley had made any complaint. The sentries were ordered not to inconvenience Mrs. Lilley in any way whatever. Several of the witnesses deposed to Sergeant-Major Lilley drinking brandy. On one occasion, according to the evidence of Private Dribble, Lilley drank several glasses of brandy. Another sentry deposed that the sergeant-major invited him to drink brandy, which he had in a bottle in a long boot placed under the couch; and that, when Lilley had finished the brandy, he gave witness the bottle to throw away. A servant of the sergeant-major stated that Lilley was in the habit of drinking spirits, but not to excess. He would take half a dram of

arrack in a cup of coffee the first thing in the morning. They said also that Lilley never made any complaints of suffering inconvenience from the way in which the sentries were posted.

Sergeant E. Mills, being cross-examined by Colonel Crawley, said that he saw Lilley drunk in 1844, at the Three Crowns, Nottingham; also at the Victoria, Newcastle-upon-Tyne; also at Scutari on Christmas day; also at Durham, while on the recruiting service; also at Mhow, and at Burhampore, while on the line of march. Witness did not report Lilley for being drunk. No one else to witness's knowledge saw Lilley drunk on those occasions.

Mrs. Ann Cotton, wife of Sergeant-Major Cotton, said, "I was sent for on the evening of the 24th of May, when Sergeant-Major Lilley died. He looked at me very hard, and Mrs. Lilley said, 'Do you know who that is?' He said, 'Yes, it is Mrs. Cotton.' He then took my hand, and said, ‘Mrs. Cotton, I am dying.' I said, 'You will soon be better.' He answered, 'No, my child, I never shall.' He took my hand again, and said, 'Good-bye, God bless you.' I then assisted Mrs. Lilley from the bed where her husband was dying, and laid her on a sofa until all was over. I then had her removed into my own quarters, where she remained until about a fortnight before her death."

The medical evidence, which was then proceeded with, formed a very important and interesting part of the inquiry.

man.

66

Mr. Oliver Burnett, assistant-surgeon 6th Dragoons, said he attended Mrs. Lilley for consumption for more than six months before Lilley's arrest. During the arrest she was in a declining state. The sentry could see into her bed-room, but not distinctly without moving the "chick." Witness could see the sentry's head from the bed-room; and witness, in asking Mrs. Lilley professional questions, always spoke in an undertone, lest the sentry should overhear him. During the arrest she was for many whole days in bed, and also during part of many other days. The witness added, The position of the sentries must have been an annoyance to Mrs. Lilley, and the inconvenience was not diminished after the 7th of May. Mrs. Lilley, by my orders, took brandy daily, and owing to her extreme debility she could consume four or five glasses daily without injury. I saw Lilley every day during his arrest. He was a sober, steady I never saw any appearance of drink about him, either before or during his arrest. On the morning of the 9th of June Colonel Crawley asked me, had I any idea of how much brandy Lilley had consumed during his confinement ? The colonel said, Lilley had twenty-three bottles of brandy, twelve of ale, a bottle or two of port wine, and a bottle of gin. I asked him did he wish me to make any addition to our report (of Lilley's case) in reference to the quantity of liquor supplied? The colonel replied, 'No; I have done it,' or, 'I will do it in my report.' I reported Lilley's case to Dr. Turnbull. My report stated that the excessive heat at the season of the year, the constitutional predisposition of the deceased to congestion, the peculiar and painful circumstances of his position, the serious illness of his wife causing depression of spirits, together with bilious and nervous derangement induced by a sedentary life attendant on close arrest in a man of the sergeant-major's active habits, acted as exciting causes to produce the complaint of which he died."

The hospital cases of Troop-Sergeant-Major Wakefield and Troop-SergeantMajor Duval, both of whom were in hospital after their release with fever, but recovered, were also put in and read; also the regimental casual report of the death of Sergeant-Major Lilley, stated to have died at Mhow, of apoplexy, on the 25th of May, 1862, and other formal medical documents, including the official post-mortem examination.

Examination resumed.-The medical opinion expressed by me and Dr. Turnbull in the detailed report I consider correct, and I do not wish to qualify it in any way. The witness then expressed his belief that Colonel Crawley was not aware that the close arrest was fatally injurious to Lilley's health. Witness was on intimate terms with Colonel Crawley and his family, and was daily and nightly in his house, being in attendance in consequence of illness in the family during Lilley's arrest; but he made no representation to Colonel Crawley or any of his family of any injury resulting to Sergeant-Major Lilley from the close arrest. It was at witness's recommendation that exercise was allowed to the three sergeant-majors on the 30th of April. Witness had no doubt that, if representations had been made to Colonel Crawley of the injury resulting from the close arrest, precautions would have been taken. The sergeant-major appeared to be in his usual health up to two days before his death. Neither witness nor any one else expected his death.

The additional report of Dr. Turnbull (in which witness concurred) was then read. It was entitled "Addenda to the detailed medical case of Sergeant-Major Lilley," and it was as follows:

"In addition to what was stated in my report forwarded yesterday, I have the honour to add that it has been brought to my notice that the deceased was in the habit of drinking a considerable quantity of brandy daily during the period of his arrest, and on inquiry I find the above statement to be correct. It is my opinion that this, in connexion with the other exciting causes before related, was calculated to increase the predisposition to an apoplectic seizure from which he died. The universal reputation which the deceased enjoyed in the regiment for sobriety and steadiness, and the medical officer in his daily visits never having noticed any symptoms of intemperance, precluded all suspicion as to his being addicted to the use of spirits.

"Mhow, June 9, 1862."

(Signed)

"G. A. TURNbull,

"Surgeon, 6th Dragoons.

Dr. Turnbull, M.D., of the 6th Dragoons, being called, said, Lilley was first allowed to take exercise on the 30th April. Witness had sent in a recommendation to Colonel Crawley that Lilley should be allowed to do so. He was then allowed to take exercise, accompanied by a non-commissioned officer. Witness considered the benefit of the exercise to have been in a great measure nullified by the manner in which it was carried out. Lilley complained to witness that his room was very close and hot, and asked the indulgence of being allowed to sit in the verandah. Witness reported this to Colonel Crawley, who replied, "Why, the sergeantmajors have morning and evening exercise, what more do they require?" No inquest was held on Lilley. Witness thought it a proper case for an inquest, and told Adjutant Davis to ask the commanding officer whether he wished an inquest to be held or not, and Adjutant Davis returned and stated that the commanding officer did not think an inquest necessary. Being further cross-examined, with a view to show that Sergeant-Major Lilley drank a good deal of spirits during the period of his close arrest, the witness stated that he had not visited Lilley during his arrest for the purpose of prescribing for him; and as to the quantity of spirits consumed by Lilley during his arrest, witness knew of it only by what had been stated to him by Assistant-Surgeon Burnett, who reported to him the information which he had received from Colonel Crawley and from Mrs. Lilley as to Lilley's consumption of spirits during his said arrest. Witness had never received any information from other persons.

A great many more witnesses were called, but not examined, on the part of the prosecution, the object being to give Colonel Crawley the opportunity of cross-examining them, of which he availed himself in some instances. A large amount of correspondence and documentary evidence was then put in. Through the whole inquiry the proceedings were much prolonged by the discussion of numerous objections to the admissibility of evidence and arguments as to the conduct of the case. At length, on the seventeenth day of the trial, the case for the prosecution was stated to be closed, upon which Colonel Crawley declared, that it was substantially the case for the defence. He proposed to call a few witnesses, and then to ask for an adjournment, in order to prepare his defence. He put in first a letter containing some important matter from Sir Hugh Rose, the commander-in-chief in India. The letter described Mhow as being comparatively healthy, and denied that Sergeant-Major Wakefield had been sent to hospital as a raving lunatic. It defended Colonel Crawley, and it described Sergeant-Major Lilley as having been habitually an ill-conducted non-commissioned officer, and said that his punishment was well merited. It also said

« AnteriorContinuar »