Star. — London, England, 1822-02-14 00:00:00

___.__.,.. a drawing off the soldiers, hut reminded him that the Iptopriety of the movement was so obvious, that it' was only what must have suggested itself to hint; but, at to saying that he regretted that the firing took place.. or that he had exchanged any civilities with the Magistrate, on 'being introduced to him— he had no recollection whatever that such was the ease ; at the same time be stated all this took place amidst great confusion. This was Major Oakes's reply ; and the House would see that he admitted' that he gave no order for the firing, and that he (Sir Robert) had suggested the flank movement for the ivithdrawing•of the soldiers. He admitted that the Magistrate was presented to him. He said he did hot remember expressing any regret that the firing took place ; hut it was natural enough that he should not have remembered adding that he regretted it had taken place, particularly as there was great cont.'s i tcm at the moment. At all events , his not remem "ng the circumstance was no contradiction of his 'Sir R. Wilson's) assertion. The next step which he rsad occasion to notice, though at some distance of t ime, was his addressing a letter to Mr.Whyte, on the 16th of October, asking him, did he not, during the Ileri interview which he had with him on the day of the funeral, express frequently the strongest wish for the restoration of peace ? and also, whether or not his conduct was such as to shew hat he really had the reititn of tranquillity at heart? He added in his let ter, that it was his intention to make use of his an swer in Patliament if be should think fit. Mr. Whyte, in reply, stated, that in consequence of the candid declaration that his answer might be produced in Parliament, and as he did not wish that his name should be drawn into the business, he declined giving any answer to the questions put to him.— He again wrote to Mr. Whyte, informing him of his intention to lay before Parliament, in the course of his statement, the correspondence which had first taken place. He (Sir Robert) would challenge the. production of Mr. Whyte as a witness at the Bar.- 11e had heard that Mr. Whyte was a man of honour and strictly religious principles, and would be glad of an opportunity to put the question to him, whe t!.er he did not own to him, that he (Sir Robert Wil son) shewed the utmost anxiety for the restoration of peace and order? If he had a conscience he could not deny that he did. Such were the facts on which :'e re s ted his justification, and which he WAS prepared to make good. He would then ask, was it the of f:2llce for being at all present at the funeral that he was stigmatised, so far as Ministerial resentment could fix degradation upon him—was it for paying the last tribute of respect to the memory of her ssLoni, when living, he had thought it his duty to uphold ? Or was it for the offence of having acted steadily in the course in which he had set out, and which was pointed out by his feelings and his judg ment, and sanctioned by the approval of his consti tuents ? Was it because he had paid to the obsequies of her late Majesty that respect which was refused her whilst living—which was due to her rank—nay, which was due to her sex ? This could not be a charge, for his Majesty's Ministers had permitted a Guard of Honour to accompany her remains. What then was his offence? Was it—but he could not sup pose it was—that his timely and successful inter ference to prevent the effusion of blood constituted his crime?—(Hear, hear) —But whatever opinion might be formed of that interference, he did not look back to it with regret. He rejoiced that he had inter fered to put a stop to the further progress of proceed ings which, whatever might have been the original cause of the affray, had assumed a most intemperate character when he came up ; and which, if they were suffered to be persevered in, would have produced consequences fatal equally to the soldiery and the people. He referred to his conversations with Major Oakes and the Magistrates, to prove that his object was not to turn the procession from the route pre scribed, but to spare the military themselves the la mentable consequences of persevering in that line of proceeding. And if, under the influence of anxious feelings—if, in order to save the effusion of blood, he had addressed some observations to a Military Officer, whose conduct was intemperate, were those observations too minutely to be criticised ? Did they make widows and orphans?—(Hear, hear.) — In the steps which he took he was governed by a re and to the feelings of the soldiers, who, when the effervescence of the moment was over, he was sure would be themselves the first to deplore the conse quences of their conduct. But who could say that in doing so he wished to throw the military off their guard, or to expose them to the attack of the popu lace ? He disregard the safety of a soldier !—he de precated the charge. He appealed to every military man in the country—he appealed to every military man in that House with whom he had ever been pro fessionally connected—he appealed to every soldier who had fought with him or served under him—he challenged them to say that upon any occasion he had been inattentive not only to their safety, but to their comforts, still less that he had been unmindful of their honour. He called upon any military men who now heard him, if they could, to say that in all his dealings with them he had not blended his duty with mildness, and the exercise of his professional obliga tions with military and professional kindness. His object was humane, but the manner in which he sought to obtain that object was not incompatible with his regard for the law. True it was, that the law required every one present to assist in putting it in force, and so strong was that obligation, that it looked upon all as accomplices in its violation who did not give such assistance—s(Hear, hear). — But the administration of the law was best adminis tered when tempered with mercy—it was not neces sary that its march should be traced in blood ; and he, therefore, supposed that (possessing, as he did, some little influence) he should be criminally inert, if he sat upon his horse at a distance, at the same time, feeling that his presence would tend to restore the peace—(Hear, hear).— Would this House give their sanction to a distinction being-made between the duty which a civil and a military man owed to good order and society? Would they admit a difference in the obligations 14 - the two men ? or that that which would be humane and commendable in one of them, was to be viewed as criminal, and treated as punishable, be cause done by a registered member of the Army ? He called upon the House to extend to him its shelter and pi tection. He called upon diem to shew a true attachment to the Crown, not by a subserviency to power, but by maintaining justice, and throwing itscli between the oppressors and the oppressed.— He called upon them not to beeome the insteettosn . ts of injustice s and, in this instilment leastinet. ea their want of sympathy with the wishes virthelnepie, and indifference to their interest', which made -the country ring from one end to another call for a Reform in this House —(Hear, hear, He had always felt pride at wearing the not-because it was worn" by many great iden—for that quality was so common that to be a distinction; but he felt pride at because he saw it worn by men who were protectors of, and the protected by, the laws—( Hear, hear). He hoped the day would never come when the military uniform was a badge to mark out its wearer as an enemy to the citizen. All considerations as affecting himself were merged in the general question. It mattered little for what reasons lie had been dismissed the Army, he had an approving cop. science, which told him that on the 14th of Augme he had done his duty to his King and country, and be came therefore with confidence to claim redress at the hands of Parliament, that protection and redress which he now demanded (Loud and continued.cheers). The Hon. Member concluded by moving, " That there be laid before this House, copies of all the cor respondence which took place between his Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief, Lord Sidmouth, and Sir Robert Wilson, relating to the dismissal of the latter from the Army." Mr. LAMBTON seconded the motion. Lord PALMERSTON said, that the Honourable Member had set out in his speech by disavowing the narrow basis of personal consideration, and of rest ing his case upon the broader one—of the general interests and liberties of the People. He was pre pared to resist the motion of the Hon. Member upon the very same principle, as one tending to attack one of the clearest provisions of the Constitution, and thereby to infringe upon the liberties of every English man. If there was any one of the prerogatives of the Crown more indisputable, and more undisputed than another, it was that which recognised its power to remove individuals from the Army at all times, without assigning a cause, much more shewing a reason. This prerogative rested upon the most ancient usage in all periods, and he could produce examples upon examples, of its exercise in those times which Gentlemen opposite were accustomed to refer to as the best and the most worthy to be followed. But he would only appeal to one single fact, which would do away with the necessity for his referring to those precedents without number by which his case could be strengthened if it required it. He would then appeal to the fact that, in the year 1734, Bills were presented to both Houses of Parliament to restrain the exercise of this prerogative, and in all the debates it was admitted by both sides that it did exist in full force. Since that time no laws had been passed to alter that prerogative, or to affect the full exercise of its power. He was prepared to contend, not only that the prerogative existed, but that none was more necessary, not for the advantage of the Crown, but, as all other prerogatives were held, for the benefit of the people. Without it, discipline could not be maintained in the Army—( Hear, hear, hear).— He repeated it, that without this power in the Crown the necessary discipline of the Army could not be maintained—(Cheers).--If an Officer could not be dis missed from the Army without the consent of his fellow-officers, they were creating a fourth Estate in the real m—(Hear, hear).—Let Parliament once make the Army independent of the Crown, and they would soon see that the Army would make itself indepen dent of them. Look at the annals of our history, and the fact would be fourid written in letters of blood, that when the Parliament detached the Army from the King, the first act of the Army was to turn the Parliament out of doors—(Hear, hear). —He must confess his surprise to hear these things supported by Hon. Gentlemen who were so used to cry out against the Army and its dangers. He contended then that this prerogative clearly and undoubtedly existed; but he was quite ready to admit that it was one which was only to be exercised under the responsibility of those who advised it, and must be consequently pre pared to stand by the advice which they had given. He must also insist, that the prerogative, under such responsibility, being wholesome and necessary, Par. liament ought not to canvass its exercise without just and clear grounds. There should be strong presump tion of abuse—( Cheers from some of the Opposition). He repeated, that there should be strong presump tion of abuse, and he was prepared to say, that there was no such presumption in the present case—(Con tinued cheers). The Hon. Member had insinuated that the hostility of Ministers had been provoked by his activity in that House—(Hear, hear, from the Opposition). This was really placing a high value upon himself, and which, perhaps, others would not be disposed to grant. But the Hon. Member cer tainly did seem to think that Ministers were afraid of his talents, and so wished to get rid of him—(Lend shouts of hear from the Opposition Benches). And he believed that there were politicians in that House who could think meanly enough of their opponents, to be lieve that they would be guilty of such a pitiful trick. If Ministers were prepared to act upon such princi ples, were there no other Gentlemen in that House who also held Commissions in the Army, that were in the habit of systematically opposing Government? If that were the ground upon which they acted, would not a gallant General, who, he believed, represented some Scotch Burghs, have been dis missed long before this ? If that were the ground -upon which the Hon. Member himself was dismissed. why did the Ministers wait till the 14th Aug. 18211 —He believed that they would not have been want ing in opportunities, if they had been disposed so to act, long before that period. But it was a notorious fact, that at all periods there had been many Military Officers who always voted against the Minister. He denied, therefore, that any ground existed for such a .charge. Without going into any of the details through which the Hon. Member had travelled, there was ample ground to justify the exercise of the King's prerogative in what the Hon. Member had himself admitted. He would say, that where they found a person holding the King's Commission, and wearing Orders which he could only hold by the King's con sent, remaining with a mob of persons who had com mitted acts of disturbance and resistance to the law. ful authorities, that was enough; that was a direct insult to the King. But what should he say, when, according to that person's own statement, he came an 4 found the Kings troops in a state which his mi litary experience enabled him to know was that of being iepulsed and broken, and reduced to the neces sity ordefending their lives ?—(Loud cheers). After a ji P"Per dim inherent premgative of the Crown; and he called upon the House ep reject the motion. Mr. LAMBTO'N lelt warmly Indignant at the treatment bf Ministers to his gallant Friend.; and the insulting manner in which the Noble Lord had sneered at that and another g allant Friend of Ms, whose services in the field m ight at least keep pace with the Noble Lord's evil services. He denied the antiquity of this alleged prerogative Nb one ought to be dismissed the service of their country, without a proper inquiry into his conduct. The Crown had parted with the power of appointing Judges during its own pleasure ; and yet no evil, but much good, had resulted froin it. It was not the deprivation of the prerogative that destroyed Charles I. but his overstretching all his prerogatives. His Honourable I Friend had felt a ball pass his face, and it was no wonder, after so narrow an escape, if he did feel angry, and tell the soldier it was disgraceful to con tinue firing. Would not the Noble Lord himself have endeavoured to prevent the dissensions which might end in the destruction of several of his coun trymen ? He could apply no term but murder to the wantonly firing at an unarmed populace.— His gallant Friend had a right to know his offence and his accusers ; though it was well known that his only crime was, his shewing his attachment to the remains of his injured Queen. His gallant Friend had declared upon his honour he had had no share in the obstructions to the funeral procession. His gallant Friend had completely vindicated himself; and the Noble Lord had failed to prove him guilty. He had reason to believe that all his Majesty s Ministers did not approve of the dismissal of his gallant Friend.— One of Sir Robert Wilson's sons had been placed at the Military College, as the son of an Officer. Now he (Mr. Lambton) was in possession of a letter, an nouncing to Sir Robert that he must pay a larger salary for the education of that lad, because he could no longer be considered as the son of an Officer— (Chrers).—The letter was dated October Sd, 1821 ; and it called upon Sir Robert Wilson to pay £l5O per annum, instead of £75, because his son could no longer be held to be the son of an Officer, and must be transferred to the class of sons of private Gentle men—(Great cheering).—Was not this done to skew Sir Robert Wilson that he was under severe punish ment ? Was it not a part of that system under which Gentlemen had been annoyed and attacked when they differed from Government upon political questions ? He instanced the dismissal of Lords Fitzwilliam and Fife, as a proof of the desire of Ministers to introduce a military despotism. These, in a constitutional point of view, were things fraught with alarm and danger tcr the col:Hwy. His gallant Friend should not have been deprived of his emoluments after his hard ser vices, for which he bad received no honours. All justice and constitutional liberty had been violated in the person of his gallant Friend. Mr. N.CALVERT was of opinion that the power of dismissal claimed by the Crown ought only to be exercised under the revision of Parliament. He thought that the truth of the adage, " It is easy to find a stick when you want to beat a dog," had been well approved in the case of Sir Robert Wilson— (Cheers, and laughter). Sir ISAAC COFFIN adverted to the case of Lord George Sackville, in the reign of George the Second, who had been dismissed for neglecting ro charge with his regiment at the battle of Minden. He would venture to affirm that no man in the House or out of it could say that Sir Robert Wilson had been harshly treated —(Hear, and laughter). Sir RONALD FERGUSSON had been absent du ring Lord Palmerston's address to the House, but be understood that that Noble Lord, in the course of his speech, had commented upon his (Sir R. Fergusson's) parliamentary conduct. Whether he was to be the next victim or not, he did not know ; but this he would tell the Noble Lord, in spite of power or threats, that as long as he had the honour to sit in that House, so long would he continue to give an independent vote—(Hear). —He had not originally intended to intrude himself upon the House with re gard to the present question; but now he was up he felt bound to say that, after the plain and manly statement of Sir R. Wilson, it was impossible not to see that he had been most grossly abused—(Cheers). —Much had been said as to royal prerogative; but every one knew that the highest prerogative was ex ercised subject to the advice of the Minister. It was impossible not to see that the treatment of Sir Ro- bert Wilson was an assassination of private character for the purposes of political intrigue—(Cheers).-- Let the House remember the transactions at Man chester, when they had given the King's thanks for the murder of his subjects--Hear!)—And let them look at the course which had been takes' as to a Ma gistrate for his conduct on the very occasion as to which Sir Robert Wilson stood accused. The gallant General sat down amid loud cheers, by declaring his intention to support the motion. Lord PALMERSTON explained. He had meant no sneer at the gallant General (Sir Ronald Fergusson). He had merely mentioned his adherence to opposition as a proof that Government was not in thelabit of dis missing military men because they took that course. The Hon. H. G. BENNET was present at the Queen's funeral, and deposed to the truth of all that the gallant . General had said as to his conduct on that occasion. He hoped the House would do jus• tice to his Hon. Friend, and vote for the production of these documents. His gallant Friend was the pride of all Europe, and the terror of the enemy ; but here he met with nothing but injustice and insult, because he boldly advocated the cause of the people in Par liament, as he had fought for them in the field. He believed that Ministers intended to have a military execution in the Metropolis, as at Manchester; and his gallant Friend's offence was, stopping the effusion of blood. This be gathered from the dismissal of Sir Robert Baker, and the tone of what was called the upper class of society, on that day's proceedings. — When the Comrnander-in-Chief was arraigned - at the bar of that House s he begged not to be condemned biri idia Milk )iiit letdown, it was not his imintioito %kir foto ail ydefence of his Ma 7 . 1 . s Government, either against a charged hating -0, inapiacte ?aii4e4;l qt: his. Majesty on the feb qf' Altptg, or dl . having entered- into a conspiracy to,cleprive *e 'Hon. Gentleman (Sir It Wilson) of his prOperty. He admitted that every. anowaneowas to be made lex He 4iirnith with which the Hon. Gentletno (Mr. Bennet) had taken up the question. He did not blame his feelings ; they were those of private friendship ; and however much credit might be given to them On this occasion, they ill assorted with the question upon which the House was to decide. It had been sated by the Hon. Member for Oprham (Mr. Lambton), that the tenure by which an Officer held•his Commis sion was of such a nature, that he could only be de prived of it by the sentence of a Court-Martial. Now he (Lord Londonderry) denied this to be the case.— He was in possession of not fewer than two hundred and twelve cases of Officers who had within the last ten years been dismissed the service without any Court-Martial, or any-trial whatsoever—(Henr).— And why was this sympathy, so warmly expressed on the case before the House, not extended to -the many others which had preceded it? Why had not this kind feeling been excited by what, according to the opinions maintained on the other side, must have been so many instances of gross injustice to those officers to whose cases he had just alluded ? Without troubling the House with a detail of numbers, he would state, that not only were there many instances of Officers being dismissed without a Court-martial, but there were several where this dismissal had oc- curred even after a trial had taken place, and a Court martial had pronounced a sentence of acquittal; for even after an acquittal there might be a thousand circumstances which would render it necessary that an Officer should not continue longer in the service. There might also be a thousand circumstances, con nected with the character of a Gentleman, which might render a dismissal without trial nzcessary, and even which could not be very properly submitted to the investigation of a Court-martial, and in many of those cases it would be proper that the party re tiring should not be allowed to sell out, or otherwise receive the value of his ccmmissiort—(Hear, hear).— These were facts within the knowledge of every Gen tleman acquainted with the Army, and no one doubted that such was the prerogative of the Crown. To this he might add, that no Officer entered the Army without the full knowledge that it was in the power of the King to decide, upon the advice of his Ministers, whether or not it might be for the benefit of the service that he should remain. But he felt that he was stating truisms. He would now quote an authority on the question, and We selected it as • ..,. that of a man for whose opinions he was satisfied the Hot,. Member had a very high, and he would tiqr. say an undeserved respect. It was the Opinion of Lord Erskine (then XT. Efskine), given on a case of settr. Omens who had been dismissed the service without trial, and was dated Serjeant's Inn, Septem ber 8, 1801. " I am bound to add," said Mr. Erskine, after stating the arguments on the case, " that the parties are wholly without remedy. The King is the acting party here. He is at the head of the Army. and the grounds of his decision cannot be ques tioned in any Court of Law; and whenever his Ma jesty dismisses an Officer, whether of the highest or lowest rank, he loses all benefit belonging to his si tuation, according to the Articles of War; and this every soldier must know when he enters the Army." This was the opinion of Mr. Erskine—how far coin. cident with that expressed by the Hon. Member (Mr. Lambton) he would leave himself to judge. He would now give-him the authority of a writer on military law, that of Sir C. Mordaunt, who, in alluding to the case of a Militia Officer di:missed without trial, ob served, amongst other things, that he had no hesita tion in saying, that his Majesty was quite competent to remove any Officer without producing any grounds for his removal, or of bringing him to any trial. It was sufficient that his Majesty did not think fit to retain him any longer in his service. He (Lord Lon donderry) should like to-know, if, after the authorities he had cited, it would be any longer contended that an Officer's Commission was like a freehold, and that it could not be taken from him without a trial and conviction? No man could contend that there were not circumstances which would justify the dismissal of an Officer, which it would be highly improper and imprudent to disclose before a Court Martial.— The object of this .Motion was, to revive the two three months Inquests, and to enable them to give evidence on their honour at the Bar of the House —for on their oaths they could net examine them. He believed the lion. Gentleman had no doubt that he regretted the circumstances which had required his dismissal. He was also of opinion, that the Hon. Gentleman believed there was no bad feeling against 'him in the highest quarter. If Government abounded in the persecuting spirit described so warmly by the last speaker, it might.have found reasons for visiting that Hon. Gentleman with its censure. He repro bated the holding out one part of his Majesty's troops as popular, and another as unpopular. It was nct the duty of the House to inquire into, but to leave untouched the prerogative of the Crown. Cases might occur in which it might be highly inconvenient to discover to the House the motives of the Crown.— Since the time that a Standing Army was. necessary for the liberties of the country—(Loud calls of Hear, hear, from the Oppositiox).—Why (continued the Noble Lord) should not a Right Hon. Baronet on t 1 e opposite side call in the case of Ireland for m ar t ial law. Had not a Noble Lord in another House - 9f Order, order). Did not a Noble Lord in lanother place—(A laugh)—hold s imilar language ? 'Nothing could be more impru dent than. , con duct of the gallant Mier on t h at da y ropolis had not the smallest p r etence to interr nd bad been disgraceful on that day , a the )- 4 what had taken pla ce durin g The transactions in the Met The lion.,Gentiellldn, though not ‘• • ! • .714 4 • • , ~ - r . . , . •• • , , • . • , . • • • I • • . ' t►i if* VIA ifillriliniii : their ieetretteen te beefeli ?MAO • ''',.t. - es<• in the ordeliente'af their. Itattalit. , akin . r cow intt•twaliew date, 11.1 did *at 411 ... •he knew to he tile greatest deg - well'"e_hdd tlerf ' ere* leiieding.Ste. tufrite;:ee ftbeloapie,' act of =Watt: -..- . --. a intrifered and ten "AM litieltvid thin said, *it no deentrr# b made the told them they •- • ibigriced tlientselves—Peers)...... Blithis su ' • ..shrould -bi et fled -without nisi with a call tar ft: WlLlksti.6. 116, not I said they dlegraced tikstiutl. . knesi lathing of the Motive ibr re- mr, hear)..— sinvsn_hydring."3—.Lorsi Palmerston conthused. moving his N. Ft`►iend; aniftimiting_ him of Ivo- he uniform, The How• Mthabli Must bare known that he was Perby,lrot not of his ohmmeter: El the noose did its t and brave pi* of a With &discipline, by interfering at all dety, it srdnld• call' for statement of some case hat it ceased with troops osi dat , ' who were not under MS, cpm- sejOst his et - Nell& ___: : wearing it, mend . He contended, that. the diisnissal ' The m . is at LONDO24DERRF•said, he eoel . d o leo we alike the of_ the Hots . Member w as . a just and proper exercise assure the once, that in rising after the Hork ._ . _ . . enL tiban. La.c hat d*y, when he li interpose—(Neon•). h I bad been most been a continuation se life of the Queen. iA uniform, had his •