The Statesman. — London, England, 1823-03-15 00:00:00

- • _ • • Mr eoani MI Isom Arm Tt Datil • take in duti tour •to p Lao the Tani Art a TR id t Wo A t rte wa x. th th 0 0 • e th ti • I • I, Ti tv 0 tl IT 0 0 a I ' t I 1 • I II • Ii • I • • 1 4 , • • I ) • k .• • , 1 11 1.1 Tlig stAtEsMAN SLAVIC TRAM Mr. EVANS. on behalf of the Hon. Member for Bram ber (Mr. Wilberforce,) gave notice that on Monday next, that - Hen. Member would present a petition from the bo de of Quakers, for the gradual abolition of slavery throughout the British Colonies. IRISU GRAND JURIES. The Irish Grand Jury Presentmeet Bill, upon the mo tion of Sir JOHN NEWPORT, was read a second time. Sir JOHN NEWPORT, in moving that. the Bill be committed, said he would not trouble the House at that 1111TP with any details of its provisions. It had been 're in:any approve(' of by the Irish Members in the House, and strong expectations were entertainkl that it would be effectual for its object—namely, the curtailment of cer tain enormous fees received by o ffi cers serving under Grand Juries in Ireland. The principle, therefore, net being disputed, if any objections lay to the details, these wonid he more properly made in the Committee. M.r. HUTCHINSON said it was true the principle of M.. Bill kid received the sanction of a great majority of the Irish Members, but yet he thought some more consi deration was due to eo important a subject before this measure was hurried into a law. There had been a simi- Jar Bill last Session, the provisions of which at the time seemed plausible enough ; out wheh itcanie to be applied io practice, it was found deficient. Besides, the Bill went to compromise the interests of a large class of per eons who acted as O ffi cers under the Grand Juriesof Ire land,r and it would be hut justice to consult their feelings •upon it, He should therefore suggest the deferring the !other progress;, of this Bill to a more advan ced sta g e of the Session. Sir JOHN ItEWPORT said lie had no objection, * after the Bill west through a Committee, so that it might - be printed, to let it stand over for further coital :Matins!. Mr. SPRING RICE supported the immediate passing of the Bill. It was a measure intended to curtail the emoluments of certain public officers. but if the House were to wait till the consent of these parties was obtained they would never pa ss the Bill. It promised to be a most beneficial measure to Ireland, as three were there now Clerks of the Peace and other County Officers receiv ing larger e moluments than the Secretaries of State, and . these:wring from the poorest of the pc , ple. Mr. DAWSON concern4l in opinion as to the existing sbuscs in the offices' alluded to, and the necessity of re forming them; - • - The Bill was then committed'for Monday. • Dr. PHI LLI MORE gave notice that, on Wednesday rent, he should more for the Repe al of the Act 9 (deo. cap.r& KING'S PROPERTY—BRIGHTON PAVILION. Mr. Secretary PEEL moved the order of the day for the House resolving itself into a •Committee upon the King's Property Bill. Mr. BENNET said, he wished to ask a question of the Right Hon. Geotleman relative to his Majesty's property. Some years ago a Noble Lord, in his place in this House, stated that it was his Majesty's intention, at some future period, to make a present of the Pavilion at Brighton to the public. In the course of some conversation which took place upon this declaration, the Right lion. Member for Knaresborough (Mr. Tierney) observed that it would be an expensive present. He wished to ask whether there was now any disposition to adhere to that communication. As this was a Bill to enable the King to dispose of such property as be had in his private capacity, in the same way is lie did that which he held "jure Corona," he wished to know in what class Brighton Palace was to be classed. He asked whether the repairs made there had been paid from the Civil List, or from his Majesty's private purse. If from this latter, the King had certainly a right to dis pose of this as private property ; but if the repairs and furniture had been paid for by the public money, Brighton Palace teas undoubtejily public property, and the King had no more right to dispose of it, than he bad of Windsor Castle, or any other property which he enjoyed " jure Coronse." Mr. Secretary PEEL said the Hon. Member mud have laboured under a very great misapprenension, when he ascribed to the late Marquis of Londonderry any such public declaration, as that the King had an intention of making Brighton Palace a present to the public. He (Mr. Peel) had never heard of any such declaration or suck W heaton. Ile had had communications with the Noble Mar goiss upon the very stOject, bat never heard a word to the effect that the Hon. Member stated. His Majesty had cer tainly, upon the demise of the King, given a potties+ of property—namely, the library—to the public. The lion. I Member therefore must have mistaken the effect of the de claration. All that his Majesty inherited from the late I King lie possessed "jure Coronas." The object of the present Bill was only to put him in the same situadon with respect to property which he possessed before he came to the Throne. It was merely intended to meet a " cases °misses" in the present law respecting the King's pro perty. As to the quarter from which the money upended at Brighton came, he (Mr. P.) was not now preened to an swer the question of the Hon. Member. The freehold was certainly purchased from the King's private Tunis, when a subject. As to the repairs of the building, hebelieved it came from those public funds which were net appro priated to any whet species purposes. Mr. BENNET said the impression on his nand was, that the Noble Marquis had made such a commtnicatiou to the House. Ile spoke from his recollection of the ques tion pot to, and answer of the Noble Lord, andthe Right Hon. Member for Knaresborough's remarks thereupon. — Ile could only repeat, that if the money expended upon the Pavilion at Brighton came from the Civil List, the pro perty could not bo said to be the King's. Mr. PEEL said the Bill related entirely tothe King's real property. Mr. BENNET wished to know whether there would he any objection to show frosts what funds the nmney expend ed at Brighton came. Mr. WARRE said that, in the Report of the Commis sioners appointed to arrange the Civil List in 1819, corm were several items set down under the bead of " Lord Chamberlain," as disbursements towards the repairs of the Pavilion at Brighton. It was shear, therefore ' that all the money expended there did not co me from his Majesty's private funds. Mr. Secretary PEEL said, that if the question referred to the expenses of repairs, he had no hesitation in saying that the repairs and furniture, were paid for out of the Ci vil I.ist. This Bill, however, was intended to apply to the King's real property exclusively, and not to his per sonals. It was agreed upon all hands that the buildings and furniture were paid for from the Civil List. Mr. SCAR LETT wished that the Bill had been more li mited to the King's real property. The ATTORNEV-OENERAt said the Bill was pre cise in describing the real property alone. The Bill then went through the Committee, and the House resumed. —Report on Monday. On the motion of Mr. PLUNKETT, a Select Committee was appointed to inquire into the local taxation of Dublin. Sir R. WILSON presented a petition from the inha bitants of the parish of St. John, Southwark, praying for the establishment of a local jurisdiction for the recovery of small debts.—Laid on the table. ISIrtINY BILL. Lord PALMERSTON moved that the house do resolve itself into a Committee on the Mutiny Bill. Col. DAVIES said that it was his intention to propose a clause in the Bill for preventing the dismissal of officers from the army without the sentence of a Court Martial. He begged to state, that, in offering this proposition, lie did nut mean to evade tie prerogatives of the Crown. — He was firmly persuaded' that the practice which lie sought to abolish was not connected with the honour and dignity of the Crown. Until a recent instance—that of his gallant Friend (Sir Robt. Wilson), whose actions were interwoven with the history of this country in its most splendid period, he had been of opinion that this power of dismissal on the part of the Crown hadbeen a ne cessary and inalienable part of its privileges; but upon minute inquiry he found the case to be very different. He found that it was opposed to the spirit of the laws, for re gulating the army. It was remarkable that a man guilty of the most odious crime could not be excluded front the army without the intervention of a Court Martial. The officer alone was exposed to the caprices of his superiors. He might at a moment's notice be dismissed from his employments after having spent a life of honourable ex ertion in the service of his country. Was it reasonable that the property and hopes of every officer in the army should be placed at the disposal of any tribunal, without the necessity of any inquiry intervening? Blackstone declared the necessity of an Inquiry ; and Tyler, a great friend to the King's prerogative, stated that no preroga tive should be exercised so as to abridge the rights of any person, particularly the rights of that honourable body of men the officers of the army. The power as sumed by the Crown in this respect exceeded even the grasping ambition of Henry VIII., and could scarcely be justified by precedent, and certainly not by reason, or any argument drawn from necessity. He held in his hand a return of the number of officers who had been dismissed the army without having been tried by a Court Martial, and would the house believe, that since the year 1795, up to the date of this return, the number of officers so dismissed amounted to nine hundred and eighty nire ?—(li- ar, hear.) There were nine hundred and eighty-nine cases of injustice.—(Hear.) No subjects, nut the meanest, nut the most abandoned in the realm, was ex posed to similar treatment. What! if a man were seen committing murder in the open day, would it be endured that he should be hung up on the next hints post? No — he would have the advantage of a trial—twelte men should pronounce, after ituptiry, upon his guilt or inno cence—and not till they had declared his guilt, could be be visited with punishment. But the officer had no such advantage a1i0.% ett him. Without inquiry—without the opportunity of bring heard in his defence—a defence that would, perhaps, establish his innocen e in the clear est manner—be wa• at once removed from that employ ment which le had, perhaps, meritoriously filled, and hick be was entitled to look to as a source of perinv , nent emolument. He would state one or two cases of ar bitrary dismissals, to give the House an opportunity of judging of the fairness an I justice which marked the ma jority of instances. The' first case to which lie would al lude was that of the officers of the '3sth regiment. Three Captains and five Lieutenants of this regiment brought their Commanding (Elicit . . Colonel Ross, to a Court Martial. Out of the various charges preferred against him, only one was substantiated, aid the Court sentenced him to be reprimanded, The sentence was approved by his Majesty. However, in a little time after it turned out that the proceeuings of these Officers gave great offence ; for it was not tho.tght that they were actuated by goad intentions in bringing forward is series of charge, owe only of which was proved. The consequence was that they were summarily dismissed. Let the House consider how unjust this treatment was. Not only were these eight officers cashiered, but no opportunity was allowed to Col. Ross to promote an investigation into his case, which no doubt would have taken place had these. Offi cers been tried by a Court Martial for their alleged mis conduct. However, let the House mark what followed The conduct of these Officers to Col. Ross brought to mind the treatment of Major Auckland by this very Col. Ross ; and he was dismissed himself from the service. The other case to which he would refer was that of au Officer in the-Blues. It was known that, some time ago, dissensions prevailed amongst the officers of this regiment. It appear ed ihat one of them was discatded by the general con sent of his brother Officers, and they agreed amongst , themselves that if he (the discarded officer) challengee l any of them, the officer to whom the message WAS sest was to he at liberty to decline fighting. It did happen that a quarrel sprung op between this discarded' officer and one of the Lavains of the Regiment, which' produced a hostile message on the part of the former.—' The Captain laid the rase before several of the officer', who agreed that their original resolutions ought to be adhered to, and that he ought not toaccept the challenge, and lie adopted their opinions. The consequence was that he was posted as a coward. it appeared that after this the officer complained of the Captain's conduct, Before hr proceeded further with the recital, be wished to remin d the house, that there was one of the Articles of War which condemned in the severest manner the practice of duelling in the army,dind held up the °flitter who refused to accept a cliallenge.as aims' meritorious person. In the case then of the Captain of the Blues, wouldnot any man infer that his declining to fight, and particularly 1 1 under the ciretnustaeces in -which his refusal had been made, would hive drawn down upon him approbation and rewards? However, the officers complained, and next came the letter of the Commander-in-Chief dismissing this Captain. The lion. Gentleman next entered into the consbleiation of the right of the Crown to increase the sentence of a Court-martial. Ha held it to he un- 1 authorised by law. In the case of Captain Cuffin, nho 1 had been accused. of making a f 'lse mu-ter, the Court smtenced hint to he deprit ed ot his ship; but the sentence was extended to a dismis-al from the service. The pewee assumed in these cases was of that nature that ought to I excite the alarm of the Legislature. Would aey wan in that House say, upon his honour, that the Commander in-Chief lead nut acted, in a variety of ewes, not only on his own knowledge, hut ou vague, idle rumour, as in the case of his Gallant Friend the Member for Southwark? It was held by the advocates for this arbi trary power, that cases might arise in which it might be of essential importenve that the puMslituent should be summary. The only cases which he could suppose t list this observation applied to were those of mutiny, plunder, .Se. Now the House ought to remember that a soldier or officer might he brought to a Court-martial for mutiny or plunder,—tried, sentenced, and shot, in the course of half au hour. He could not conceive a more summary process of punishment than this. Where then was the justice of withholding the benefit of trial from an Officer wino might be wholly innocent of the charges imputed to him If any difficulty arose at a particular station against holding a Court-martial, the Officer might be sent to Loudon, Eilinhugh, or any oiher place where the inquiry might more e wily be carried on. The Honour able Member next adverted to the injusiiite of not giving to offi, ers on Court!-martial the right of peremptory challenge; at . present lie could not challenge except in good cause; mile out of thirteen were enough to carry tier sense of the Court in cases affecting the life, and a hare majority in all cases of a leas degree of puoishment. He did not mean to cast any iniputatious on the condom , of Courts-Ina tial in general ; but it was only natural that there should be a bias in f a vour of the Crown. As ' a Constitutional ques•ion he did not see how the House should refuse to give to the question its most serious con sideration. All history showed that the more the dia. racter of soldier was separated from that of citizen, the more danger did the military establishment of the coun try present to the continuance of the liberties of the pea ple. Ile would put it to the House if it was right to leave so estraordiaary avower in the hands of the King. Atter a few further obsetvations, the Hon. Gentleman concluded by moving as an amendment, "That it be an instruction to the Committee, to insert a clause to pre vent the dismissal of any officer without a trial by IL:ourt Martial, and to prevent the infliction of any punishment upon any officer, non-commissioned officers or pri vate soldier, except when authorised by a Court Mar- tial." Lord PALNIERSTON said that he rose to resist the mo tion just proposed, and if he could not adduce arguments sufficiently strong in themselves to meet his objections, he would not, like the Hon. Gentleman, endeavour to bolster them up ny quotations which did not bear upon the question. The motion of the Hon. Gentleman went to abridge a prero gative which the Crown held from the earliest period of our history, and although the lion. Gentleman said he had no wish to abridge a prerogative touching the splendour of the Crown, or the personal gratification of the Sovereign, he (Lord P.) would not attempt to support upon those grounds, because it was his opinion that all prerogative was enjoyed, not to uphold the splendour of the Crown, or administer to the personal gratification of the Sovereign, but for the be nefit of the people. To prove this. it was not necessary to go back to history, it was only necessary to refer to the ; Statute book of the realm. In the declaratory Statute of Charles the Second, it was declared, "That the supreme go vernment of the militia, and all forces by sea and land, is. and by the laws of England ever was, the undoubted right of his Majesty and his predecessors, and neither House of Parliament had a right to abridge that right." it was clear that the supreme Government of the army, de clared by this Act to be vested ih the Crown, must in clude the power of dismissal without Court Martial. — lie had also the Articles of Wer of the reign of Elizabeth. of different periods of the reign of Charles the Second. all of which distinctly affixed to particular offences the punish ment of dismissal. There was another argument worth the attention of the lion. Gentleman. Ilow could the Crown give the power of dismissal to a Coua Martial, if it did not already possess the same power Weir, which was nseessarilv included in the supreme Government of the army ? li, then, lie was correct in affirming that the Crown originally possessed the right of dismissal with out the intervention of a Court Martial, let them see if the Mutiny Act contained any thing which infringed upon that right. This Act was said to be framed for the protection of the army. He contended it was framed upon an opposite principle. This Bill was enacted with the view of giving the Crown a control over the army, which it would not hive otherwise possesssed. At the time of the Revolution them was no way of punishing an offence iu the army, except by having recourse to the or ditnary course of the law ; but the army of James the Se cond, in the beginning of the war, still continuing faith ful to that Monarch, were guilty of acts of outrage and rebellion, which it was necessary to punish by some more immediate process than was permitted by the ordinary course of lass'; and Parliament, therefore, passed an Act empowering the Crown to detain and arrest ; and the Mutiny Act Was subsequently passed, giving it a sum mary power, because it was found the mutiny of the army could not otherwise be suppressed. This Act re cited that no subject should be punished by martial law unless he had been tried by his Peers ; but it excepted the cases of soldier: who should desert, mutiny, or rebel. It enacted that these should te brought to a more sum niary punishment, and for this purpose gave to the King the power of establishing a Court Martial, in order to carry it into effect.—(Hrsr, from the Opposition.) Then be contended that the Mutiny Act, in giving the Crown the power of appointing a Court Martial, did not infringe on its preroganee, because that porn necessarily in IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. 'IOUS E OF LORDS.—Fatnat, Masten H. Mr. Mason frons the India House presented certain ac- ants. Mr. BKOGDEN brought np from the Hotise of Co ns the Assessed Tuxes Reduction Bill, and the ltibh rms Bill. Tbe Earl of LIMERICK presented a petition from %Mel Barrett, Clerk of the Peace for the County of ,imerick, complaining of the curtailment which had taken Owe, in consequence of an Act of Parliament, in the satiric', free, and emoluments of his office, the duties of which be was wholly unable to execute on ac• rotwit of 'itch curtailment, which render him unable eves , to pay hi... assistants. The petitioner prayed that the Law might be altered; and th e Noble Earl enforced the prayer of the petition, by observing that it must be leonsistent with public economy to refase publia. set* tits an adequate remuneration for theirlehour. Lord CALTUORPE presented a petition from Ike Rev. William Burgess, Vicar of Kirkby Soper, in Emit, against that part of the late Marriage Ait which regard ed the granting licenses. PIN °Lynx" DiNTOItS. The Earl of DARDlLEtpresented a petition from Wakefield, in Yorksbite, against the insolvent Debtors' Act. The Noble Lard said be willed to pat it to the Noble and Learned L•rd on the Woolsack, whether it was not prop* tbei an inquiry should be instituted for tie purpose of consisleiwig whether tome alteration and improvement might not be madebertidt Act. 'Up LORD CHANCELLOR said he had that very day beard a Noble and Learned Friend of his (Lord Redesdale), who was the original author of this Isw, say, that it was a very good Bill; bat th it it had been spoiled by the amendments made in it in another place. The Earl of LIMERICK said be was glad to find that the att , ntion of Parliament was now frequently called to this subject It was well known that infinite mischief had arisen in England and Scotland in consequence of the law as it now stood. But be could assure the House that in Ireland the frands committed in consequence of the existing law, were beyond all example. The petition was then laid on the table. The Irish Assessed Taxes Repeal Bill was read a third time and passed.—Adjourned to Monday. HOUSE OF COMMONS.FRIDAT. - - At four o'clock the Speaker took the Chair. Mr. Mason, from the East India House, brought up the Resolutions of the Court of Directors, relative to the Granting of Pensiont.—Laid an the table. COLLECTION Or SMALL DEBTS. Mr. LEGH KECK presented a petition from the pa rish of Sparklehow, itf favour of the Bill fur the re covery of Small Debts.—Laid on the table. Mr. CH A LONIER presented a petition from the trades men of York against the Insolvent Debtors Aet.—Laid on the vitae. Mr WILLIAM DUNDAS presented a petition from the tratlemen of Leith, praying a modification of the tat on apprentices indentures. Mr. CORBETT presented a petition from the trades men of Shrewsbury in favour of the Bill fur the Recovery of Small Debts. Lord ERRINGTON presented a tit peon from Had derby, io Devon, against the Duty nolsAll laid on the table. Mr. BEALTMONT presented a petition from the owners and occupiers of land in the county of Durham against certain parts of the General Turnpike Act.—Laid on the table. SRPRIPCS'ASSESSORS. Mr. HORACE TWISS bronght in .a Bill for the better regnlation of the Sheriffs' Assessors at elections. —Read a first time, and second reading fixed for Monday near. CRIMINAL LAW. Sir JAMES MACINTOSH rose to give notice that it was his intention, as soon ax„possible after the bolydays, to bring forward a measure for the consideration of the Home. relative to the Criminal Law, founded upon a Re snlntion last Session, He had said as soon as possible, heranse he wished not to brig► on the question until the hwy. rs in the Honse had returned from the Circuits. He should therefore fix the 13th of May for his motion. - - • CRIMINAL COCRTS. Mr. WARRE moved that an humble Address be pre sented to hi• Majesty, praying him to order returns of the different places having lon' and separate jurisdic tions for the trial of criminal offences, the period when their sittings were held, and the number of persons who had been convicted before them, from January 1821, to January 1822. —Ordered. PUBLICANS ' LICENSES. Mr. BASTARD presented a petition from the publi cans of Little Holden, praying. the removal of certain re draints upon the tilting out of publivans licenses.—Laid on the table. bladed the power of dismissal without its intervention. This Art, after reciting the articles of war, also state', Presided by such articles no one be subjected to the patilibinent of the Liss of life or limb oth-rwiee than ac cording to the provisions of this Act:" The articles of war thus erfnfirated the Mutiny Bill is giving the Crown every other power. This Act only gave to the King the power which it ietercised over all subjects civil and mili. tary. The case of Captain Coffin, which had been al luded to, only proved the exercise of this prerogative over the Navy. Captain Colfiu had been Vied by a Court Martial ; and the Crown, not thinking the gauteace sot: ticientiv severe, was; perhaps, improperly advised to dies miss Mtn. But this power otter the Navy the Crown had always possessed. -lie would not follow the lion. Gent. through all the details of his speech, but hi would not hesitate to say, that out of the 999 dismissed since ISOS;, and whom the Hon. Gentleman said, were the victims of oppression-- Colonel DAVIES—Of injustice. Lord PALMERSTON—WiII, then, according to the Hon. Gentlemen, oppression was not injustice—bin he repeated, he would not hesitate to say that of the 9119 dismissed,there was nut one whb was the victim of oppression or injustice. As to the other eases alluded to by the Hon. Gentles in, if belted been apprized of the thing, he would, perhaps, disprove them as satisfactorily as he did the case which the Hon. Gentleman introduced a few evenings sinee, and of which he had the courtesy to apprize him before tie broogitt it forward. There was no poeitton so inconsistent with the laws of the country as to say, that the Croon had not the right of dismissal without the intervention of a Court Martial. He main tained that the prerogative of the Crown was held to pro tea the Vase*, of the;sobjeet...sso wens waa moss elfireso - al for that purpoite than•the prerogative of dismissing without a Court Martial. There were many cases in which the exercise of this power would prevent the most dangerous consequences. Suppose, fur instance, an con cer had inflicted an injury upuh the soldiers, and that lie was tried by a Court Martial, all of whom, which was nut improbable, were parties to the infliction of the injury.— The consequence would be an acquittal of the accused party. In that event, what redress would the injured party have? None, but an address to the Crown through the medium of Parliament, which might be refused. The re. suit of this, perhaps, would be, that the army, left with out redress, would be driven to mutiny. la such a case, how lunch better was it that the King should possess the power of dismissal, and thus at once affuid redress ? Sup pose an officer guilty of a breach of the civiliatv.in case of resistance how was he to be brought to punishment ? Would a constable merely armed with a staff be sur-A ficient to enforce the law against an officer surrounded by six hundred bayonets? Ile could also suppose ewes in which, though nut cognisable by law, toe deepest wound might be inflicted on the feelings of Os indivi dual, and the Court Martial, participating in the feel ings of a corporate body, might be unwilling to afford the injured party reparation. In that case, what pro tection would the people have? Their persons and their feelings might be violated. without redress. if the Kitt; did nut possess the power of dismissal ; and vet inch measures were advocated by the Champions of liberty. —(Hear, hear.) He would put another possible case.— Supposs the Government hail received secret information of a conspiracy among some officers; would it be pro. dent to disclose the information, and sand these officers before a Court Martial, which might he leagued in the same conspiracy ? Such a course would be likely to de feat the end they had in view. In all these cases he con tended that the prerogative of the Crown was the best safeguard for the liberties of the peep!'. If the vote of the lion. Gentleman was carried, it would erect the army into a fourth meats, and render it the most formi•l - enemy of the liberties of the nation. It w ould make the army a corps of Main-lukes, who would soon possess themselves of the Government of the country, and disallow soy other estate than themselves. Mr. 12! HUTt . .;IIINSON said that no dismissal could take place in the army of Napoleon without a Court Mar tial ; and yet there was nu army more obedient or less dis posed to dictate to the people. Even no' the Kirg of France could not dismiss an officer without a Court Mar. tial. There were many distinguished officers in ti e French army now, who bad been tried fur treason and acquitted, and yet, when once in possession of rank, the King had not the power to strip them of it. No tioverr ment in Europe possessed such a power. He agreed with the Noble Lord, that this as well as all other pr.- rogatives, were exercised for the benefit of the rople, and he admitted that in most races they were grnerally exercised with humanity. lie could not however but ex cept the case of his lion. Farad the Member fur South wark. That Gallaat Officer, so distinguished and covered with s s many honours,woo in Foreign service, that one could not see him but with shame for his native country, which stript him of all the honours lie won in her service ; that Gallant Officer he had no doubt, even putting aside all the influence of his great services, would have been acquitted upon the merits of his case, if lie had been trie,l by a Court Martial. He was cons laced that no Court Martial twilit' dismiss him, and he believed that if Minis. ten had known the real state of the case before they had dismissed him, that dismissal would have never taken place, because lie was satisfied his interference on that m-lancholy occasion had saved the effusion of much blood, and prevented such commotions in Loudon as Guyer ment would not have been able to suppress. Such was the impression produced by the able and ingenious state ment of his Gallant Friend, that lie was certain if he had been on his trial, the House would have acquitted with acclamation. After that statement, those who were before prejudiced against him, would have acquitted, if they were appointed to try bins. When the moment of calm reflection arrived, lie was satisfied tb it ample justice would be done to his Gallant Friend, that he would be restored to his former rank, and that the army would again have the advantage of the services of so exile swami, so gallant, so distinguislieil, acil so talented an officer. Mr. GURNEY, as well as we could catch his observa tions, owing to the low tone in which: lie spoke, main tained that the King had a right to dismiss any of his servants, and therefore had a right to dismiss any Officer he pleased. Mr. HUME said that the lion. Gentleman who had just sat down, matotained that hi- Majesty had a right to dismiss any Officer of his ; but tie denied that the army belonged to his alakisty. The army belonged to his peopie, and the King, at ting as the Chief Magis trate, was bound to administer impartial justice. Ihe None Lord assumed utility as the foundation of the pre rogative, but he did not produce a single argitmert to sustain his proposition. In . the reign set Charles she Se cond, to which the Noble Lord alluded, the great g of objection was prerogative. That prerogative bail been since annulled, and none now existed but that which 1Y::$ given by the Mutiny ; for if the prerogative already existed, what aec3hion was there to pass an an nual Bill conferring it? This led hint to the conclosien that the Kiug'g prerogative existed only by this Act, for the army over which this prerogative was exercised exist ed only by this Act, which, if it were not passed. the prerogative must necessarily cease with it. Die Noble Lord had said, that the Articles of War confirmed this prerogative, but it was clear that the Articles of War could confer no powers which were against the spirit of the Act by which an authority was given to these Arti cles. He thought that all Articles of War should he an nually laid before the House. I f this were dune, he was satisfied many of them would be found inconsistent with the ineaaini and spirit of the Mutiny Act. It was stated and sot denied liv Ministers, that all the Military Go vernments of Europe, Aubtris, Russia, Prussia, and Frances had not dm Martial, if so, how in this country ? 1 and tyranny to dist or fifty years, will vindicating theme Mr. C. IV. WIN time heard it assert lifiag of England were granted to hear.) The lion. ledge, would peril cilar Act., nay. which a tew 'Fifth the power of makil and dissolving Pa :....(Cheers and la ...Lid that there wa gave the King eat lion. Gentleman f t,e carried. Did I not dismiss a pri euuld nut di , band every inJividual if was any thing in mutt go to that e 3 ri prerogatt • n Alt for the pt.blie, in to iiulfje..t. officers Lord 110111A2 was anxious ttl SA 11• could never 6 continued so luny 'icing appealed t wfieftwer .44 given on a forme certainly o: duty. - 1101 e sanding army. it were rauctioae,t tat Royal prrro rwiy that, as hav Le Isis anxi,us consistently with 11.. use. Sir rRANCIS stoiendntro . , for tonsil that non c at the will of tit rower ores non onght to have ii For his own pm Laving the powe fcrcnce to a regi command. The Auvw.lm aloe, and the on welt into a Colonel DAV, the arguments I been jest decide to the Crowe by thing whatever I Mr. WY?iN 'afar for the Hu the House had a The CHM K 5 referred to the Committee. Col. DA VI ES in detail agAinst suinuer sided. the right to disc caws.. By the utfenre against: certainly not wi arguments is I bet that Would te4 that there w care Of a W4l protected by tbi in the courre of cording to the s - uo reliance con 'valion, sworn c parties ; but if *toil aik, wee Lord PALM Alembers to int lie had never s prerogative, bu had previously of the Articles of the Crown t Of military offi which it posse! pronounce an to in a civil see with u liability citing the disk the Army we Mocse Wight use of. Mr. MIME the Bill of las Lord PALI tallied 'was for accounts in lr for providing offences. Mr. HUMP. army L!ing kr T his was only contained. Lord PALI dity It could h meet of Wi lie What was meal (Lord P.) cord constituted.-1 Mr. BENN in toe gallery, Mr. CH EE tistasee of ;ice the Duk Eranre ae&n. ',wryer, tier parivg. apps The House i be received or The CHAN Order of the allure on the 1 tier F. OM of& ers were military °Mee I twanees. lte SI•E . into the Come Sir JOHN TWO tor Mit now rsquainef . the ordinate wages to lain was mare fro for timber. PI tinder brand quenee of the deny. In II in tie Hausa r. ; bat then pita to the s WU an a idii ads, in cot t•onn that hat re , b•etion ships. The s