The Sun.
London, England, 1855-03-30 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON., FRIDAY ..frATENp3 MARCH 30, 1855

most beneficial result. It cou)4 not for inAterce, be de-
uteddhatthe griit 'diminution !Ada had %ken plaCe in
the cases of flogging was mainly owing to the frequent dis-
cussions on mo' ions brought before that house. And the
conduct of the army in the Crimea—which, although
placed in the most trying situation that it was possible for
troops to be placed in, was, as had been truly said, au
army without crime—showed how beneficial this change
had been. (Hear.) Lord Lucan courted inquiry because
he felt his professional reputation was damaged by the
charges which had been brought against him. It had in-
deed been said by the Minister at War, in another place,
that Lord Lucian 's personal character and honour were
uninapeached. But what consolation was that to a man
who was labouring under professional disgrace? .11e could
not think that the discipline of the army required the per-
petration of injustice, or that the public service could be
prothoted by degrading as zealous, gillant, and efficient a
soldier as we had in the service. The honourable gentle-
man opposite said that he would not impeach the hon-
our of Lord Liman, but he added that, if ho had been
a Russian general, he would either have died under the
knout or would be now exiled to Siberia. Lord-Lucan
happily belonged to a free country, in which such extreme
measures were not resorted to ; but the noble earl was now
suffering from the Parliamentary censure of the hon. gen-
tleman opposite, and the Siberia to which he was banished
was the professional disgrace in which ho remained, and
which incapacitited him froth again holding a command in
the service until these charges were disproved. Lord Lucan
hail been examined before a committee of that house the
other day, and when he had finished giving his evidence,
an hon. member of the committee said to him (Lord Elcho),
He has proved himself, by his evidence, to be an able
and zealous officer, careful of his horses and men, and a
thorough master of every detail connected with his divi-
sion." He (Lord Elcho) asked whether a general so com-
petent in the camp should be totally iocompetent to com-
mend his division in the field ? In conclusion, the noble
lord said that he hoped that housh would do his noble re-
lative the justice which had been denied him elsewhere,
and would express their opinion in such e manner as might
induce the noble lord at the head of the Government to
recommend her Majesty, in the undoubted exereisonf her
unquestioned prerogative, to grant that piofessional. In-
gnir which could alone vindicate the noble earl from the
professional disgrace under which he now more or less
laboured. ([leer, hear.)
Mr. C. P. VILLIERS (Judge Advocate-General) said
that he was not going to dispute many of the propositions
laid down by hiS hon, friend the mover, and his noble
friend the seconder, of this address, and particularly many
of the ultra-Liberal propositions of the latter with respect
to the right of that house to inquiry generally into all
matters they thought proper, and to call the prerogative
of the Crown particularly iu question. These were ques-
tions he should leave entirely to the house, and should con-
fine himself to the point whether they should or not agree
to an address to the Crown to institute a court-martial for
n 6 trial of the Earl of Lucan. Ile should take issue di-
rectly with the mover of the resolution upon whether Lord
Lucan wes or was not entitled to an inquiry into this mat-
ter, and to have a court-martial. He might, however, first
observe that this motion for inquiry was not brought for-
ward there as an original motion, but as an appeal from
the decision of the Commander-in-Chief, the other house
of Parliament, and the keel authorities who had been con-
, bathed on the subject; and also that his hon. friend had
brought for Nerd a motion for precisely the same form of
inquiry for which Lord Lucan had asked, and whiels be
had already bean iefused for the reasons which had been as-
signed. Now, what were the precise facts of the 'case? On
the 28th November Lord Lucan because aware of certain
reports which Lard Riglen had made with respect to his
court net on the 25th October; and he then expressed to Losd
Raglan his displeasure at the manner in which his conil net
on that occasion had been reported upon by his lordship.
Lord Lucan called in question the veracity of Lord Raglan in
his communication to the Minister, and thereupon there
arose a series elcominunicatione between Lords Lucan and
Raglan, the purport of which, on the part of the latter, was
that the former should withdraw his communication, and
should ream' n satisfied with the report Lord Raglan origi-
nally male. Lord Lue in was unwilling to do this, pertina-
ciously adhering to his •explanation of the events of the
25th of October at Balaklava. Lord Raglan felt himself
bound, at the same time, in vindication of his own de-
spatch, to send his observations and comments upon Lord
Lucan's iettor to him. Lord Raglan then entered more
fully into his seasons for having determined upon express-
ing some disapprobation of Lord Lucan's conduct on that
day, yet so far modified his mention of that conduct as
that no slur should be cast on the noble earl's military re-
putetion, and that he should not be precluded from re-
ceis ing military honours and the thanks of bath houses of
Parliament. It was upon Lord Raglan sending this cofn-
rutiacation to the Minister of War that that Minister dis-
covered there were essential differences between the lieu-
tenant-general of the cavalry and the commander of the
forces, and upon that groan!, and that ground alone, for-
tified by the opinion of the commander-in chief in this
c(,u itry, considering that such differences were highly pro-
jtaciel to the service, it was decided that the lieutenant-
retinal of the cavalry should bo recalled. Upon Lord Luc en's
recall he applied immediately for an inquiry into the
affair. He (Mr. Villiers) mentioned these things to show
what it was that was submitted to the authorities, and
what led them to decide that Lord Lucan was not en-
titled to the court-martial he demanded. That was
what the house required to know. Lord Lucan had
cl timed it as an unqualified right and privilege of every
officer to have a court-martial to inquire into his conduct.
The house had seen Lord Raglan's comments on his con-
duct ; they had since heard his request fur a court-martial.
The request had been refused, as well as the demand he
first made; and he mentioned these things to show that by
law and usage Lord Lucan hart been already absolutely re-
fused the inquiry by court-martial he now asked of the
house. He thought the noble earl, when he applied for a
court-martial as his unquestionable right, was under a
most erroneous impression. There was, indeed, no person,
however humble the rank he held in the service, who did
not know that there was no right whatever in
any officer
to call fora court-martial as a means of inquiry into his
own conduct. Those who entered the service did so volun-
tarily, and they knew (as the most elementary works on
military law taught) they did so on the condition that they
might he dismissed the army without any reason assigned,
and without any redress against the voluntary judgment
of the Crown. It was useless to diecuss the matter. The
question of that prerogative had been discussed in that
house—the question whether such powers ought to bo en-
trusted to the Crown-s-even in that house there had been
attempts made to limit that prerogative, but Parliament I
had universally decided that it was wisely entrusted to the
Crown. It had been so vested in the Crown for more than
century, and it was, therefore, not difficult to answer the
question whether or not Lord Lucan had an unquestionable
right to a court-martial. But then there arose the question
whether it was possibleto concede the inquiry he claimed. It became a question whether that inquiry could be
conceded upon the facts as they were—viz., there being no
offence proved, and, if there had been an offence proved or alleged' by the commander of the forces, it having been
overlooked—for Lord Raglan had continued the employment t
of Lord LIICae, after the offence had been completed. The noble lord (Lord Elcho) thought that the privilege, as he
called it, was ono for the protectian of the complainant,
and that whenever it was claimed it ought to be granted. Bat let him tell his noble friend that the laws and usages 11 in the military system were not to be so lightly dispensed
with ; and there was no system that was so strongly inte-
rested
in seeing that there.should be no capriceintroduceds
(Hear.) There was that in military law which did not ex-
ist in the civil law—there was a written and an unwritten
law, written rules and customary onus, which were applied
as strongly and invariably as the others. That which was
recognised as law had as much force as that which really
was law. It was a usage he was now referring to, That
usage was, that where an offence had been committed
\either by an officer or by a soldier, which offence had been
overlooked, aid the offending party continued in his em-
ployment or engaged in active service, that was a good
idea in bar of tiny proceeding against him. There was no
end to the cases that might be referred to in support of
this usages Ho had observed that the Commander-in-
Chief had referred in another place to the cam of a Cap-
tain Aschtleck, who, having placed a lean under arrest,
led him afterwards into action upon a sudden emergency,
and carried his sentence into execution when the action
was over, was broken by the Duke of Wellingtons
for so doing. There was also the case of another man who
had been guilty of using mutinous language, and of having
struck his supeiior officer, yet whe had been released from
arrest because ho had bean in action subsequently to the
comulissicn of his offence. Thire was also the case of Col.
gnintin, who was convicted of an offence, but whose judges
refused to pass sentence on him because he had been re-
proved
for his offence in the field by his commanding
officer. It wax, therefore, an established law and usage
that no man whose offence had been once overlooked could
be subjected to a court-martial. Again, suppose a courts
martial to be granted, there was no prosecutor. Lord
Raglan, who was the appropriate person, could net ant as
prosecutor—(hear)—not from any incapacity in himself,
but because the offence had been obliterated and blotted
set, Lord Lucan having remained in his employment sub-
sequent to its being committed. But, again, there was no.
body to prefer charges. In former times, the Judge Ad,
vocate-General used to prosecute, but it was now nearly
thirty years since an alteration was made in the mutiny
law in that matter. The Judge Advocate-General was no
longer the prosecutor. It was his duty to advise the Crown
as to the legality of the proceedings; and though he might
be instructed to prefer charges, he could not advise the
Crown to order a proceeding to the legality of which there
existed objections. Again, when an officer against whom
an offence was alleged, but which offence had been obli-
terated, when such an officer consented to waive the privi-
lege he had obtained by subsciquent employment, or being
engaged in action, and to submit to a trial, if the sen-
tence pronounced ware unfavourable to him he might then
legally plead the previous obliteration of his offence, and
that plea would come in bar of the elocution of the sen-
tence of the tribunal by which be consented to be tried.
Such had been the case of Lord G. Germain against whom
sentence of death was pronounced, but whose plea of autre-
fois acquit was sufficient to nullify that sentence. There-.
fore in the present matter this military tribunal could not
bs granted even as a favour. There were also other ques-
tions of expediency that suggested themselves against it.
The inquiry could not take place in England, for the pre-
sence of the commander of the forces could not be dis-
pensed with at it ; and witnesses could not be called home
from the seat of war expressly to attend it. Nor could'
the trial take place in the Crimea, for people could not be
called upon to vindicate their conduct while their more
active duties connected with the war called for their whole
attention. I-lad he been Lord Lucan's friend at the time,
he should have advised him to demand a court-mai tial ©n
the spot, while the event was still fresh and the witnesses
still alive. Let no man suppose that Lord Lucan had been
reealled on account of his conduct on the 25th of October.
Some people had that opinion, and they thought it an ad-
ditional injustice to refuse inquiry after depriving the
noble earl of his command. Lord Raglan took a very con-
siderate view of the case, and never desired to have Lord
Lucian recalled, but it was the opinion of the authorities at
homo that it was unwise to allow nay difference to exist
among such officers, and they, therefore, recalled Lord
',loan without any complaint of him having been made. The
question, then, really came to be, whether or not Lord
Raglan had exercieed his discretion wisely in commenting
upon the conduct of Lord Lucan. Well, was the House of
Commons to be considered as a fit judge of the manner in
which Lord Raglan exercised his discretion in the field ?
(Hear,) The view of the noble lard (Lord Elelio) was that
the commander of the forces should not be trusted with
any discretionary power of commenting upon the conduct
of subordinates, and of praising or censuring them. The
hon. member for Bristol says that Lord Raglan ought to
have broken Lord Lncan at once. The house was asked to
vote an address to the Queen, to remind her that she had
already neglected her duty in not instituting an inquiry
4t: liuo:n
into the conduct of Lord Lucan. (Marks of disapproba-
tion.) He meant that they complained of the manner in
which the Qosen had base advised to act in the matter.
Ile considered, however, that the question of the discretion
o
commanderD of the forces was raised ; and if they had
a right to complain of his not havingcensured the conduct of
ifosi
they might equally complain that he had not

bestowed sufficient praise on others. They must, however,
i n %test t their.' commanders with • very larZei 4&clgtien ray
powers when they entrusted them with their armies. It
would, perhaps, be said, " Is it not monstrous that, men
should have their characters reflected upon, and have no
me me of redress ? That was not, however, the case. It was
open to any one le prove that the commander of the farces
had not acted wisely. Lord Lucan had hie tensely open to
him. If lie could prove that Lord Raglan had acted un-
worthily or maliciously, the commander of the forces
would be recalled. There were cases on record of subordi-
nate officers who complained in that way, and with success.
It was therefore entirely a question between Lord Lucan
and Lord Raglan. Let it be remembered that Lord Rag-
lan had previously noticed Lord Lucan in such a way that
he received the thanks of both houses of Parliament. Lord
Raglan hell all the while a private opinion upon Lord
Lucan's conduct, and he had been forced by Lord Lucan
himself to disclose it, in vindication of his own conduct.
All that had been gait by Lord Raglan had been said in
self-defence. Lord Raglan must be left to his full discre-
tion. There were cases of officers in the Peninsula who
took upon them to exercise their discretion, and to disobey
the orders of the Duke of Wellington, and who were never
brought before courts-martial on that account. Probably
the Duke thought they had acted wisely ; at all events
there was plenty of precedent for exercising a discretion in
the carrying out of orders. He left the matter in the
hands of th house; it was for them to say whether or not
a proper case had been made out, or one that called for in-
quiry. (Cheers )
Mr. FRENCH thought that it would not be easy to re-
ply to the statement of technical difficulties in the way of
inquiry tint the house had just hoard. Lord Lucan, how-
ever, could not have demanded inquiry, immediate in-
quiry, on the spot, for he never dreamt that. a report
would be made such as that which had been made. Indeed,
he had been assured by General Airey and others that
the report would be favourable to him ; and it was only
when Lord Region's report came back to the Crimea that
,he learned what had been done. The hon. member for
Bristol hail omitted to speak of the charge of the heavy
brigade. That charge was executed by Gneral Scerlett,
but it was planned by Lord Lucan, who was therefore en-
titled to a share of the merit. The hon. member accused !
the noble earl of not having attendel to the first order ;
but that was impossible, for redoubts could not be cap-
lured by cavalry alone. Lord Lucan was, therefore, obliged
to wait for infantry, but it did not appear that any order
for an advance of infantry was ever given. But the second
order was so plain that it could not haft) been mistaken.
Captain Nolan, who brought it, was an officer of great re-
pute, and he showed that ho had no doubt as to the mean-
ing of it by voiuutecring to show the way, and by riding
a certain distance in front when ho received the shot by
which he was uofortunate!y killed. The noble earl, there-
fore, had no diebrotion left him; had he sought to exorcise
any the day might have been lost. That had been called
a disastrous charge. He considered it one of the most glo-
rious charges that over was made by any body of cavalry.
The dispositions made by the noble earl thet day were
ernlicient to check the Russian advance, and he was him-
self wounded. He could conceive no iuj ustice greater than
that which had been done to the noble earl. •
Mr. J. G. PHILLIMORE said if Parliament were to
sanctions precedent for interference in proceedings of this
nature, there would not be any person Who would Lot call for
the interpositionof Parliament to interfere with the Crown.
There were cases in which Parliament, as the grand inquisi-
tion of the realm, ruieht exercise this duty. The case of
Lord G. Sackvilla' which bad been quoted, was different to
to this base. Lord George Sackville had been branded, and
justly branded, in his opinion, as a coward by one of the
that generals ef his ago, and the effect produced iu England
was, that he was brought Immo and deprived of all his
offices. The contrast in the present case was great, for
Lord Lucan had been accused of misconceiving an order
at a critieal moment, and under circumstances which male
such a charge venial. His courage and zeal were unques-
tionable; be had been deprived of no offices, and every
person had the highest respect for his conduct rend character
during his service. Was this, then, a ease for Parliamen-
ilu.tirlictce-uartihaaarrttdi
fee
cetnifl
coeor i
amid
,tißv
the
el
eay. caseinA I principlet
tary intsrference ? He did, not, however, think that the
d
man could waive a right which was
fact of Lord Lucan having been since employed wares, rea-
sonnjt: tt'. rinsofepdirruubcrttflnaufesopei rurtgahhciaats
prat
ctice
ajn
y which
the Lionsiur of a soldier was concerned cuelit not to be go-
hough
he could not assent to this argument, the other argument
Mr.
BE reigairturtl.vr for
said its own
ift hr .le ig
lanwity w,
a asn t
tlo fur
be
appeared to him irresistible, that no case had been made
but in which the Hellas of Commons could interfere with
a proper
the t
adhered lignit to, ity of
the Crown.
was impossible to grant the inquiry as demanded. It was
impossible for the house at the present time to judge be-
tween Lord Raglan and Lord Lucan ; and although the
statement of the latter was a most able one, still the house
could not form an opinion of the case from it as yet, for it
was only the statement of one party. In his opinion Lord
Lucan had as a soldier been hardly treated, and it was
with the greatest regret' that he felt it his duty to vote
against the motion. He felt it to be bit duty—for it was
not right, after the Crown had exerted its prerogative, and
deliberately declined to grant a court-martial, for the house
to attempt to wring from the Crown what it had before
refused to give.
Colonel DUNNE said it must be excessively peinful for
a military man to give an opinion on this case; be there-
fore' only wished to say a few words with respect to the
very curious doctrine on military matters laid down by the
Judge-Advocate. The Judge-Advocate said that it was
not right to question what had already been decided, and,
therefore, that a soldier had no right to question what had
been decided by his superior authorities. In the abstract
he agreed with this ; bat he thought that it was a subject
for consideration whether the advice tendered to the Crown
should not be condemned, or that alter a decision was made
which the whole country thought wrong, this house was
preeluded from giving an opinion. Instances had been
mentioned in which the house had called on the Crown to
grant a court-martial. The charges in this case appeared
simple, but they were of serious import. In the first place,
disobedience of an order in which Lord Lucan had exer-
cised hie discretion in not advancing, because the infantry
were not sent. If hs had obeyed ho must ;lave advanced.
without the infantry; and having exercised his discretion,
he was accused of having disobeyed the order. In a short
time the second order came, and be was accused of having
obeyed that order; and further „for not having brou4
the heavy cavalry into the same :Wager as the light cavalry.
He had spoken to many officers of all ranks, and they all
agreed that if the Earl of Lucan had not made that ad-
vance he would have suffered very severely in character.
By the rules of the service the order of the aide-de-camp
was equal to that of the general. It was impossible to
advance without coming into fire, when he must have ad-
vanced up to the guns, for Captain Nolan was killed
directly, and the argument about the word "advance"
was re mere play upon the word. Lord Lucan was informed
that the French were on his left. If they had advanced
they would have been lost, and a case had recently occurred
where a movement had-failed because co-operation was im-
possible. It was clear that subsequent employment
amounted to a condonation, but in this case it hardly did
so. Lord Lucan was not aware of the charges which were
brought against him until ho arrived in England, and there•
fore there was no condonation of the disobedience of the
first order. Ho would much object to see the house forced
to a dividon, but he trusted that the noble lord at the head
of her Majesty's Government would reconsider the ques-
tion; if he did not think it advisable to grant a court-
martial, he might grant a court of inquiry. He was sure
that Lord Lucan stood before the country acquitted of any
blame, and that he had discharged his duties with honour
to himself and the service.
Colonel SIBTHORP was understood to make some refer-
ence to a circular which had been sent from the War-office
to the colonels of militia. The hon. and gallant member
then proceeded, amidst the laughter of the house, to pass a
high oulogium upon the efficiency of the Royal South Lin-
coln Militia. He stated, although he was not inclined to
boast of what he had done, that he would shrink from
nothing in his power, and that he would spend anything
he could to maintain the regiment in that efficiency. In
Radical times the militia had been crippled by a false
economy, but he would do what he could, both in person
and in pocket, to check the consequences; and if the time
came—and it might come soon—when the militia would be
called upon to maintain the cause of their Sovereign, their
country, its religion, and its laws—when it did come, so
humble an individual as himself should not be wanting,
Mr. DISRA.ELI —Sir, I trust the question will not be
put to a division.
Having followed the debate, I entirely
sympathise with the feelings uf a soldier like Lord Lucan,
who has served hie Sovereign and his country with exem-
plary devotion and
1 courage—(hear, hear)—but I think the
noble lord must have felt that in a free country like the
one in which we have the happiness to live—where every
man has the power of appareling to, public opinion, I think
the noble lord must feel that the appeal which he has made
to the selensn opinion of his countrymen has not been
made without satisfaction. Sir, whatever may be our
feelings with respect to the noble lord, and whatever we
may sympathise
• with his gallant behaviour under the diffi-
cult circumstances under which he was placed, we must
with regard to our vote look at the nature of the motion. I
do not wish to take a pedantic view of the nature or power
of the royal prerogative
• As it at present exists it is ex:
tremely beneficial to her Majesty's subjects. lam not one
of those who would at all hazards uphold the belief that the
prerogative of the Croy,* is already too large. I would rather
see the influence of that prerogative increased than dimi-
nished, but at the same tient" I cannot for a moment admit
that there may not be circumstances in which, so far as the
influence of the prerogative of the Crown is concerned, this
house may not feel it its duty to interfere. It is the first
duty of this house to redress the grievance of the people
—and I suppose we are not arrived at that state of affairs
when a nobleman may not enjoy the privilege of being
accoonted one of the people—and one of the first
.and
greatest grievances which any man can suffer is a denial
of justice. If it is our opinion that there has been a denial
of justice to any subject, whether he be a patrician or a
ploughboy, I maintain that it is the duty of the house to
receive it, and if they believe the appeal to be just to sup-
port it. With these views however I cannot believe the pre-
sent case isone in Which we ought to sanction any interfera
once with the prerogative of the Crown. I sympathise, and I
believe a great majority of the country sympathise, with
the peculiar position of Lord Lucan. We know that in a
position of great difficulty the noble lord has shown great
gallantry, and I believe, as I have heard from those who on
this question ought to influence my opinion, that the noble
lord has shown great energy and high qualities which entitle
hire to public gratitude. I must also remember whet Lord
Lucan has done as a landlord in Ireland in a time of groat
difficulty, when tho affairs of that country wereplaced un-
der the consideration of the house. Sir, although the Judge-
Advocate tells us 'Wet this is a personal affair between Lord
Raglan and Lord Lucan, I cannot help eatertaiuine the
conviction that, if the affair had been really loft-to °Lord
Raglan and Lord Lucan, there is nothing whatever in it
which the country or Parliament would have been aware
of. The comments which have been made on the conduct
of Lerd Lucan by Lord Raglan' and the rejoinder of Lord
Lucan to Lord Raglan, and all that subsequently occurred
as regards the Minister at War aro not of a character which
rendered any public knowledge of the circumstances
necs-
sary. It seems to me that all this has been occasioned by
the recall of Lord Lucas), under the responsibility ef the
Minister at War himself. What was the position of the
Minister at War? Ho was a member of a Government which
was in great distress and difficulty—against whom a great
amount of public odium was excited—and the Minister at
War apparently in my mind (although I may be' Mowing
under re misconception), in a period of great difficulty, when
a victim was necessary, thought that the recall of Lord
Lucan, or of souse general officer, would in sown degree
appease public opinion—(hear, hear)—and that vindictive
craving which had seized on the public appetite. He fixes
upon Lord Liman ; takes advantage of circumstances
which were in his official possessioe, and as such are of
official secrecy, recalls Lord Lucan—a distinguished and
meritorious officer—and has led to all this discussion and
debate. Notwithstanding all this, I cannot question—and
will not fur a moment question—tire exercise of the royal
prerogative in this case; but I think there is ono point in
the question on which the Heuso of Lk: was has a iigh,
to complain. It is on that account alone that I bare
risen. I can readily believe that thin gallant °Neer, whose
conduct has been now so impugned, labours under an

infliction which must be most bitter to a man of generous
anti high-spirited tlispositione I cermet. forget- that- this
noble lord, in his capacity of a British general, was, only a
brief time ago, marked out by her Majesty's Government
for a great distinction—almost the greatest distinction
which any Englishman can enjoy or receive. I remember
*hen the noble lord, now absent, came forward, at the
house' to propose a vote of thanks of the House of Coln-
Mons to the generals who had distinguished themselves in
those gallant victories which, whatever be the fate of this
struggle, will remain for ever in the recollection of Eng-
lishmen. (Hear, hear.) I had the honour of seconding
that propoeitien of the noble lord, and I need not tell the
house that I was deeply impressed with the responsibility
attached to the few words which I might utter on that
Occasion. I consider that the thanks of the Parliament of
England are the most inestimable reward which an Eng-
lishman can attain, and rank with those symbols of the
feelings with which sovereigns are wont to distinguish
their subjects. Now I say that Government have at-
tempted to treat this as a mere ceremony and idle pageantry,
when they asked in this solemn manner the House of Com-
mons to express their thanks to those general officers when
they were in possession of facts which, in their opinion,
justified them in recalling one-of these general officers
disgrace from the scene of Isis achievements. (Hear,
hear.) I do not think that. it is acting fairly by the
House of Commons, and.it ie acting unjustly and unfairly
to Lord Lucan, that, after having had this vote of thanks
unanimously accorded by the House of Cumno7ns, he
should be recalled with a slur upon his 'reputation
from the scene of his achievements. I think, -sir, this re-
quires some explanation from Government. It would be
presuming in me to attempt to form an opinion as to the
value of the professional services of Lord Lucan, but, as
far as I can form en opinion from the discussions which
have taken place, they have not injured the character of
the noble lerd, although he may not re:eive the inquiry
which he seeks for, perhaps not with deficient justifica-
tion, but with a spirit which all must respect. However
that mey be, it must be tatiefactory, not only to the
noble lord, but to the country, that a distinguished officer
who has been engaged in the late struggle has been shown
net unworthy of the confidence of the public, and I hope
the result of the discussion will soothe the wounled spirit
of Lord Lucan. (Hear, hear.) I caonot say that I-think
the motion, either in the spirit in which it was brought
forward or thb.spirit in "which it was seconded, is ono
which the House of Commons can sanction, but Ido not
wish it to boil:ironed that I at all join to this belief an opi-
nion respecting Lord Lucan which is adverse to his pro-
fessional reputation as a gallant and distinguished officer.
Lord PALMERSTON—Sir, I must equally object to
the motion, whether placed upon the grounds upon which
it was moved for or placed on the grounds of my noble
friend. I hope that nothing which has passed in the de-
bate will be considered us passing any imputation what-
ever on the military character of the noble lord who is the
'subject of the discussion. Nothing can be more painful to
'the house than diseuesions of this kind, involving as they
do the feelings of individuals, and matters of personal
conduct. (Hear, hear.) They must be topics, ,which,
whatever be the subject and whatever be the occasion
which gives rise to their, the house must always feel a dis-
position to avoid, unless forced by absolute necessity. I
think they are to be peculiarly avoided when they relate
to officers .in the army, and to matters of military dis-
cipline. It is quite natural in the present state of things,
when the attention ref the country has been so painfully
oirccted to the military events of the war—it is quite nit-
tenet that the house should sympathise in this feeling, and
hive its attention directed' to matters of this kind; but,
at the same time, I think the house ought not to forget
that the command of the armyis by the constitution vested
in the Crown, and if the house—whose power I would not
presume to limit or define—if the house takes up the habit
of interfering .with the discipline of the army—takes to
itself questions which, for the goOd of the service and the
maintenance of good order in tire army, ought necosearily
to be left to the Crown—it will do a greet injury to the
country, the extent of which it is not easy to foresee.
(Hear.) I think, ou the grounds which have been stated,
that it is a case in which it is itepoesible to grant a court-
inartiel. I think the .examples which have been adduced
as a justification for a court-martial go quite the other
way. Lord George Germainiwae accused of not having
done enough ; Lord Lucan is found fault with for having
done too much. Nobody questions his courage or the ex-
emplary devotion which he exhibited for the public service
throughout the whole period of the time in which he was
employed in the Crimea. His case is precisely the reverse
of that of Lord George Gez'main, because riot the slightest
imputation is in his ease attached to those military qua-
lities which were said to be deficient in Lord George Ger-
main. (Hoar.) eir, I think, therefore,. that there are
eufficient grounds why no court-inertial should be granted
—grounds technical, grounds of expediency, and grounds
Of general and particular consideration The right hon-
ourable gentleman (Slr. Disraeli) who had just sat down
has adverted to circumstances which, I think, tell in a dif-
ferent manner to that in which he has applied them. He
said that her Majesty's Government seemed to treat lightly
the thanks of the House of Couonons, because they her
recalled an officer—as ho says, in disgrace, which I utterly
deny—because they bad recalled an officer to whom the
thanks of the House of Commons had been given. As far
as the military character of an officer is concerned, that
motion for the thanks of the House of Commons is a proof
that Lord Lucan well deserved the thanks of the House of
Commons, and places his character in a position in which
his best friends could wish to have it placed. But was he
recalled for any reason at variance with that vote of thanks?
Why the reason was simply this—that, qUestions of differ-
ence having arisen between him and his commanding
officer--the Commander-in-Chief—those differences ap-
peared to place, both of them in relations to each
other incompatible with the good of the service. In the
opinion of her Majesty's Government, it was impos-
possible that these two officers could continue to act toge-
ther, and in consequence of that opinion Lord Lucan was
brought home ; but he war not brought home in disgrace
or with any reflection on his character. He was brought
home on the ground of a personal difference with his supe-
rior officer, without any reflection on his character, and I
should be the last-man in the world to saaetion the infer-
ence thus drawn. I therefore trust- that the house will
negative this motion, as there are no expedient nor possi-
bid grounds for the house to grant it. (Hear, hc,7r.)
Mr. E. DENISON sail if the debate ended at this point
:there was one man who would have reason to complain of
Course which it had taken. He meant Lord Raglan,
must.protest against anything which would weaken
or fritter away his authority. It would be unjust to him
and detrimental to the .country.
Lord ELCHO appealed to the hon. member for Bristol
to withdraw the motion, as in the course of the debate the
amplest testimony had been borne), ;lot only to the perso-
nal character and honour, but likendse to the miliiary ca-
pacity of his noble' relative. That= testimony, as well as
the observations of his noble friend at the head of the Go-
vernment, was sati3factoryto himself, and no doubt would
be equally so to his noble relative, Lord Lucan.
Mr. H. BERKELEY consented to withdraw the motion,
as, upon legal grounds, the inquiry it asked for seemed to
be impossible.
Mr. CARDWELL said, befofe this discussion entirely
closed, he wished to observe upon one remark which it
had called forth. The right hon. gentleman the member
for Buckinghamshire had stated that in his opinion the
feeling which actuated the late Government is recalling
Lord Lucan was connected with the difficulties in which
they were placed, and the demand of the public for vic-
tims. Now, that was an imputation of a character which
ought not to be left in any degree of doubt, and he should
be glad to know if he rightly understood his noble friend
at the head of the Government as having stated that the
ground of the recall was the incompatibility of Lord Lucan
to discharge his duties when ho was at variance with the
Commander-in-Chief.
Lord PALMERSTON said his right hon. friend had
rightly understood- what he meant to state. He stated
that the recall of Lord Lucan turned entirely upen the dif-
ference which had arisen between him and .his superior
officer, thereby negativing the imputation which had been
cast upon the Duke of Newcastle. The recall was the act
of the Government, for which he was as much responsible
as the Duke of Newcastle.
Mr. DISRAELI—I made no imputation against the
Duke of Newcastle. I have on many, I nosy say on 'all
occasions, avoided making imputations on individual Mi-
nisters. I-hold-the late Cabinet responsible for this suet-
tar, and therefore I made no perionalimputatioh upon the
Diakerof Newcastle, as distinguished from any other mem-
ber of the Cabinet to which he belongeLl; but with regard
to this or any other matter of a like nature, I recognise no
difference between the late Cabinet and the present. I look
upon them both as the same Administration. (A laugh.)
. The motion was then withdrawn.
CHURCH RATES.
Sir W. CLAY said that he rose pursuant to the notice
which be had given to move for leave to introdue a bill for
the abolition of church rates, and in doing !‘o it would not
be necessary for him to trasspass for more than a few mo-
ments on the attention of the house. He believed that he

could not better consult the convenience of the house than

by avoiding all grounds which were likely to provoke oppo-
sition. He should ecatine himself to a statement, is the
fewest and simplest words, of the character and objects of
the bill which he was about to ask leave to lay on the table
'of the house. The main element of the measure was the abo-
lition of church rates, and in that respect it, would be simi-
lar to the bill which he introduced last year on the same
subject. He had felt that by the result of that abolition
certain provisions might become necessary and expedient,
and he had looked to the state of the law for the purpose of
remedying any difficulties which might be found to arise
from the abolition itself. Whilst he called on Parliament to

abolish church rates, he was bound to remove all obstacles
i which might steed in the way of membersuf the Established
Church in making their free-will offerings for the sustenta-
lion of the fabtics of the churches, and for the decent
mi-
nistration of Divine service. Tluabill 'would contain a pro-
vision for the maintenance of chnich rates, -Where,- under
existing statutes, those rates had boon charged for the per-
potlei'erhich he had mentioned. The'first provision would
wet: the condition of affairs which would exist after the
abolition of church rates, by providing for the new relation
in which churchwardens would be placed, and for the re-
lation of persons coming forward with voluntary contribu-
tions for the support of the fabric and ministration of ser-
vice. A provision would also he made for those eases in
which churchwardens might be reluctant to undertake
these functions, and for the application of voluntary rates.
By another provision power would be given to the pa-
rishes, if they were disposed, to allot certain portions of
the area of the church to pews, and to fix a rent to be ap-
plied to the legal pureeses to which the church rates might
at present to applied ; a certain portion of the area
would be set apart for the poor. In framing these pro-
visions, he had been actuated by a desire to alter the
existing law as little as possible. He did not propose to
impair the priveleges of the church of the parishioners.
The bill, be trusted, might be introduced as meeting the
objection of many who agreed. with the necessity for a
change, and that there could be no change but an entire
abolition. The provisions of the bill would render the
matter expedient and practicable. If the houso would so
far indulge him as to allow him to introduce the bill and
road it a first time, ho would take care that full notice
should be given to members, so that they should have
ample time to consider it, and would fix 'its second read-
ing so that they ehould have full opportunity to look into
its deteile. Ho would open no discussion now, reserving
it far the second reading. (Hear, hear.)
Mr..MIALL seconded the motion.
Kr. WIGRAM said that, as far as he could understand,
the now provisions of the bill remained exactly' the same
as those of last year. (Hear, hear.) In substance it was
simply a bill to entirely abolish church rates. In ad-
dition to that, however, there wore provisions which en-
abled those who thought ,it to pay voluntarily in support of
the Church, He thanked the lion, baronet for this-
-(laughter)—ae if they could not do that without the con-
sent of Parliament as they thought fit, With respect to the
provision for the lotting of pews, that might all be very
well in large towns • but, in country parishes, it was im-
practicable. In such parishes the people were so poor that
there would be groat difficulty in procuring, by voluntary
subcoti, teen, stillicipt to etipport the Chtirc.h. Oa former
occasions, it was demonstrated that no point of law or
principle sanctioned the abolition of the rates. Those who
had purchased the land were as ;ouch liable to it ao to any

other ohligation. All the judges of the land had concur-
red in This view of the case. It was a common Lew obli-
getion ; and the present owners of the land having under-
taken it, were bound to keep to it. Neither was the bill
to -be supported on the ground of expediency ; for, al-
though the Church might only be supported by part of
the community, yet it was an institution for the rood of
all—Dissenters as well as Churchmen. (Hear.) The bill,
too, went further than the abolition of church rates. The
only plea that had ever been brought forward for the abo-
lition of church rates was, that they interfered with the
rights of oonscience, but the bill was allowed to interfere
with all the other emoluments of the Church. (ffear,heer.)
The late Government had said that they intended to bring
forward a bill to amend the law of church rates ; but that
was rendered unnecessary, for as the law now stood church
rates could not be imposed without the consent of the ma-
jority of the vestry, and, cohsequently, there (scull now be
DO reason for interfering with the law. Whee it was com-
petent that a rate could be raieed without this consent of
the majority it was different; bat now a bill was wholly
uneceasary.
Mr. L. DA.VIES though the measure of the hon. baronet
one of confiscation, and instead of tending at all to allay that
strife and unpleasant feeling church rates might occasion,
it would only increase them, and just change the parties.
With regard to the letting ofpews, in his own locality, he
' believed, there was not a single pew that was paid for,
and consequently that part of the schema would be 'an
ut!er
Mr. R. PHILLIIIORE was not inclined himself to offer
any opposition to the first reading. The hon. baronet had
told the house that he wished to introduce the measure is
order that they should have an opportunity to examine its
provisions, and he thought that should be granted before
they decided that those provisions were adinissable. 13ut
if the lion. bartnet thought he find gained favour with any
Churchman by the proposition to let the area of churches
out in pews he was mistaken. It was impossible to devise
a more mischievous measure than that which proposed to
convert the entirearoa of churches into pews, which were
to be let out to the wealthiest bidder. (ilwir, hear.) Ho
thought tho rights of couecienco with Dissenters should be
relieved from the tax; but ha wished to ask. the hon. ba-
ronet if it was proposed to include Scotland? as he thought
the right of conscience• with the:Dissenters of Scotland
should be-considered as well as these of this country.
Mr. BENTINCK protested against the measure being
brought forward at a time when a full attendance of the
'. house was impossible, and when they had no intimation of
what course her Majesty's Governmentintended to take in
the matter; but as there was no longer a Coalition Ministry
on the Treasury benches, and es the noble lords .and right
hon. gentlemen seated there were supposed to agree with
etch other, it would be easy to determine the opinion of the
Government on the matter by aecerteining the views of the
particular members. The noble lord the member for the
City of Lendon, when expressing himself on a former occa-
sion, bad said he did not think it Would be wise or consis-
tent with the position of the lideblishea Canal in this
country to abolish church rotes • and as the motion of the
bon. baronet did propose their total abolition, the house had
aright to suppose the noble lord would himself oppose the
motion ; and recollecting the high position he held in the
Government, and the unanimity which prevailed through-
out of its ranks, he (Mr. Beet-hick) imagined that it wont,!
also be opposed by those on the treasury benches. (Hear.)
Lord STANLEY said that the proposition of the hon.
bait., that the debate should be taken on the second read-
ing, was a More consistent course than discussing the mea-
sure at present, and he himself di-d not intend to stand in
its way ; bats for all the bill contained—possessing as it did
so few details, and evoluting so little of real principle—it
mattered little whether their views were expressed then
or ou any other occasion. (Hear.) Ore remark he might
make was, that every one agreed that the present state of
the law was most unsatisfactory. (Hear.) From the Re-
form Bill of 1832 till the present time he had found no Go-
verument which kid asserted its s itisfaction with the pre-
sent state of things. Every Ministry had thought it wor-
thy of its notice, and every Minister had felt that it
required anieudoretit, and if such an amendment
could be proposed as would be satisfactory to the
claims both of Nonconformists rued Churchmen, it
ought to be supported. But no such satisfactory compro-
mise was proposed ; and in the absence of such a peeped-
hien, there was' no necessity to deal with the matter in the
manner that it should otherwise be dealt with. There had
been many Ministeaial measures tipen the subject within
the last twenty yeara but no one of them had been found
to receive the approbation of the house. (Hear.) One
statement of the lion. baronet had been nsisnnclerstood ;
• that which related to the power of receiving voluntary aid
in the repeiriug of churches. By the law as it now stands,
• the churchwarden is responsible for therofetir of the church,
but as a churchwarden may decline to accept of voluntary
eiti to carry out those repairs, it was proposed by the hon.
baronet to alter the law in that respect. (Fleur-.) As to
the question of paw rents, that was a matter of detail; but
the hon. baronet did not intend, he (Lord Stanley) pre-
sumed, that the whole area of the church ehcull be so de-
voted as to be let out in hired pews butaao leave open the
larger proportion of thenas (Hear, heat, from Sir W.
Clay.) Bet the whole nuttier had not yet come to the
time for full discussion ; still at present ho might say that
he thought a fair trial should be awarded the proposal, in
the absence of any other measure. (Cheers.)
Mr. Di ITAIMOND thought that the hon. baronet had
asked the house to give his assent to a revolutionary mea-
sure. The churches of England were national property.
As soon as bon: members admitted that it wasenot a na-
tional obligation to uphold them, and to pay the ministers
who performed Divine worship, they had better do what
nine-tenths of the supporters of this measure desired to do.
—pull down the Established Church altogether. (Hear.)
And if that was the intention of the hen. baronet, why did
he not manfully avow it? This was a class roeveneent. It
was the middle class of people who had bought houses sub-
ject to the burden of church-rates, who called upon Par-
liament to pass this bill, and thereby rob the chureh, and
by the pew system proposed by the hon. baronet, cheat the
poor out of those churches into which they had a right to
go. (Hear.)
An HON. Maermsn—Divide, divide.
Mr. DRUMMOND—Yes, you may divide, and I shall
divide ag,,inst you. (Laughter.) The people of this coun-
try are as much bound to support the national Church as
they are to support the Queen's palaces.
SIBTHORP—Hear, hear, hear. (Laughter.)
Mr. DRUMIIOND—The supporters of this measure al-
ways say that its object is to. maintain our institutions.
Your Reform Bill was introduced to maintain our institu-
tions, and you bring in a bill to piill down the Church for
the purpose of maintaining our institutions. But I say
that your civil list and your national palaces stand. upon
precisely the same ground as your national churches snd
the payment of your ministers. (Cheers.) If you put down
one, you must put down all, and do not,suppose that you
are supporting any.institutions whatever by b inging in a
dirty cowardly bill to pull down the Church. -
Mr. E. BALL said the hon. gentleman who-had just sat
down hail cast upon the hon. baronet the member for the
Tower Hamlets imputations of a most ungenerous and un-
founded nature. The hon. member for th county of Nor-
folk had objected to the introduction of this measure, be-
cause the house was about to adjourn till after Easter;
but he (Mr. E. Ball) thought that that was just the reason
why the bill ought to ho introduced now, because in the
Easter recess hon. gentleman would have an opportunity
of considering it. The hon. and learned member for the
University of Cambridge had said that the great objection,
to this measure was, that, if it were passed, great difficul-
ties would be experienced in obtaining money to repair
churches in country places. He (Mr. E. Ball) presumed
that the poorer part of the population in those places were
Dissenters, and yet they contrived to build and repair
their chapels
_and to support their ministers. (Hear.)
You could scarcely find one country place throughout the
whole of this magnificent kingdom, in which there were
not Dissenting Chapels which were supported by the volun-
tary contributions of Dissenters. (Hear, hoar.) Why,
then, should any fear be entertained that the wealthy part
of our population would not support the Church of which
they were members? If there was any ground for such a
fear, he must suppose one of two things—either that they
were unwilling to support their own Church, and did not
hike so deep an interest in religion as Disceutere did, or
that they objected to the principle of voluntary contribu-
tions. But he should be. very unwilling to impute either
of those things to the rich members of• the Church of Eng-
land. But the hew, even as it stood at present, was not
compulsory with regard to the repair of the fabric of the
E teblished Church. Without the assent of the majority of
the ratepayers, a church rata could not be imposed either
in towns or in country places. And, gradually, the whole of
the country would refine 'he give their asseut to the levying
of church rates. Very little, therefore, was to be gained by
the .members of the Church of England succeeding in re-
sisting this bill. The hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Drum-
mond), who was always ready to cast imputations upon the
motives of those who differed hem him, had said that
nine-tenths of the supporters of this bill aimed at the de-
struction of the Church. (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. E. Ball)
denied that such was their intention. He was as sincerely
attached to the Church as was the hon. gentleman himself.
If the hon. gentleman was affectionately attached to the
Church, why did he not propose to set her free from the
odium which the levying of church rates and other mat-
ters brought upon her, whereby the affection of multitudes
of the people of this country was alienated from her?
"Dissenters were not unwilling to contribute voluntarily to
the repair of the fabric of the church, and it ought to be
the palicy of the Church to deal affectionately, and not
harshly, towards them. The Dissenters were nearly, if
not altogether, the majority of the people of this country.
They were training 3,000,000 of children, the greater part
of whom were taught, not by the catechism, but by the
New Testament. Those children were the rising genera-
tion of the country, and it ought to be the policy of the
Church of England not to insult, but to treat them affec-
tionately when they came to the age of maturity.
Mr. MUNTZ said there was not a single large town in
the country in which church rates were levied. The town
which he had the honour of representing had not paid a
church rate for the last 20 years, and the priucipl of oppo-
sition to the payment of church rates was spreading in the
villages around that town. He subscribed to the Church as
much as he would have had to ray in the shape of church
rates, but that was no reason why other people who were
Dissenters,. should be called upon ho support the Church.
It was absard. to say that the owners of the land of this
country had bought their land subject to the burthen of
church rates. • He was surprised that the members of the
Church of England were not ashamed to ask Dissenters to
support that Church—they might as well oskDisseeters to
pay for their washing and-lodging. (Hear, and laughter.)
There was no principle whatever in the matter. The ~nly
principle, if there was any, was this—get what you can.
The law was inetTicie.nt with regard to church rates, and it
was discreditable to keep on the statute-book a law that you
could not put in force. He believed that the Church was
quite competent to support
itself—(hear)—and if Church-
men were canvassed individually upon this question, he
believed they would confess that they were ashamed of the
church rate law. But, like the rest of mankiud, they ap-
proved collectively of what they were ashamed of indi-
vidually.
Mr. PACKE was surprised that the noble lord at the
head of Government had not risen to state what-course
the Government intended to take, with reference to the bill
of the hon. baronet. if Lord J. Russell had been in the
house, he would have been the first to rise to oppose it.
(Hear.) • He should certainly give the motion his un•
qualified opposition.

Colonel SIETHORP should oppose the bill of the hon.
baronet. fie had heard with great satisfaction the speech
of the hon. gentleman the member for East Surrey (Mr.
Drummond—(laughter)— and for himself he should not
shrink from his duty in supporting the Mother and Esta-
blished Church. The hon. baronet, bad brought this mea-
sure forward at a late period of the evening, when the house
had no power of giving it due consideration and duo dis-
cussion. He had been taught and bred up, he was deter-
mined to die, in the straightforward course, right or
.wrong, of expressing his opinion. (Laughter.) He op-
posed the motion, for it was an attempt b undermine the
Church, as well as an endeavour to subvert the Govan-
Lunt- He would tal7e, no dirty underhand moans of sub-
s•erting ,tll,l he ntgret:thl that 9, measto:
oi t},is llnpoit•L --,oiti hay., 'brought forwoxd
such a manner. Where was the country at the present
moment, and where it had been on former occasions? This
gold country was on the verge, ho hoped net of FltiPa