The Sun.
London, England, 1865-05-27 00:00:00

THE ECLIPSE SCHOONER.

In reply to Mr. C. PosTEB,
Lord C. PAGET said no official importance had been
received of the destruction of the schooner Eclipse. The
information that had been received at the Admiralty had
been brought by a small trading vessel.

NEW ZEALAND.
In reply to an HON. MEMBER,
Mr. CARDWELL said the mail just in had brought two

despatches. They were not yet in type, but he might in-
form the house that the principal topic mentioned was the

triumph of the friendly natives over those in opposition.
It would no doubt be satisfactory to the house to know
that the mail also brought from the Colonial Government
1.400,000,f0r their debentures.
SUPPLY—THE CASE OF COLONEL DAWKINS.
Lord PALMERSTON said it would be for the conve-
nience of the house if hon. gentlemen having notices on
the paper previous to the right hon. member for Devizes
would give way, in order that that motion might be taken

as early as possible.
Mr. Neate, Mr. H. Tracy, and Mr. 0. Stanley having
assented,
Mr. D. GRIFFITH moved an address to her Majesty
fora copy of all correspondence relating to the first court
of inquiry on Lieut.-Colonel Dawkins in or about July,
1864, including all communications which had been made
on the subject, from the Field Marshal Commanding-in-
Chief to the Major-General commanding the Brigade of
Guards, during the interval between the first and second

courts of inquiry which had been held on Lieut.-Colonel
Dawkins, and up to the present time. The hon. member

said there could be no doubt that, as a court of last resort,
that house was one to which this case might be properly
referred. The case of Lieutenant-Colonel Dawkins was

not only one of groat harshness, but it was also, he believed,
without pre:Z;edent, as he had not heard of any instance
where ;An officer had been put on half-pay against remons-
trances and without a court-martial. The question was
one affecting future generations of officers, and therefore it

was one which was-entitled to the consideration of the
house. The House of Commons was a supreme court of

appeal in all cases, and he would point to the case of 1809
as a proof that it was so considered even with regard to
the highest military authorities. The resolutions proposed
by Captain Vivian, June Ist, 1858, and carried by the
House of Commons, made the Commander-in-Chief respon-
sible to that house, the only objection to the motion by the
Government then in power, and by the present Govern-
ment, being that it was unnecessary, as that responsibility
already existed. The seconder and one of the tellers of
that motion was Viscount Goderich, the same noble lord
who was now Secretary Of War. On April the sth, 1857,
the Commander-in-Chief giving evidence before the select
committee on purchase and discipline in the army, said
that veto on promotion had never been exercised in his
time or in that of Lord Hardinge, and could only be exer-
cised when backed by public opinion. He (Mr. D. Griffith)
wished to know whether in the present case the exercise of
that power had been backed by public opinion. On the
contrary had not a strong public feeling been expressed in
favour of Colonel Dawkins ? They had a legal office; the
highest authority on military law, who, when asked his
opinion, got up very much in the style of a ladies' waiting-
chambermaid, and declined to give any opinion on the sub-
ject. (Laughter.) The house, therefore, knew nothing of
what was the opinion of the law 'officers of the Crown in re-
gard to the case of this officer. All this had taken place in
regard to an officer of whom not a single word had been said in
disparagement, but to whom testimony or efficiency had
actually been furnished by one of his accusers. Was not
voting Mutiny Acts for the government of the army a
farce, when they were told that the Commander-in-Chief
was paramount and could misuse the prerogative of the
Crown ? He was going to make use of a stronger term,
but respect for that Royal functionary restrained him, and
he would content himself with using the expression per-
version of the prerogative of the Crown. It was perfectly
well known that there was a want of unanimity on this
court of inquiry. One gallant officer had signed under pro-
test, and there was good reason to believe that another had
done the same, leaving the matter to be decided by the
casting vote of the president, who was a veteran of great
reputation and honour in bygone days—(laughter)—but

who, as ho received his first commission in 1791, must be
86 or 87 years of age. Ought the fate of any other officer to
depend on the casting vote of a single man of that age,
however distinguished and gallant ? The charge against
Col. Dawkins was one which it was impossible to disprove.
The only charges against him were infirmity of temperand
unpopularity, charges so vague that no serious penalties
ought to be attached to them. If hon. members of that
house depended for their seats upon their popularity, how
few would remain. (Laughter.) In order to meet this
charge of unpopularity, Colonel Dawkins sent a brief cir-
cular to all the officers of his regiment. It was as follows :
" The proceedings in the court of inquiry render it neces-
sary for me to ask you whether I have ever quarrelled
with you ?" (A laugh.) Fifty-two answers were favour-
able to Col. Dawkins, and only six were unfavourable. He
would, for the information of the house, read a letter from
a noble lord, a member of that house. ;It was to this
effect :—" March 26, 1865.—Dear Dawkins—Certainly
you and I never quarrelled while I was in the Cold-
stream Guards, nor did any unfriendly word pass between
us." That was from the noble lord the member for
Galway (Lord Dunkellin), whom all appreciated for his
courteous demeanour and talents. Another noble lord
wrote to say that no quarrel had ever occurred be-
tween them. Another wrote, " The time I quarrelled
with you was, in Rome, five years ago." (A laugh.) A
lieutenant-colonel, who was probably present in the house,
wrote, "My dear Dawkins—(a laugh)—Can't say we have
ever quarrelled ; because it takes two to make a quarrel,
and I was not willing to be one." (Much laughter.) That
was the epigrammatic way in which the officer expressed
himself. It was curious that the letter of another officer,
the Hon. Percy Fielding, said the same thing in so nearly
the same way that it was obvious the two had consulted
each other. In another letter, relating to the spring of
1860, the writer said, " I remember there was a suggestion
that you should not speak in terms of abuse in the presence
of shopkeepers and officers of the line. (Laughter.) There
was an instance in which a request to Colonel Dawkins to
leave the guard-room at eleven o'clock at night was alluded
to; but these were all matters of discipline. Therefore,
he could not but contend that the charge of unpopularity
was reduced to nothing. (Move, move.) Colonel Daw-
kins had been abroad, and had improved himself, as was
the honourable custom amongst gallant officers, in the
manners and languages of foreign countries. With regard
to the charge against him, surely it was no breach of mili-
tary discipline to refuse to take a man's hand when it was
offered. Why, a man's hand ought to be as sacred a part
of his person as a maiden's heart. (Much laughter.) The
customs of this country were not such as to require a man
to shake hands when he did not desire to do so. (Move,
move.) This was a slight offence, but for it he was put
under arrest for an illegal period, and his application for a
court-martial had been refused. How the house and the
public would allow a power of that kind to be exercised
he could not understand. He would, therefore, move
his resolution, and leave the subject in the hands of the

house.
The Marquis of HARTINGTON did not think it neces-
sary to follow the hon. member through the first part of
his speech, in which he had attempted to defend the
course he had taken in bringing forward a matter of that
kind for discussion in that house. On a' former occasion,
when the subject was introduced, hon. members on both
sides had expressed their opinions that this was a matter
which ought, under no circumstances, to be discussed
there. (Hear, hear.) The arguments the hon. gentleman
had employed were that ho was justified in bringing the
motion forward, inasmuch as the Commander-in-Chief was
subordinate to the Secretary of State, who was respon-
sible to that house for the administration of the army.
He quite admitted that the hon. gentleman had rightly
quoted the authorities on that question, but it seemed
to him that there was the greatest difference between
the responsibility of the Minister to the house and the
course that was now pursued of entering into a discus-
sion on the details of the management and administra-
tion of the army. (Hear, hear.) As the opinions of the
hon. member seemed to be shared by a few only of those
who had supported him, he did not think it necessary to
enter further into that part of the subject. With regard
to the whole question, he must repeat his protest against
what seemed to him to have been the extremely unfair
and scarcely
courteous manner in which the subject was
brought before the notice of the house. It was the first
time in his experience that a question of public import-
ance, and also involving the character and reputation of
army,made
tquite
ue
th any
b
true
nd
y the
peeunb broughtlhicon ge forward
notice
n we
rahaa
severalin tt officers, some of them of high rank and position
gentleman
vhearca.i ngi(d.,esetnaarht,eimhmeeanrt.)s
Mali weasw
no-
tice of his intention to ask a question, and he had pre-
pared a reply ; but he was not aware that the unusual
course of moving the adjournment of the house would be
taken. [Mr. GurFrrrn said he only decided upon that
course in the afternoon of the day of his question.l A

question of the kind ought not to have been entered upon
without the fullest notice, in order that the parties con-
cerned might have the opportunity of defending them-

selves. It was said that Colonel Dawkins had received a

notice so extremely brief that no alternative was left but
to bring the question forward in that house without delay.

A reference to the dates in this transaction would show

to the house how unfounded that statement was. On

the 26th of April Colonel Dawkins was sent for by the

Lieutenant-General, and the opinion of the court of in-
quiry, with the opinion of the Commander-in-Chief on the
finding of that court, and the course proposed by the
Commander-in-Chief, were told bin', and the alternative

he had to adopt was presented to him. On the 4th of

May the same information was sent to him in a written
form ; and Colonel Dawkins requested he might have time

to consider what course he would take. On the 9th of May
Colonel Dawkins addressed an appeal to the Secretary of
State for War against the decision of the Commander-in-
Chief. On the 14th of May a letter was sent to Colonel

Dawkins, urging him to come to some conclusion. On the
17th a letter was sent him, saying that Lord de Grey de-

dined to interfere with the decision of the Commander-in-

Chief. On the 19th he was informed that he must adopt
some course. Therefore, from the 19th of April to the 26th
of May, this case was under the consideration of Colonel
Dawkins, and he did not think any charge of undue haste

could be supported. He must ask the house to consider
what was the power exercised by the Commander-in-Chief
in this instance. In his evidence given before the Royal
Commission in 1857, his royal highness said, in answer to

a question put by the noble lord the member for King's

Lynn, he was aware that when a man had some notorious

defect, some want of temper, or some deficiency in the un-
derstanding, that would render him unfit to command, he
might be preventedfrom succeeding in due course, although
there was no stigma on his character. He considered that

public opinion must back up the Commander-in-Chief in
the ordinary and usual exercise of his power, and not by
any means that the Commander-in-Chief should be backed

up in a particular instance by public opinion. He believed
public opinion would back up the Commander-in-Chief in
his exercise of that power, and he believed that if public
opinion did so back up that power, it would be for the ad-
vantage of the public service. (Hear, hear.) The report
of the commission expressed regret that the power of veto

was not more frequently exercised. It was recommended
that a system of selection should be adopted, which of

course was a different system to that now in force ; but the
Government did not attempt to carry that change into effect,

because they were not supported by a party in that house

large enough to warrant them in going to that extent. The

appointment by seniority and by purchase was the only
other alternative, and the only condition attached to it was
the exercise of the power of veto in extreme cases by the

Commander-in-Chief. He admitted that was a power which

had not often been exercised, and of course it would be invi-

diens to mention instances. The questions before the house

were, whether the power ought never to be exercised at
all—in fact, whether appointments to one of the most
responsible positions in the army were to go entirely by
seniority—or whether the house was prepared to remove
from the commander the responsibility of passing his veto

on an appointment, and to take the responsibility on itself

as to whether or not an officer was fit to take command.

(Hear, hear.) He believed there were members in that
house who thought it ought to exercise that responsibility.
He could not say he agreed with that opinion. Still, if

members held such an opinion, it ought to be discussed on
the general merits. He should, he thought, be justified,

after what he had stated, in declining to decide the question
of the fitness or unfitness of Col. Dawkins for this appoint-
ment ; but the tone that had been taken in that debate had
been such that it was impossible that he should altogether
refrain from entering into the particulars of the case. As
far as he understood the charge, it was that a cabal had
been formed against Col. Dawkins.
Mr. D. GRIFFITH-1 beg the noble lord's pardon. I
never made use of such a word.

The Marquis of HARTINGT ON was not referring par-
ticularly to what had been said by the hon. member ; but
he understood the allegation to be that Col. Dawkins had
been very harshly treated by the officers of his regiment—
(hear, hear)—and certainly that those officers had taken a
dislike to him, and had persecuted him upon most trifling
charges, which charges had been investigated by an in-
competent tribunal, and that, upon the report of that in-

competent tribunal, he had been ejected from his regiment.
It was, however, perfectly erroneous to suppose that the
court of inquiry which had been held the other day was
appointed to inquire into any charge against Col. Dawkins.
The fact was, it was appointed to inquire into charges
brought by Col. Dawkins against his superior officers.
(Hear, hear.) The circumstances were these : Ever since
1859 Col. Dawkins had had a series of misunderstandings,
and sometimes of disputes, with different officers of his
regiment, some his superiors, others his inferiors. These
were of a nature so trifling as to be capable of being dis-
posed of, and they generally were disposed of, by the com-
manding officer of the battalion; and, indeed, in any other
case nothing more would have been heard of them. But
Colonel Dawkins was unwilling that these occurrences
should be so disposed of. He addressed a series of letters to
. the Adjutant-General, in which he recapitulated the his-

tory of these differences, and requested that they might be
laid before the Commander-in-Chief._ His complaints were
investigated by the Adjutant-General from time to time,
and he was informed of the result. But he never appeared
to have allowed any one of these matters entirely to drop.
He might withdraw a letter, or he might for a time appear
to be satisfied, but as soon as fresh differences arose he
always revived his old charges. One of these complaints
was against Lord Frederick Paulett, and that was made the
subject of investigation before a court of inquiry. The
whole, or the greater part, of the correspondence between
Colonel Dawkins and the Adjutant-General was laid before
the court. In the end the court came to the conclusion
that Lord F. Paulett had misunderstood the orders given
by the Commander-in-Chief with reference to Colonel
Dawkins, and that he had somewhat exceeded his autho-
rity in declining to allow Colonel Dawkins to take the
command of a wing of the battalion at a review in Hyde
Park. That conclusion was accepted by the Commander-
in-Chief and Colonel Dawkins. Lord F. Paulett and the
other officers of the battalion were informed of the result.
In a word, all the notice that could be taken of the occur-
rence was taken. The court added to its report an expres-
sion of opinion that, although they were not prepared to
say that Colonel Dawkins was unfit to take the command
of any battalion, still it would not be beneficial to the
service that he should take the command of the Cold-
stream Guards. Well, that opinion appeared to the Com-
mander-in-Chief to be extremely vague, and one on
which he could not act. His Royal Highness, therefore,
ordered Colonel Dawkins to return to his duty, express-
ing a hope at the same time that the dispute
with his superior and inferior officers would hence-
forth cease. However, very few weeks elapsed be-
fore Colonel Dawkins reiterated the charges which had
been investigated before the court of inquiry. It had for
a considerable period become necessary, in accordance with
the opinion of the officers of the regiment, which was con-
curred in by the commander, that, on account cf Col. Daw-
kins's peculiarities, the command of the battalion should
not devolve upon him even temporarily. Naturally this
could not be a permanent arrangement, and therefore the
Duke of Cambridge sent for Col. Dawkins, and told him
that, as in his opinion he had failed to make out his case
against his superior officers, he hoped that he (Col. Daw-
kins) would withdraw at once and for ever all those charges,
and let bygones be bygones. His Royal Highness added,
if he would do so, he was willing to retract his prohibition
against Col. Dawkins assuming the temporary command of
the battalion, and that he should allow him to be placed in
the same position as other officers of the regiment. Well, it
was hoped that Col. Dawkins had accepted this proposal.
However, on his return home, a letter was received from
him, to the effect that he wished it to be understood he
withdrew nothing and retracted nothing. The matter had
then come to such a pass as to necessitate a full investiga-
tion into all the charges. The principal point involved was
that Lord F. Paulett and several other officers had made
false statements with regard to Col. Dawkins, which tended
to his injury. Every effort was made to induce Col. Dawkins
to retract that charge, or, at all events, to state it in a less
offensive manner. He persisted, however, in pressing it in
the most offensive terms possible, and there was nothing left
but to institute an inquiry. If that inquiry had established
a prima facie case, Lord F. Paulett and the other officers im-
plicated would have been brought to a court-martial.
Colonel Dawkins was invited to make his statement, and
the fullest opportunity was afforded to him to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, and he was allowed to make
a complete and final statement of his case. In-
deed, at the conclusion of the inquiry Colonel Dawkins
expressed, through the president, his thanks for the full
opportunity that had been afforded to him of bringing
forward his case. The court reported their opinion that
Col. Dawkins had failed to substantiate the truth of his
charge; that in most instances he had entirely failed, and
that in every, case he had failed to make out the charge of
falsification against his brother officers. Tho court also
came to the conclusion that the command of the battalion
by Col. Dawkins would be decidedly injurious to the public
.Service. But they added to their report, and the Commander
in-Chief fully coincided in the conclusion, that nothing
which had come before them had in anyway impugned the
character of Col Dawkins as an officer. • They were of
opinion that he was in his own mind convinced of the jus-
tice of the charges. and that ho had not knowingly brought
forward charges which were groundless. It was alleged that
the Court had not been unanimous in their finding; but the
fact was, the report had been signed by the president, and
every member of the court, after an intimation had been
given to them of the manner in which any one dissatisfied
with the result might record his protest. No protest was
made, and the first intimation which had reached the Com-
mander-in-Chief of the court not being unanimous was the
appearance of that letter from Col. De Bathe. Sir Alex.
Woodford and other members of the court were then con-
sulted, and they all stated that, although Col. De Bathe had
during the proceedings expressed opinions adverse to the
majority of the court, he made no objection whatever to
sign the report. It has also been stated that another mem-
ber of the court had signed a protest. All tire members of
the court, however, denied that statement, and they had
givenexception
othßaatththe,rothuegyhhouatd tbheeeninpequriprec,ilwy iunth
atnhie-
an
of assurCoaln. Dce
mous, Therefore, so far as the alleged want of unanimity