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

was concerned, it appeared to be wholly without foundation.
After the report of the court of inquiry, the Commander-in-
Chief was of opinion that there was no ground whatever
for bringing Colonel Dawkins's superior officers before
a court-martial ; and, acting upon his own knowledge
as to what had .been going on in the regiment for
so many years, and of Colonel Dawkins's character, sup-
ported no doubt by the opinion of the court, his Royal
Highness gave Col. Dawkins the option of retiring upon
half-pay and of selling his commission. His royal highness
had acted entirely upon his own responsibility and his own
knowledge of what had taken place, and he had no wish to
shelter himself behind the report of the committee of in-
quiry. Col. Dawkins' notions of subordination and mili-
tary discipline, and of the relations which ought to subsist
between him and his brother officers, were such, that, in
the opinion of his royal highness, it would have been highly
injurious to the service if he were entrusted with the com-
mand of the regiment. He would only refer to the details
of one of the charges. It was said that Lord Rokeby had
acted illegally in placing Col. Dawkins under arrest for re-
fusing to take his hand. The facts were these. Two days
previously Lord Rokeby had had occasion to speak some-
what severely to Col. Dawkins on some matter of discip-
line ; and, wishing to show that he had no personal ill-
feeling towards him, the noble lord twice held out his hand
to Col. Dawkins, and made some civil remark. Col. Daw-
kins, when his attention was called to the fact by Colonel
Chesney that Lord Rokeby was speaking to him, rose from
his seat, and saluted him in a manner which was considered
highly insubordinate by his brother officers. Lord Rokeby
did nothing at the time, but, having taken half an hour or
an hour to consider the matter, and having consulted other
officers, came to the conclusion that Col. Dawkins' manner
had been exceedingly disrespectful, especially considering
that there were a great number of junior officers present.
Lord Rokeby then placed him in arrest, and reported the
matter to the lieutenant-general commanding at the camp.
The commander-in-chief happened to be out of town, or
from some other circumstance the decision of his royal
highness was not received for 11. days ; but Lord Rokeby
was not responsible for that,and had been guilty of no ille-
gality in ordering his arrest. The commander-in-chief,being
of opinion there was no sufficient case upon which to bring
Col. Dawkins to court-martial, ordered him to be released.
But it must not be supposed that Colonel. Dawkins suf-
fered any confinement whatever pending the decision of
his Royal Highness ; for on the second day of the arrest
Lord Rokeby, finding that, no communication had been re-
ceived from the Commander-in-Chief, said it would be of
no use to keep Col. Dawkins any longer in camp, although
it might be necessary that he should still remain under
arrest; he had better therefore proceed to London. Col.
Dawkins spent 11 days doing what he pleased, and had not
suffered any inconvenience. The other complaints were
quite as trivial, and some even more so ; and he (Lord
Hartington) did not think it necessary o go into them. He
declined to produce the papers which had been asked for,
and he did not think the House of Commons was the tri-
bunal to determine the question in dispute. He considered
that no injustice had been done, and that no grievance ex-
isted to call for the interposition of Parliament. He did not
believe that a number of officers would combine together,
as had been represented by Col. Dawkins, to make false
statements respecting the character and prospects of a
brother officer ; and until he heard the allegation supported
by arguments very different from those which had been
adduced that evening, he should prefer to believe that Col.
Dawkins had, owing to some peculiarities of temper, en-
tirely misunderstood the action of those officers, and taken
an entirely mistaken view of their conduCt towards him.
He hoped, therefore, that the house would decline to give
the papers moved for by such a majority as would prove
convincingly not only that they did not believe the state-
ments of tyranny which had been brought forward, but
also that they did not approve of cases such as this being
brought forward for discussion in the House of Commons.
(Loud cheers.)

General PEEL said there were two points on which he
thought the house were almost unanimous, and he agreed
entirely on both points, although apparently contradictory
and antagonistic to each other. He agreed that it was
not proper nor convenient, for the House of Commons to
interfere in questions of discipline, and constitute itself a
court of appeal from military decisions. He equally
agreed that if any individual had a grievance to com-
plain of, he had a right to come to the house for redress,
let the grievance be what it might. The question was,
how were they to reconcile the action of the house so as not
to ;interfere in the one instance with the discipline of the
army, nor in the other to allow injustice to be done to indi-
viduals. Nothing could be more inconvenient than for the
house to interfere with the discipline of the army. Such
interference would be a great question as to trenching upon
the prerogative of the Crown, while he held it to be per-
fectly undeniable that it was in the power of the Crown to
dismiss or dispense with the services of any officer. On
the other hand, they had a Minister of the Crown respon-
sible to Parliament for the manner in which that preroga-
tive was exercised ; and if they had reason to believe that
justice had not been done in any particular case they had a
right to demand from the Minister an explanation of his
conduct. 'He did not know how ho could better explain
the difference between the exercise of such powers by that
house and by the Minister.of the Crown than by quoting
the words of the late Earl Grey, spoken in 1812, and em-
bodied in the report of the Royal Commission on Military
Organisation. Earl Grey said : " The whole notion of
there being anything unconstitutional in bringing the army
more under the Ministry of the day seems to me to arise
from a confusion between the powers exercised by the
responsible Minister of the Crown and the powers exer-
cised by .a Parliamentary committee, or some mode of the
kind. Undoubtedly it was very unconstitutional in the
Long Parliament, that all the powers of the State should
have been assumed by committees of the House of Com-
mons, but the power over the army exercised by a respon-
sible servant of the Crown appears to be consistent with,
and an essential element of, our constitution." He quite
agreed in that opinion. In the report of the Royal Com-
mission on Purchase it bad been laid down most decidedly
that the Commander-in-Chief had the power of exercising
a veto on the appointment of officers to command regi-
ments. The present Earl Grey, in his evidence before
that commission, expressed this opinion : " I am bound to
say I think that in our service hitherto there has been a
want of sufficient firmness in refusing promotion to those
who do deserve it." And Sir Charles Yorke said that
the less delicacy and indulgence that was exercised in such
matters the better it was for the service. The hon. mem-
ber for Devizes (Mr. D. Griffith), without any notice what-
ever in the first instance, had called upon the house to in-
sist upon the decision of the Commander-in-Chief being
suspended until further inquiries should have taken place.
Now, what inquiry could take place? It would be answered,
"a court-martial." But was the house prepared to say, in
opposition to the report of the Royal Commissioners and to
the undoubted rights of the Commander-in-chief, that no
person should be prohibited from having the command of
a regiment unless he should have committed some military
crime which would subject him to be cashiered ? If they
were prepared to go that length, were they still prepared to
hold the Commander-in-Chief responsible for the efficiency
of the army ? (Hear, hear.) It was not merely a hard case
that would justify the interference of the house. If any
officer could show that. the Commander-in-Chief had used
his authority contrary to law, then he admitted that any
hon. member had a right to demand from the house of
Commons justice for the party aggrieved. With respect
to the present case, he might mention that he did not know
Colonel Dawkins, but he was acquainted with some of the
other officers whose names had been mentioned, and he
might possibly have a feeling against the colonel, from
what he had heal d from them. But this was now the case,
not of Colonel Dawkins, but of the military authorities,
and in the present instance the Secretary of State for War
was directly responsible, if the house, having heard the
statement of the noble lord opposite, still thought there
was a case. He must say that this case was a proof of the
inconvenience of the Secretary of State for War not hav-
ing a seat in that House ; for if he had been there he would
have been able to tell them that they were not called upon
to interfere in the case of an individual ; and if the Judge
Advocate had answered what appeared to him to be a very
simple question, he thought the house might at once have
come to the conclusion—as he trusted they would do now
—to refuse to enter into an individual case, and also to re-
fuse the production of the papers. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. HEADLAM explained that the reason why he did
not answer the questions addressed to him on this subject
the other evening was that he had no official or real know-
ledge of the proceedings which had taken place, and under
these circumstances he did not think he should have been
acting respectfully towards the house if ho had risen in his
place, and pledged his character that the proceedings had
been legal. (Hear, hear, and cries of Divide.)
Colonel DICKSON expressed his regret that the Govern-
ment would not interfere to to put a stop to the unfortu-
nate cause of dispute hetween that house and the military
authorities—(no, no)—which must prove most injurious to
the service, and might eventuate in one of those great mili-
tary scandals which were so much to be deplored. He
perfectly agreed with the broad principle laid down by the
noble lord the Under-Secretary for War as to the conduct
of this house in regard to the Horse Guards, for he be-
lieved the army to be a Royal and not a Parliamentary
army, and the interference of the house ought to be limited
to the annual expression on the vote of supply of approval
• or disapproval• of its general direction. It was, in his
opinion, beneficial to the State that the army should be
commanded by a Prince of the Blood who by his zeal and
ability had proved himself worthy of his position. (Loud
cries of Divide.) But still, though he had the highest re-
spect for the military 'authorities, he had greater respect
for the independence and legal influence of the House of
Commons. All that was asked now was that the case of
Col. Dawkins might receive further consideration, and that
) the papers should be produced in order to afford. the public
an opportunity of forming a direct opinion on the subject.
• (Divide.)
1 After a few words from Mr. 0. STANLEY, who was
interrupted by cries of "Divide,"
) The motion was negatived without a division.
PROTECTION OF THE COLONIES.
- -

Mr. MARSH directed attention to the cost of the pro-
tection of
.the colonies, and the advantages which the
mother country derived from them. After taking a rapid
view of the military requirements of the different colonies,
and the extent to which these. were met, he contended