The Sun.
London, England, 1836-03-31 00:00:00

Lieutenant-Colonelcyof the 11th Dragoons. He was induced
to put this question in consequence of having read an order
issued from the Horse Guards for the removal of that Noble
Lord from the 15th Hussars, the regiment of which he had
been in command. Now what he ( Sir W. Molesworth)
wished to know from the Noble Lord the Secretary at War
was, if such an order as he had mentioned appeared on the
books at the War Office, and whether, notwithstanding such
an order, Lord Brudenell had been appointed to the Lieu-
tenant-Colonelcy of the 11th Regiment of Light Dragoons,
with the sanction and approbation of the Noble Lord the Se-

cretary at War ?
Lord HOW ICK was understood to say, in reply, that an
order did appear in the books at the War Office, by which the
Noble Lord alluded to by the Hon. Baronet was moved from
active service, and placed on half-pay ; but this, he had rea-
son to understand, was meant only as a temporary punish-
ment, and not permanently to exclude the Noble Lord from
being again called into active service. Having stated this
fact, he ( Lord Howick) should now proceed to answer the
question which the Hon. Baronet had put to him, as to
whether it was true, as he had heard, that the Noble Lord
had been appointed to the Lieutenant- Colonelcy of the 11th
Light Dragoons with his (Lord Howick's) sanction and ap-
probation. It was quite clear, from the fact of his asking
such a question, that the Hon. Baronet had not a correct
knowledge of the practice in military affairs, especially as re-
garded the duty of the Secretary at War. He ought to have
been aware that to the Secretary at War is simply confided
the duty of watching over the financial arrangements of the
army, and that he had no concern in, or right to, interfere
with the question of either promotions or appointments. Still
he was willing to admit that he had been aware that
such an appointment was intended to be made. Lord
Hill had, in fact, communicated to him his intention on
the subject. The rule of the War Office in fact was, that
no officer should be placed on half-pay whose character
and conduct were not such as to justify the Commander-
in-Chief in calling on him at any time to return to ac-
tive service.—( Hear, hear.) That rule had been established
long prior to 1834, the period when Lord Brudenell was re-
moved from his regiment, and with such a rule before him he
thought it must be clear to anybody that in placing the Noble
Lord on half-pay it was by no means intended that lie should
never again be employed on active service. At all events,
he (Lord Howick) could have no right whatever to object to
the appointment, and with regard to whether it was a proper
and fitting selection he, as Secretary at War, could have
ac-
cess to no documents which would enable him to form an

opinion on the subject.
Mr. HUME observed that as the Commons of England
were the parties who provided the means for keeping up the
military establishment they ought to know whether the Mem-
bers of the Cabinet were or not answerable for the conduct of
the individual who was placed by them at the head of the
army. Now he was desirous of hearing the sentiments of the
Noble Lord, the leader of the Government in that House, on
the subject, and therefore, as he considered the Secretary at
War little better than the clerk of the Commander-in-Chief,
he wished to know from the Noble Lord who was to be consi-
dered as responsible for what took place in the army, whether
his Majesty's Ministers or the Commander-in-Chief ?
Lord J. RUSSELL was very much disposed to agree with
what his Right Hon. Friend had stated relative to the powers
of the Secretary at War, and his being placed under the
Commander-in-Chief ; but so far as respected appointments
and promotions in the army the discretion was placed, and in
his opinion by no means improperly, in the Commander-in-
Chief. The Commander-in-Chief was always a person of
high station in the army, and being, therefore, presumed to
be well acquainted with the merits and services of the diffe-
rent officers, if he did his duty to the Crown, he would be re-
sponsible for the recommendations which he gave with respect
to appointments and promotions—the Government, or rather
the First Lord of the Treasury, being responsible for ad-
vising the Crown to adopt these recommendations.—(Hear,
hear.) If, however, the Members of the Cabinet and the
First Lord of the Treasury should on the contrary be of opi-
nion that the discretion placed in the hands of the Com-
mander-in-Chief was wrongly or improperly exercised—if on
the whole it should be thought that this discretion was not
exercised for the benefit of the array and the advantage of the
country—then he (Lord J. Russell) was free to admit that on
the Government, and on them alone, would devolve the re-
sponsibility of taking steps for the removal of the Corn-
mandet-in- Chief from his office.—( Hear, hear.) There
could, however, be no doubt that Lord Hill was answerable for
the particular appointments which his knowledge of the
respective merits of the officers enabled him to make • but
then as to the general question, that of placing in the hands of
Lord Hill the discretion which he possessed, all he (Lord J.
Russell) could say was that he was ready to take his share of
the responsibility which its exercise might occasion ; for if he
did not believe Lord Hill fully capable of judging soundly,
cautiously, and impartially, upon every circumstance con-
nected with the army, he would be among the first to advise
that his Noble Friend the Commander-in-Chief was no longer
worthy of the confidence reposed in him.—( Hear.)
Mr. HUME wished to know if they were to understand—
( Cries of " Spoke, spoke")—that the Commander-in-Chief
was the party who was answerable for all promotions, and that
his Majesty's Ministers were responsible for his acts, by in
short advising his Majesty to confirm them. If so, he should
like to know from the Noble Lord whether the appointment
of Lord Brudenell had obtained his sanction and approval ?
Lord J. RUSSELL would repeat what he had said, viz.,
that the Commander-in- Chief was responsible for his own par-
ticular acts, in recommending promotions to be made by the
Crown, and that Ministers were responsible for advising his
Majesty to give effect to those recommendations. Now, with
respect to the appointment of Lord Brudenell to the Lieut.-
Coloncicy of the 11th Light Dragoons, or to any similar act
of the Commander-in-Chief, it was quite clear that those who
held civil situations under the Crown had nothing whatever to
say, because they were incompetent to judge what would or
what would not be advantageous to the military service of
the country. He (Lord J. Russell) like his Noble Friend,
had been informed by Lord Ilill of the appointment he con-
templated making, and like his Noble Friend, he had ab-
stained from offering any opinion as to whether Lord Brude-
nell was or was not a fit person to hold the rank of Lieutenant-
Colonel, or to command a regiment. When spoken to on the
subject, he said he thought it a matter entirely within the dis-
cretion of the Commander-in-Chief, and both from the state-
ments made to him by Lord Hill, and his Right Hon. Friend,
and the rule which had been established with respect to officers
retiring on half-pay, he did consider Lord Brudenell as a per-
son intended to be employed again on active service, and whose
military knowledge would be beneficial to the army.—( Hear,
hear.) This was precisely the opinion which Lord Hill ex-
pressed to his (Lord. J. Russell's) Right lion. Friend in 1834 ;
and, as the removal of Lord Brudenell from active service was
merely designed as a temporary punishment for the conduct
attributed to him, he (Lord J. Russell) felt that he would not
be acting fairly if he had not left the Commander-in-Chief to
follow the dictates of his own unbiassed judgment on the sub-
ject.—( Hear, hear.) In conclusion he had only to repeat that,
although Lord Hill was responsible for the act of appointing
Lord Brudenell, yet the Government were so far responsiblea
for Lord Hill's conduct as to consider him a fit person to hold
the office which he filled.—(Cheers.)
Sir H. HARDINGE agreed that the controul of the Go-
vernment over the Commander-in-Chief was a general control,
and could not therefore apply to every individual case. He
fully admitted, with the Noble Lord, that if the Commander-
in-Chief were to conduct the affairs of the army in opposition
to the wishes of the Government he should be removed, as it
was quite manifest that the Government had a distinct right to
dictate as to the general management of the army.—( Hear. )
The House had heard from the Noble Lord that Lord Hill was
a man who fully merited the confidence which the Government
reposed in him, and under such circumstances would it be pro-
per for them to interfere with the act of Lard Hill in this in-
stance, an act which they should recollect had been so far ap-
proved of by the Government as that they were responsible for
it inasmuch as, knowing of it, they had not interfered to prevent
it ?—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for Cornwall stated
that Lord Brudenell had been removed from the 15th Hussars
by an order from the Horse Guards, but he did not know, per-
, haps, that the Noble Lord had petitioned the King to be tried
by a General Court-Martial.
The SPEAKER intimated to the Right Hon. and Gallant
Officer that as none of the circumstances had been gone into,
he should abstain from further notice of them.
Sir H. HARDINGE observed that it was not his inten-
tion to go further into the details than to say that on his
removal from his regiment his Noble Friend actually sent
a petition to the King, praying to be tried by a court-mar-
tial, and that his Majesty refused to grant his Noble Friend's
prayer.
Mr. HUME must protest against the course which
the Right Hon. Gentleman was pursuing, at all events until
such time as the House had been put into possession of those
details.—(" Hear," and cries of " Order.")
Sir H. HARDINGE said it was quite clear that, alth ugh
his Noble Friend had been removed from his regimenti,and
placed upon half-pay, he had a right to expect that he would
ultimately be reinstated, and the statement of the Noble Lord
the Secretary at War proved that Lord Hill, though deeming
punishment necessary, never entertained any other opinion
than that Lord Brudenell at some future period should be re-
called to the service. The opinion of the court-martial, there-
fore, which led to the removal of his Noble Friend might well
be questioned, and on that subject he ( Sir Henry Hardinge)
had been at some pains to procure correct information, which
enabled him to state that it never had been the object of any
party that the punishment should be permanent. He must say
that no appointment which he had ever heard of had given
him greater satisfaction than that of Lord Brudenell.
Major CURTEIS must deprecate the practice of bring-
ing the proceedings of Courts-Martial in such way before
the House.
Sir H. HARDINGE denied that be had impugned or in-
tended in any way to reflect upon the decision of the Court-
Martial, nor did he think the Hon. and Gallant Officer had
any right to attribute conduct of that sort to him.
Major CURTEIS and Sir H. HARDINGE mutually ex-
plained.
Lord G. LENNOX must say that nothing had ever given
him greater satisfaction than seeing the name of Lord Brude-
nell restored to its proper place in the service.—( Hear. )
Sir W. MOLE SWORTH would say no more on the sub-
ject then. After the Easter recess, however, he begged to
say that he should move an address to his Majesty on the subs
ject, and in the course of that evening it was his intention to
move for the production of the papers to which the Right Hon.
Baronet the Member for Launceston referred.
After a few words from Sir H. HARDINGE and Sir W.
MOLES WORTH,
Lord HOWICK could not consent to the production of
any papers in reference to this subject, without first corn-
mnnieating• with Lord. Hill : and he, therefore. hoped the
Hon. Baronet would defer his, motion till some day after the
recess.
question to a Member of the
Mr. ROEBUCK put a