The Sun.
London, England, 1836-05-04 00:00:00

111111. SUN, LONDoN, WEDNESDAY, MAY 4,

the presentation of a petition invel.vinn- him hi Vasonal
charges—(Cheers)—Prom the very tYlthlAd
step that had been taken, and had gMt: ii their sane-
tion.—(Great cheering,) It *at represented tii him
by the very parties that there Were some paper'Sof crib, fmmo
and some of another ; antl it *as said, Pu 11k certain di.
mansion you will create great grid jou will
compel several establishment% to altei thetito• Such
bving the case, he propoged td iik% t ttlh 61tesL
Newspaper, with which t 1 111 i "satisfied. It was
almost, in point of f^
at the very suggestion of the
petitioners
mselves that the arrangement kith respect to
..,ze was come to, and that wn.s mad ;ne ground of strong
~,,n.—(Loud cries of hear, hear, hear.)
This was not all. animadversion noon L
was informed that the largest News-
pnp,,r published in the metropolis was that proposed
to be followed by the Bill ; but that there were.
others in the country much larger: He then asked what was
the largest, and he vests told that it Was a " V3rk Paper," the
name and poEtics of which he (the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer) could assure the House ho did not know even at the
present bour.-.--(ole*.,.ting)—he, however, told the par.
ties that trey should have the benefit of the largest.
Vicar, and cheers.) When the matter came forward
as a matter of finance, he was sure that his [light Hon.

Friend would enter into the discussion of the subject with that
attention it demanded; and he also felt confident that he
would feel that the simple relation he had given would
tallish from his mind all feeling of bad faith on the
part of him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer).—( Hear. )
He had but one word mute to say before he sat down. This
might be a vary bad financial measure—it might be a bad mea-
aum legislation—Mr. Huskisson deserted it in 1825--it
Was introduced in 1804. But there was one authority bearing
on the subject which was material. His Right Hon. Friend
( Mr. Goulburn) proposed a Bill in 1830, and his Right lion.
Friend who had presented this petition was the very person
who introduced this very clause. He held the clause in his
hand—his Right Hon. Friend should have it —he should
hare it in his possession. The only difference between that
clause and his (Mr. Rice's) was, that whilst that clause re-
stricted the maximum size of the sheet at 33 inches by 23
his (Mr. Rice's) gave a maximum at 45 inches by 34. There
was this difference between them, that the maximum of
the Right Honourable Gentleman gave a superficies of
874 inches ; his ( Mr. Rice's) gave a superficies of 1,530 inches.
, The Times newspaper at that time supported the Govern-
ment of which the Right Hon. Gentleman was a member.—
( Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Rice) would he the last man to attri-
bute to his Right Hon. Friend any disposition to injure any
newspaper, but the effect of the measure would have
been to affect the interests of that paper. But these were
statements which might hereafter be discussed as a matter of
finance, and he put it to the House in the mean time whether
he had not cleared himself from the imputations that had been
made against him— (Loud cheers)—made against him where
he had no opportunity of replying to them, and no opportunity
of justifying himself from a charge, for which, if he were
guilty, he would be utterly unworthy of the station which
he held in that House, or of any intercourse with gentlemen
in civilised society—if he had been guilty of so base and un-
worthy an act as framing a general measure for the purpose of
destroying the property represented by the petitioners, and of
advancing the interests of those papers which supported the
opinions of the Government, and affording them an undue ad-
vantage over Newspapers of an opposite description. He also
put it to the House whether he had not, in the records
of his office, and the documents pointed at by the Right
Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn)—( Hear, bear)—
to which he alluded on a former occasion—whether he had not
from these, and from the Right Hon. Gentleman's own mouth,
a full justification of the propriety of this proceeding. He was
sorry to take up so much of the time of the House; but he
did not think that there ought to be any mistake upon a
subject of this description. It was of some importance
to know whether in dealing with the Minister of Finance they
were dealing with. one who could be guilty of so gross an act
of oppression and of violation of justice as he had been charged
with.—( Loud cheers.) He was sure his Right Hon. Friend
would not have made any imputations without believing them
true ; he was sure that he did not believe them to he true in
the present instance—still the facts contained in this petition
referred to the names of particular Newspapers, He (the
Chancellor of the Exchequer) had been put upon his trial ;
he had made his defence, and he had now only to ask the
House whether he was guilty or not guilty ?—(Cheers.).
Mr. GOULBURN thought it only just to repeat what he
had said before—that he did not throw any imputation on his
Right Hon. Friend. He did not believe the charges that had
been made—he would not believe them of any gentleman
holding the situation of his Right lion. Friend, and he
had expressed himself to this effect when he made this
statement to the House. What he stated was this,
that, however, this selection might have happened—the acci-
dental circumstance of it was, that this certain size would injure
the property of the petitioners. Respecting what had been said
about the schedules by the Right Hon. Gentleman the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, the provisions referred to respecting
the dimensions of double sheets were not in the Stamp Act,
and had never been contemplated.
Dr. BOWRING hoped he might be allowed to say one
word--( Loud and continued cries of " Oh, oh I")
After a few observations from Mr. GOULBURN, which
the noise in the body of the House prevented our hearing
distinctly,
The petition was laid on the table.
THE BUDGET.

Sir E. KNATCHBULL begged to know what course the
Right Hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
meant to pursue on Friday night relative to his financial
statement ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was most
anxious to make such arrangements as would meet the
convenience of the House. He would suggest that any
propositions which were to be brought forward would be
most convenient in the Committee on Ways and Means.
His (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) vote of Friday night
would have no reference to the reduction of the Stamp Duties.
He was most ready to give every facility to Hon. Members
who had propositions to bring forward at such times as might
be most convenient.
Mr. HUME wished to know from the Right Hon. the
Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he meant to bring on
his- proposition relative to the Stamp Duties on Friday or not,
for neither he nor the Hon. Members near him heard what the
proposition was?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER meant to
open on Friday the whole view of taxation, which he should
leave to the consideration of Parliament. The vote he should
take on Friday would have no reference whatever to the Stamp
Duties.

seen listening te; anir.iibleetiOn licinm
made, 4iis-Velo; booia,fea Parliament
**4f6
much mitre tete iirPbOtilfigs of Parliament tit
other Rn thein Wore desirous of bearing
the debates, Why should
.64 be
.pteVerited ? It was well
known and acknowledged by all that 603 posS'eSsed irery great
, A,f, was,,surely: of arinpOrtanc that they
should t‘e arid, Ve, tei•e;er-
ciSii 14-431 k. ri'tt "11:14i alliAl4 Vtl4
• -1—..; • Ai/ a e•Vx,
tuous and enlightened mother OYU lie" $9ll generally continwd
through life, and why should she (if her son were in Parlia-
.
tie preventeo trom nearing the manner which he dis-
charged his duty ?—( Hear, hear, hear.) Why should
the wife of Member lie prevented from hearing the debate ?
During the Session of 1833 and 1834, lid li to ftipdtltedl,Y
served Honourable Members take their wive§ add dadeitCit
into the ventilator, particularly when subjects if irtiportdnce
were under distdssibn, ant! he felt donVideed they would not
have done go had thdy§tippo§eti the ida§t inprlods ecinsequenees
to have followed. In the Chamber Of Depiltica ;it Paris, the
front scats of the galleries were appropriated for
had repeatedly seen them there, and they appeared to take an
equal interest in the proceedings—and lie had never seen the
least appearance of levity in their behaviour. In Congress Hall,
at Washington, they were admitted, and he understood, also,
at other legislative assemblies. Surely in this country there
were not going to act on exclusive and oriental principles
towards the female sex. . .

Mr. KE A RS L E Y said he hoped and trusted that every
lion. Member who was blessed nith daughters would negative
this idle and ridiculous proposition.
Dr. BO WRING had supported the former motion on the
subject, and would support the present. No evil had resulted
in other countries from allowing females to hear the debates of
their legislative assemblies. In the German States they were
admitted ; and their presence had not been found in any re-
spect to hinder the progress of public. business. On the con-
trary, their influence, as on all othc;r occasions, had been
found friendly to decorum, and friendly to the bridling of the
manly passions:—( A loud laugh.) The character of females
in this country stood so high, that he was persuaded nn im-
proper language would be used in their presence, and there.
fore that they would exercise salutary control. He had never
known anything but good result from the presence of females,
and he was therefor? at a loss to understand why they
should be refused admission into that House.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. O'CONNELL said that in the Irish Parliament ladies
were allowed to be present. The cause of their original ad-
mission was this. In former days a hospitality of a particular
kind was exercised in Ireland to such an extent, that Mem-
bers of tha Irish House of Commons used to come drunk to
the House. The remedy proposed and adopted was to ad-
mit ladies into the gallery, and from that moment not a single
drunken man ever presumed to make his appearance.—( Hear.)
Mr. VILLIERS observed, that as he was neither " blest
with daughters," nor felt any necessity to " bridle his manly
passions," he might be considered an impartial judge on the
present occasion. They had had friends of all classes in that
House—friends of the Church, friends of the farmers, friends
of the manufacturers, friends of the people, and now they had
friends of the ladies. The change which it was proposed to
make might be considered an organic change.—( A laugh.)
In the first place, however, he was not aware that it was called
for. He was not aware that any excitement existed among
ladies on the subject ; he was not aware that any petitions had
been presented from them respecting it.—(A laugh.) He
certainly did not see that any harm could result from the ad-
mission of ladies into the gallery. But would the thing end
there ?—(A laugh.) Were there no ulterior views ?—( A
laugh.) The ladies might wish to be admitted into the library
or other apartments ; they might wish to push matters farther
—( A laugh, and cries of " Order")—and how was the admis-
sion of ladies to be regulated ? It would be impossible to ad-
mit as many ladies as there were Members of the House. Was
the right of selection to be vested in the Secretary of State
for the Home Department ?—( A laugh.) If so, that Right
Hon. Gentleman might subject himself to the charge of giving
an undue preference to ladies of a peculiar description—( A
laugh)—he might be accused of being influencedin his choice
by corrupt motives.—( A laugh.) He hoped that if the Hon.
Member for Gloucestershire really intended to introduce a Bill
on the subject, he would not do so in the present Session : he
hoped the Hon. Member would give an opportunity of letting
the matter be canvassed in all the populous towns of the king-
dom. To him it appeared to be so difficult to understand all
the bearings of the subject—( A laugh)—that he did not think
that in fewer than three Sessions it would be possible to com-
prehend them all.—(A laugh.).
Captain PECHELL had last year supported the motion,
and would support it on the present occasion. He hoped
that the Hon. Member for Gloucestershire would be more for-
tunate with respect to his fair clients than he (Captain Pechell)
had been with respect to the client whose case he had brought
under the consideration of the House.
Mr. GRANTLEY BERKELEY shortly replied, assuring
the Hon. Member who had addressed the House last but one,
that he bad no ulterior views whatever.
The House then divided—
Aves
Kies
Majority. in favour of the Motion
During the exclusion of strangers a discussion took place as
to whether (we believe) the resolution should be applicable to
the present or to the new Houses of Parliament.
Mr. G. BERKELEY gave notice of a further motion upon
the subject to-morrow (this) evening.
LORD BRUDENELL.
Sir WILLIAM MOLESWORTH—The object of the
motion of which I have given notice, is to call in question an
an appointment in the army. I do this upon the principle that
some officer of the Crown ought to be directly responsible to
this House for the administration of the niilitary department
of the State. I contend that the Commons of England have
a distinct right to demand an explanation with reference to
any appointment in the army which may seem to them ob-
jectionable. That right is founded upon the same basis as all
the other rights possessed by the Commons. It will be said
that this is an attempt to interfere with the prerogative of the
Monarch ; by no means, I make use of a perfectly constitu-
tional doctrine, when I affirm that the prerogative of the Mo-
narch can never be injurious to his people ; consequently, if I
prove that the appointment is an improper one, I prove, by the
very terms of the proposition, that the appointment in question
could not result from the exercise of the royal prerogative, but
from the power of some one who ought to be made responsible
for his conduct. But the people have to pay for these appoint-
ments ; therefore, it is the duty of the representatives-of the
people not to pay for any appointment which is not a fit-
ting one, and, if this be their duty, it is clear that they
are bound to examine into the fitness of every appointment
with reference to which there may be any reasonable
grounds of suspicion. The Commons have the power of
controlling all the departments of the State, and have ex-
ercised that power ; over some departments that power
is exercised more frequently, over others less. The
mode in which that power is generally exercised is, first, by
asking an official explanation with re(erence to an appoint-
ment ; if that explanation be not satisfactory to the House, and
the appointment be persevered in, the next step is to move some
resolution condemnatory of the appointment ; if this be carried,
and without effect, the next step is an address to the Crown to
cancel the appointment, or to dismiss the person who made the
appointment, or an impeachment of the person responsible
for the appointment ; if all this be vain, then the next
step is to stop the supplies—(Hear, hear, and a laugh) —and
if this be likewise ineffectual, the last and ultimate appeal is to
those who sent us here to be their faithful representatives.
' Such is the constitutional chain by which the representatives
of the people have asserted their right, and proved their power
to control all the departments in the State. The first step,
viz., that of demanding an official explanation, is generally
sufficient, for then the arguments for and against the appoint-
ment are stated, and from the tone of the House it appears
whether the appointment can be persevered in or must be can-
celled. Thus, a few weeks ago, the Hon. Baronet the Mem-
ber for Tamworth asked certain questions with reference to
the appointment of magistrates—the answer of the Noble Lord
who is responsible for those appointments was satisfactory--
(Oh, oh, and hear)—to the majority of the House, and then
the question dropped. Thus, last year, Noble Lord was ap-
pointed to an embassy to a Northern Court ; that appointment
was deemed an objectionable one by the Noble Lord the
Member for Stroud, who put a question with regard to it. The
subject was subsequently brought under the consideration of
the House by my Hon. Friend the Member for Tip-
perary, who was seconded by the Right Hon. Gentle-
man the Member for Kirkcudbright, and supported by the
Right lion. Baronet the Member for Nottingham. These
Right Hon. Gentlemen very properly disregarded the asser-
tions of the opposite party—that they intended to interfere
with the prerogative of the Crown. They, by their acts, dis-
tinctly asserted- the right of the Commons to control all de-
partments of the State ; they demanded an official explana-
tion, the explanation of the Right Hon. Baronet opposite did
not appear satisfactory ; the appointment was given up—in
other words, it was cancelled—and my Right Hon. Friends
had the extreme satisfaction of vindicating the power of the
Commons, in defiance of those who endeavoured to shield
: themselves from responsibility behind that which they were
pleased incorrectly to term the prerogative of the Monarch.
Indeed, whenever we hear that term " prerogative" made use
of within the walls of this House, we may feel convinced that
' some abuse is about to be defended—some attempt is about to
be made to escape inquiry—to shrink from responsibility. In
times past, the prerogative of the Monarch was said to extend
over every department of the State. Laud would have been
the outcry, and imminent the danger of being sent to the
Tower, if any Honourable Member had then presumed to
question the fitness of an ambassador, or the appoint-
ment of a magistrate. Those times are passed ; and now
the heads of each department in the State, except one,
arc responsible to' the Commons either by themselves or
delegates, and may be called upon to answer for their conduct
by any Member of this House. From this responsibility they
never shrink. Thus, in matters concerning the Home De"-
partment the Noble Lord is responsible for each individual
act. In matters concerning the Colonial Office, my Hon.
Friend the Member for Devonport is responsible in the name
of Lord Glenelc, whose conduct he invariably explains in the
most ample manner. In the Navy, the First Lord of the Ad.
miralty is a Member of the other House ; but some of the
junior Lords are in this House to answer for his conduct ; si-
milarly, in all other departments of the State except one in the
Army. I have shown that the Commons have the same right
to demand an explanation with regard to the appointments in
the army, as they have to demand an explanation with refe-
rence to the appointment of ambassadors, magistrates, &c. ;
consequently, there ought to be some person connected with
the Government in this House' who should be held responsi-
ble for the administration of the arr 4—( Hear, hear, hear)—
but there is no one. I asked a question some time ago with
reference to an appointment. in the army, the proptiety
of which seemed to me questionable. I demanded an
' official answer. The Secretary at War told me that he was not
responsible ; the leader of the House of Commons informed

es that the MitriSters of the rdvitr stem not responsible for
t.Efc in' ivi.dual,acts, 1J only responsibl4l t&'t the general con-
dEt Fit if-le boriS'Ain4er-in-Chief. Now I with elt•stly to be
understodd !lel id id4,,i4e;nl ,ieneral conduct of the Gum-
' • ' • • • a -nit ie.
niarieer-ie-,,hiei—not to cai „st,en av? genc.a. a-i -
tration of the army, whiet adininistratidn# believe, is satis-
factory and deserving of high praise—but I derlititi4 official
with reference to a particular act of the e?m-
-treil;l,,r,-TCiPf,' hy intend to impugn. My Right
lieu. an.ti 1.:al'aloi!. Ter tianuceston was :he
only person who seemed deaoild if/ aka i'cieVensibility for
dais act of the Commander-in-Chief upon I
hardly supi;2`;C that his Majesty's Ministers would consent dies
he should be consideret; the official organ of the Commander-
le-Chief hi this House,
how eminently soever my Right Hon.
Prided rtiity he qiiatified 10! that talk. Thus it appears there
It rid dile iiithin the Wailg of Viii House connected with his
Majesty's (ijdrnisliedt who is directly ferrneibie to the Com-
mons for the adinltiltifaiimi of 'fie,' *my, This, Sir, is a
great evil ; for' the only retiptiel4fAiity; in the first instance,
it that of the Ministers of the *dohs' fa,' this
It4_tricinsibility is founded upon 'thd 14k4ef which the
House pesse:. ef withholding its support House, and
dig to those
Ministers ; if, theretdfei the head of one of .!Iw,Firtest
departments of the State ve fodt a Minister of
Crown, the control of the House ot‘Cf 'conduct would
ltU Very sliMlit ; in other words, he would ! irrespon-
sible. But it le the acknowledged principle of the; Fee,u-
stitution that every" tA,tor el the State, except the Mo-'
nareb, is responsible. fiecitilld the Monarch is not responsi-
ble, every one of his acts must be peffoittied with the concur-
renee of same perion who is responsible. Id IS4 army this
person 11 the Commander-in-chief. This responsibili/;s being
admitted in principle, what is the provision made fpr entufeity
it in practice ? The old illOds tif enforcing responsibility was
by punishments, but this mode has tscre.toe obsolete and nuga-
tory ; moreover, by its very nature it is itivplicable, except in
eases of definable crime. The days of impe.itchment are
passed ; moreover, it would be absurd to impeach the chief
of a department for merely one objectionable appointment;
and it would be equally ueelege to move an address to the
Crown to remove the functionary. Thus it is evident, if these
were the only means of enforcing responsibility, an immense
number of objectionable acts would be performed ; for it is the
nature of all Ministers—the past, the present, and the future,
to do objectionable acts, if they can do them with impunity.—
( Hear, and a laugh.) I affirm not this in reproach of any in-
dividual Administration, but I affirm it universally of all men
vested with power, whatsoever their political sentiments may
be ; if they possess power and can abuse' it with safety, they
will abuse it ; and the means by which they ought to be pre-
vented from doing objectionable acts arc riot to deprive them
of power, but to make them truly responsible to those who alone
have a permanent interest in good government—viz., to the
people through their Representatives.—( Hear, hear.) I have
shown that the old mode of enforcing responsibility by punish-
ments is become obsolete unless, therefore, its place had
been supplied by a new mode of responsibility, there would be
.no responsibility at all, and the recognised first principle of
this and every other representative government would remain a
dead letter. This has been prevented by the growth of a less
severe, but far more effectual, responsibility, which consists
in the liability of being called to account by this House, with
the consequent chance, not of punishment, but of losing office.
Such, Sir, is the real responsibility of the Ministers of the
Crown to the nation. It consists, in the first instance, in their
being obliged to answer the questions of the representatives of
the people—in their being compelled to give satisfactory ex-
planations of their conduct. I call for the extension of this
species of responsibility to the chief of the arinj',—(Hear.)
He is acknowledged to come as much as any Minister of the
Crown within the constitutional principle of responsibility':
He is in consequence liable along with them to the severe, but
for that very reason practically obsolete and ineffectual respon-
sibility. He wears, like them, the badge of responsibility,
but they have happily become liable to the reality of it—so
ought he. How eminent, how illustrious, soever he may be ;
how irreproachable soever his general conduct may have been
—and none of these positions do I intend in any way to con-
trovert—nevertheless I contend that he ought not to escape
from responsibility. For these reasons I consider that one of
his Majesty's Ministers ought to be at the head of the army—
ought to be held responsible to this House for the admistra-
tion of the army, and be present by himself or delegate in his
place in the House of Commons to answer the questions and
complaints of the representatives of the people, with reference
to his conduct in the administration of military affairs. The
consequence of there not being any one within the walls of
this House who is authorised to explain the conduct of the
Commander-in-Chief is this, that I am most reluctantly obliged
to bring a specific charge against him, and to call upon the
House to appoint a Committee to inquire into his conduct. In
order to justify the House in acceding to this motion, I must
state reasonable and apparent grounds of suspicion with refe-
rence to the conduct of the Commander-in-Chief. I charge
the Commander-in-Chief with having made an improper ap-
pointment. My grounds for suspecting that appointment are
founded upon the fact, that the officer appointed was censured
in terms so strong, that if that censure be a just one, he is in
every way unfit to command a regiment. On the other hand,
if that censure be an improper one, it cannot fail to be
highly injurious to the army to place in a station of im-
portant trust an officer against whom that censure stands
recorded and uncancelled in the order books of the army. I
wish distinctly to be understood to pronounce no opinion what-
soever with regard to the justice or injustice of that censure,
not that I should (if I feel it necessary) in any way shrink from
avowing my opinion, but because ,this subject is beside the
question, as I do not intend to impugn the past conduct of the
officer in question, but the present conduct of the Commander-
in-chief in assenting to this appointment, after having assented
to the general order which I will now read to the House. This
general order is dated Feb. 1. 1834, and contains the deci-
sion of a Court-martial with reference to certain charges
brought by Lord Brudenell against Captain Wathen. I will
read the decision to the House :
" The Court having taken into its serious consideration the
evidence produced in support of the charges against the pri-
soner, Captain Augustus Wathen, of the 15th or King's Hus-
sars, his defence, and the evidence he has adduced, is of opi-
nion that he is not guilty of any of the charges preferred
against him. The Court, therefore honourably acquits him of
each and of all the charges.
" Bearing in mind the whole process and tendency of this
trial, the Court cannot refrain from animadverting on the pe-
culiar and extraordinary measures which have been restored to
by the prosecutor.
" Whatever may have been his motive for instituting charges
of so serious a nature against Captain Wathen (and they can-
not ascribe them solely to a wish to uphold the honour and in-
terests of the army), his conduct has been reprehensible in ad-
vancing such various and weighty assertiqns to be submitted
before a public tribunal, without some sure grounds of esta-
blishing the facts.
" It appears in the recorded minutes of these proceedings
that a junior officer was listened to, and non-commissioned
officers and soldiers examined, with a view of finding out from
them how in particular instances the officers bad executed their
respective duties—a practice in every respect most dangerous
to the discipline and subordination of the corps, and highly de-
trimental to that harmony and good feeling which ought to
exist betss een officers.
" Another practice has been introduced into the 15th Hussars
which calls imperatively for the notice and animadversion of
the Court—the system of having the conversations of officers
taken down in the orderly-room without their knowledge—a
practice which cannot be considered otherwise than revolting
to every proper and honourable feeling of a gentleman, and as
being certain to create disunion, and to be most injurious to
his Majesty's service.
" His Majesty has been pleased to approve and confirm the
finding of the Court.
" Although it would appear upon an attentive perusal of
the whole of the proceedings that some parts of the evidence
might reasonably bear a construction less unfavourable to the
prosecutor than that which the Court have thought it their
duty to place upon them, yet upon a full consideration of all the
circumstances of the case, his Majesty has been pleased to crder
that Lieut. -Colonel Lord Brudenell shall be removed from the
command of the 15th Hussars.
" The General commanding the chief directs that the fore-
going charges preferred against Captain Augustus Wathen, of
the 15th or King's Hussars, together with the finding of the
Court and his Majesty's commands thereon, shall lte entered
in the general order-book, and read at the head of every regi-
ment in his Majesty's service.
" By command of the Right Honourable the General Com-
manding-in-Chief.

" JOHN MACDONALD,
" Adjutant- General."
Either 'the decision of the Court-martial is correct or incor-
rect. Either the order of the Horse Guards founded on that
decision is proper or improper. I wish to argue this question
in the manner which may be leaSt painful to the feelings of
individuals: I wish to call in question as little as possible
the past conduct of the Noble Lord. I am grieved that it
is necessary for me even to allude to that conduct; for he,
I think, has been most severely and most painfully punished,
in the manner most agonizing to the feelings of an honour-
able gentleman ; nothing could justify the dragging of this
question again before the public, except the circumstance of
the Noble Lord being appointed to a situation of high trust.
Ido not seek .to censure again that Noble Lord ; but I seek
to censure him who has appointed the Noble Lord.—(Hear,
hear.) I ask how the confidential adviser of his Majesty in
military affairs has dared to make this appointment, after
having sanctioned the general order which I have read to the
House, after having directed that general order to be pro-
claimed at the head of every regiment in his Majesty's service ?
Perhaps it may be said that the Commander-in-chief considers
the decision of the Court martial to be incorrect. If there be
in this House any member authorised to speak in that func-
tionary's name, I call upon him hereafter in reply to me to an-
swer that question distinctly in the affirmative or negative.—
( Hear, hear.) Perhaps it may be said the Commander-in-
Chief means this appointment as a sort of underhand atone-
ment to the Noble Lord, as a species of underhand acknow-
ledgement of the injustice with which he considers the. Noble
Lord has been treated ; if this be the case, then, Sir, I affirm
the Noble Lord is one of the most deeply injured individuals—
one of the most cruelly treated persons in this country ; deeply
injured and cruelly treated in not having been permitted to
exculpate himself by means of a general Cc tvt-mart:al Hear,
hear)—for this appointment in no way or manner effaces the
decision of the Court. The decision still remains, and can
only be blotted out in the same manner as it was made known,
viz., by a general order to be issued from the Horse-Guards, to
be read at the head of every regiment in his Majesty's service,
proving that the decision in question is unjust, false, and ca-
lumnious, Will the Commander-in-Chief dare to take this
step ? But it may be contended that the Noble Lord is satis-
fied ; this, unfortunately, is not the question. The question
is, will the public be satisfied ?—will the British army be satis-
fied ?—will the officers of the gallant regiment which the Noble
Lord is appointed to command—will they be satisfied? No :

I

. _
---
_._______ ----..00C
they will not consider this appointment as tantamount t2.laoP.',‘iii
that the decision of the Court-martial was incorrect. li -r.eo.
nal which passed this sentence—they will read over thel,toil
reneon in the following mariner :—They will refer to the
.syu,
gAlttnt and honourable names—they will say those inet% the
their mats, came to this decision. , They will then ref
circumstences of the trial—they will find that the'or.,Sr°ch_l,e.
Lord brought charges against one of the officers of hicr gad
le'oret, for condoct unbecoming the character of an offi? _ „a",':_.
a grerittereo•n--that they will find that the Court-ial lan; •
and holloosurety acquitted the proeeeuted tatter oftael find
fied
all the charge; brought against him. They vvill the=m
.0.5
I that the Court deemed the charges so weighty and so secr ft'il..
''Court
and 44'W1 evidence adduced in support of them so weak,
volous, tool so unsatisfactory—they will find that the
re _
thought that the measures adopted to obtain evidence we
improper and so i'epeeheneible, and the defence so conlPiet7
and so ample—they will leavo that the Court were convtn,...
that the Noble Lord had beds induced to bring these welen2l
charges by other motives than those solely of upholdiligeo7
honour and interests of the army. They will find th Roosting
sequence of all this, the Court fe:!: it its duty (~
thereby the daily example of the judges on the bench) to ~i.i.a
madvert on the conduct of the prosecute; s, and to reprimand
the Noble Lord in the harsh and reproachlol terms "
Court went out of the line prescribed to it in coming
have read to the douse. Though it may be asoerted that the
to tin' decision,
t loostion which the British army will canvass is tills• will
that question is one of no imporo . Theis
thd oocisioo, correct or incorrect ? To this theyvisoo
reply by referi7nig'
the Court-martist ;to the names of the officers by 't"tr„
sees composed, and then pronounce, re°,....
tunately
enmstances which eoljorod this decision, they will -fin 1
veto
in the otrirooo:ive. They will then consider t
11. 2hie
Noble Lord petitioned for' a oew trial ; they will not, howe
the
decision ; for they will observe. that every person, how i'', l,
o•nuld call for a new trial at,
consider this fact as the slcZlitest proof of the injustice of
t
soever condemned, would wish,
much might be gained—nothing coi.
Sir, the refusal to grtent a Court-marts."l, will to ther?'fied
, overwhelming proof that the Commander-'
.till couldhcoe,,
-ld be lost thereby.
~ecno
nothing in the proceedings of that Court-mai'tial "hicf the 11:
justify a new trial, though he palliated the hard. i t raea.
cision by stating that some portions of the evidence' 'nit, 'er,ble
sonably bear a construction less unfavourable to IV, 00.
Lord. Thus, Sir, the officers of the British army wit ,is a
douhledly, consider that the decision of the Court-mar:, ' ary
correct one, and will persevere in this belief till th
be proved. I again ask what is the opinion of the Conlorec7o
der-in-chief with reference to that decision ? Why, rf,it:neve
an incorrect one, was it not cancelled at the tiri`e, a,"'„;,oan-
trial granted ? If the contrary be the case—if th c ‘-',_°,—,.-, be
der-in-chief consider the decision a correct one, I Lising-been
dares to make such an appointment ? An attempt, -" oiat-
made to throw a portion of the responsibility for this LT! ause
e cestr
_...
merit upon my Hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, 6‘• leer
in
.1833, he stated to the Commander-in-chief that no el re-
ought
ought to be put upon half-pay who was not entitled tone,be
.lit
employed. This principle is perhaps a very correct ?t.
theof
the question is not with reference to the principle, but whetliy
the Commander-in- Chief ought, after the decision
?
Court-martial, to have put the Noble Lord upon balf-Pler
For this act my Hon. Friend could net be responsible-- w
this act the Commander-in-Chief is responsible. And nos
the Commander-in-Chief is again responsible for apPereA
the officer in question as the fittest person to command a rdefei,
ment. It may, perhaps, be contended, that though the las
sine of the Court-martial is correct, yet the Noble Lerd og
been sufficiently punished ; this Ido not deny--those str°o A
and reproachful terms must have been almost maddening Abe
person of the Noble Lord's honourable feelings. But he 'der,
discusses this question as one of punishment utterly ells°ere ties
:tends the whole subject. The question is not with refdiii,
to poraishment, but with reference to the fitness of anus tioS
dual for on important ',oust. This is the view of the eh
is
which will be taken by the officers d" the regiment which uni.
tiered as nothing by the Comt'
about to command. Is, they. will ask, our honour to be co A
years ago directed us to proclaitel
place at our head a person whe'
ander-in-Chief, that lie sh°;o
m he himself has engers,
three times on parade to make knows:
to our brother 0 og
to our men, as hasoot
introduced into his regiment " a peaottice which c 50
be considered otherwise than revolting to
honourable feeling of a gentleman ?" Out' Conunall hot
officer, they will say, must not only be witiornzt ,11.11:0ebr,
without reproach. These, Sir, if I mistake me no",,,itoen'
will be the terms in which the officers of this gallant :eso Anti
every propeco,
will express themselves. A more gallant regiment de- -ve°
exist in his Majesty's service, nor one that has better se'
its country—in Egypt, in the Peninsula, at Waterloe,
ago
the army of occupation in France, thence, seventeen years,„A ate -
to India, at Bhurtpore, and elsewhere, it has distingtlisuvro it,
self; some of its officers have been nearly as many Yert."l46.
the army as the Noble Lord has lived years in this Al
The two majors have served with this regiment since
,n.' or
and 1811. With what feelings will they view the 0"-ot
ment over their heads of this young officer, who has Pp
heard the sound of a musket, except in the mimic cortihfteld Ter
review ; who entered the army in 1824, with unexamf" o je
pidity obtained an unattached lieut.-coloneiry in .1831ese ,
1832 the command of a regiment, in 1834, tw: Years scot'wards, was removed from that command for alleged 211100
duct—and now in 1836, two years more, is deemed tue or,
person to command their regiment ? The will rou''-will
and most justly—loud will be their indignation--thef hose
say that which is said in every part of this town
et
then
this question is discussed—they will say, that courtlY '
fluence, courtly favour, and courtly intrigue, have ,biant,
the otherwise sound judgment of the Commander-in-CPl;b;
and compelled that distinguished and otherwise irrep4-0.
able officer to make this seemingly most reprehensible Ile
pointment—an appointment which cannot fail to produeeflti•
painful belief in the minds of all connected with then Iv,
tish army, that provided an officer possess wealth an"o,„,.it
fluence, it matters not what his past conduct may have bee Poof
matters not what the solemn decision of a Court-martial isioll
have been against him ; neither that conduct nor that deet 0
will be a bar to his future promotion, nor an impediintietl
his advancement, over the heads of veterans, to the el 1; he'
of those whose conduct his ever been irreproachable. ".",;obli
lief, if it were to become general (in my opinion), is one peli-
injurious to the honour, to the discip:ine, and to the 0., de'
nation of the British army, and this fully justifies ire: Ito tlOl
mending from the House a Committee to inquire tilisroor
conduct of the Commander-in-Chief. The Hon. Poittee
concluded by moving—" That it be referred to a Cie".
to inquire into the conduct of the Commander ofthe k. 0'
in appointing Lieutenant-Colonel Lord Brudenell '-
Lieutenant- Colonelcy of the 11th Light Dragoons.' ';
Mr. HUME seconded the motion. fde
11'
Lord BRUDENEL L. vas aware that he had a ve,r,oplP-a,
cote task to perform, on account of the very litnitc'be feP
which he found open to him. For on the one boa court:,
bound carefully to avoid impugning the decision of the t of s'
martial, which was held to inquire into the conduebe Os
officer of the 15th Hussars ; while on the other hand
equally bound to avoid saying anything which might Plig:l4
disrcpectful with reference to that exere.'se of thenioroao-1
prerogative which had again appointed him to the et.- hear„,l
of a regiment in his Majesty's service.—( Hear, he,":' boo"-„,
Of course the House would readily believe, it 17eferec,,
with submission to that decision, and suffered with "s by r", 7
that severe punishment which had been sanctioned Chico
King, upon the recommendation of the Commander-i% 11;',,t
that he should be little disposed to depart fre'ioie'
respect.ful course now, after having been restored by tilii refek'
authority to active service.—( Hear, hear, herr.) YN',"l.,“ lj''',„
rence to the Court-martial held upon the officer of -;:orairyti
Hussars, in consequence of that officer having been 11,°;; (lief„,,
acquitted of all the charges brought against hire, "" d 'PI
Brudenell) had been much blamed for having instil share 0
proceedings. He was quite willing to take his fell but h 6
whatever blame might attach to that transaction 000 lni'
b'egged leave to state to the House that upon that oec e, and
acted under the guidance and, more or less, the ad:1.01(.501
certainly with the full sanction, of the General cer'',,, of r",
the district.—Hear, hear.) By the general ordcr,io th
army. he was bound to consult the General comrnantbe'eoltli;
district. The report made by a Court of inquiry rind broegto
duct of the Commanding officer of a regiment .vho
tdpi.ove he
a party to a Court-martial about four years ago, sf°"if to, if a
the House the danger he should have exposed hinaso
.00501 tea
had not followed the course he had done, and t'. referfe
the General commanding the district. The Cour_sooodle
to stated—" That --:-- acted injudiciously in n°'oirltot
all proceedings again St— in relation to the militaryciireoera' be
wherewith he was charged, and laying before the on of the
the distroct a full statement of the case oi" ------' the Genew
opinions so expressed b 3. him, in order to obtain >r to the 000.
commanding the district instructions applicable t° sin cell-ecl
sion." The officer instituting those proccedingg sva.,o iss°,4,
quenee reprimanded ; and in 1832 a general order r.ty's svor,
and read at the head of every regiment in his Maie'obleerdg,
vice, condemning the conduct of the commending and .1' he
the regiment lor a deficiency in care, discretio;ol,nsulted r,..tif
ment. In recollection of this reprimand, he c neer 'bid
General of the district; and so entirely did hc c°oodect
00
him ( Lord Brudenell) in opinion relative to their report 0
the officer in question, that he transmitted a 'lrecia countl, so
the subject to the Commander-in-Chief in thi' •aoelf t
1„, ,d h' o'edieo,
Hussars', orivardsbss
which he stated that that officer had coo' --"" •lic%r.- v
improperly in his presence that he considered it 1, ,00 'lv
for him to remain any longer in the 15111
the groundwork of the Court-martial ; and when eilt, oist the
( Lord Brudenell) was ordered to prefer charges ii';',.l:l of ;cl.
officer, he previously submitted them to the Gebe 5,10r,00
district, who approved of and advised them to
recs. ~vas
Well, that officer was brought to trial upon those co 3 l'oil, -,..,
General of the district, who still remained© coont botie,
the principal evidence on that occasion. Court 0'31.'5 ot
ably acquitted the officer of all and every en° of t sh.ooldor,,lla•
and upon that part of the subject, therefore,
ill':
ohs; tioi
tons. Bat if any Hon. Member really th
think it consistent with his duty to make any ill': he ha° the
been treated with sufficient severity, he would state been
House that there were numerous cases where offiee
be
nova
ought obe to
_rt
brought to trial and honourably acquitted, and ),pl,O bad that
aware of any instance of a commanding officer ice On jo
as prosecutor ever having been dismissed se s.ho ery d uroo t
account. His conduct having been
very strong terms, he must now take the liberty. 1,-) ‘ie„ibtie, of
was stated in the official letters laid before r
eve..,..bo'ree o
..t
der,
animdre±rerepeat woo
that House, that those animadversions were n°'eneral °` 00
justified by evidence, nor sanctioned by thehico frere„ Al-
nor even by the general order which removed r saide-o the
though it Would appears upon an Wenn%
ei.,
.iie Co to
command of his regiment. The general
1• r°,
.etirei,eo
whole of the proceedings, that some partsnfa 1 '
vourahle t°toeif
might reasonably bear a construction less u ,_,,,,,.1i it coo
prosecutor than that which the Court halr.ev!eu'"cof theierset,
duty to place upon them ; yet," &t'. Thai.,
tiirwo
.. soused
to
was corroborated by the letter of Lord i,ous?; plealooef
dated Feb. 22, 1834 " The King is f;i:ac.'_oieious 'n, ioto
signify his satisfaction at the temperate 'it'd J 1.7,, enters
o
in which your Lordship has, in that memo i
:1.