The Sun.
London, England, 1815-03-08 00:00:00

MUTINY BILL.

The House went into a Committee on the nu.
tiny 13111. . •
Lord PRoBY complained Of the practice of dis-
missing Officers at the. will and pleasure "Of the
Crown, without brinzing them to trial by a Court-
Martial. Such a preihnivary mode was dictated
by reason and
.justice, and toanded on ' the prin-
ciples of the Constitution ; and to dismiss Offi-
cers without trial was certainly against every prin-
ciple of the Constitution. He referred to, the
most despotic Governments to slew that his ar-
guments were well founded; and instanced the
armies of Austria and Russia, in which no Com-
missiolied Officer could be dismissed without a
trial by a Coprt-MartW. He concluded by mov-
ing. a Clause, " that no Officer should hereafter he
dismissed, except by the sentence of a General
Court Martial."
Lord PALMERSTON objected to the Clause, on
the ground that .the -Noble Lord had laid no
ground for his motion. This was an inaovatibo
on the Regulations of the Army, and 4t wits in-
cumbent on the Noble Lord to spew some abuse
of the prerogative before he could suppose the
House would entertain's() important an applica,
tion, and his Lordship was bound also to skew
hat some great evil had arisen from the present
..practice. He would suppose a case, that, the
Crown had plaeed such confidence in any indivi-
dual as to appoint him to a Commission, from
which he derived both rank and emolument,;--
would it not. be extraordinary that the Crown
•shonld not have a power to dismiss Without a trial
by a Court-Martial, when it. was recollected that
the Crown might . have such decisive proof of the
necessity of such dismissal as no other Per-
son could, by any possibility have. ' He in-
stanced the case of disaffection which, though
well proved to Ministers, cOnhlnot be proper mat-
ter for discussion before a Court-Martial. There
was also,another case, viz _aaliscovery of incapacity
to exercise the duties entrusted to his charge, and
there might have been ninny cases where officers
had been removed for that cause, which was un-
questionably a most substantial one. There were
besides several °a er cases that,inight occur which
it wOuld
„be impossible to bring 'before a court-
martial ; such as suffering an Officer to remain in
the army, whose conduct had been such :that his
longer continuance in it could not fail to hak the
effect of contaminating the honour anti character
of all rtround him, and thereby weakening and
finally destroying
.the discipline of the army,
without which It was a mere illusion. This
was not a new question, but had been already
discussed by both; Houses of Parliament, and
formally discoutitenaneed ; and, therefore, with-
out some new and strong grounds, on which it
might be sliewn to dia- from what had gone be-
fore, he could not give his consent to any such
proposition as that now offered. Even in an in-
stance apparently most flagrant, where the Duke
of Bolton and Lord Cobham had been displaced
from their regiments, because their political con-
duct was opposed to the party of Sir It. Walpole;
yet both Houses of Parliament had rejected the
proposition to limit the prerogative of the Crown. -
He believed that the Noble Lord was mistaken
when he asserted-that a similar power of dismissal
did not exist in the naval service.
Mr. BENNETT recollected the time when regi-
mental Courts-martial were not bound by an oath,
and where punishments had been inflicted which
he since knew were not warranted by military law,
It was only by discussion in Parliament that such
abuses and cruelties could be done away.
• M. WARD said, that the power of dismissing
from the service existed in the navy in a manner
analogous to that exercised in the army.
Mr. TteaxEY/thought it a great hardship, as
commissions were purchased in our army, to dis-
miss. a man who had expended perhaps the bulk
of his property in procuring his rank. It-was- too
much to say, that a life annuity thus bought
should be taken away from any man without any
thing being proved against hint. Was a wan to
be dismissed because it was whispered that he was
incapable or disaffected In each case, there must
be some fact on which opinion rested, and that
fact ought to be proved. As to the other case
(supposed- by the Noble Lord), of ungeetlemanly
conduct, it was a frequent matter of charge be-
fore Courts Martial. He then alluded to the case
of the lOth Hussars, and said,.that the dismissed
Officers had been most cruelly and unjustly treat-
ed ; indeed, they' had in 'some Measure been
driven to become their own executioners, as after
the disgrace inflicted on them, it was almost im-
possible-for them to remain in the service..
Colonel WooD alleged, as a precedent for the
treatment of the Officers of the 10th
_Hussars, the
conduct pursued with respect to the 85th regi-
ment, where five Officers who had failed to sub-
stantiate their charges against their Commanding
Officer, Col. "Ross, 'had been dismissed, and the
Colonel had afterwards been himself removed for

not proving charge.; brought against the Major.
He did not think that incapacity could be made
the subject of trial.

Mr. MANNERS SUTTON, in answer to Mr. Tier-
ney, observed, that Officers who purchased corn-
missions were fully aware that they purchased
them under conditions, and therefore could not
complain of any extraordinary hardship if they
suffered for the non-fnlfilment of those conditions.
Ile should object to the proposed clauses as not
calculated to attain the object which it professed ;
in his mind, if any abuse existed of such a nature
as was contemplated by the Noble Lord, the pro-
per remedy would be by an Address to the Crown.
(Hear, hear, from Mr. Wynne.);--He really did
nor see but that such a course was perfectly fea-
sible. The very existence of the army depended
on Parliament.; he did not therefore think it un-
fair to balance this immense prerogative by giv-
ing to the Crown the coutroul over all commis-
sions.

Mr. WYNNE insisted that as all the powers of
COurts-martial emanated from. the Mutiny Bill,
there could be no objection to insert iu that Bill
a clause relative to those powers, He could riot
agree with the Right Hon. c;entleinan that the
House could properly investigate the case of this
Lieutenant or that, Major in order to address the
Crown in any particular instance of abuse. 'J'hc•
state and constitution of the army was so different

fr,,n) Ivas in Oe time of or of
(ieorge 11. that no 'regulations were necessary.
He must particulArly object to such an anomaly,
As that the supreme Chief ofthe Army should alsci,
be the Colonel of a paHicular regiment.
General Pfflrrs said a few words which were
inaudible.

Mr. WHITBREAD stated several oLjectians tot
the clause empowering Military Courts to receive
the voluntary evidence of deserters, under the
provision renderingthem liable to transportation.
Lord PALmERsTO:Nr, at some length, replied, and
contended that the collusory practice prevailing
among soldiers, of pretended detection and pri-
vate fraud, required that some peremptory regu-
lations should take place.
WYNNE referred to the case of Ensign`
Cowell, as a proof of the necessity for' a. 09-30
review of the articles of ‘var, and of the provi::
sions of our Mutiny Act. The Report was then'
received.