The Sun.
London, England, 1823-03-15 00:00:00

MUTINY BILL.

Lord PA LM ER.. moved the Order of the Day for a
Committee on the Mutiny Bill.
Colonel DAVIES rose to propose a clause in this Bill, to
prevent the dismissal of officers without the intervention of a
Court-Martial. tt would Probably be urged in opposition to
his clause, that it would violittethe practice of, a century and a
half, and that none but a daring innovator upon the prerogative
of the Crpwn and the discipline of the arm
with the existing practice. Now he disclaimed
y would interfere
any intention of
invading the, prerogative of the Crown, or of interfering with
the diacipline of the army; but an imperious sense of ditty
pronipted him to point out, not only the illegality of the as-
sumed power, by the exercise of which the honour and pro.
petty of officers were rendered dependent on, the ceprice of the
Ministers of the Crown. Until lately, ha hid been imposed
uponby the notion that the Crown hed really this power, and
had lawfully exercised it in the thousand of instances in which
it had been levelled against military officers; but a close hives.
tigation of the subject satisfied him that the law conferred no
such power, and tat it was necessary to declare such to be the
fact. His attention had been more particularly
.drawn to this
subject by the late act of pourer of which his gallant friend
(Sir liobert iVilsOn) was the tmrnelated victim, after splendid
services which had -interwoven his name in the brightest an.
nals of his country. Upon referring to the Mutiny Act, he
found not only that the military law wag not in favour of the
assumed practice ofdismissing officers, but was directly against
it. The military law (whatever might be said to the contrary)
did not commence in its Present form until the Revolution ; and
it was impossible to look into the Mutiny Act without seeing
that the same careful spirit of the British Constitution for theft.
berty of the subject pervaded all its Mu visions. The gallant ofh.
cot. then recited the preatnble of the Mutiny Act, and afterwards
referred to its provisions fbr the purpose of showing that
in no clause of the Act was arbitrary power vtited in the
Crown, but that, on the contrary, courts.martial were provided
to take cognizance of military offe,ncea. It was monstrous,
therefore, to suppose, that in the absence of any legal authority
the Crown would take Upon itself the functions of prosecutor,
judge, and jurors„ and dismiss an Officer teithout even putting
him upon his defence. A prerogative of thc Crown could only
be exercised for the public good,;ivand where was that good
considered, or in what manner was the discipline of the army
consulted, in a ceprieions and Unjustifiable dismimal of officers
without allowing them ,the moms of defence from the charg
secretly imputed to them P He repeated, that for this sum-
mary mode of proceeding no law could be found, and he
quoted Tilickstone arid Tytler, on courts.tilartial, in support of
this opinion. This assumption of power above the Itiw, and
for the
.puipoee of affecting the honour and liberties of, 4 most
meritorious. cleat of intlividuals, tome than. the arbitrary
act of /foil V/11., in aitaigning to a proclamation the force
of a statatet for even- Henry sett some sort of trial for the
offender, and consigned him to a commission of nine privy
councillors; but there Was. no such ordeal reserved for B,milf.
tory officer, according to the severity of modem practice...,
Untortunately, he had not to complain of insulated cases ; for
since the year 17911, 989 officers had been dismissed front the
service without trial there were, thus 989 pules of injuptice---
tCriei of " Hear". from the Treasitryltenc e5)...-Ite repeated, that
there were 9119 cases of injustice; for suppose each of the pattivs
was guilty; ought he ion to have the benefit of a formal eoneia,
Lion t If a man were.. seen to assassinate another, or cortnnii
a Murder in the open street, would they tolerate, in a country
of law"; that, he ehauld be seized and hang,ed at the, nearest
iron—world they riot establish his guilt before the coo,
stituted tribunal, and consign him to his fate with the afilemn
Sanction of the publiC at large 7--(Heer!)..-'l'he manner in
which this prerogative of summarydismissal was exerciaotl had
been most capricious and lie would state one or two
cases, not wishing to trouble the House with more, ihoup
pledged his honour that there were hundreds of monist ard.
ship. The first was the case of the officers of the lirith Regi.
nicut, which occurred some years ego, when 0 captains and 6
lieutenants were dismissed, for preferring certain charge*
against, their cominindfng "officer, Colonel %IRS,' who was,
• the way, found etillty of. one of them, (II minor one), and re.
prim m anded iccmdingly I hut the oat singular part othis pro.
ceeding was, that the Jtidgc.Advocate in announcing the dis-
missal of these officers for bringing chiarges, against it itUtt)eiloe
of
eer, ahich they were unable to prove, remarked that this
,re.
Minded hint of a slinilitr attempt made by. Colonel Russ `some
tithe before, wherlie brotight ehairee against Major, and,
in the name of lits Majesty, the; judge,Ailvicitte ordered that
Col. Rosa be dbonissed from the service,. First, tbe Ooleriel
was reprimended .Upoti one of the charges then before the
Court, and then he was disthiiiied, owing to the incidental re,-
eollectiim fif opine former,frefiesetion is which he vrra r eon,
ciesnO ;. Ina' eight other officers, of the 044 Were disiniseed
without Merely far bringing chaeges against. the. FOlonel,
Another w4ta that or; aft officer ' they uei ; dissenal.oitt
tinfortittiately arose in that tegirtietit,. and One of officers
became embroiled with all the rest ; the conaequence of which
was, that the officer who had so placed himself was oblied to
quit the regiment. it was then agreed by the other othcers, 4

that should the disearded officer challetige... aby'of thihnif
should be made a regimental: business, ,and Abet none.cif
.should meet hint. .Shortly after this, of the captains: met
this gentleman, in. (he street; high iviod&orost,ould
was eallenged by him: „Ile stated.the outlive:v*lo hie Mother
officers, who agreed that he ought not to titling; he acted-lagoon
that agreement, and the Other posted hins as a cowards, *bat
then did the other officers ?..In despite of their own resohteleit,
they compleined of ,their 'nether offiter.tbr not accepting the.,
challenge, and he was dismissed the service.- lie, complained
of the harsh and absurd predicament in. Which °Oka's' Wake
placed by the articles of war, and the practice of thettirey
they were placed between ; the horns of a dilemma ; Ifithey
fought a duel, the articles .of war peremptorily enjoinetteheir
being Cashiered; if they refused to fight, thertvetedisinissed
by the,CommandereitoChief. He then .said, with referenceici
the legality of proceedings•of courts-martial, that their sentde,
ces had often beeen tvestioned bY the Judges of the land; Anti
he quoted the case of Capt. Caulfield,. of the navy, wlealrati
been tried for wilfully makitor felse .musteretand thetAturt
were of opinion that he. ought to be dismissed frivol,' his
ship, but not from the service tit gliPPeario*•thet hadliot
committed the ofrence 'rho Atirtiiralty • conceiv-
ed that the courkmartial had acted upon a rnislatitpre
- union of the ,stattitet and that the Captain ought. to hats been
,diamissed the service., But teen there, the SUMEIIStjt powersiSS
exercised. after a Court-martial, though in the tinny thog
mina's occurred. without the, interrention of any •trial.
there anybody in the House who wattld lay hie hand upon liiv
heart and declare, that the ccuumander of the army had nut'don,
many unnecessarily severer and rigorous acts, nut of his own
knowledge, but merely on the authority, of cagueruntourti and
particularly in the case of a llallant.and lion. friend (Sit M.
Vilson, it is presumed) who sat near hint ? (Col. Davit:Ll: ..41.
.this power of dismisiin in the Crown, without the sentence Of
courtAmattial,could be shown to lie necessary for the preservation
ofmilitity discipline, he would be content to call it a necessary
evil t but he denied the necessity. - The advocates fur thispear-
dee contended, that eases might arise that required:etuumarY
coosidetationt acid that is such cases the'morelardy proceedings
of Lcourt-martial might not be proper.. Such a state of cirepro-.
stances must be *opposed to regard some instancesof mutiny, of
insubordination, or of .pittndering. Now, in regard to all or
any of these- offences, the proceedings of a cottroanitetialiwere
.summary enough in ell conscience. The offender aright be
arrested, tried, convicted, and shot, within the Attu:space of
half an bour.—(liear 1)--No argument -Could he raised on the
possible inexpediency of •trying , the ofrence in the place, where
it was commuted for if there, should appear to be any:itnpro-
priety in doing-so, he might, under the existing regulations, be
ordered elsewhere, and be htotight up for this purpose, toton-
don or to Edinburgh, as might appear advisable, In matters
tried in the ordinary course of our criminal law, a challenge.
wits Allowed to the party accused, if he should have grounds of
objection to any of the jury. In military courts no such chat.
lenges were permitted. To have the accused outfitted, it. was
requisite that the jury by which he was 1.0. W tried in Olt own
law courts, should he.Onanimous in, their verdict. In a court.,
martial, on the contrary, in a capital casco 9 voice* Ott of 11
might condemn the party to death ; whilein other cast*, not
amounting to capital offences, a bare Majority Was 'Wildcat to •
convict him. Under such eircumatatieee, surely it was ton
much to arm the Crown with a power of dismissnl, While lei..
bunals of this nature were competent to visit with so much
teverity any imputed °Nerve. lie would . not accuse courts.,
martial generally of being actuated by Any, bias but if bias
it had, u must naturally incline towards the Crown, the
source of ell militaq honours end office. Was it not, then',
something approaching suicide in a legislative aeaentbly, to
throw into the hands of the Crown so enormous a power
( ?---
hear 1.)--and in direct violation of all the constitutional prin-
ciples which they professed to take for their rule of con-
duct, year after year to repeat this, sort of enactment ? The
Hon. and Gellent officer then proceeded to illustrate his argu-
merit in respect of the evil tendency which so dangerous& power
as thus became vested ih the throne, had ever manifested, by a
variety of historical references ; and in conclusion reared,
" That it be an instiuction to the Committee on the Mutiny
Bill, to invert a clause to prevent the dismission of officers from
the army, without trial by Courts-martial and to prevent the
punishment of any officer, non,commiseioned officer, anti Sol.
Bier, who shall have been . previously tried and sentenced'by
(Joust-martial, from being carried beyond the extent' and no.,
port of such aentetice,"---(llear l) • :
Lord PALMERSTON, hi atating the grounds upon which,
he should feel it his duty to oppose this motion. did not ',lima ti't
follow the example of the lion. Gentlemen who had just sat
down, in producing a great number of authorities, -drawn from
various authors, who hail taken, possibly, apartial and contracted
view of the subject, or had judged erroneously on a matter whichdid not fell within the course of their ordinary discussiOns. If he
(Lord P.) could not produce an argument sufficiently strong
and consistent in itself to carry conviction with it ,to the mind
of the !louse, he would not attempt to bolster it up With quo.
tetions anti authority, • The ground of his opposition would.
be, that the principle of this proposition involved a direct breech
of an important prerogative, which the Crown had 091011ftell
from the earliest periods sod which it *lO most essential
for its own eplendour, and for the intetestt of the people that it
should continue to retain. Ile was one of these who considered
that the prerogatives of the Crown *ere not given to it for the
peculiar advantage, or dignity, or interest of the
,individual who
night at any time happen to wear the crown.; but that they
were given to its keeping anti office for the interest and the
tit of the people. It was not. requisite that he should go into any
long historical research to prove that this was a prerogative of a
mosoareient character; for lie heti only to refer the House .to
the statute book of the retain. lie need only refer them to
the statute passed in the beginning§ of the reign of Charles 11...-
which declared " that the government or command of the mi-
litia, and of all the forces of sea and land, of this realm, is,
and by the law of Englend always bath been, the undoubted
right of the Kings of -England ; and that of both, or .either of
those forces the controul and Command ought not by. the Var.
Bement to be assumed." And the Act of the next year. ,
Glared to the fame eiteet. Ile had also before him the articleit
of war, which were published in the reign of,Eler.abetit,.tit a '
time when, the Karl of I..:turs Wes.at the head'of our ar.bl,7,
and Parliament, under the extraordinary circumstance! to
which the nation was placed, took 'upon itself
.the 'oerelle•
Of a prerogative which belonged to the Crown, end die Croon
only, of tight. lie had likewise the Article* of te4i
Charlee IL's reign i anti by these, courtsonarthil were instititte.
They were insituted under powers which were thus 'glued
from. the Crown.. The Crown could unit grant those pewees it
it did not peasesi 'h prerogative to do so; and therefore fie Was
entitled to sesame that it did posses') the prcittgetive..' fn the
articles or war of the reign of (litarleit 11. it was tteclered,44 That
no.ollietr shall be disinfieetiftOrn theserViett..except try flet►order
from us, our (Anent; or of a Coort.martial." It wits tlear,
then, upon every principle of strict I'oooll4lg, analegy, and
common sense, not 100 than upon thew' atutwritie*, that the
Power .of dismiseion had always reeided in the Prown. If
he (Lord Palmeretont was right in this assumption4te Must
be allowed to say, that the wait nothing in the 'Mutiny hill
which took away the pserogative. Nothing,c.ould,be peitter
mistake than that which Hun. ilentlernen opposite freguentiy
r•ceoke..„trtm\i,hotteichttit,lwei.iintlgrestutos,flc,ionougilittcrilfrivlll26oouothtterrneypoifirel
uirlopl,:th:liettviirtostt4rr.rtFtilt:yeoscic,l";,tite sikrif.rtii •
was, in fact, a Hill menahle the Crewn to Proceed rgiOreftiOirinte-
rily, in certain cases, than otherwise it would be tionktept to do.
At the time of the Revolullen, it was Ititxtrii to every Linn.
tient. whp heard Nall it yea considered illegal and unconathe.
tional to proceed against a military titter-tiler oilterwitke than in
common form of lew in .tbe Courts.: 'lt was ',eqttelly tuntirious,
that at the latter end of the reign of Jainevll., anti the begin-
ning of William ill., the Itrfily were guilty of, various pets of
rim and instibertlination, What did. raritaluent then, do'?
They .passed an Act giving ft power. to proceed ..ittgioarill
against end' ofliouleite as, wits provided . lay the PreS=
It'll. Whet the intentions of ParliaMent itt enectirOt- Met Stile
;lie were, its preamble would sufficiently *hew, lit briAulty
stating, that standing army, wet, by the Consfit'atioti;.dattge.. •
roux and illekal--(Checoi ftom the Oppositieit betitherg):l7-that
tire itiugatull'arliatoent, OeVeittirle4,.l,4Kter then IllneSuhf °,l!-
ittrnsteneei ileetulil sipeflieot this ogie.ShoOld t 4), krrlt9t,
It recited that' in,tlitie -of peace, no neap could legidiyhoMotele.
ed saul the *ague As't,. h I?rititt taint t..
nary, to keep►. time soltdiers i ,their duty , t
utlivllo44„TP,
the
cone which was, tneif.ditily *mitts:rig) t
to MO* 41/4411), e* -11O411bvo it,, t unto Oro !-4' to
the:liinji.. ita Outts-totruttl to try , loth
,'• 'Motir,ly.4,;il could- not bt-oniitltilc,ll,l4;ttoirii,...
neitumgaiifit's*thllLe6tifurriv:wefiwv".l'l:: 'olithfral:teits-nPrirtirtkiniport:iii6t:aioirtictilt*biLtllteto:l4etrofhll6ll.:::tsrair!'orr;dp anc~d tat tare siasrxr
et

the crimes mentioned in this act, and punishable in The man-
ner therein described." Tide act, therefore, left the. King
with the power which he undoithtely possessed, of dismiss-
Mg any servants whom lie pleased—a power necessary to his
dignity and his independence. The case of Captain Caulfield
of the navy, which had been mentioned, was of a very differ-
ing description from the other cases put by the Honourable
Gentleman. lie was tried by a court-martial: the Admiralty,
thinking the sentence of that Court not suffieiently severe, dis-
missed him from the service, independently of the 'finding of
the court-martial. The Crown.contirmed this dismission, and
in so doing was undoubtedly improperly advised.—('Hear!)
—But if the linnoitrable Gentlemen meant to -say that the
Judges, in delivering their opinion upon Captain ,Caulfield's
inlinlateit that the King had not the perwer,of dismissing
any of his servants, he ( Lord Palmerston,) moat protest that
their opinion would bear no such constvittaion. The Hon.
Uentleman had said, that since the.year 4794, noless than 999
officers, whom he denominated the victims of injustice and op.
peession, had been dismissed the service. it would be found,
however, that the ground of dismilision,irerespectto the greater'
numberof these officers, was, their being. absent without leave.
He (Lord Palmerston) should flatter himself with a hope of
being able, should it be.consittered necessary, to rove that in
alt these eases the Crown had been.as, well advised, and he had
shown it to have been in respect of a case mentioned on a for.
mer night. On that occasion the lion. Gentleman did him
the favour to infOrm hint beforehand, Abet he meant to bring it
foreu 'rd and perhaps the lion. Gentleman's ill success in that
instance had intuited him now to advert to 9 or 10 cases lancets.
sively, in the well.grounded belief that he (Lord Palmerston)
would be proportionably less prepared to meet him upon the
isolated case in question.--4(A laugh.)—ln the year 1734 this
prerogative had been admitted, by those who most quee-
tioned its propriety, to be vested ,in the 'Crown. To show its!
expediency, however, let the House suppose the case of are
officer accused Of cruelty to part of any hostile population ;•
should he be to be tried by a court-martial composed of officers,
every one of whom should have been guilty possibly, of the,
same offence, and the consequence would naturallyhe an ac-
qaittal. Would it be objectinable that the Crown-should in-
. Were under such a state of things, .and. do that justice which
thirCoun would not do.? It was•onlyalie other night, on the
contrary, that the Hon. Gentlenten opposite—those who alw*ys
. professed themselves:the friends of liberty, humanity, and strict.
justice--onmplained; :in discussing a particular case, 'that a
Court-martial had violated its duty by returning too lenient a
sentence. Suppose that there an acquittal had•been returned,
would not the Crown have been petitioned.tolevise the sentence
of die Court?--(Hear l)—Let them suppose, aain, the
case of an officer guilty of some crime cognizable by the
•civil tribunals of country, how would the civil law en-
force his obedience to its Injunctions ? Did any one sup-
pose that a constable, with a warrant in one hand, and his
staf in the other, would be any thing r like a match for a
General Officer supported by six or seven hundred bayenets?—
oillearls—lf the views of the lion. Gentlemen went° be curried
into effect, it would be impossible to enferce ahe laWs by
which the army was governed, except by the instrumentality of
the army itself. The case of Colonel Allen, which had been
referred to on a former evening, would land a clue to the con-
sequence that would result from such a system. Colonel Allen,
It would be recollected, demanded to be triedby a coutt.martial,
upon a charge arising out of a complaint made by his com-
manding officer. Ithappened that the Colonel was tried, not
only upon that particular charge, but also upon two others.
Colonel Allen complained of that circumstance, and said that
it was gross Injustice to try hhu upon any other charge titan
that which he had himself desired to be brought to trial upon. t
He (Lord Palniereton) believed that if the lion. Uendeman's
clause were agreed to, every officer would, like Colonel Allen,'
object, to be tried upon any charges except what they them-
selves should set up. By acceding to the amendment, the
House would create a fourth estate in the kingdom; it would
convert the army into a power most dangerous to the country.
Instead of being subordinate to the proper authorities, and
Incorporated with the practice of our constitution, the army
would be changed into a corps of Mamelukes, which would
•very soon overthrow the laws and annihilate all power but their
• own.—(Hear 1)
Mr. C. 11. HUTCHINSON maintained that the power of
dismissing officers without previously bringing them to trial
was a prerogative which the King ought not to possess. lie
believed that the late Emperor of Frame, anti be was certain
that the present King of that country, did not possess that
power. There had been instances recently of distinguished
French officers being tried for state offences, • and yet retaining
their rank. The King of France,could refrain from employing
military officer*, but tto could not dismiss theme that could
only be done by the sentence of a court-martial. He believed
that he might go still further anti say, that not even the most
despotic Governments possessed the powerwhich was said to
be vested in the Crown of England. lie agreed with the Noble
I,otti that the prerogative which was claimed for the King of
,England ought to be, and lie belayed that it generally 'was,
exercised for the interests of the people, and in support of the dig.
.inty of the Crown. lint whilst lie admitted that the kingly
proogative was generally exercised with humanity •and for.
hearance, he was bound to declare that there were instances
•in which great injustice would have been prevented, if officers,
both naval and military, had been afforded an opportunity of
. defending themselves before a court-inertial. The case of his
Gallant Friend, the Member fin Southwark, was one-of those
.instances. 41'. that ,distinguished officer, covered as he was
with the lionottniblerrewanis which he had earned in so many
bloody contests, had been tried by a court-martial, he would
have been acquitted, not on account of the considerations to
which he (Mr. Hutchinson) had just ellittled, .but upon the
mere merits of the case. So confident was he of the propriety
of the conduct of his lion.,Friend, that he did not hesitate to
declare his conviction, that if Ministers had known the circum
stances of the case before the Gallant Officer was slistnitoied,
they would not have consented to the woceetling. Sir tßobert
Wilson had committed no offence,—(lieur !)—but his exertions,
had prevented the spilling of blood.-411ear it—lied it not been
his interference, many lives must have been lost, aml the
city must have been thrown into such a suite of confutdan, that
all the powers of Government would have been ineffectual to
prevent the most terrible disasters.—(llcari)—lie (Mr. II.)
trusted that a moment of calm reflection would at length arrive,
when justice would be done his Gallant Friend by restoring
'him to the rank which he deserved, and giving to the profes-
.sion to which he Mowed the adventage of possessing so
breve, lei experienced, and so talented an officer.---(hear
Mr. 11. GURNEY addressed a few observations to the
Dew, hut from the circumstance of his epeaking in a low tone
of voice he was quite inaudible in the gallery.
Mr. HUNK observed, that die Honourable Member who
spoke last had said, that lie thougfr the King ought to possess
the power of dismissing his own ffie:rs ; but he (Mr. Hume)
would maintain that the Army was no the servant of the King,
hut of the State, and the King was only required, as Chief Ma-
•giatrate of the otte, to administer justice to it. There was a
wide distinction between the power witich the King possessed of
disrniesirig his own servants, and that which was claimed for
hint of dismissing Military and Naval Officers. The Noble
Lord opposite commenced his winiech by admitting, that the
fuundation of .all prerogative was utility ; but he had failed
to show wherein consisted the utility of the particular pre-
eiegative in question. The Acts to which the Noble Lord
lad alluded were passed at a period when the kingly prerogatives
were the subject of dispute between the Crown and the people.
thattime, teeny of the prerogatives of the Crown had
been annulled, and the King now
of
none, except those
which were given to him by Act of' Parliament. If that were
1101, the case, why should it be necessary to pass an Act of Par.
Lament annually to continue those prerogatives ? The army
existed only by the passing of the Bill before the House tf
the Bill did not pass, there would be no army ; and if there
were no army there could be no prerogative.—(Laughter.)._
The lionourahle Member reform) to the Mutiny:act of last
year, which, he observed, provided that individuals in the
ertny who annutitted any of the offences recited in the Act,
should coffer the punishments that might be awarded by a
ourt.martial but there was no part of the Act which gave
to the King the pOwer of cashiering officers. To be sure,
the Noble lebrd had said, that by section 35 of the Act the
King had the power of establishing artidee of veer Which
were to be recognized in all Courts of Justice, and one of
which declared that the King might dismiss officers: but
the Noble Lord could not fail to know, that in every Act
of Parliement which wait passed, provision Way made that
no regulation* should be framed fur carrying the Act into
effect, which were conttary, to the spirit of the Act itself.—
Non he (Mr. Hume) contented that the assumed right of
cashiering officers was oppo*ed to, the spirit of the Act. The
Noble Lord had asked bow the prerogative could be dispensed
with in the case of a inutinoue garrison. Ile would ask the
Nuble lend of what use the prerogative would be under such
m circustances ? Mutineers usually- placed themselves beyond
all power, and listened to nothing but their own will. Be
therefore thought that the argument of the Noble Lord must
fill titi the ground. There were doubtless advantages and dig..
advantages; attached to both the modes of proceeding with re.
steel to others--namely, by a dismission by the Crown, and
by a trial by a coon-martial ; but he believed that, upon a fair
eettuparitton, the balance would be found in favour of the fat
ter. Certainly, nothing could be so bad as the tyratnly and
ovally of disiniseing an individual who, perhaps, had served
Ids country for 25 or 30 years, without affording him an op.
ipartunity of exculpating himself.
• Mr. C. W. WI NN said, that he lied now for the first time
beard it asserted in that noose or elsewhere, that the King of
England postosed no prerogatives, except what were granted
to him by Acts of rerliantent.--(llear, hear.)-a-The 800.
Unntlemart, with his groat legal knowledge, would periseps con.
wend tort out the particular acts, nay, ti
& e particular
seeding of e Arta, by which a few trifling prerogatives—such,

for instance, asthe power of making war and peace, and of as-
sembling and dissolving Parliament—were secured to the
Crown.—(Cheers and laughter.)—The Hon. gent. had said
that there was nothing in the Mutiny Act which gave the King
authority to dismiss an officer. Let the lion. Bent. consider
how far his argument might he carried. ])id he mean to con-
tend that the King could not dismiss a private soldier, for mis-
conduct—that he could nut disband a mutinous regiment with-
out bringing every individual in it to trial by Court-martiai ?
If there was any thing in the lion. Gentleman's argument, it
must go to that extent.—(llear.)—lie believed tliat:theprero-
gative in question might int used most beneficially for tits pub-
lie, in eases in which it would be imprudent to subject officers
to a trial by a Court-martial.--Allearl)
Lord lIOTHAM was of opinion, that a prerogative which
had been exercised for so long a period must have some faun.
dation in law. The last objection which he should notice was,
that there was danger to the Constitution in the assumption of
this prerogative. lie had frequently heard fears of dangerto
the Constitution expressed on the other (the Opposition) side of
the Houser butas'a appeared to hint, the only danger to the
,Constitution, connected with the subject, would arise from the
motion of the lion. and gallant Member (Col. Davies), Wear-
lied in The affirmative.; ifor he confessed he could not see a
greater 'source of danger than an army independent of the
.Crown.—.(hear, hear !)----dt :had been said that officers of the
.army ought to enjoy the same OW-lieges as other subjects.
Now he had spent a great-part, and,certainly the most pleasant
part of his life, in the army, and no man could be more an.
xious than he for the general interest and welfare of the ser.
vice; but lie could not consent to give the kind of privilege
now sought for. because he thought it would be no advantage
I to the officers individually, but would be a great risk to the

;country.
Sir F. BLAKE could not consent to the motion, but he
thought that in cases (of dismissal of the nature alluded to,
some compensation ought to be given to officers. For his own
part, he would say, that in a corps which he had had the ha-
nour of commanding, 'he had found the great advantage, in
point of strict discipline, from the power ,givento Colonels of
reducing non-commissioned officers to the ranks t ,and 111 that
power was .not disputed, he did not see why the Sovereign
should not have power over commissioned officers.
The question was now put, and the amendment was nega- ,
tived without a division. •
The original question, " that, the. Speaker do leave the chair,"
I was then put and carried.
The House having gone intothe Committee,
Mr. BRAN; DEN i.the Chairman) put the question, that the
Bill he read a first time,
(Colonel DAVIES rose, and proceeded to reply to the ob.
•ervations of the Noble Lord (Palmerston) made in the former
stage of the M. Ile contended, that the lath and 14th of
Charles 11., on which the Noble Lord founded most of his
remarks, had nothing to do with the question. If as the No-
ble Lord asserted, the Crown had this mighty prerogative,
what was the use of passing. the Mutiny Bill in such a hurry,
or what was the use of passing it at all ? The real truth was,
that the 11111 was pressed, because it was known, that if the
Bill were not passed before the 24th, the soldiers would be dis-
embodied.
Mr. C. NV. WYNN here rose to order. It was, he consi-
dered, irregular for any Member to reply.direcdy, in one stage
of a Bill, the-observations of another Member, made in a

former stage.
The CHAMMAN' said it was not strictly regular to reply to
speech an one made in a former stage, but he thought the lion.
Member had a clear right to go again, if he pleased, into argu-
ments on the general measure.—(Hear, hear !)
Col. DAVIES resumed, and went on to contend, that, by the
37th Section of the Bill, it was laid down that all Officers must
be tried by a Court-martial for any offence imputed to them,
and that dismissal by the Crown without such trial was against
the spirit and letter of the Act. .
Lord PALMERSTON maintained that the Act thirteen
and fourteen of Charles the Second Aid not confer the pre-
rogative on the Crown, but k recognized it as pee-existing.
The Honourable Member had asked why press this Bill,
if the Crown had so extensive a prerogative ? To this he .
would reply—what he apprehended was well known to all ac-
quainted with the service—that it wax necessary, for the sake
of tli*clpline, ito have.* summary mode of punishing offences
committed by officers of' the army. If, as the Hon. Member
said, the Crown did not (according to the 37th section of the
Act) possess the power of dismissing without a Court.martial,
then no new enactment was necessery ; but he contended
that such was not the true construction of the 37th section. it
only said that it.ehould be lawful for a Court.martial to try for
certain offencesi but it did not interfere with the power of the
'Grown to dismiss without trial. There were ninny circumstan-
ces not breaches of the articles of war, which would not only
warrant, but require a dismissal without trial. How, for in.
stance, could a man be tried for want of talent?
Mr. HUME asked if this Bill was a copy of the Act of last
year ?
Lord PALMERSTON replied, that there were some engirt
alteration* s one was, the trimaferring
_eomelfartieular accounts
relative to the army in Ireland to.theNVar-office of England.—
Another was an alteration of the 26th section, by which courts.
martial were allowed to sentence to imprisonment:: they would
in future be authorised to add to mob sentence the subjecting
the party convicted to hard labour, which it was considered
would in many cases be better than sentencing the party to cor-
poral punishment.
Mr. HUME said he would be glad to hear from the Noble
Lard what was meant by the words of the Bill, that the army
was kept up to support the balance of power in Europe. lie
thought, looking to the resent state of Europe, and our own
situation, such is phrase was an absurdity.
Lord PA LMLRSTON replied, that the words, absurd as
they might appear, were continued in the Act from the time of
William 111. He ,presumed that the meaning of the balance
of power was well known at that day, and in the present. If
the Hon. Member was ignorant of what it meant it was too
much to hope that any, thing he ( Lord Palmerston) could say,
could enlighten a mind so constiiuted.—Wearl ant a laugh.))
After a few words front. Mr. 11. 11. BEHNET, which were
not audible is the gallery,
Mr. CHI:I:VEY said, that the balance of power was very
well understood in the time of William 111., and was weil kept
up by the bravery and akin of Marlborough and his army.
The army was declared necessary then, to prevent Spain from
falling into the power of France; but it was absurd to say that
it (the army) was now for die same object, while we sat tamely
and saw the attempt which France was making upon that
country.—alear, hear !)
The 13111 then passed Through a Committee, and the Report
was ordered to be received on Alonday.
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY.—NAVY ESTIMATES.
On the motion of Sir Join Osnonx, that the House re-
solve itself into a Committee of Supply, and that the Navy
Estimate* be referred thereto,
Sir F. M. OMMANEY expressed a hope, that the same re.
&Wien which applied to the payment of widows' pensions in
the army might be extended to the Navy.
The House having gone Into the Committee,
Sir J. OSBORN said, the Committee on a former evening had
voted the wear and tearof the Navy ; and he now should move the
items for the ordinary and extras. Theft were divided into three
parts. In the first there were several items which had been trans-
ferred from other accounts, such as " wages to artificers and la.
bowers employed in his Majesty's yards at home and abroad,
charge for timber and other materials for building, and
charge for pilotage and salvage." These being taken into the
accounts, would swell it in proportion as other accounts had
been diminished. It would be found that there was a reduction
in time different dock-yards to a considerable amount. In the
second branch, there was a diminution on most of the items,
except the comnassionate list, and an additional charge for
Greenwich Hospital above that of last year. In the third part,
which :included superannuation and pensions to the commit-
sioners, clerks, &c., there was an increase, in consequence of
the number of persons who bad been dismissed during the last
year. Taking the whole of the diminutions, they might amount
to 216,8641. Isis. 3d. To the whole sum voted last year were to
, be added 300,0001. for Greenwich Hospital; from which, de-
' ducting the produce of old stores, there ,emained, as the whole
sum for this year, 6,442,1401. 64. lfel., making. a diminution of
the sum he had mentioned above. When it was considered
that we had Oda year an addition of 4,600 men beyond the
number employed "last year, and that our Navy was never in a
more efficient state than at present, the reduction he had men-
tioned could not fail to be highly gratifying
,to the House.—
The lion. Member concluded by moving, "first a sum of
66,4061. 64. Id. be granted for defraying the salaries and con-
tingent expences of the Admiralty." '
Mr. HUME *aid be had no wish to interfere with the effec-
tive force of the navy. The reductions spoken of were not
owing to the efficient force of the navy, and ought to have been
matte *even years ago. However. better late than never. There
was one kind of reduction which he had heard of, and which lie
believed was snore extensive than any other—it was the reduc.
Con in the wages of the labouring classes employed in the
yards. Now that was a kitd of reduction which he did nut
think ought to be made. lie had 'heard that some of these
were now employed 106 hours a day, and received no move
than what they had before for work of six hours. It was time
that there was a reduction of fifty thousand pounds in the
works of yards this year; but he had hoped that there
would have been even a still larger reduction. Having
thus congratulated the House on the reduction which
had been made, and having expressed his regret that
they had not been more extensive, he should proceed to the
consideration of the vote which was then before the Committee.
In that vote, though there was a difference of 2,0001. from the
vote of last year, effected by the reduction of the Lords of the
Admiralty, there were still some items to which he must object.
lie objected, first, to the Paymaster of Royal Marines having a

salary of 1,0001. layear, with 6 clerks, one at a salary of 5001.
a-year, two at a salary of 3001. and three at a salary of 2001.
a-year ; and secondly, to the Paymaster of Widows' Pensions,
at a salary of 6801. a-year.. a total of 3,4501. a-year.—
Ile likewise objected, tuthe grant of 300/. a-year to the secre-
tary to the fund for the relief of officers' widows, as he thought
the assistant would be quite sufficient to discharge these duties.
—There had beeuieonte diacussion on this subject last year,
and he had then elibereed that he thought that the estahUsli-
ment of Paynaasterz 'of Royal 'Marines, and of Paymaster of
Widows' Pensions, ought tobedone away with altogether, aml
that the dudes of thenrataht. ta be transferred to the Navy
Board. He could mar tnferm the _Committee that a situiler
idea had once been entertained by 4110-2'veastiry, as appeared
by a Treasury minute, whiel.he should read to them, euggest4
ing the union of Chose office* with that of the Treasurer of the
Navy. After reading this minute, Mr. Mete proceeded to
remark that the Admiralty taken two years and three
monthi to consider of the line of conduct which they should
pursue in consequence of this .suggestion, and had then de.
dared .the impossibility of ramplyulg with' it in' long and
tedious letter, which impassibility
should nut trouble the Committee
by reading. Being of opinion,. however, that the widows'
pensions of the navy might be paid in the same Manner as
the widows' pensions in the army, and thinking that the
mollies might be paid by the Navy Board, he felt it to
be 'his duty to propose 4 redaction of 3,650/. in. this grant,
thus leaving the assistant to Perform all the duty that was now
performed by the Secretary to the fund. The Paymaster. of
Royal Murines had only 0000 men altogether under his oflice ;
and of these, only such part as were on shore were paid by hini,
those being paid by the Paymaster of the
Nav on'
y.TrenrPdayndishastiePr of the Navy had only 8001. it-yesi for
his services. ‘V by was the Paymaster of the Marines to have
1000/. ? There was no occasion either for his six clerks, as
he observed that each battalion of marines had a clerk to keep
its accounts. For these reasons he should certainly take the
sense of the Committee on. the Amendment which he hail pre-
posed, and he trusted that in pressing it to a division, he should
meet with very general aubport.
Sir G. MERE'. contended that there were no public oiliest
which had 'greater labours to. perform titan those which the
Hon. Member for Aberdeen had. just propoaed to abolish....
That lion. Member raerrial to a Treasury minute sug.
gesting the propriety of joining those offices with those of the
Treasurer and Paymaster of the Navy; and had likewise re-
ferred to a.letter which. had, been written in answer to it by
his lion. Friend, the Secretary for the Admiralty. The lion.
Member had not, however, read any part of that letter, be-
cause he knew that it would not lie at all convenient to the
line of argument which he hadthought proper to pursue. If
that letter lad been read, the Committee would have seen that
to transfer the duties Of them to the Navy Board could be pro-
ductive of no saving to the country, because in such case it
would be 'necessary to appoint a cashier, with a heavy salary,
under the paymasterof the navy. The paymaster of the marines
was but a mall portion of the paymaster's duties ; he had a
large correspondence to conduct, and had also to superintend
the state of the marine barracks. As he was convinced that no
advantage could be derived to the country, on the score .of
economy, from the transfer of the duties of these offices to the
Navy Board, he should certainly resist the amendment pro-
posed by the lion. Member for Aberdeen.
Mr. HUMIi declared, that the lion. Bart. who had just sat
down must be Well aware that the Treasurer of the Navy was
once the Paymaster of the Widows' Pensions. What once
was,, might be again: there was no impossibility. He was
likewise of opinion that the marine barracks might be placed
under the same eontroul as the barracks of the military and the
ordnance.

Sir JOHN OSBORN stated, that at the time to which the
Hen. Member fur Aberdeen had just alluded, the Widows'
Pent-dons did not amount to one-twentieth part of the sum to
which they now amounted. Besides, they were formerly paid
only once a year ; now they were paid four times a year. Be-
sides, it ought not to be forgotten that these circumstances had
also led to a great increase m the correspondence of the office.
Sir JOSEPH YORKE declared that the Paymaster of
AVidows' Pentrions had an extensive correspondence to carry on,
and that there was a great facility in conducting it by meant' of the,
Secretary of the Admiralty, who was also Secretary to the Fund
for Widows' Pensions. Besides, the correspondence watt of
such a nature as could not well be intrusted to a superior clerk,
31r. CROKER begged leave •to set the lion. Member for
Aberdeen right on one point. The office of Paymaster of
Widows' Pensions had never been united with that of Trea-
surer, but once accidentally with that of Paymaster of the
Navy. The long and tedious letter, of which the Hon. Mem-
ber had complained, stated that fact most clearly, as he would
prove by a short extract from it. The Hon. Secretary then
read an extract in support Olds ,u section, and afterwards pro..
ceeded to argue that, though the Paymasters of the Navy and of
the Marine were both paymasters, their situations as 'public men
were quite distinct from each other. The Paymaster of the Navy
was nothing more than the head clerk of the Treasurer of the
Navy; out into office, continued in officeotrel removable from
.office at his will and pleasure; whereas the Peymaster of Marines
was the head of his department, and was the organ through which
the marine ofilcets always communicated with Government.
lf, then, the duties of this latter officer were to be transferred to
the former, additional clerks must be engaged, and conse-
quently some expence must be incurred. Now, he • would
contend that the present system was the cheapest that could
be adopted, and that to alter it by any transfer of labour
to the Paymaster of the Navy would be to saddle the coun-
try with an increased expenditure. It was true, that Mr.
Rose had once hazarded an opinion that the duties of
these two offices might be amalgamated ; but at that time
the Paymaster of Marines had not the superintendence of
Marine Barracks. Lot it was said that these barracks might
be managed by the same department which managed the other
barracks of the country. Now he was certain, that any person
who was at all acquainted with the difference between army
barracks and marine barracks must sec the impossibility of any
attempt to assimilate their arrangements. With regard to the
salary paid to the secretary to the fund for relief of officers'
widows, he begged leave to say a few words, as the amount of
salary had been objected to. It was known that it was a corpo- •
ration which had the management of these funds ; and that
corporation for many years past, indeed he believed from the
year 1754, always appointed the Secretary to the Admiralty
secretary to the fund. The salary appointed in 1754 was 2001.
a-year, and although the pensioners had increased from 300 to
4,000, the pensions from 8,0001. to 150,000/. a-year, and the
correspondence from 3 or 400 letters to 30 or 40 thousand—for
so many he believed he received annually,--there had been no
increase whatever in the salary.—( Hear, hear !)—On these
grounds he thought that no objection could be fairly urged
against it. He contended, first, that the Paymaster of the
Marines was a most efficient and necessary officer ; next, that
the cum 01'480/. was not too much for the Payrnnster of widows'
Pensions, and consequently that the arrangement of 1819 ought
not to be abandoned.
Sir P. OMMANEY supported the original grant, to which
he felt inclined to add another thousand. The lion. Baronet
complained of the inattention of the Secretary to the Admi-
ralty to some questions which he had put to him respecting the
AVidowa Pensions Fund, and declared that if he did not within
a short time receive a satisfactory answer to those questions, he
should move that an Address should be presented to his Ma-
jesty, praying hint to order that the Widows of naval surgeons
should be admitted to a participation in the benefits of that
fund. The Honourable Baronet was about to move that another
thousand pound should be added to the original vote, when
The Or Alsace); said that the proceeding was irregular, and
that the lion. Baronet could not make such a motion.
A desultory conversation took place between Sir J. Yorke, the
Chairman,
.Mr. Croker4Mr. Hume, and Mr. Ellice, after which
Sir I. COFFIN complained that the Navy was ground into
dust by this neglect.
Sir .1. YORKE maintained that the grants before the House
proved that the Navy was far front being neglected.
Mr. HUME then said that he would not press the amendment.
The amendment was then negatived, and the original vote
was agreed te.—The following votes were also agreed to :
£32,454 ls. 6d. for the Navy Pay Office.
£63,819 18*. fkl. for the Salaries of the Navy Office.
.C. 35,267 10s. for the Salaries of the Victualling Office.
£18,887 Bs. 4d. for the Salaries of Officers in Deptford-yard.
£21,509 10s. for the Salaries of the Officers of Woolwich-yard.
£24,534 40. 10d. for Chatham-yard.
£16,134 10s. fat, for Sheerness-yard.
136)307 3a. 3d. for Portsmouth-yard.
£30,905 15s. 841. for Ply tli-yard.
£O,BlB 18*. 2d. for the Out-ports.
£476,902 for the Wages of the Artificers and labourers in
the Yards at Home, and for the Hire of the Teams and Wag-
gons employed therein. mou
Mr. HUME complained, that the officers and clerks had not
been reduced on the forme scale as the labourers.
Sir O. CLERK said, that the work of the artificers had been
increased by the late arrangements, SO that they could earn as
much as formerly.
£624,760 for Repairs and incidental expences of the Ships.
Sir J. YORKE asked the situation of the Navy, and parti-
cularly of the ships built under cover.
Sir B. MARTIN said, that never in the History of Eng-
land was a Navy better or more effective than now.
C 40,000 for Pilotage, bounty for Sailors, and for maintenance
of Sailors in foreign parts. • ;
£52,188 2*. NI. for the charge of Yards in foreign parts.
£63,110 121. for the Victualling Yards. •
£51,831 7s. Id. for the Medical Establishment of the Navy.
£6,227 76. 3d. for the Naval College, and School of Archi-
tecture.
- Mr. lIUME asked how many had been sent on board from
that College ?
Sir G. CLERK said, that Its should have no objection to give