The Sun.
London, England, 1867-08-07 00:00:00

ducting the affairs of the House of Commons. I propose
to follow the precedents—fortunately, rare precedents—in

cases of this kind, and on Thursday, when I move that
the amendments of the Lords be considered, I shall take
the opportunity, before asking the House to consider them

seriatim, of taking a general view of these amendments,
and I shall state the course which Her Majesty's Govern-
ment are prepared to recommend the House to follow.

THE SIMLA COURT-MARTIAL.
Mr. BRETT called attention to the Simla Court-martial,
find moved an address to the Queen, praying that its find-
ing may be reconsidered with a view to the reinstatement
of Captain Jervis. In a lengthy and circumstantial re-
view of the papers laid before Parliament he traced the
history of the dispute between Sir W. Mansfield and Capt.
_ _ _

Jervis from its origin, contending that at an early period
Sir W. Mansfield's treatment of Capt. Jervis had been
manifestly actuated by strong personal dislike, which, com-
bined with the false charges of fraud ho preferred against
him in a vindictive spirit, and of which the Court-martial
had righteously acquitted him, had provoked him into the
acts of military disobedience of which ho had been found

guilty, and which Mr. Brett did not attempt to justify

Some of the extracts which Mr. Brett read from the mem:,-
randa of Sir W. Mansfield as to the conduct of his house-
hold created much laughter, but he was loudly cheered

when he commented in strong and indignant language on
General Mansfield's conduct, on the subtlety with which
he had laboured to convict Capt. Jervis, on the manner in
which he had given his evidence before the court-martial,
on the vindictiveness with which he insisted that the

court-martial should reconsider their first finding, and on
the flagrant injustice of his General Order in which he
reiterated the charges which had been disproved, passed a
judgment in his own favour, and inflicted the punishment

which the court-martial had reported ought to be remitted.
Of the despatch of the Duke of Cambridge and the memo-
randum of the Judge-Advocate-General he spoke with ap-
probation, but insisted that full justice would not be done
unless Captain Jervis were restored to his rank, for he re-
pudiated with scorn the offer of £l,BOO as a salve to his
honour.

General PEEL expressed deep regret that the Govern-
ment had consented to produce the Duke of Cambridge's
despatch to Gen. Mansfield—in every word of which,
however, he concurred, and for which he was responsible,
having given his sanction to it as Minister of War. But if
he had expected this private and confidential communica-
tion of the Duke's opinion for the General's future guid-
ance to be made public, he should rather have advised Sir
W. Mansfield's recall—a course which, indeed, had been
discussed, but which the Commander-in-Chief thought
was not called for, as there was nothing illegal in General
Mansfield's conduct. He pointed out also that if the Duke
had intended it to be published he would have taken
means for that end without leaving it to a chance motion,
and that its publication would put an end to all this kind
of confidential communications. Reminding the house
that General Mansfield's wrong did not• make Captain

Jervis right, and that from the treatment of General Mans•
field it must be assumed that the Horse Guards had fairly
considered Captain Jervis's case and had done him justice,
he earnestly pressed on the house not to consent to the
motion unless it was prepared to deny that the Crown
had a right to dispense with the services of any officer
without assigning a reason. This dictum was receives
with some expressions of dissent, and, replying to
them, General Feel pointed out that the right was
exercised under the responsibility of the Ministry,
and that this motion, therefore, was virtually a cen-
sure on the Minister of War. He warned the house
that in assenting to it the house must be prepared
to reopen the proceedings of every court-martial on every
private in the army.
Mr. DUTTON, speaking as a connexion of Sir Wm.
Mansfield, defended his conduct, denying that he had been
moved by dislike to Capt. Jervis, and asserting that it was
the captain's own fault that he had not cleared himself of
these charges without a court-martial ; that the general
would have referred the dispute to a civil tribunal had it
been possible ; and that it was with great pain he had felt
himself compelled to disregard the recommendation to
mercy.
Lord W. HAY, concurring in the Duke of Cambridge's
despatch, and admitting that General Mansfield was re-
prehensible, declined to acquit Capt. Jervis of all blame,
pointing out that.the court had not "honourably" acquitted,
only simply "acquitted" him—a distinction well under-
stood, and corresponding to the difference between " not
guilty" and " not proven"—and that there had been no
answer given to the charge that ho had used the general's
stores for the entertainment of his own friends.
Mr. KARSLAKE declined to support the motion on the
general ground that it was not the function of the house
to reopen the decisions of competent tribunals.
Mr. HOWES defended Sir W. Mansfield.
After some remarks from Sir P. O'BRIEN,
Sir J. PAKINGTON, accepting the full responsibility
for the conclusion of the War-office in Captain Jervis's
case, defended tho publication of the Commander-iu-Chief's
despatch, which had been done after groat consideration
and by a decision of the Cabinet, maintaining that it was
not a private letter, but a public State paper, and that its
publication was necessary to enable the public to under-
stand the justice of the case. Ills first answer to the mo-
tion was that justice had already been done,. and that ho
could not have urged unless this despatch had been pub-
lished ; and his second answer was that the house was not
competent to revise the sentence of the court-martial and
the decision of the legal authorities hero and in India, a
course which he earnestly deprecated as highly inconve-
nient and improper. Pointing out that the court-martial
had not " honourably acquitted" Captain Jervis, he dis-
cussed his conduct to show that it would not have been
proper to reinstate him, which was the opinion of all the
officers whom he had consulted, and contended that sub-
stantial justice had been done to him, and the recommen-
dation to mercy virtually carried out by giving him the
compensation of £l,BOO.
The Marquis of HARTINGTON, though concurring in
the censures on General Mansfield's want of judgment, ac-
quitted him of personal feelings, and gave him credit for
haying acted entirely on public grounds. Looking at all the
circumstances of the case, ho was of opinion that no sub-
stantial injustice had been dons by Capt. Jervis's removal
from the army, and that it would be most unwise in the
house to interfere with the decision of the court-martia:
and the military authorities.
Mr. OT WAY suggested an amendment in the motion
so that it should run in the form of an address, preying
Queen to carry out the court-martial's recommendation to
mercy, and made some observations on the conduct of the
India-office in paying the compensation out of the Indian
funds, which called up
Sir S. NORTHCOTE, who explained the share he had
taken in the transaction, and after some observations from
Colonel Sykes,
Mr. BRETT accepted Mr. Otway's amendment, which
on a division was rejected by 66 to 48.
Mr. MILL brought in a bill (supplementary to that in-
troduced at an early period of this session) for the better
municipal government of the metropolis.
The remaining business was disposed of, and the House
adjourned at half-past 1 o'clock.