The Sun.
London, England, 1832-01-23 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

The very small attendance of Members who
have hitherto been favourable to Reform, on its
first introduction to the House after the recess,
will not fail, e hope, to attract the attention of
the country, and especially that of the consti-
tuents of all absentees. It isthe well-known fashion
of the opponents of the measure to talk of " re.
action," and they would have us at any rate be-
lieve that the feelings of the country are very
much cooled down, or neutralised. We regret
that they are so well able to adduce, in apparent
proof of their assertions, the indolent, the luke-
warm, and in every sense blamable conduct of
those in whom it is, above all others, incumbent
to show a decidedly opposite feeling and conduct.
This House of Commons was expressly elected
to pass the Reform Bill. It is the one great
measure to which, at every hustings in the king-
dom where the voice of the people could be
heard, that voice was especially and almost ex-
clusively directed ; and it is the one point to
which candidates who presented themselves on
the popular interest warmly and exclusively
pledged themselves. If there are any Members
who came in upon such terms who are tired of
their duties, or have changed their minds, let
them, as honourable men, avow the fact, and re-
tire, to make way for others. But their election
must not be trifled with—the public feeling and
confidence must not be betrayed. It is clear
that the Reform question is not, as some may
imagine, as yet safely landed, and free from dan-
ger ; on the contrary, it is quite clear that it has
an enemy to contend with which has not cooled
one jot in its ardour, and who is capable of any
stratagem which may in the remotest degree el-
tect its object. Such being the case, it is more
fhan ever the duty of every sincere and honest
Reformer to be unceasingly at his post ; nor is
it less the duty of any honest man who may have
changed his mind, or slackened in his zeal, to
give
his constituents the means of being repre-
sented as they ought to be.—Morning Herald.j
It appears to us an extraordinary thing that
Captain Warrington should be put upon trial,
after the tragic termination of the Court-martial
on the unhappy Col. Brereton, under whose
command he was, and by whose orders he must
be presumed to have acted. It is not our habit
to prejudge any matter which is about to become
the subject of a legal inquiry, or to anticipate
the evidence which may be given ; but what we
object to in the present instance is, that the sub-
ordinate in command should be tried at all, when
he can by no possibility have the benefit of the
evidence of his principal. This is the broad
ground of our objection, and we think it would
have justified Captain Warrington in protesting
against being put upon his trial under circum-
stances which necessarily exclude what would
have been the best evidence for the defence, and
without which it does not seem possible that
the honour and character of the gallant officer
can have the protection of a fair and full in-
vestigation. However disposed the Court may
be to do justice, and to act honourably, yet they
are hound to decide only upon the evidence
which comes before them. If the material part
of the evidence for the accused be on any ac-
count whatever excluded, the whole proceeding
must partake of an ex-Tarte character. All the
evidence for the prosecution that could be ad-
duced against Captain Warrington during the
life-time of Colonel Brereton can still be ad-
duced, but the most prevailing voice that could
be raised in his exculpation is now mute in the
silence of the grave! Is it consistent with
common justice to put a soldier on his trial
when he cannot call as a witness the officer
from whom he received his orders, unless he call
him from the tomb ! A person charged with
military offences, or dereliction of duty, is very
differently circumstanced, sometimes, from a
man charged with a civil offence before a civil
tribunal. If the latter be guilty as to the fact,
he cannot excuse himself in law, by producing
evidence to prove that he committed the ()franca
by the authority, advice, or instigation of an-
other. That defence would, if substantiated,
rake the other party criminal, but would not
excuse him. Buff& military man have acted
eycr so wrong in a military point of view, and
has dune so by the orders of his superior officer,
he is gnifttess of any offence cognizable before a
military tribunal, A soldier cannot deliberate
when he is ordered to act—nor can he act when
iii orders are to remain inactive. By disobey-
peg
,orders, however improper and injudicious
those orders may be, he becomes guilty of an act
• 4- insubordination. His superior officer may
immediately put him under arrest ; and
if, upon the Court-martial to which he makes
himself subject, the offence be proved, his
lightest punishment, if an officer, will be dis-
missal from the service, though by the Articles
of War, if his crime be a direct disobedience of
orders, he is liable to be shot. There is only
one greater military crime than this—namely,
),,nel mutiny, which the superior officer may
punish by death on the spot, without allowing
the delinquent even the form of a Court-martial :
6.4 sanguinary is the military code in enforcing
;w4at is considered the prime military virtue-
4nrefieeting and passive obedience. As the
charges against Captain Warrington have been
made public, we have a right to comment Upon
shat appears on the face of those charges, and
yre think the accused might, to use legal lan-
guage, have demurred to the indictment.—
'ever have we seen charges more vaguely and
loosely drawn, and the introductory parts of
which are expressed in more rhetorical terms,
and, consequently, with less legal sobriety and
precision of language. Let that pass, and let
us see what the charges themselves are. The
first, as well as we can collect it from a mass of
intricate and clumsy verbiage, charges Captain
Warrington, who is in command of a troop of
Ittp 3d Dragoon Guards, with having refused to
prder ,out his troop to protect the Custom-house
from tbe rioters on the Sunday night, the 30th
of October, he having been informed at his
quarters, by a Mr. Kington, a merchant in Bris-
tol, that the mob were about to set fire to it ;
and also charges him with having used no means
to convey the information so received to Colonel
Brereton, and to receive from him orders appli-
cable to the occasion. Now, as to the first part
of this double charge, it seems to be inconsis-
tent with the second part, for as the latter ad-
mits that Captain Warrington was under the
command of Colonel Brereton in Bristol, and
that it was necessary to receive his orders, he
could not himself order out the 3d Dragoons
without the authority of his Commanding M-
eer. As to the second part of the charge, lee
ask, how can any living man take upon himself
to say that Captain Warrington did not convey
the information which he received to Colonel
Brereton, and that he did not receive orders
from him, under which orders he and the troop
continued where they were ? Who can take upon
himself to prove these negatives? The only
maim that could prove diem 1,1-38 Colonel Brere-