The Sun.
London, England, 1844-03-23 00:00:00

PREVENTION OF SMOKE.

Mr. HINDLEY begged to ask the Hon. Member for
Lymington (Mr. Mackinnon), as Chairman of the Com-
mittee appointed to inquire respecting the nuisance of
smoke in towns, whether it was intended to found any
measure upon the Report of that Committee?
Mr. MACKINNON said that the Committee's Report
recommended that a Bill should be passed on the subject,
but the Government declined to introduce such a mea-
sure; and, therefore, he, as Chairman of the Committee,
would feel it his duty to propose a Bill.
THE ARRESTS IN THE 76TH REGIMENT.

Mr. GILL rose, pursuant to notice, with a view to ob-
viate an erroneous impression produced by the state-
ment of the Secretary-at-War on the 12th instant, to call
the attention of the House to the detention of Captain
Brewster of the 76th regiment, under arrest for eight
months, without any charge being made against him, and
to ask the Right Hon. Gentleman whether he had any ob-
jection to communicate to the House the order from the
Horse Guards for that officer's relief and admonition?
On a former occasion the Right Hon. and Gallant Offict r
(Sir H. Hardinge) was reported to have said as these
officers had violated their duty they had been put under
arrest, and they would be kept under arrest for a
short time longer. That statement was incorrect ;
but he was sure the inaccuracy did not attach
to the Gallant Officer (Sir Henry Hardinge), whom
everybody in that House, and out of it, knew
to be incapable of stating anything but what was fully
borne out by facts. The effect of such inaccuracy might,
however, be injurious to the character of Captain
Brewster, and he (Mr. Gill) therefore mentioned the sub-
ject, that, should any imputation rest upon him, it might
be removed. The two officers referred to were or-
dered under arrest by another officer, who was
present at some proceeding which had taken
place, and who had subsequently communicated to the
commanding officer what had taken place. Now he
(Mr. Gill) found, by the articles of war, that no officer
was liable to arrest, except for an offence committed,
and that it was the duty of the party putting an officer
under arrest immediately to take steps for instituting an
inquiry. When he stated to the House that Captain
Brewster had not been guilty of any offence
whatever, he thought he was not asking too much when
he tried to have an imputation removed from his cha-
racter. After being five months under arrest, Captain
Brewster wrote a letter to his commanding officer,
begging it might be forwarded to the Major-General in
command of the district, and which intreated to know
under what charge he was labouring, and stated
that if any offence had been committed by him, he
would cheerfully submit to such punishment as the
Commander-in-Chief might think fit. Subsequently two
letters were written by General Brewster—one of them
to his Grace the Duke of Wellington, and the other to
Lord Fitzroy Somerset. The Noble Duke, in his reply
to General Brewster, said he was aware his son was
under arrest, and as certain regulations were being pre-
pared on the subject of duelling, it was intended that
these officers should be made subject to them when
completed. Notwithstanding these letters, these two
officers were continued under arrest three months longer.
He complained, on the part of these gentlemen, of their
having suffered the long arrest they had done, and that
arrest without some explanation from the Right
Hon. Baronet might injure the character of Captain
Brewster. Although the articles of war stated -that no
officer should be kept under arrest for more than eight
days before he was tried, that course had not been adopted
in the present case. He thought the House would agree
with him, that this severe punishment was uncalled for.
He wished to know whether the Right Hon. Baronet had

any objection to communicate to the House a copy of the
order of the Horse Guards for the liberation of these

gentlemen, and the admonition given to them ?
Sir H. HARDINGE had a strong objection to produce
the papers—first, because it would form a bad precedent ;
and secondly, because the proceedings took place under
a private warrant. Captain Brewster had violated mi-
litary discipline, by immediately accepting a challenge
from a young and inexperienced officer. He would
frankly confess, as to the other point, that there was no
imputation on the character of Captain Brewster.