Star.
London, England, 1822-02-14 00:00:00

wiz.„o„
•

!",7

4. •

• ~... r 4or

quis (Londondestils made IMO, reply, but put him
under the necessity of opening. the question, and
bringiog_all the torresilhodence tnto discussion. The
Noble Marquis and his friends should-then abandon
that silence which they observed, and the motives
which actuated their conduct would be explained,
however studiously they were concealed inside of the
measures which they adopted. They were far from
follow ing the doctrine which was laid down by a
Noble. Lord (Eldon), whom they took for their guide
and master in constitutional law. The Noble Baron,
in another place, had said, on an occasion like the
present, "Goo forbid he should ever see the Minis-
ters of the Crown of this country disposed to sup-
press any particle of evidence which might be neces-
sary for the justification or acquittal of any indivi-
dual r His Majesty's Ministers had, however, with-
held from him the grounds on which they proceeded
'against him. He was come there to solicit his ac-
cusers for the facts—(Near, hear)--°° which he had
been arraigned—(Hear, hear).—He had been ar-
raigned and condemned in his absence, unheard, and
on et-parie statements, preferred by he knew not
whom. It not usual to question the right of the
Crown to dismiss its servants. He would not here
enter on that subject, lest it might prejudice his
cause ; but he would shew thikarbitrary exertion of
it to be aViolation of the Oonstitntion of the country,
and a violation of the military laws. He would sfiew
that the prerogative of the Crown, if exercised as it
had been in his case, would be destructive of the
Constitution—that such an exercise of it was incom-
patible with military independence, and that it de-
prived the Army of those independent members who
were so necessary to be scattered through it. The
exercise of the prerogative of dismissing Officers from
the Army for votes given in that House, was most'
dangerous. Above all, it disqualified Officers of the
Army from discharging those duties which they
owed to that House, the Public, and themselves. It
was a power too dangerous for all good purposes,
and too liable to be perverted to bad ones—(Hear,
hear).—The question which he was going to propose
could not be considered as infringing on the prero-
gative of: the Crown. That prerogative was not ex-
ercised except through the agency of responsible ser-
vants. He knew there was a time when a different
maxim prevailed. He knew, from history, when
the Officers of the Crown proclaimed a different doc-
trine. He knew when the Judges on the Bench
maintained, that in the prerogative of the King was
implied a power to punish, because he had the power
to pardon. He knew the period of our history when
the doctrine prevailed that the will of the King was
the law—(Near, hear).—He knew of a King (James
the First), who, in a speech said, 44 that as it was
blasphemy for a man to dispute what Gon might do
in the plenitude of his power, so it was sedition for
subjects to dispute what a King might do in the ful-
ness of his power." There was a time when those
doctrines did prevail, and when it would be dan-
gerous to deny them; but, thank Gov, opinions
were since greatly altered. The Revolution of 1688
established a different doctrine—(Hear, hear, hear).
That Revolution admonished Kings and Kings' Mi-
nisters not to set up their own will for constitutional
law. Before entering on the proof which he was
prepared to submit to the House, it would be neces-
sary for them to have a description of the person who
was the object of this bnjust and cruel measure. He
was an officer of nine and twenty years standing, who,
though he could not produce the proofs of services
requited by his own Government, could shew the
testimonials of the Commander-in-Chief of his con-
duct, as well as testimonials from foreign Generals to
the met it of his exertions. He was also a Member
of Parliament, who felt it his duty before GOD to op-
pose the policy of his Majesty's Ministers, because
he was in his conscience persuaded that they were
acting in variance with the interests of the country—
that they were dishonouring its character, and were
enemies to a free Representative Government—(Hear,
hear).—Was this Officer degraded merely on the
ground of some supposed delinquency on the parti-
cular occasion alluded to, or was the measure not
dictated by a morbid resentment arising out of a re-
view of his political exertions in Parliament ? If not,
why was good faith broken towards him? Why this
illegal act to his prejudice? Some misconception
had arisen on this subject. It was supposed that by
his removal he did not forfeit the sums vested in his
commission. Why did Ministers cashier him and
act so disgraceful, that it was only next in rank to
the punishment of death ? Did they hope by this
means so to embarrass him in his circumstances that
he would be obliged to take refuge in another coun-
try? It. was indelicate to allude to family circum-
stances, but, however painful, he felt it to be his duty
to make the allusion. It was notorious that it pleased
PROVIDENCS to visit more than one member of his fa-
mily with one of the most deplorable of all infirmi-
ties, and that his Majesty, in consequence, in the
most benevolent manner, granted an allowance to his
family, which continued for some time. But when
Ministers persuaded the King to sign an instrument
which would at once deprive him of so considerable
an emolument, and mar all his prospects for the fu-
ture, it would be supposed that they had done so with
a view to create an impression in the Public against
him, against which no character would be proof.—
What did some of them say in France, to his know.
ledge? They stated their opinion, that his removal
without trial would not take place, had not Ministers
thought that it would be better for him and his fa-
mily that no trial should take place. He could not
but *complain that the Ministerialists should have sent
forth the most slanderous attacks upon him, when the
fact was before the world of a dismissal, which, for
aught that appeared, might be the result of the most
degradin.g conduct. Did Ministers believe that they
were acting with justice, when they deprived of rank,
and emoluments, and prospects, one who had con-
tended in so many campaigns for his country ? If
they denied him justice, Ws called on the House to
afford its prolection. He called on Hon. Members,
as they were Gentlemen, and men with a sense •of
justice in their breasts, to do to him as they would be
done, into. If he was ionocent, he had a right to be
tried in order to get the benefit of his innocence. if
trial *was also necessary—the Law, the
Country, and the Artily, had a rightlo know the of-
fence—(ileac, henr).—lt was necessary to proclaim
his crime to the world, for the sake of example, which
was the end in all punishment. But this was as bad
as the Inucceditigs of the Inquisition. In Turkey, a