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

He called upon them not to beeome the insteettosn. ts
of injustices and, in this instilment leastinet.ea
their want of sympathy with the wishes virthelnepie,
and indifference to their interest', which made -the
country ring from one end to another call
for a Reform in this House—(Hear, hear,
He had always felt pride at wearing the
not-because it was worn" by many great
iden—for that quality was so common that
to be a distinction; but he felt pride at
because he saw it worn by men who were
protectors of, and the protected by, the laws—( Hear,
hear). He hoped the day would never come when
the military uniform was a badge to mark out its
wearer as an enemy to the citizen. All considerations
as affecting himself were merged in the general
question. It mattered little for what reasons lie had
been dismissed the Army, he had an approving cop.
science, which told him that on the 14th of Augme
he had done his duty to his King and country, and be
came therefore with confidence to claim redress at
the hands of Parliament, that protection and redress
which he now demanded (Loud and continued.cheers).
The Hon. Member concluded by moving,
" That there be laid before this House, copies of all the cor-
respondence which took place between his Royal Highness the
Commander-in-Chief, Lord Sidmouth, and Sir Robert Wilson,
relating to the dismissal of the latter from the Army."
Mr. LAMBTON seconded the motion.
Lord PALMERSTON said, that the Honourable
Member had set out in his speech by disavowing the
narrow basis of personal consideration, and of rest-
ing his case upon the broader one—of the general
interests and liberties of the People. He was pre-
pared to resist the motion of the Hon. Member upon
the very same principle, as one tending to attack one
of the clearest provisions of the Constitution, and
thereby to infringe upon the liberties of every English-
man. If there was any one of the prerogatives of
the Crown more indisputable, and more undisputed
than another, it was that which recognised its power
to remove individuals from the Army at all times,
without assigning a cause, much more shewing a
reason. This prerogative rested upon the most ancient
usage in all periods, and he could produce examples
upon examples, of its exercise in those times which
Gentlemen opposite were accustomed to refer to as
the best and the most worthy to be followed. But he
would only appeal to one single fact, which would
do away with the necessity for his referring to those
precedents without number by which his case could
be strengthened if it required it. He would then
appeal to the fact that, in the year 1734, Bills were
presented to both Houses of Parliament to restrain
the exercise of this prerogative, and in all the debates
it was admitted by both sides that it did exist in full
force. Since that time no laws had been passed to
alter that prerogative, or to affect the full exercise of
its power. He was prepared to contend, not only
that the prerogative existed, but that none was more
necessary, not for the advantage of the Crown, but,
as all other prerogatives were held, for the benefit of
the people. Without it, discipline could not be
maintained in the Army—( Hear, hear, hear).—
He repeated it, that without this power in the Crown
the necessary discipline of the Army could not be
maintained—(Cheers).--If an Officer could not be dis-
missed from the Army without the consent of his
fellow-officers, they were creating a fourth Estate in
the real m—(Hear, hear).—Let Parliament once make
the Army independent of the Crown, and they would
soon see that the Army would make itself indepen-
dent of them. Look at the annals of our history, and
the fact would be fourid written in letters of blood,
that when the Parliament detached the Army from
the King, the first act of the Army was to turn the
Parliament out of doors—(Hear, hear).—He must
confess his surprise to hear these things supported by
Hon. Gentlemen who were so used to cry out against
the Army and its dangers. He contended then that
this prerogative clearly and undoubtedly existed; but
he was quite ready to admit that it was one which
was only to be exercised under the responsibility of
those who advised it, and must be consequently pre-
pared to stand by the advice which they had given.
He must also insist, that the prerogative, under such
responsibility, being wholesome and necessary, Par.
liament ought not to canvass its exercise without just
and clear grounds. There should be strong presump-
tion of abuse—( Cheers from some of the Opposition).
He repeated, that there should be strong presump-
tion of abuse, and he was prepared to say, that there
was no such presumption in the present case—(Con-
tinued cheers). The Hon. Member had insinuated
that the hostility of Ministers had been provoked by
his activity in that House—(Hear, hear, from the
Opposition). This was really placing a high value
upon himself, and which, perhaps, others would not
be disposed to grant. But the Hon. Member cer-
tainly did seem to think that Ministers were afraid of
his talents, and so wished to get rid of him—(Lend
shouts of hear from the Opposition Benches). And he
believed that there were politicians in that House who
could think meanly enough of their opponents, to be-
lieve that they would be guilty of such a pitiful trick.
If Ministers were prepared to act upon such princi-
ples, were there no other Gentlemen in that House
who also held Commissions in the Army, that were
in the habit of systematically opposing Government?
If that were the ground upon which they acted,
would not a gallant General, who, he believed,
represented some Scotch Burghs, have been dis-
missed long before this ? If that were the ground
-upon which the Hon. Member himself was dismissed.
why did the Ministers wait till the 14th Aug. 18211
—He believed that they would not have been want-
ing in opportunities, if they had been disposed so to
act, long before that period. But it was a notorious
fact, that at all periods there had been many Military
Officers who always voted against the Minister. He
denied, therefore, that any ground existed for such a
.charge. Without going into any of the details
through which the Hon. Member had travelled, there
was ample ground to justify the exercise of the King's
prerogative in what the Hon. Member had himself
admitted. He would say, that where they found a
person holding the King's Commission, and wearing
Orders which he could only hold by the King's con-
sent, remaining with a mob of persons who had com-
mitted acts of disturbance and resistance to the law.
ful authorities, that was enough; that was a direct
insult to the King. But what should he say, when,
according to that person's own statement, he came
an 4 found the Kings troops in a state which his mi-
litary experience enabled him to know was that of
being iepulsed and broken, and reduced to the neces-
sity ordefending their lives?—(Loud cheers). After

a ji P"Per
dim inherent premgative of the Crown; and he called
upon the House ep reject the motion.
Mr. LAMBTO'N lelt warmly Indignant at the
treatment bf Ministers to his gallant Friend.; and the
insulting manner in which the Noble Lord had
sneered at that and another gallant Friend of Ms,
whose services in the field might at least keep pace
with the Noble Lord's evil services. He denied the

antiquity of this alleged prerogative
Nb one ought
to be dismissed the service of their country, without
a proper inquiry into his conduct. The Crown had
parted with the power of appointing Judges during
its own pleasure ; and yet no evil, but much good,
had resulted froin it. It was not the deprivation of
the prerogative that destroyed Charles I. but his
overstretching all his prerogatives. His Honourable I
Friend had felt a ball pass his face, and it was no
wonder, after so narrow an escape, if he did feel
angry, and tell the soldier it was disgraceful to con-
tinue firing. Would not the Noble Lord himself
have endeavoured to prevent the dissensions which
might end in the destruction of several of his coun-
trymen ? He could apply no term but murder
to the wantonly firing at an unarmed populace.—
His gallant Friend had a right to know his offence
and his accusers ; though it was well known that his
only crime was, his shewing his attachment to the
remains of his injured Queen. His gallant Friend had
declared upon his honour he had had no share in the
obstructions to the funeral procession. His gallant
Friend had completely vindicated himself; and the
Noble Lord had failed to prove him guilty. He had
reason to believe that all his Majesty s Ministers did
not approve of the dismissal of his gallant Friend.—
One of Sir Robert Wilson's sons had been placed at
the Military College, as the son of an Officer. Now
he (Mr. Lambton) was in possession of a letter, an-
nouncing to Sir Robert that he must pay a larger
salary for the education of that lad, because he could
no longer be considered as the son of an Officer—
(Chrers).—The letter was dated October Sd, 1821 ;
and it called upon Sir Robert Wilson to pay £l5O
per annum, instead of £75, because his son could no
longer be held to be the son of an Officer, and must
be transferred to the class of sons of private Gentle-
men—(Great cheering).—Was not this done to skew
Sir Robert Wilson that he was under severe punish-
ment ? Was it not a part of that system under which
Gentlemen had been annoyed and attacked when they
differed from Government upon political questions ?
He instanced the dismissal of Lords Fitzwilliam and
Fife, as a proof of the desire of Ministers to introduce
a military despotism. These, in a constitutional point
of view, were things fraught with alarm and danger
tcr the col:Hwy. His gallant Friend should not have
been deprived of his emoluments after his hard ser-
vices, for which he bad received no honours. All
justice and constitutional liberty had been violated in
the person of his gallant Friend.
Mr. N.CALVERT was of opinion that the power
of dismissal claimed by the Crown ought only to be
exercised under the revision of Parliament. He
thought that the truth of the adage, " It is easy to
find a stick when you want to beat a dog," had been
well approved in the case of Sir Robert Wilson—
(Cheers, and laughter).
Sir ISAAC COFFIN adverted to the case of Lord
George Sackville, in the reign of George the Second,
who had been dismissed for neglecting ro charge
with his regiment at the battle of Minden. He would
venture to affirm that no man in the House or out of
it could say that Sir Robert Wilson had been harshly
treated—(Hear, and laughter).
Sir RONALD FERGUSSON had been absent du-
ring Lord Palmerston's address to the House, but be
understood that that Noble Lord, in the course of his
speech, had commented upon his (Sir R. Fergusson's)
parliamentary conduct. Whether he was to be the
next victim or not, he did not know ; but this he
would tell the Noble Lord, in spite of power or
threats, that as long as he had the honour to sit in
that House, so long would he continue to give an
independent vote—(Hear).—He had not originally
intended to intrude himself upon the House with re-
gard to the present question; but now he was up he
felt bound to say that, after the plain and manly
statement of Sir R. Wilson, it was impossible not to
see that he had been most grossly abused—(Cheers).
—Much had been said as to royal prerogative; but
every one knew that the highest prerogative was ex-
ercised subject to the advice of the Minister. It was
impossible not to see that the treatment of Sir Ro-
bert Wilson was an assassination of private character
for the purposes of political intrigue—(Cheers).--
Let the House remember the transactions at Man-
chester, when they had given the King's thanks for
the murder of his subjects--Hear!)—And let them
look at the course which had been takes' as to a Ma-
gistrate for his conduct on the very occasion as to
which Sir Robert Wilson stood accused. The gallant
General sat down amid loud cheers, by declaring his
intention to support the motion.
Lord PALMERSTON explained. He had meant
no sneer at the gallant General (Sir Ronald Fergusson).
He had merely mentioned his adherence to opposition
as a proof that Government was not in thelabit of dis-
missing military men because they took that course.
The Hon. H. G. BENNET was present at the
Queen's funeral, and deposed to the truth of all that
the gallant. General had said as to his conduct on
that occasion. He hoped the House would do jus•
tice to his Hon. Friend, and vote for the production
of these documents. His gallant Friend was the pride
of all Europe, and the terror of the enemy ; but here
he met with nothing but injustice and insult, because
he boldly advocated the cause of the people in Par-
liament, as he had fought for them in the field. He
believed that Ministers intended to have a military
execution in the Metropolis, as at Manchester; and
his gallant Friend's offence was, stopping the effusion
of blood. This be gathered from the dismissal of Sir
Robert Baker, and the tone of what was called the
upper class of society, on that day's proceedings.—
When the Comrnander-in-Chief was arraigned-at the
bar of that Houses he begged not to be condemned

biri idia Milk )iiit letdown, it was not his imintioito
%kir foto ail ydefence of his Ma 7.1. s Government,
either against a charged hating -0, inapiacte
?aii4e4;l
qt: his. Majesty on the feb qf' Altptg, or
dl. having entered- into a conspiracy to,cleprive *e
'Hon. Gentleman (Sir It Wilson) of his prOperty. He
admitted that every. anowaneowas to be made lex He
4iirnith with which the Hon. Gentletno (Mr. Bennet)
had taken up the question. He did not blame his
feelings ; they were those of private friendship ; and
however much credit might be given to them On this
occasion, they ill assorted with the question upon
which the House was to decide. It had been sated

by the Hon. Member for Oprham (Mr. Lambton),
that the tenure by which an Officer held•his Commis-
sion was of such a nature, that he could only be de-
prived of it by the sentence of a Court-Martial. Now
he (Lord Londonderry) denied this to be the case.—
He was in possession of not fewer than two hundred
and twelve cases of Officers who had within the last
ten years been dismissed the service without any
Court-Martial, or any-trial whatsoever—(Henr).—
And why was this sympathy, so warmly expressed
on the case before the House, not extended to -the

many others which had preceded it? Why had not
this kind feeling been excited by what, according to
the opinions maintained on the other side, must have
been so many instances of gross injustice to those
officers to whose cases he had just alluded ? Without
troubling the House with a detail of numbers, he
would state, that not only were there many instances
of Officers being dismissed without a Court-martial,
but there were several where this dismissal had oc-

curred even after a trial had taken place, and a Court-
martial had pronounced a sentence of acquittal; for
even after an acquittal there might be a thousand
circumstances which would render it necessary that
an Officer should not continue longer in the service.
There might also be a thousand circumstances, con-
nected with the character of a Gentleman, which

might render a dismissal without trial nzcessary, and
even which could not be very properly submitted to
the investigation of a Court-martial, and in many of
those cases it would be proper that the party re-
tiring should not be allowed to sell out, or otherwise
receive the value of his ccmmissiort—(Hear, hear).—
These were facts within the knowledge of every Gen-
tleman acquainted with the Army, and no one
doubted that such was the prerogative of the Crown.
To this he might add, that no Officer entered the
Army without the full knowledge that it was in the
power of the King to decide, upon the advice of his
Ministers, whether or not it might be for the benefit
of the service that he should remain. But he felt
that he was stating truisms. He would now quote
an authority on the question, and We selected it as •
..,.
that of a man for whose opinions he was satisfied the
Hot,. Member had a very high, and he would tiqr.
say an undeserved respect. It was the Opinion of
Lord Erskine (then XT. Efskine), given on a case of
settr. Omens who had been dismissed the service
without trial, and was dated Serjeant's Inn, Septem-
ber 8, 1801. " I am bound to add," said Mr. Erskine,
after stating the arguments on the case, " that the
parties are wholly without remedy. The King is the
acting party here. He is at the head of the Army.
and the grounds of his decision cannot be ques-
tioned in any Court of Law; and whenever his Ma-
jesty dismisses an Officer, whether of the highest or
lowest rank, he loses all benefit belonging to his si-
tuation, according to the Articles of War; and this
every soldier must know when he enters the Army."
This was the opinion of Mr. Erskine—how far coin.
cident with that expressed by the Hon. Member (Mr.
Lambton) he would leave himself to judge. He would
now give-him the authority of a writer on military
law, that of Sir C. Mordaunt, who, in alluding to the
case of a Militia Officer di:missed without trial, ob-
served, amongst other things, that he had no hesita-
tion in saying, that his Majesty was quite competent
to remove any Officer without producing any grounds
for his removal, or of bringing him to any trial. It
was sufficient that his Majesty did not think fit to
retain him any longer in his service. He (Lord Lon-
donderry) should like to-know, if, after the authorities
he had cited, it would be any longer contended that
an Officer's Commission was like a freehold, and that
it could not be taken from him without a trial and
conviction? No man could contend that there were
not circumstances which would justify the dismissal
of an Officer, which it would be highly improper
and imprudent to disclose before a Court Martial.—
The object of this .Motion was, to revive the two
three months Inquests, and to enable them to give
evidence on their honour at the Bar of the House
—for on their oaths they could net examine them.
He believed the lion. Gentleman had no doubt that
he regretted the circumstances which had required
his dismissal. He was also of opinion, that the Hon.
Gentleman believed there was no bad feeling against
'him in the highest quarter. If Government abounded
in the persecuting spirit described so warmly by the
last speaker, it might.have found reasons for visiting
that Hon. Gentleman with its censure. He repro-
bated the holding out one part of his Majesty's troops
as popular, and another as unpopular. It was nct
the duty of the House to inquire into, but to leave
untouched the prerogative of the Crown. Cases might
occur in which it might be highly inconvenient to
discover to the House the motives of the Crown.—
Since the time that a Standing Army was. necessary
for the liberties of the country—(Loud calls of Hear,
hear, from the Oppositiox).—Why (continued the
Noble Lord) should not a Right Hon. Baronet on t 1 e
opposite side call in the case of Ireland for martial
law. Had not a Noble Lord in another House -
9f Order, order). Did not a Noble Lord in
lanother place—(A laugh)—hold similar language ?
'Nothing could be more imprudent than., con-
duct of the gallant Mier on that day
ropolis
had not the smallest pretence to interr-
nd bad been
disgraceful on that day, a
the )-
4 what had taken place during
The transactions in the Met
The lion.,Gentiellldn, though not

‘• • ! •

.714

4

• • , ~ - r . . ,
. •• • ,
, • . • , .
• • • I
•
•
. ' t►i if* VIA ifillriliniii : their ieetretteen te beefeli ?MAO • ''',.t. - es<• in the ordeliente'af their. Itattalit. , akin . r cow
intt•twaliew date, 11.1 did *at 411 ... •he knew to he tile greatest deg- well'"e_hdd tlerf ' ere* leiieding.Ste. tufrite;:ee
ftbeloapie,' act of =Watt: -..- . --. a intrifered and ten "AM litieltvid thin said, *it no
deentrr#
b made the told them they •- • ibigriced tlientselves—Peers)...... Blithis su ' • ..shrould -bi et fled -without nisi
with a call tar ft: WlLlksti.6. 116, not I said they dlegraced tikstiutl. . knesi lathing of the Motive ibr re-
mr, hear)..— sinvsn_hydring."3—.Lorsi Palmerston conthused. moving his N. Ft`►iend; aniftimiting_ him of Ivo-
he uniform, The How• Mthabli Must bare known that he was Perby,lrot not of his ohmmeter: El the noose did its
t and brave pi* of a With &discipline, by interfering at all dety, it srdnld• call' for statement of some case
hat it ceased with troops osi dat , ' who were not under MS, cpm- sejOst his et -Nell&
___:
: wearing it, mend. He contended, that. the diisnissal ' The m . is at LONDO24DERRF•said, he eoel.d
oleo
we alike the of_ the Hots .Member was. a just and proper exercise assure the once, that in rising after the Hork
._ . _ . .

enL tiban. La.c
hat d*y, when he li
interpose—(Neon•).
h I bad been most
been a continuation
se life of the Queen.
iA uniform, had his
•