The Statesman.
London, England, 1823-03-15 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

'IOUS E OF LORDS.—Fatnat, Masten H.
Mr. Mason frons the India House presented certain ac-

ants.
Mr. BKOGDEN brought np from the Hotise of Co
ns the Assessed Tuxes Reduction Bill, and the ltibh

rms Bill.
Tbe Earl of LIMERICK presented a petition from
%Mel Barrett, Clerk of the Peace for the County of
,imerick, complaining of the curtailment which had
taken Owe, in consequence of an Act of Parliament,
in the satiric', free, and emoluments of his office, the
duties of which be was wholly unable to execute on ac•
rotwit of 'itch curtailment, which render him unable eves
,to pay hi... assistants. The petitioner prayed that the
Law might be altered; and the Noble Earl enforced
the prayer of the petition, by observing that it must be
leonsistent with public economy to refase publia. set*
tits an adequate remuneration for theirlehour.
Lord CALTUORPE presented a petition from Ike
Rev. William Burgess, Vicar of Kirkby Soper, in Emit,
against that part of the late Marriage Ait which regard-
ed the granting licenses.
PIN °Lynx" DiNTOItS.
The Earl of DARDlLEtpresented a petition from
Wakefield, in Yorksbite, against the insolvent Debtors'
Act. The Noble Lard said be willed to pat it to the
Noble and Learned L•rd on the Woolsack, whether it
was not prop* tbei an inquiry should be instituted for
tie purpose of consisleiwig whether tome alteration and
improvement might not be madebertidt Act.
'Up LORD CHANCELLOR said he had that very
day beard a Noble and Learned Friend of his (Lord
Redesdale), who was the original author of this Isw,
say, that it was a very good Bill; bat th it it had been
spoiled by the amendments made in it in another place.
The Earl of LIMERICK said be was glad to find that
the att,ntion of Parliament was now frequently called to
this subject It was well known that infinite mischief
had arisen in England and Scotland in consequence of
the law as it now stood. But be could assure the House
that in Ireland the frands committed in consequence of
the existing law, were beyond all example.
The petition was then laid on the table.
The Irish Assessed Taxes Repeal Bill was read a third
time and passed.—Adjourned to Monday.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.FRIDAT.

- -
At four o'clock the Speaker took the Chair.
Mr. Mason, from the East India House, brought up
the Resolutions of the Court of Directors, relative to
the Granting of Pensiont.—Laid an the table.
COLLECTION Or SMALL DEBTS.

Mr. LEGH KECK presented a petition from the pa-
rish of Sparklehow, itf favour of the Bill fur the re-
covery of Small Debts.—Laid on the table.
Mr. CH A LONIER presented a petition from the trades-
men of York against the Insolvent Debtors Aet.—Laid
on the vitae.
Mr WILLIAM DUNDAS presented a petition from
the tratlemen of Leith, praying a modification of the
tat on apprentices indentures.
Mr. CORBETT presented a petition from the trades-
men of Shrewsbury in favour of the Bill fur the Recovery
of Small Debts.
Lord ERRINGTON presented a titpeon from Had-
derby, io Devon, against the Duty nolsAll laid
on the table.
Mr. BEALTMONT presented a petition from the
owners and occupiers of land in the county of Durham
against certain parts of the General Turnpike Act.—Laid
on the table.

SRPRIPCS'ASSESSORS.
Mr. HORACE TWISS bronght in .a Bill for the
better regnlation of the Sheriffs' Assessors at elections.
—Read a first time, and second reading fixed for Monday
near.
CRIMINAL LAW.
Sir JAMES MACINTOSH rose to give notice that it
was his intention, as soon ax„possible after the bolydays,
to bring forward a measure for the consideration of the
Home. relative to the Criminal Law, founded upon a Re-
snlntion last Session, He had said as soon as possible,
heranse he wished not to brig► on the question until the
hwy. rs in the Honse had returned from the Circuits. He
should therefore fix the 13th of May for his motion.

- -
• CRIMINAL COCRTS.
Mr. WARRE moved that an humble Address be pre-
sented to hi• Majesty, praying him to order returns of
the different places having lon' and separate jurisdic-
tions for the trial of criminal offences, the period
when their sittings were held, and the number of persons
who had been convicted before them, from January 1821,
to January 1822. —Ordered.

PUBLICANS' LICENSES.
Mr. BASTARD presented a petition from the publi-
cans of Little Holden, praying. the removal of certain re-
draints upon the tilting out of publivans licenses.—Laid
on the table.

bladed the power of dismissal without its intervention.
This Art, after reciting the articles of war, also state',
Presided by such articles no one be subjected to the
patilibinent of the Liss of life or limb oth-rwiee than ac-
cording to the provisions of this Act:" The articles of
war thus erfnfirated the Mutiny Bill is giving the Crown
every other power. This Act only gave to the King the
power which it ietercised over all subjects civil and mili.
tary. The case of Captain Coffin, which had been al-
luded to, only proved the exercise of this prerogative
over the Navy. Captain Colfiu had been Vied by a Court
Martial ; and the Crown, not thinking the gauteace sot:
ticientiv severe, was; perhaps, improperly advised to dies
miss Mtn. But this power otter the Navy the Crown had
always possessed. -lie would not follow the lion. Gent.
through all the details of his speech, but hi would not
hesitate to say, that out of the 999 dismissed since ISOS;,
and whom the Hon. Gentleman said, were the victims of
oppression--
Colonel DAVIES—Of injustice.
Lord PALMERSTON—WiII, then, according to the
Hon. Gentlemen, oppression was not injustice—bin he
repeated, he would not hesitate to say that of the 9119
dismissed,there was nut one whb was the victim
of oppression or injustice. As to the other eases alluded
to by the Hon. Gentles in, if belted been apprized of the
thing, he would, perhaps, disprove them as satisfactorily
as he did the case which the Hon. Gentleman introduced
a few evenings sinee, and of which he had the courtesy
to apprize him before tie broogitt it forward. There was
no poeitton so inconsistent with the laws of the country
as to say, that the Croon had not the right of dismissal
without the intervention of a Court Martial. He main-
tained that the prerogative of the Crown was held to pro
tea the Vase*, of the;sobjeet...sso wens waa moss elfireso -
al for that purpoite than•the prerogative of dismissing
without a Court Martial. There were many cases in
which the exercise of this power would prevent the most
dangerous consequences. Suppose, fur instance, an con-
cer had inflicted an injury upuh the soldiers, and that lie
was tried by a Court Martial, all of whom, which was nut
improbable, were parties to the infliction of the injury.—
The consequence would be an acquittal of the accused
party. In that event, what redress would the injured party
have? None, but an address to the Crown through the
medium of Parliament, which might be refused. The re.
suit of this, perhaps, would be, that the army, left with-
out redress, would be driven to mutiny. la such a case,
how lunch better was it that the King should possess the
power of dismissal, and thus at once affuid redress ? Sup-
pose an officer guilty of a breach of the civiliatv.in case of
resistance how was he to be brought to punishment ?
Would a constable merely armed with a staff be sur-A
ficient to enforce the law against an officer surrounded
by six hundred bayonets? Ile could also suppose ewes
in which, though nut cognisable by law, toe deepest
wound might be inflicted on the feelings of Os indivi-
dual, and the Court Martial, participating in the feel-
ings of a corporate body, might be unwilling to afford
the injured party reparation. In that case, what pro-
tection would the people have? Their persons and their
feelings might be violated. without redress. if the Kitt;
did nut possess the power of dismissal ; and vet inch
measures were advocated by the Champions of liberty.
—(Hear, hear.) He would put another possible case.—
Supposs the Government hail received secret information
of a conspiracy among some officers; would it be pro.
dent to disclose the information, and sand these officers
before a Court Martial, which might he leagued in the
same conspiracy ? Such a course would be likely to de-
feat the end they had in view. In all these cases he con-
tended that the prerogative of the Crown was the best
safeguard for the liberties of the peep!'. If the vote of
the lion. Gentleman was carried, it would erect the
army into a fourth meats, and render it the most formi•l-
- enemy of the liberties of the nation. It would
make the army a corps of Main-lukes, who would soon
possess themselves of the Government of the country,
and disallow soy other estate than themselves.
Mr. 12! HUTt..;IIINSON said that no dismissal could
take place in the army of Napoleon without a Court Mar-
tial ; and yet there was nu army more obedient or less dis-
posed to dictate to the people. Even no' the Kirg of
France could not dismiss an officer without a Court Mar.
tial. There were many distinguished officers in ti e
French army now, who bad been tried fur treason and
acquitted, and yet, when once in possession of rank, the
King had not the power to strip them of it. No tioverr-
ment in Europe possessed such a power. He agreed
with the Noble Lord, that this as well as all other pr.-
rogatives, were exercised for the benefit of the rople,
and he admitted that in most races they were grnerally
exercised with humanity. lie could not however but ex-
cept the case of his lion. Farad the Member fur South-
wark. That Gallaat Officer, so distinguished and covered
with s s many honours,woo in Foreign service, that one
could not see him but with shame for his native country,
which stript him of all the honours lie won in her service ;
that Gallant Officer he had no doubt, even putting aside
all the influence of his great services, would have been
acquitted upon the merits of his case, if lie had been trie,l
by a Court Martial. He was cons laced that no Court
Martial twilit' dismiss him, and he believed that if Minis.
ten had known the real state of the case before they had
dismissed him, that dismissal would have never taken
place, because lie was satisfied his interference on that
m-lancholy occasion had saved the effusion of much blood,
and prevented such commotions in Loudon as Guyer-
ment would not have been able to suppress. Such was
the impression produced by the able and ingenious state-
ment of his Gallant Friend, that lie was certain if he
had been on his trial, the House would have acquitted
with acclamation. After that statement, those who were
before prejudiced against him, would have acquitted, if
they were appointed to try bins. When the moment of
calm reflection arrived, lie was satisfied tb it ample justice
would be done to his Gallant Friend, that he would be
restored to his former rank, and that the army would
again have the advantage of the services of so exile-
swami, so gallant, so distinguislieil, acil so talented an
officer.
Mr. GURNEY, as well as we could catch his observa-
tions, owing to the low tone in which: lie spoke, main-
tained that the King had a right to dismiss any of his
servants, and therefore had a right to dismiss any Officer
he pleased.
Mr. HUME said that the lion. Gentleman who had
just sat down, matotained that hi- Majesty had a right
to dismiss any Officer of his ; but tie denied that the
army belonged to his alakisty. The army belonged to
his peopie, and the King, at ting as the Chief Magis-
trate, was bound to administer impartial justice. Ihe
None Lord assumed utility as the foundation of the pre-
rogative, but he did not produce a single argitmert to
sustain his proposition. In
.the reign set Charles she Se-
cond, to which the Noble Lord alluded, the great g
of objection was prerogative. That prerogative bail
been since annulled, and none now existed but that
which 1Y::$ given by the Mutiny ; for if the prerogative
already existed, what aec3hion was there to pass an an-
nual Bill conferring it? This led hint to the conclosien
that the Kiug'g prerogative existed only by this Act, for
the army over which this prerogative was exercised exist-
ed only by this Act, which, if it were not passed. the
prerogative must necessarily cease with it. Die Noble
Lord had said, that the Articles of War confirmed this
prerogative, but it was clear that the Articles of War
could confer no powers which were against the spirit of
the Act by which an authority was given to these Arti-
cles. He thought that all Articles of War should he an-
nually laid before the House. I f this were dune, he was
satisfied many of them would be found inconsistent with
the ineaaini and spirit of the Mutiny Act. It was stated
and sot denied liv Ministers, that all the Military Go-
vernments of Europe, Aubtris, Russia, Prussia, and