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

P
France, had not the power of eisrisissal without a Court
Martial, if so, how much less necessary was such a power
to this. country ? It was a system of the greatest cruelty
end tyranny to dismiss persons who bad served for forty
or fifty years, without giving them an opportunity of
-vindicating themselves.
Mr. C. W. WYNN said, that he had now for the first
time heard it asserted in that house or elsewhere., that the
-Wag of England possessed no prerogatives, except what
were granted to hint by Acts of Parliament.—(Hear.
hear.) The lion. tient!eman, with his great legal know-
ledge, would perhaps condescend to point out the pad-
cilia Act., nay, the particular section of the Acts, by
which a few trifling prerogatives, sad), for instance, as
the power of making war and peace, and of assembling
and dissolving Parliament—were recand to the Crown.
zo-(Clieers and laighter.) The lion. Geneeman. had
stid that there was nothing in the Mutiny Act which
gave the King aethority to dismiss an officer. Let the
lion. Gentleman consider hew far his argument might
I,e carried. Did he mean to contend that the King could
not dismiss a private soldier for misconduct—that be
Could not di•ffiand a mutinous regiment without bringing
every individual in it to trial by a court-martial? If there
was any thing in the Goa, tientenian's argument, it
must go to that extent.--(Hear.) He believed that the
prerogativ• in,tioestion might be used most betteticialy
for the phblic in cases in which it would he-imprudent
‘ubje..t. tat:ers to 3 trial by a court-martial.• (Hear.)
Lord 1-10 I'HAIL as holding &commission lit tole army,
was anxious to says few words on the present anbject.
11. could never b. lieve that prerogative weuld have
continued so !wig ii it had not HMIs foundation. in lag.
Being appealed to among other lion. Members., as to
toludwor . k05t..1141. stot.zoteet,a.c•egairs vote „which he had
given on a former occas, n, he would now sty that lie
certainly .li.l apt, as he had given it entirely prom a sense
or duty, - more danger was to be apprebewled from a
s•anding army, if the proposition of the Hon. Gentleman
were sauctiot ed by the Itouse, than from any exercise of
tor Royal prrtogitive. It seas not necessary far hint to
arty that, as having spent his life in the army himself,
be was anxitats to stiaitt every point in favour of it,
consistently with his higher duties as a Member of that
House.
Sir ERANCIS BLAKE said h. e eoulti not snpport the
antendnien., for on r•ferting to the Articles of War, be
tood that nun commissioned or might be reduced
at the will of the Colonel. Then as Culawels had that
power over con-commissioned officers, surely the King
ongbt to have it over Officers who hold commissions.
For his own psrt, lie found treat benefit from the King
having the power to dismiss Officers, for he spoke in re-
ference to a regiment which he once had the honour to
command.
The Anwndment was then negatived without a divi-
sion, and the original motion being carried, the House
went into a

COMMITTEE ON TILE BILL.
Colonel DAVI ES then proceeded to combat some o'
the arguments adduced upon the pestion which le,vt!
been just decided, and maintained that the power vented
to the Crown by the 13. h and 14th of Charles I I. had no-
thing whatever ludo with the Mutiny Act.
Mi. WYNN rose to order, and said it was quite irre-
gular for the lion. Member to refer to a debate in which
the House had already decided.
• The CHAIRMAN, boa ever, held that the argument.
referred to the general merits of the que.tion before the
Courneittce.
CoL DAVI NS then continned and nrged his objections
in "detail against the exercise of the crerogative in the
matiber'stited. He denied that because the Crown had
the right to dismiss officers, it ought to act upon it iu all
cares.. By the zl7th section of the Articles of War, every
• offence against them was punishable at all times, but
entilely not without previous trial. The well-known
arguments he .faystur elf prerogative, eras prescription,
bet that Would sot hold good in this cause. He admit-
/N that there was no Act of Parliament against the dis-
ellisge of a watchman, but the rights of an officer were
protected by the Articles of War. The lion. Member,
an thicourre of some further observations, said that ac-
cording to the status nts of the Nob!e Lord (Palmerston)
- Do reliance could be placed on men of honour and edit-
'ration, sworn on their oaths to do justice in the trial of
parties ; but if they were not to be trusted, •why, he
ward,' aik, were cases to be referred to them at all ?
Lord PALMERSTON said it was not usual for lion.
Members to make a second speech on the same subject.
He bad never stated that the Act gave to the Crown the
prerogative, but that it recognised a prerogative which
had previonsly existed. lie denied that tbenth Section
of the Articles of War said any thing against the power
of the Crown to dismiss officers. That power, in the case
Of military officers, was altogether different from that
which it possessed over civil subjects. The Crown might
pronounce an act to be a military offence, which was not
so in a civil sense. Officers purchased their commissions
with e liability to all the consequences attendant on ex-
citing the displeasure of the Crown. If the officers of
the !limy were once independent of the Crown, the
Minnie might then see what language they would make
use of.
Mr. FLUME wished to krow if this Bill was a copy of
the Bill of last year.
Lord PALMERSTON said the only alteration it con-
tained 'was for transferring the exturitnation of military
accounts in Ireland to the proper office in London; and
for providing the punishment of hard labour in certain
offences.
Mr. HOME desired to know what was meant by " this
army fling kept tti. to balance the power of Europe."—
This was only one of the many absurdities which the Bill
contained.
Lord PALMERSTON said that this absurdity, if absur-
dity
It could be called. had been recognized by tile Parita-
meat of WI dam ill. If the lion. Member did not know
what was meant by thu balance of power in Europe, ha
(Lord P.) could not take upon hlmseif to enlighten a mind so
constituted.—(A laugh.)
Mr. BENNET said a few words, which were not audible
in the gallery.
Mr. CR EEVEY said that In the time of William 111. the
balance of power was understood aad maintained. At that
Cite the Duke of Marlborough frustrated the attempts of
Franror agß'uNt the independence of Spain. At present,
I qweyer, the case was quite eitlerent. for France was pre-
paring, it appeared, to attack Spain without opposition.
The House then resumed, and the Report was ordered to
be received on Monday.