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

Tlig stAtEsMAN

SLAVIC TRAM
Mr. EVANS. on behalf of the Hon. Member for Bram-
ber (Mr. Wilberforce,) gave notice that on Monday next,
that -Hen. Member would present a petition from the bo-
de of Quakers, for the gradual abolition of slavery
throughout the British Colonies.
IRISU GRAND JURIES.
The Irish Grand Jury Presentmeet Bill, upon the mo-
tion of Sir JOHN NEWPORT, was read a second time.
Sir JOHN NEWPORT, in moving that. the Bill be
committed, said he would not trouble the House at that
1111TP with any details of its provisions. It had been 're-
in:any approve(' of by the Irish Members in the House,
and strong expectations were entertainkl that it would
be effectual for its object—namely, the curtailment of cer-
tain enormous fees received by officers serving under
Grand Juries in Ireland. The principle, therefore, net
being disputed, if any objections lay to the details, these
wonid he more properly made in the Committee.
M.r. HUTCHINSON said it was true the principle of
M.. Bill kid received the sanction of a great majority of
the Irish Members, but yet he thought some more consi-
deration was due to eo important a subject before this
measure was hurried into a law. There had been a simi-
Jar Bill last Session, the provisions of which at the time
seemed plausible enough ; out wheh itcanie to be applied
io practice, it was found deficient. Besides, the Bill
went to compromise the interests of a large class of per-
eons who acted as Officers under the Grand Juriesof Ire-
land,r and it would be hut justice to consult their feelings
•upon it, He should therefore suggest the deferring the
!other progress;, of this Bill to a more advanced stage
of the Session.
Sir JOHN ItEWPORT said lie had no objection,
* after the Bill west through a Committee, so that it
might -be printed, to let it stand over for further coital-
:Matins!.
Mr. SPRING RICE supported the immediate passing
of the Bill. It was a measure intended to curtail the
emoluments of certain public officers. but if the House
were to wait till the consent of these parties was obtained
they would never pass the Bill. It promised to be a
most beneficial measure to Ireland, as three were there
now Clerks of the Peace and other County Officers receiv-
ing larger emoluments than the Secretaries of State, and.
these:wring from the poorest of the pc ,ple.
Mr. DAWSON concern4l in opinion as to the existing
sbuscs in the offices' alluded to, and the necessity of re-
forming them; - • -
The Bill was then committed'for Monday. •
Dr. PHI LLI MORE gave notice that, on Wednesday
rent, he should more for the Repeal of the Act 9 (deo.
cap.r&

KING'S PROPERTY—BRIGHTON PAVILION.
Mr. Secretary PEEL moved the order of the day for
the House resolving itself into a •Committee upon the
King's Property Bill.
Mr. BENNET said, he wished to ask a question of the
Right Hon. Geotleman relative to his Majesty's property.
Some years ago a Noble Lord, in his place in this House,
stated that it was his Majesty's intention, at some future
period, to make a present of the Pavilion at Brighton to
the public. In the course of some conversation which took
place upon this declaration, the Right lion. Member for
Knaresborough (Mr. Tierney) observed that it would be
an expensive present. He wished to ask whether there
was now any disposition to adhere to that communication.
As this was a Bill to enable the King to dispose of such
property as be had in his private capacity, in the same way
is lie did that which he held "jure Corona," he wished
to know in what class Brighton Palace was to be classed.
He asked whether the repairs made there had been paid
from the Civil List, or from his Majesty's private purse.
If from this latter, the King had certainly a right to dis-
pose of this as private property ; but if the repairs and
furniture had been paid for by the public money, Brighton
Palace teas undoubtejily public property, and the King
had no more right to dispose of it, than he bad of Windsor
Castle, or any other property which he enjoyed " jure
Coronse."
Mr. Secretary PEEL said the Hon. Member mud have
laboured under a very great misapprenension, when he
ascribed to the late Marquis of Londonderry any such
public declaration, as that the King had an intention of
making Brighton Palace a present to the public. He (Mr.
Peel) had never heard of any such declaration or suck W-
heaton. Ile had had communications with the Noble Mar-
goiss upon the very stOject, bat never heard a word to the
effect that the Hon. Member stated. His Majesty had cer-
tainly, upon the demise of the King, given a potties+ of
property—namely, the library—to the public. The lion. I
Member therefore must have mistaken the effect of the de-
claration. All that his Majesty inherited from the late I
King lie possessed "jure Coronas." The object of the
present Bill was only to put him in the same situadon with
respect to property which he possessed before he came to
the Throne. It was merely intended to meet a " cases
°misses" in the present law respecting the King's pro-
perty. As to the quarter from which the money upended
at Brighton came, he (Mr. P.) was not now preened to an-
swer the question of the Hon. Member. The freehold was
certainly purchased from the King's private Tunis, when
a subject. As to the repairs of the building, hebelieved
it came from those public funds which were net appro-
priated to any whet species purposes.
Mr. BENNET said the impression on his nand was,
that the Noble Marquis had made such a commtnicatiou to
the House. Ile spoke from his recollection of the ques-
tion pot to, and answer of the Noble Lord, andthe Right
Hon. Member for Knaresborough's remarks thereupon.—
Ile could only repeat, that if the money expended upon the
Pavilion at Brighton came from the Civil List, the pro-
perty could not bo said to be the King's.
Mr. PEEL said the Bill related entirely tothe King's
real property.
Mr. BENNET wished to know whether there would he
any objection to show frosts what funds the nmney expend-
ed at Brighton came.
Mr. WARRE said that, in the Report of the Commis-
sioners appointed to arrange the Civil List in 1819, corm
were several items set down under the bead of " Lord
Chamberlain," as disbursements towards the repairs of
the Pavilion at Brighton. It was shear, therefore' that all
the money expended there did not come from his Majesty's
private funds.
Mr. Secretary PEEL said, that if the question referred
to the expenses of repairs, he had no hesitation in saying
that the repairs and furniture, were paid for out of the Ci-
vil I.ist. This Bill, however, was intended to apply to
the King's real property exclusively, and not to his per-
sonals. It was agreed upon all hands that the buildings
and furniture were paid for from the Civil List.
Mr. SCAR LETT wished that the Bill had been more li-
mited to the King's real property.
The ATTORNEV-OENERAt said the Bill was pre-
cise in describing the real property alone.
The Bill then went through the Committee, and the House
resumed.—Report on Monday.
On the motion of Mr. PLUNKETT, a Select Committee
was appointed to inquire into the local taxation of
Dublin.
Sir R. WILSON presented a petition from the inha-
bitants of the parish of St. John, Southwark, praying for
the establishment of a local jurisdiction for the recovery
of small debts.—Laid on the table.
ISIrtINY BILL.
Lord PALMERSTON moved that the house do resolve
itself into a Committee on the Mutiny Bill.
Col. DAVIES said that it was his intention to propose
a clause in the Bill for preventing the dismissal of officers
from the army without the sentence of a Court Martial.
He begged to state, that, in offering this proposition, lie
did nut mean to evade tie prerogatives of the Crown.—
He was firmly persuaded' that the practice which lie
sought to abolish was not connected with the honour and
dignity of the Crown. Until a recent instance—that of
his gallant Friend (Sir Robt. Wilson), whose actions
were interwoven with the history of this country in its
most splendid period, he had been of opinion that this
power of dismissal on the part of the Crown hadbeen a ne-
cessary and inalienable part of its privileges; but upon
minute inquiry he found the case to be very different. He
found that it was opposed to the spirit of the laws, for re-
gulating the army. It was remarkable that a man guilty
of the most odious crime could not be excluded front the
army without the intervention of a Court Martial. The
officer alone was exposed to the caprices of his superiors.
He might at a moment's notice be dismissed from his
employments after having spent a life of honourable ex-
ertion in the service of his country. Was it reasonable
that the property and hopes of every officer in the army
should be placed at the disposal of any tribunal, without
the necessity of any inquiry intervening? Blackstone
declared the necessity of an Inquiry ; and Tyler, a great
friend to the King's prerogative, stated that no preroga-
tive should be exercised so as to abridge the rights of
any person, particularly the rights of that honourable
body of men the officers of the army. The power as-
sumed by the Crown in this respect exceeded even the
grasping ambition of Henry VIII., and could scarcely
be justified by precedent, and certainly not by reason, or
any argument drawn from necessity. He held in his
hand a return of the number of officers who had been
dismissed the army without having been tried by a Court
Martial, and would the house believe, that since the year
1795, up to the date of this return, the number of officers
so dismissed amounted to nine hundred and eighty-
nire ?—(li- ar, hear.) There were nine hundred and
eighty-nine cases of injustice.—(Hear.) No subjects, nut
the meanest, nut the most abandoned in the realm, was ex-
posed to similar treatment. What! if a man were seen
committing murder in the open day, would it be endured
that he should be hung up on the next hints post? No—
he would have the advantage of a trial—twelte men
should pronounce, after ituptiry, upon his guilt or inno-
cence—and not till they had declared his guilt, could be
be visited with punishment. But the officer had no such
advantage a1i0.% ett him. Without inquiry—without the
opportunity of bring heard in his defence—a defence
that would, perhaps, establish his innocen e in the clear-
est manner—be wa• at once removed from that employ-
ment which le had, perhaps, meritoriously filled, and
hick be was entitled to look to as a source of perinv ,
nent emolument. He would state one or two cases of ar-
bitrary dismissals, to give the House an opportunity of
judging of the fairness an I justice which marked the ma-
jority of instances. The' first case to which lie would al-
lude was that of the officers of the '3sth regiment. Three
Captains and five Lieutenants of this regiment brought
their Commanding (Elicit.. Colonel Ross, to a Court
Martial. Out of the various charges preferred against
him, only one was substantiated, aid the Court sentenced
him to be reprimanded, The sentence was approved by
his Majesty. However, in a little time after it turned out
that the proceeuings of these Officers gave great offence ;
for it was not tho.tght that they were actuated by goad

intentions in bringing forward is series of charge, owe
only of which was proved. The consequence was that
they were summarily dismissed. Let the House consider
how unjust this treatment was. Not only were these
eight officers cashiered, but no opportunity was allowed
to Col. Ross to promote an investigation into his case,
which no doubt would have taken place had these. Offi-
cers been tried by a Court Martial for their alleged mis-
conduct. However, let the House mark what followed
The conduct of these Officers to Col. Ross brought to
mind the treatment of Major Auckland by this very Col.
Ross ; and he was dismissed himself from the service. The
other case to which he would refer was that of au Officer in
the-Blues. It was known that, some time ago, dissensions
prevailed amongst the officers of this regiment. It appear-
ed ihat one of them was discatded by the general con-
sent of his brother Officers, and they agreed amongst,
themselves that if he (the discarded officer) challengeel
any of them, the officer to whom the message WAS sest
was to he at liberty to decline fighting. It did
happen that a quarrel sprung op between this discarded'
officer and one of the Lavains of the Regiment, which'
produced a hostile message on the part of the former.—'
The Captain laid the rase before several of the officer',
who agreed that their original resolutions ought to be
adhered to, and that he ought not toaccept the challenge,
and lie adopted their opinions. The consequence was that
he was posted as a coward. it appeared that after this the
officer complained of the Captain's conduct, Before hr
proceeded further with the recital, be wished to remind
the house, that there was one of the Articles of War
which condemned in the severest manner the practice of
duelling in the army,dind held up the °flitter who refused
to accept a cliallenge.as aims' meritorious person. In
the case then of the Captain of the Blues, wouldnot any
man infer that his declining to fight, and particularly 11
under the ciretnustaeces in -which his refusal had been
made, would hive drawn down upon him approbation and
rewards? However, the officers complained, and next
came the letter of the Commander-in-Chief dismissing
this Captain. The lion. Gentleman next entered into the
consbleiation of the right of the Crown to increase the
sentence of a Court-martial. Ha held it to he un- 1
authorised by law. In the case of Captain Cuffin, nho1
had been accused. of making a f 'lse mu-ter, the Court
smtenced hint to he deprit ed ot his ship; but the sentence
was extended to a dismis-al from the service. The pewee
assumed in these cases was of that nature that ought to I
excite the alarm of the Legislature. Would aey wan in
that House say, upon his honour, that the Commander-
in-Chief lead nut acted, in a variety of ewes, not only
on his own knowledge, hut ou vague, idle rumour,
as in the case of his Gallant Friend the Member for
Southwark? It was held by the advocates for this arbi-
trary power, that cases might arise in which it might be
of essential importenve that the puMslituent should be
summary. The only cases which he could suppose t list
this observation applied to were those of mutiny, plunder,
.Se. Now the House ought to remember that a soldier or
officer might he brought to a Court-martial for mutiny
or plunder,—tried, sentenced, and shot, in the course of
half au hour. He could not conceive a more summary
process of punishment than this. Where then was the
justice of withholding the benefit of trial from an Officer
wino might be wholly innocent of the charges imputed
to him If any difficulty arose at a particular station
against holding a Court-martial, the Officer might be
sent to Loudon, Eilinhugh, or any oiher place where the
inquiry might more e wily be carried on. The Honour-
able Member next adverted to the injusiiite of not giving
to offi, ers on Court!-martial the right of peremptory
challenge; at
.present lie could not challenge except in
good cause; mile out of thirteen were enough to carry
tier sense of the Court in cases affecting the life, and a
hare majority in all cases of a leas degree of puoishment.
He did not mean to cast any iniputatious on the condom ,
of Courts-Ina tial in general ; but it was only natural
that there should be a bias in favour of the Crown. As '
a Constitutional ques•ion he did not see how the House
should refuse to give to the question its most serious con-
sideration. All history showed that the more the dia.
racter of soldier was separated from that of citizen, the
more danger did the military establishment of the coun-
try present to the continuance of the liberties of the pea-
ple. Ile would put it to the House if it was right to
leave so estraordiaary avower in the hands of the King.
Atter a few further obsetvations, the Hon. Gentleman
concluded by moving as an amendment, "That it be an
instruction to the Committee, to insert a clause to pre-
vent the dismissal of any officer without a trial by IL:ourt
Martial, and to prevent the infliction of any punishment
upon any officer, non-commissioned officers or pri-
vate soldier, except when authorised by a Court Mar-

tial."
Lord PALNIERSTON said that he rose to resist the mo-
tion just proposed, and if he could not adduce arguments
sufficiently strong in themselves to meet his objections, he
would not, like the Hon. Gentleman, endeavour to bolster
them up ny quotations which did not bear upon the question.
The motion of the Hon. Gentleman went to abridge a prero-
gative which the Crown held from the earliest period of our
history, and although the lion. Gentleman said he had no
wish to abridge a prerogative touching the splendour of the
Crown, or the personal gratification of the Sovereign, he
(Lord P.) would not attempt to support upon those grounds,
because it was his opinion that all prerogative was enjoyed,
not to uphold the splendour of the Crown, or administer to
the personal gratification of the Sovereign, but for the be-
nefit of the people. To prove this. it was not necessary to
go back to history, it was only necessary to refer to the ;
Statute book of the realm. In the declaratory Statute of
Charles the Second, it was declared, "That the supreme go-
vernment of the militia, and all forces by sea and land, is.
and by the laws of England ever was, the undoubted right
of his Majesty and his predecessors, and neither House of
Parliament had a right to abridge that right." it was
clear that the supreme Government of the army, de-
clared by this Act to be vested ih the Crown, must in-
clude the power of dismissal without Court Martial.—
lie had also the Articles of Wer of the reign of Elizabeth.
of different periods of the reign of Charles the Second. all
of which distinctly affixed to particular offences the punish-
ment of dismissal. There was another argument worth
the attention of the lion. Gentleman. Ilow could the
Crown give the power of dismissal to a Coua Martial, if
it did not already possess the same power Weir, which
was nseessarilv included in the supreme Government of
the army ? li, then, lie was correct in affirming that the
Crown originally possessed the right of dismissal with-
out the intervention of a Court Martial, let them see if
the Mutiny Act contained any thing which infringed
upon that right. This Act was said to be framed for the
protection of the army. He contended it was framed
upon an opposite principle. This Bill was enacted with
the view of giving the Crown a control over the army,
which it would not hive otherwise possesssed. At the
time of the Revolution them was no way of punishing an
offence iu the army, except by having recourse to the or-
ditnary course of the law ; but the army of James the Se-
cond, in the beginning of the war, still continuing faith-
ful to that Monarch, were guilty of acts of outrage and
rebellion, which it was necessary to punish by some more
immediate process than was permitted by the ordinary
course of lass'; and Parliament, therefore, passed an Act
empowering the Crown to detain and arrest ; and the
Mutiny Act Was subsequently passed, giving it a sum-
mary power, because it was found the mutiny of the
army could not otherwise be suppressed. This Act re-
cited that no subject should be punished by martial law
unless he had been tried by his Peers ; but it excepted
the cases of soldier: who should desert, mutiny, or rebel.
It enacted that these should te brought to a more sum
niary punishment, and for this purpose gave to the King
the power of establishing a Court Martial, in order to
carry it into effect.—(Hrsr, from the Opposition.) Then
be contended that the Mutiny Act, in giving the Crown
the power of appointing a Court Martial, did not infringe
on its preroganee, because that porn necessarily in