Glasgow Courier. — 1847-07-06 (Glasgow, Strathclyde, Scotland)

MILITARY LAW. Lord BROUGHAM rose to ask whether his noble friend near him (the Duke of Wellington) had received any information respecting a singular order made by Colonel Halides, in command i he 75th Reghnent, or an extraordinary letter written by him, ith respect to a man who was charged with what was certainly a grave offence—endeavouring to enable a soldier to escape punishment, by lending him a bullet to put into his box, this latter soldier being charged with firing at his serjeant. The letter stated, "He most certainly shall receive the severest punishment which can be inflicted;" that was rather jumping to a conclusion; it must mean, if found guilty. But the poor man, it seemed, was so much shocked that he cut his throat. The Duke of WELLINGTON had information of this transaction. The facts were these s—A soldier of the 7th Hussars, of the name of Smith, with his fire-arms shot a serjeant-major of the 7th Hussars; and Oilman Radcliffe, in the 75th Regiment, who had since committed suicide, gave Smith, the murderer, a ball in order that if he should be searched to ascertain whether he had all hiis llallibleidtion about him, be Mgt* appear- ve Imre it all, sad Oleo deceive the coroner before whom the investigation into this murder was about to be made; thereby enabling Smith to defeat the ends of justice, and to cast suspicion upon other men in the same regiment of Hussars. This was doubtless an infamous and atrocious act, and particularly deserving notice in Ireland, where it was too much the practice for the community at large to enable murderers to escape—(hear, hear)—and to evade justice, and deceive the magistrates before whom they were brought.. (Hear, hear.) This, then, was an act well deserving the observation and notice of the commanding officer of the regiment, and it was particularly incumbent upon him to mark his sense of this atrocious act by visiting the inan immediately with his displeasure, and with all the punishment he could inflict upon him— marking his displeasure not only to that regiment. and to the public at large, but to the army in that part of the country. He (the Duke of Wellington) was afraid this atrocious act was not a military offence, punishable by court-martial, but in committing that act the soldier did commit one of two offences for which he was liable to be tried by a court-martial. When he gave Smith a ball to enable him to defeat the ends of justice, this man committed a military offence by giving a ball, with the care of which he was intrusted himself, and which he was obliged to produce upon every inspection and parade, unless he could account for it legally, or else he must have purloined the ball from one of his comrades, or from somebody else, in order to give it to this soldier. For one or other of those offences he was liable to be tried, and the officer in command of the regiment, which was at Athlone, was quite in the right in ordering him into confinement immediately, and into irons, and to be brought in irons from Ballinasloe to Athlone, ten miles, in order to take his trial for one of those two military offences. He repeated, the commanding officer was fully justified in censuring, in the strongest manner, and marking with his indignation and abhorrence, this atrocious act of enabling a murderer to escape justice. The commanding officer was quite right, under these circumstances, in ironing the soldier; and he was quite right afterwards in ordering him to be brought to trial, and in declaring his intention of punishing him, if guilty of the offence. He approved of all that had been done by the commanding officer, with this exception, that the commanding officer, when he gave the order that the man's hair should be cut, and when he marked his indignation and ithhorrence at the man s offence, did not state in the order for what offence that order was given, because some persons might suppose that the offence for which he was treated consisted in his being concerned in the original murder. That he was so concerned might or might not be the case, but it was not upon that idea that the commanding officer's order was founded; all he felt was, that an atrocious act had been committed, in enabling an offender to evade justice; and it was essentially necessary, especially in Ireland, so to mark such an offence with indignation as to make It not likely that a similar one would be again committed by a eoldier of the 75th Regiment All he blamed the commanding officer for was not sufficiently explaining the grounds of his order. Lord BROUGHAM acknowledged that the noble Duke was right in expressing indignation at the man's offence, and he (Lord Brougham) had himself observed that it was a grave offence. At the same time he could not quite agree that a person should have his head shaved, and be sent handcuffed to his trial, because his offence at law (whatever might be his military offence, in taking a bullet out of his own store,) was only for being accessory after the fact, in concealing a felony. The noble Duke had been mistaken in thinking a murder had been committed, for the man who fired at the serjeant missed him. That circumstance, however, 4id not make the offence less grave. The defence was that the musket went off accidentally, but that of course had to be tried. He (Lord Brougham) did not deny the atrocity of the offence, bat lift objection was to handcuffing before trial a man for being accessory after the fact, and he also objected to the omission in the terms of the order of the cause of punishment, and to the *ate. ment that the man was to take his trial, and would most assurfidly receive the severest punishment that could be inflicted. No doubt the commanding officer meant to say that the man would receive the severest punishment. "if convicted," but he ought to have stated that. After a few words from the Duke of WELLINGTON, which were not heard in the gallery, the conversation dropped,  U he eh ffonefeekition