Commons Sitting of 26 February 1811

MOTION RESPECTING CORPORAL CURTIS.
—Mr. Wardlerose, pursuant to notice, for the purpose of calling the attention of the House to the case of corporal Curtis, of the Oxfordshire militia. Before he entered into the merits of the case of this poor man, he wished to slate, that he had never seen him, nor had any communication whatever with him. The officers composing the general court-martial were wholly unknown to him, with the exception of the president, whom he knew merely by name. At the same time, he must do justice to the character of the colonel of the Oxfordshire militia (colonel Gore Langton.) No man stood higher, both in a public and private point of view. He was therefore bound to state, when he mentioned the name of the hon. member as implicated in the complaint, that he must have been grossly deceived with respect to the conduct of corporal Curtis. This poor man was ill in the Isle of Wight, and wishing to see him upon the subject of his complaint, he (Mr. Wardle) had gone down to Portsmouth, but the wind blew so hard that he could not cross over to the Island. Being obliged to return to town the next day, he left a friend there whom he desired to wait upon general Taylor, and inform him, that he came at the desire of Mr. Wardle to speak to Robert Curtis. He saw the general, who peremptorily refused to let him have access to Curtis, unless he had brought with him the authority of the Commander in Chief; and the general added, that if even he (Mr. Wardle), had requested to see him, he should have given him a refusal. In this state of things he had applied to the Commander in Chief, and se-
88
veral letters passed on the occasion; the result was, that he found there was no chance of seeing Curtis, unless he chose to give up the facts he had obtained respecting the proceedings. Having reasons for wishing to conceal those facts, which reasons he would now state to the House, he abstained from disclosing them to the Commander in Chief. As a member of parliament he conceived that he had a right to visit Curtis without assigning his motives. However, be that as it might, the reasons which induced him to decline stating the facts to the Commander in Chief, were, that two of the witnesses had been forced out of the country. The refusal of general Taylor placed Curtis in a worse situation than a condemned felon, for the latter had the liberty of seeing his friends.
The hon. gent, then proceeded to state the case of Curtis. He was the son of respectable parents, but was induced, in the year 1808, to enter into the Oxfordshire militia for a large bounty. In 1810, he was a corporal in the regiment, and a clerk to the paymaster. On the 23d of June, in the last year, he made complaints to his colonel of abuses in the regiment. He complained, 1st, that an order for giving the men three pair of shoes in two years had not been executed; and 2dly, he complained of the improper detention of pay from the men, under the pretence of stoppages on account of some articles of clothing (or regimental breeches) which had never been delivered. These stoppages had been for five months, and the clothing was not given. The stoppages for these five months had no other authority but the verbal order of the lieut.-colonel. He believed it was a thing almost unprecedented, that a whole regiment should be under stoppages for articles which government were to furnish. At the end of eight months the only excuse for not giving the clothing was, that the men did not want them. The 106th clause of the Mutiny Act expressly stated, "That if any paymaster, agent or clerk, should unlawfully detain or withhold any! pay due to the regiment for more than one month; or if any officer, having received the pay, should retain it in his own hands, such officer, on being found guilty there of by a court-martial, should, besides what other punishment the court-martial should inflict, pay a penalty of 100 l. to the informer, who, if a soldier, was also to be entitled to his discharge." This

89
clause was quite explicit, and did not leave the colonel or the general of the district any discretion upon the subject. He had received an account of what had happened from a gentleman who was introduced to the general court-martial, for the purpose of taking the depositions, and who was ready to verify the same at the bar of that House, or any where else. It appeared from those depositions, that when corporal Curtis first made his complaint, the colonel was excessively angry and threatened to try him for mutiny; to which Curtis replied, that as he came up alone to make his complaint, he could not be tried for mutiny. On the 23d of June, he attended the colonel and lieutenant-colonel, and the book of orders being produced, he was called upon to shew the order with respect to the shoes or the breeches. As he knew nothing of their books or the manner of keeping them, he was unable to do this. On the 20th, he was confined for improper conduct in having been seen in brown clothes, at a mile distance from head-quarters. For this offence, he was by the sentence of a court-martial reduced to the ranks. It appeared, however, that he was the clerk to the paymaster, and in that capacity had been accustomed to wear coloured clothes. As to his being a mile from the head-quarters, he was returning from the post-office, where he had just put in a letter to lord C. Somerset, the lieutenant-general commanding the district. In this letter, he stated that he had a complaint to make against the quarter-master for improper detention of pay, and that he had stated it to his colonel, who refused to give him satisfaction. He stated further, that he wished to take the advantage of the 106th clause of the Mutiny Act. It appeared to him (Mr. Wardle) that this statement was not improper, as the colonel had not given Curtis the opportunity of proving his complaints before a court-martial, as he was entitled to do. This letter was sent by lord C. Somerset to the colonel of the regiment. The colonel, in answer to it, said that he was not aware that any charges could be made out against the quarter-master; and that as to the breeches, the men were aware that they were ready to be delivered, but that they did not then want them. He also stated, that Curtis came up to him in a very improper manner to make his complaint. The fact, however, turned out to be, that the breeches were not ready for delivery at that time, nor
90
even so late as July. As to the impropriety of the manner in which Curtis made his complaint, the colonel was walking on the drill-ground, when he came up and mentioned it to him. In the case of Governor Wall, the lord chief justice was of opinion, that the man who died of the punishment he received in Africa, had done no more than he had an undoubted right to do, in complaining to his officers of a detention of pay; and it then appeared to the lord chief justice, that if a colonel was to check such complaints, it would have the appearance of his being a partaker in the plunder. Curtis had made his complaint regularly to his colonel and his general. His colonel was applied to by him to try these charges by a general court-martial instead of a regimental court-martial, but he refused. In a regimental court-martial, it was well known that the officers were more connected with each other than they were in regular regiments, and this might produce a sort of bias. (No! no! from the ministerial bench). That they were more connected was evident, and there was no accounting for feelings on such a subject. A general court-martial, on the other hand, was composed of men who were chiefly strangers to each other, and therefore it was a court which appeared more suitable for trying charges against an officer. The prisoner was refused the usual intercourse with his witnesses and with his counsel, previous to the trial; and even a great coat which he before had was taken from him, and he was obliged to lie on the bare boards. Two other privates, Bellis and Reeve, also gave a statement of other abuses, but the colonel said he would take care of them too. They were brought before a court-martial, and threw themselves on the mercy of the court. They were sentenced to 500 lashes, which was remitted on their volunteering for foreign service. It appeared that at the time of the trial of Curtis, the quartermaster, serjeant Fox, publicly threatened and endeavoured to intimidate the witnesses of corporal Curtis; and on the steps of the court publicly swore, that Curtis was a d—d rascal, and so was every one who took his part. Another serjeant publicly held out the expectation of twenty guineas and their discharge to any soldier that would prove that Curtis had spoken disrespectfully of his colonel. The charges were, first, for endeavouring to excite discontent and mutiny in the regiment: of

91
this charge he could not find a single tittle of evidence. The next was that of his having spoke disrespectfully of his colonel: it must, however, be allowed, that if he had spoken improperly of his colonel, his Blind was under considerable irritation at the time. He considered that he had been refused the satisfaction to which the military law entitled him. He had conceived himself to be entitled to 100 l. and his discharge. For these charges he was sentenced to receive 1000 lashes. The language, however, he had used concerning his commanding officer, was not a thousandth part as bad as what had been said of his commanding officer by a gallant admiral (sir Eliab Harvey) who had since been restored to the service. He thought some similar allowance ought to be made in the present case.
It was in the recollection of all, that some German soldiers had been taken in the act of desertion, having stolen a boat for the purpose of going over to the enemy. They were taken and tried: but were they sentenced to be flogged? No! he believed they never did, nor never dared to put a lash on the backs of German soldiers; and he saw no reason why British soldiers alone should be exposed to that severity. It was on the 5th of August that Curtis received his punishment. He was at that time so sick and weak, that he was obliged to be supported while they tied him to the halberts. During his punishment he fell into frequent fainting fits; and having received 200 lashes, he got his election either to take the remaining 800 lashes, or to rot in the West Indies. He, of course, preferred the latter. Although he had only received a fifth of his punishment, he was confined from it in the hospital, from the 5th of August to the 14th of November. The hon. gent, then read a letter from Curtis, written 12 days after the flogging, wherein he mentioned, that "he would have been very glad if he had been able to bear the remaining 800 lashes, instead of being sent to the West Indies, but the 200 had been administered with such extraordinary severity, that it was not possible for him to bear more. His back was one complete sheet of corrupted matter, which drew from him all his strength, and made him almost unable to stand." Having stated thus much, he thought it was unnecessary to detain the House with many observations. He trusted, that if the House would grant him a committee, he should be able to substantiate
92
by proof those facts which he had stated. He concluded by moving, "That a Committee be appointed to inquire into the facts stated respecting Robert Curtis, late a Corporal in the Oxfordshire Militia."
Colonel Gore Langton, conscious of the necessity of a strict observance of military duty in an officer who, like himself, had the honour to command a regiment, assured the House that he was ready to meet any inquiry that might be instituted on this subject. He was firmly persuaded that had not corporal Robert Curtis been tried and punished by a general court martial, many unfortunate men of the Oxfordshire militia would have been led to commit acts of the most serious insubordination. Gracious God! at such a crisis as the present, when the blessings which we enjoy, when our very existence as a nation, depended so materially on the attachment of our soldiers to their officers, was this the precise time for bringing forward a motion of a nature, he believed on his soul, inevitably tending to sap the foundation of the discipline of the army! He repeated, that he was ready to meet any charge that could be brought forward on the subject, convinced, as he was, that the more the transaction was inquired into, the more apparent would be the rectitude and good conduct of the Oxfordshire regiment. He read a deposition of the soldiers on guard, distinctly denying that they had been bribed, or even desired by their officers to notice Curtis's conduct, with a view to criminate him; as also an acknowledgment by Curtis himself of his many offences, and of his wish to be allowed to enter the regular courses. He had been thirty-two years in the Oxfordshire regiment, and he could safely lay his hand on his heart and say, that he never refused attention to the just complaints of a soldier. He had given corporel Curtis every satisfaction in his power. When Curtis made the representation to him respecting the shoes, he (colonel L.) shewed him the regulation, which was as clear as day; namely, that three pair should be allowed in two years, and not two pair a year. It was true, as asserted by the hon. gent, that when the book was shewn to corporal Curtis, that he might point out the particular regulation to which he referred, he could not do so; but it was for this plain reason, that no such regulation existed; and with respect to the article of breeches, it was a fact, that at the very time when the man made

93
the representation relative to them, he wore the breeches which he complained were withheld. Yet it was on the statements of such a person that it was attempted to impeach the honour and character of so many respectable individuals. He would say no more, but would sit down, having done his duty to the best of his power. He had had the honour of a seat in that House for 16 years, and had never before intruded on the attention of the chair; nor should he have dune so now, but for the very extraordinary observations which had been made by the hon. mover of the present question.
Mr. Manners Sutton(Judge Advocate) was of opinion, that unless the hon. gent. had made out a sufficient case, the House ought not to agree to the motion. There were some passages in the hon. gentleman's speech, in which the facts were so completely mistated, that he should be sorry to allow the question to go to a vote without commenting upon them, notwithstanding the strong impression which had evidently been made upon the House, by the observations of his hon. friend who had just sat down. He would therefore state shortly to the House the occurrences connected with the two courts-martial, which the hon. gent, was anxious to bring into discussion. The transaction originated on the 23d of June, when Curtis made to his Colonel a complaint respecting two distinct articles—shoes and breeches. As to the case of shoes, he was persuaded that the hon. mover had not made any inquiry into the subject, or else that he would have received better information. It was clear, as his hon. friend had said, that by the regulations each soldier was entitled to three pair of shoes in two years; and as to the case of 1804, referred to by Curtis, in which year the regiment did certainly receive two pair of shoes a man; this was owing to the transfer of the Supplementary Militia into the Regular Militia; the men being entitled to one pair as the supplementary, and to one pair as the regular. It being found, however, that one pair was sufficient, a commutation took place, and each man was allowed five shillings, which went to pay for those necessaries which would otherwise have been provided for by stoppages. The case of the breeches was as clear. One pair was provided by government; and the stoppage of 18 d. a month was for the purpose of purchasing necessaries; under which term an additional pair of breeches was included. If
94
this additional pair were found unnecessary, the stoppages were returned. But the hon. mover expressed his surprise that the stoppages took place before the breeches were wanted. The reason of this was, that they were contrived to coincide with the period when long furloughs were granted, and when therefore it was easier for the men to make up their daily allowances than at a time when they were with the regiment. Whether this practice was judicious or not, he would not now stop to inquire; but at least it was not liable to the imputation of severity or oppression. He would further state, that in his opinion, when Curtis quitted the colonel's room, he went away perfectly satisfied of his mistake with respect to the shoes, and satisfied also that an inquiry would be made as to the breeches. What was the issue of that inquiry? That Curtis had antecedently gone to the paymaster, and obtained his own breeches; that afterwards (in ignorance of this circumstance), the whole had been drawn for, but that Curtis's having before obtained his being found out a third pair was refused him. Curtis, however, wrote to the general of the district that the colonel did not chuse to redress him. Was this a true representation of the case? This was on the 26th, and he had been with the colonel on the 25th. He knew that it was possible that a person might forget, on the 26th of a month, having seen another on the 25th of the same month (Hear, hear!) He knew it was possible that a person might forget having had any conversation with another on the preceding day. (Hear, hear!) But was it possible that this was the case with the man in question? The court, who were the best judges, thought not. The hon. gent, how-ever, controverted the court's decision. He declared, that in his opinion the evidence was not sufficient to convict Curtis on the particular charge preferred against him. In this observation the hon. gent. seemed to forget the comparative disadvantage under which he laboured: he collected his information from written evidence; the court from parole evidence. The court were on their oaths; the hon. gent, only dealt out most gratuitous assertions. Curtis was brought to a regimental court-martial for wearing brown cloaths, and for being absent more than a mile from his quarters; an offence which he committed on leaving the colonel's room on the 25th, The hon. gent, could
***
95
not have been so long in the army without knowing, that for such an offence the colonel of a regiment might reduce a non-commissioned officer to the ranks without any trial at all. By a regimental court-martial, however this man was tried, and by that court-martial he was sentenced to be reduced to the ranks. He then denied the jurisdiction of the court, and demanded to be tried by a general court-martial. It was worth considering that this demand of Curtis's, or this appeal, as the hon. gent, called it, was not an appeal which related in any way to the subject of clothing, but simply to the offence of having been absent from quarters. Subsequently to this period (about the 4th of July) charges were sent in to a general court-martial, and Curtis was brought before that court to be tried on them. It was true, as stated by the hon. gent, that Curtis (and that in a manner not at all decorous or respectful) expressed to the general court-martial a wish to be tried on his appeal from the judgment of the regimental court. The general court-martial, however, had not the power to try on any charges except on those upon which they were convened to determine. When the hon. gentleman was so inclined to throw out insinuations on all sides of him, it was fitting that the House should be informed, that not one of the members of the regimental court-martial sat upon the general court-martial. If the hon. gent, thought he had gained any credit in that House, or that he should gain any popularity in the country by intimating that the officers of the regimental court-martial might be so influenced by regard for the feelings of their colonel as to perjure themselves on that account, he felt obliged to inform him that, at least, that intimation could not apply to the members of the general court-martial. The hon. gent, had mentioned in a cursory way, and as a matter of little importance (doubtlessly he would not have mentioned it at all, had he nut been aware that it would be stated by somebody), that he believed there was some little confusion in the course of the proceedings of that court. The fact was, that owing to the crowd in the court, composed of persons whom the hon. gent. might perhaps term respectable, but whom he should call a mob; the confusion and interruption were so great, that the acting deputy Judge Advocate wrote to him (Mr. Sutton) to ask what means should be used to protect the court from insult? The
96
only answer that he could return was, that it was the duty of the court to take care that their proceedings were not interrupted; and that if no other means were left them for the preservation of order, they must resort to force: that they must commit any military man who should be so indiscreet as to contribute to the disturbance, and that they must send any other offending individual, not of the profession, before a magistrate, to be committed by that magistrate, and to be subsequently indicted by the Judge Advocate. This was the 'trifling' circumstance which flashed across the hon. gentleman's mind, and which be casually mentioned. With respect to the conduct of Curtis, he was extremely sorry to say, that the man had not conducted himself as he ought, under the circumstances in which he was placed. On not being permitted to put an improper question to a witness, he even went so far as to say, "That he saw that he could get no justice in that court; that he would appeal to a court of law.; and that he would bring an action against the lieutenant-colonel for false imprisonment." And yet if the hon. gent. would refer to the first paragraph of the speech of Curtis to the court (for which he was indebted to the ability of the short-hand writer), he would find, that he entreated their pardon for the offence which he committed. Curtis was found guilty, and as for the consequent sentence of the court, he believed that few men—he believed that no man, except the hon. gent. would state, that on conviction of such charges the punishment ought to be lenient. The hon. gent. talked of the conduct of Curtis as that of a man writhing under the sense of grievances, and contended that on that account he ought not to have been treated with severity. But the House well knew the danger to the very existence of the army which lurked in any attempt to excite dis-satistaction in a regiment, and would not allow that any individual, convicted of an offence of such magnitude, ought to escape on the plea of his writhing under the sense of grievances which were imaginary. Under such circumstances, when the court came to a conclusion that the man was guilty, they bad but one course to pursue. Not being charged with mutiny, the offence was not capital; but the only species of punishment which the court was anthorised to inflict was corporeal punishment. They had no alternative. He would put it to the House to say, whether

97
it was not for the court to admeasure the degree of punishment to the degree of gailt? In his opinion the court had exercised a sound discretion in visiting with a heavy punishment such an offence, attended with so many circumstances of aggravation. If the hon. gent. thought the punishment severe and unjustifiable, it must be because he thought that punishments of that description ought to be inflicted in no case. If this were the real opinion of the hon. gent. he was persuaded that the House would agree with him, that the best mode of altering the law was not by stating in parliament (and by consequence to the public) a string, not of facts, but of garbled assertions, many of which were totally void of foundation.—He would now make a few observations on that part of the hon. gentleman's speech which related to the communications which he had had with the commander in chief. The hon. gent. applied to the commander in chief, for permission to send a person to Curtis with some written questions (Mr. Wardle replied in the negative). He should be sorry to misrepresent the hon. gent., and therefore he would read the letter, which he happened to have in his pocket. [Mr. Sutton here read a letter from Mr. Wardle to sir David Dundas, stating that, in consequence of circumstances which he had heard relative to the case of Curtis, he went to Portsmouth, for the purpose of going over to the Isle of Wight to see Curtis, who was confined in the deep-hole there; but that the badness of the weather prevented him from crossing, and that on the next day his parliamentary duty compelled him to return to town. That on the following day a gentleman, at his request, went with written questions to Curtis, &c.] He trusted that the hon. gent. was convinced that he had not misrepresented him. The answer of the commander in chief was, that he should be extremely obliged to the hon. gent. to state what the circumstances were to which he alluded, as it was the duty of the commander in chief to inquire into, and, if wrong, to redress them. The hon. gent., in reply, refused to state those circumstances; declared that he would bring forward the subject in parliament, and frankly expressed his expectation that in the interval the commander in chief would receive from him, as a member of parliament, directions how to proceed. The hon. gent. concluded one of his letters on this
98
subject, by saying he was convinced that the course which he intended to pursue, would be beneficial to the military service. He believed it was not usual in that House to express a doubt with respect to the goodness of the motives of any hon. gent.; but if such were the motives of the hon. mover, the deficiency of his judgment and the danger of his means were much to be lamented. Could the hon. gent. induce any one to believe—could he induce even himself to believe, that the interests of the military service were likely to be promoted by encouraging those whose avowed and convicted object it was to endeavour to disseminate dissatisfaction in that service? Could the hon. gent induce himself to believe that he was promoting the military service by throwing out loose charges against the officers of the regiment; against the officers of a district; against the commander in chief; against all whose painful duty it was to execute the law? If these were the hon. gent.'s sentiments, he did not envy him. The House of Commons had been accustomed to think that, excepting in very strong cases indeed, it was not their province to interfere with military matters; but the hon. gent. assuming a sort of roving commission, proceeded without scruple to investigate the official duties of the commander in chief, and even went to the extent of using threats and intimidations to effect his purpose. Before he sat down he would say a few words respecting two men mentioned by the hon. gent.—Bellis and Reeve. The hon. gent. chose to declare that these persons were forced out of the country on account of the evidence they had given in Curtis's favour. The fact was, that when examined on that case, they produced written charges themselves; and then the hon. gent. expressed his astonishment that the Court did not proceed to an inquiry, which was out of the limits of their power, as for that inquiry they were not convened. The colonel, however, inquired into the truth of these charges, and furthermore, a district court-martial was held upon them; the consequence of which was, that these two men were convicted of malicious intentions, and sentenced to receive 500 lashes each, a sentence which was afterwards commuted for foreign service; and this was what the hon. gent. called forcing these persons out of the country on account of the evidence which they had given in the case of Curtis!

99
With respect to the question which the court would not permit Curtis to put, he had sufficient means of knowing what it was—Curtis wished to ask Bellis whether some other man (who had not been examined, nor was to be examined in the case), had not said something or other? The court very properly declared that they could not permit such a question to be put, respecting a third person who had not been examined before them, and who was not to be examined. That case, however, was afterwards inquired into. A regimental court-martial sat on the Serjeant alluded to; he was found guilty, and was reduced to the ranks.—If ever there was a case which, from the beginning to the end, would bear the closest sifting, it was that which the hon. mover had selected for the purpose of proving the misconduct of courts-martial, and the grievances of the soldiery. The hon. advocate general concluded by expressing his gratitude to the House for the patience with which they had attended to him.
Sir Francis Burdettobserved, that if the hon. and learned gent. would be advocate, judge, and witnesss in the same cause, as the hon. and learned gentleman, who had just spoken, appeared to be, it could not be surprising that he should carry every thing before him by the force of his own assertion. This, without meaning any disrespect to that hon. and learned gentleman, seemed to him to be precisely his situation. To the facts stated by the hon. gentleman who brought forward this motion, which were represented as founded only in assertion, the hon. and learned gentleman had replied only by assertions. So that in this respect, both that hon. and learned gentleman and the hon. member who made the motion, were placed exactly on the same ground, with this exception, that the latter undertook to prove and, make good all his assertions. It had been said, indeed, that what had been stated by the hon. mover, was not founded in fact; but how could that be known, unless he was to be at liberty to prove the correctness of his statements? By the reasoning of the hon. and learned gentleman, all was to be taken for granted which was asserted on his part, whilst every thing was to be questioned which was advanced by the other hon. member. With respect to the hon. colonel who had been adverted to (colonel G. Langton), he would be the last man whom he should suspect of being guilty of the oppression, or of the other
100
charges implicated in this case. But, as far as he could collect from the statement of the hon. gentleman, the charges were directed not so much against the colonel or the lieutenant-colonel, as against the quarter-master of the Oxfordshire regiment. It appeared to him, however, that when charges were preferred by corporal Curtis against a commissioned officer, the colonel had no discretion, but to grant it. When this was refused, it was natural for the man to say that he had not justice done him. The next step was the appeal made to the commander of the district, which had been represented as mutiny. How an appeal to a superior officer could be construed into an act of mutiny, he was at a loss to conceive. When Curtis had preferred his charges, and thought he was to go to trial for having made then, he found he was to be tried for another offence. The being absent in coloured clothes more than a mile from quarters might be a military offence, but as not only corporal Curtis but all the men in the regiment were in the habit of going to Arundel, it was not to be expected by him that he should be tried for such an offence. This seemed to him to be a mere trick. What was the consequence? He was deprived of his appeal to a general court-martial, which he would have had if his charges had been tried. He believed from the statement, that the general, in refusing the court-martial on the charges preferred by this man, had been guilty of a breach of the articles of war. As to the severity of the punishment and the cruelty of its nature, though fit topics to be discussed on another opportunity, they formed no part of the question under discussion, and it would be unfair to make them a part of this case. He, however, knew of no law, human or divine, that authorised the infliction of a punishment which human nature was unable to bear. It appeared in this case, that twelve days after one-fifth of the punishment had been inflicted, the individual was scarcely able to stand. It had been objected to the hon. member that he had dealt in insinuations: but it appeared to him, on the contrary, that the hon. and learned gentleman opposite had thrown out some heavy insinuations against the hon. mover of this question. It was strange, that, when it was admitted that there was no objection that this matter should be sifted to the bottom, the hon. gentleman should not be allowed to go

101
into the proof. Under these circumstances he could not content himself with giving a silent vote, after the unfair treatment which the hon. gentleman had received. The hon. gentleman, too, had said, that the individual had undergone a series of cruelties, that many of the witnesses had been tampered with, and others intimidated, and these facts he offered to prove. Such a statement was not to be met by a laugh, or aspersions on the character of the individual who made it. It had been said, that this proceeding was likely to create discontent in the army; but what discontent could be excited if the statement were not true, and proved not to be well founded? Would it not be a satisfaction to men, placed in the glorious and honourable situation in which British soldiers were now placed, to know that if they suffered any grievance, there was one place at least to which they could look with confidence for justice? Upon all these considerations, he should vote for the inquiry.
Lord Charles Somerset, as the hon. member had charged him, as general of the district, with a breach of the articles of war, felt it necessary to trouble the House with a very few words. There was one part, and only one part of the statement of that hon. gent. in which he concurred, namely, that in which he bestowed praise on the hon. colonel of the Oxfordshire regiment. It did not, perhaps, become him to say what he felt on that occasion relative to that hon. officer, but he must remark, that the hon. gent. could not say too much of him, as he was as zealous, correct, attentive, and humane an officer as any in the service. This opinion he had expressed in the general orders as strongly as he could, both with respect to the colonel and lieut.-colonel of that regiment. The hon. gent. had accused him of not having listened to the appeal of corporal Curtis: he certainly had not listened to that appeal, because that person had not a right to make it. The article of war (which the noble lord here read) took away the appeal from a person found guilty of a military offence by a regimental court-martial. The general court-martial was for the trial of heinous offences, the regimental for petty offences. When the person, whose case was referred to was charged with a heinous offence, he appointed a general court-martial, but at the same time took care that no officer who had served on the regimental court-martial,
102
indeed that no officer of the regiment should serve upon the general court. He trusted, after what he had stated, that the House would consider him clear of the charge of having committed a breach of the articles of war. As to this man, he believes he went away from his colonel on the 25th of April, perfectly satisfied that his complaint was unfounded. On that day he signed his return, "all well." In the following May, major-general Houston proceeded on his half-yearly inspection through the district. It was part of his duty to ask, whether any individual in the regiments inspected bad any complaints to make. This duty he knew was performed by that officer, and not a word of complaint was heard from any individual in the Oxfordshire regiment. As to what had been said about Bellis and Reeve having been forced out of the country, he should only say, that there was no foundation for the charge. When their conduct was known, he did not order a court-martial. Ha directed the major-general to inquire into the circumstances, and on his report had brought the men to a court-martial. With respect to the treatment of the man in prison, he had certainly ordered the mob, for mob he would call them, not to be admitted to him: but he at the same time directed that his friends and witnesses should have free access to him, and that he should be allowed the use of pen, ink, and paper. But to shew more clearly with what indulgence and lenience he had been treated, he need only say, that on the 8th of July, the mob having entered into a subscription to enable him to employ counsel, he applied to the court for time to procure counsel, when the court adjourned to one o'clock: and on its being re-assembled, the judge advocate offered to the counsel the proceedings for his perusal. The hon. baronet had said, that the man was entrapped into a trial for one offence, when he was prepared to expect the trial for another. The fact was, that on the 4th of July a list of the charges had been given to the prisoner; on the 6th the court met, when he was called upon for a list of his witnesses; and even on the 7th and 8th he called fresh witnesses. With respect to the charge of in timidation of witnesses by serjeant Cox, as stated by the hon. gent. if any such thing had taken place, it must have been mentioned in the defence; and yet not one word was said of it on the trial. If there was any thing to be remedied, the commander

103
in chief bad offered to have the matter inquired into. The course proposed by the hon. member was therefore not the only means of investigation. He returned thanks to the House for its attention, and should vote against the motion.
Mr. Lockhartknew both the unfortunate man and his father, they being both his constituents. The impassion upon the mind of this man's family was not that he had been treated with severity. He had received a letter from the father of the man, begging him to apply, not for a revision of his sentence, but for mercy. He had written upon the subject to the dukes of Kent and Cumberland, and made application to the magistrates, who humanely exerted themselves to obtain the execution of justice in mercy. The father of this man knew nothing of the motion of the hon. gent. The speech of the hon. gent. was deserving of the severest criticism. If popularity was the object of the hon. member, he would recommend to him to court it by other means, by means which, as lord Mansfield well observed, would make popularity follow him, instead of his pursuing popularity.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, after the extremely able manner in which his hon. and learned friend near him had acquitted himself, in the clear and explicit statement which he had made to the House, should not think it necessary to obtrude himself long upon their attention. There was only one part of the subject in which his hon. and learned friend had been deficient. His hon. and learned friend had failed in doing that full justice which was due to the conduct of sir David Dundas, and to the manner in which the hon. gent. abstained from any notice of that conduct. It was impossible for him to suppose that the hon. gent. sought out this subject for the purpose of making mischievous and inflammatory harangues. In justice to that hon. gentleman, he was bound to suppose, that having received information of facts which he conceived were founded in injustice, he was desirous of obtaining redress for the oppressed individual. Now, the House of Commons had explicitly declared by its usage, that all such questions of. a military nature should not be discussed within its walls, unless justice were departed from elsewhere. Under the impression pf this sentiment, he would trespass on the patience of the House, while he apprised them of the opportunities which the hon. gent. had enjoyed from the commander
104
in chief, of laying the case before him, and of the temper with which his representations had been received by sir D. Dundas. It was due to the character of sir D. Dundas, and to the army, that the public should be informed of his disposition to listen to complaint, let it proceed from whatever quarter it might.
The Chancellorof the Exchequer here read the correspondence which passed between Mr. Wardle and sir D. Dundas, of which the following are. extracts. The hon. gent. began the correspondence with a letter, staling, "That having received information of some extraordinary circumstances attending the trial of corporal Curtis, he had made an ineffectual attempt to go to the We of Wight to see him; that he confidently hoped the man would not be sent out of the country, and out of the protection of the laws, before he had an opportunity of investigating his case." To this the commander in chief replied by his secretary, 'That he was not an are of any irregularity in the trial of Curtis, but that he desired the hon. gent. to put him in possession of these circumstances, that he might take the steps which that in-formation might render necessary." The hon. gent. answered. "That this was any thing but a reply to his letter, and he begged to know whether it was meant to refuse or comply with his request." Not at a Tirritated by he tone of the hon. gent. sir David Dundas instructed his secretary to inform him, "That the commander in chief was always anxious to receive information which might operate favourably for persons placed in the unfortunate situation of corporal Curtis; but that he should not consider himself justified in granting the suspension required by the hon. gent. unless me. grounds of that application were distinctly specified." This produced another letter from the hon. gent, in which he expresses an opinion which, if it were to become general, would convert the most free country of the universe to one of the most intolerable tyranny. This opinion was contained in the paragraph, "That it was hardly necessary for the hon. gent. to remind the commander in chief that he was not to be considered in the light of a common individual, but as a member of that body, by virtue of whose vote soldiers were raised and paid, and whose duty therefore it was to watch over their interest." If the hon. gent. had a right, as a member of that House, to erect himself into a walking committee and to

105
examine inquisitorially into all the departments of the state, refusing to afford to those departments the information on which he proceeded, he repeated that this would constitute one of the most abominable tyrannies that ever existed. The hon. member went on to tell the commander in chief, "That the law had been violated, and that unless he obtained the request which he had made, he would bring the subject under the consideration of the House of Commons on the 29th of that month." The answer of the commander in chief "referred the hon. gent. to the former communications on the same subject." The commander in chief, however had caused a minute inquiry to be made into the circumstances attendant on the trial of Curtis, and the result had been fully and ably stated by his hon. and learned friend. The hon. baronet asserted that the hon. mover had not been dealt fairly by. A singular accusation; when the House recollected the way in which the gent. insinuated, that in a regimental court-martial such a combination among the officers might be expected to exist, as would leave the soldier little hope of justice; than which observation one more ill founded and mischievous could scarcely be conceived. He was in bounden duty to believe that the motives of the hon. gent. were excellent; but he was persuaded the House would feel that the hon. gent. had travelled the worst road possible. Having the fairest opportunity, by the manner in which his application had been received by the commander in chief, of redressing the supposed grievances of the unfortunate individual in question (if he really wished that those grievances should be redressed), the hon. gent. had rejected that Opportunity, and thinking, erroneously, that the House of Commons was the proper place for the discussion of subjects of this nature, the result had been the speech which the House had that night heard.
Mr. Wandlespoke briefly in explanation. He did not doubt the veracity of the noble lord opposite. He believed that he had given orders for admitting the counsel to the prisoner, but still the fact was as he had stated it to be, and he must observe there was a vast difference between giving orders and seeing those orders executed
The House then divided, when the numbers were.

For the Motion

1

Against it

91

Majority

—90

List of the Minority.

Colonel Core Langton.

TELLERS.

G. L. Wardle

Sir F. Burdett.