Commons Sitting of 15 June 1815

NEW POST-OFFICE BILL.
On the order of the day for the third reading of the New Post-office Bill,
Mr. Baringrose to lament that so much unnecessary expense should be incurred by the country, at a moment so important as the present. He declared that he would take the sense of the House upon the third reading.
Mr. Calcraftsaid, that it was necessary before such an expense was incurred, and especially at the present time, when every guinea was of such value to the Government, that the absolute necessity of the new Post-office should be shown.
Mr. Atkins Wrightfully concurred with the hon. gentleman who spoke last.
Mr. Lushingtonsaid, that from the reports of committees, it appeared that the superior advantages of the new Post-office would much more than counterbalance the expense. It would be a great improvement to the city of London, and he believed it would not exceed the estimate.
Mr. Gordonsaid, that in the case of the new Custom-house, the ground belonged to the public; but in that of the new Post-office, it was to be purchased at a great and indefinite expense. He should oppose the Bill to the last, because he viewed it in the light of a mere job, and a profligate expenditure of the public money.
The House then divided: For the third reading, 49; Against it, 24;—Majority, 25.

PAPERS RELATING TO THE BANCA ISLAND.
Mr. R. Smithrose to submit to

823]
the House the motion of which he had given notice respecting the island of Banca. He was surprised to find that his Majesty had transferred the sovereignty of Banca to the Dutch, for he never knew that his Majesty had claimed any sovereignty over this island. The only right we had to it was acquired by the conquest of Java, and by the cruelty which the sultan of Java was said to have exercised towards the Europeans residing in it, which did not appear to him to justify us in assuming the sovereign disposal of it. He, therefore, moved an Address to his royal highness the Prince Regent, praying that there be laid before the House, copies of all the documents and dispatches received by the East India Company, relative to the acquisition of the island of Banca, in the East Indies.
Mr. Wallacecordially coincided in the hon. gentleman's motion, because the papers would most fully prove the gross infraction of all the laws of nations, by the sultan of Java towards the Europeans residing in the island of Banca. We had deposed the sultan of Java, and it was incumbent on us to do so, in order to prevent like atrocities towards Europeans in the Eastern world in future. The hon. member went into a history of the sultan's barbarous conduct. The papers would most fully justify his Majesty's Government in the disposal of Banca.
Mr. Forbeswas happy to find that the motion was not likely to meet with any opposition. He feared, that the sultan owed his deposition less to the massacre of the Dutchmen than to his refusal to continue the tin contract under a disadvantage.
Mr. Thomas Courtenaycorroborated the statement of Mr. Wallace.
The motion was then agreed to.

MOTION RESPECTING THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERIES.
Sir John Newportin rising to submit a motion to the House, relative to the Newfoundland fisheries, felt that, however important it might be in its nature, yet as it did not involve any question of more immediate interest, he was not entitled to expect their ready attention. Still, however, feeling that it was a question materially affecting the commercial and naval prosperity of the empire, he was warranted in calling on the House to take it under their most serious consideration. The fisheries on the coasts of Newfoundland, in the gulph
[824
of St. Lawrence, and on the coast of Labrador, had been long and successfully carried on by the inhabitants of these islands, and the pursuit was attended with, the beneficial consequences of national wealth and commercial prosperity. He read a paper which showed the progressive increase of our shipping and sailors employed on that service; and thence argued the vast importance arising to the country from that branch of industry. This, however, had been seriously retarded, if not injured by the encroachments of the Americans. And while he felt an unwillingness to interfere with the rights of any nation in the enjoyment of what would seem to belong to them by the law of nature, he was compelled to call on Government to extend its protection more immediately to its own subjects, and obtain for them the same exclusive rights of fishing on our own coasts, which the Americans possessed on the extended line of theirs. The inhabitants of the city he had the honour to represent had long enjoyed considerable advantages from the trade, but which were, of late, in some degree diminished by the encroachments of the Americans. He, however, disclaimed being influenced by that consideration alone, feeling strongly convinced that the interests of the empire in general were vitally concerned. The right hon. baronet then moved,
"That an humble Address be presented to his royal highness the Prince Regent, to represent to his Royal Highness's consideration, that the state of the Fisheries carried on by the subjects of the United Kingdom on the coasts of Newfoundland, in the Gulph of St. Lawrence, and on the coast of Labrador, from the magnitude of its commercial and political consequences seriously affecting the active industry and maritime strength of the empire, is highly deserving of the most serious attention, and the vigilant unremitting protection of the Executive Government and the Legislature:
"That such protection is peculiarly called for at this period, when the Treaty of 1783 with the United States having ceased to exist, and no part of its highly injurious provisions respecting the Fisheries having been renewed by the late Treaty of Peace with that Power, the subjects of this United Kingdom may be entitled to hope that their unexampled exertions in this active and interesting branch of commerce will be adequately

825]
secured and protected; exertions which are stated to have engaged in those Fisheries during the last year above 80,000 tons of shipping, taking and conveying to home and foreign markets nearly one million of quintals of fish, and above 6,500 tuns of oil; the actual value of which exceeded 2,700,000 l. and employed above 16,000 natives of this United Kingdom in a branch of active industry, furnishing to the navy on any emergency a great body of the most hardy and experinced seamen:
"That, for this purpose, it will be indispensably requisite that the subjects of the United States shall be precluded, by active and vigilant attention, from encroaching on the Fishery within the limits of the coasts, and to a considerable distance from the shores of those countries, the exclusive right to which is by the law of nations, and every principle of justice, confined to the subjects of these kingdoms:
"That, to guard against such encroachments, it will be necessary that such instructions shall be given to the naval commanders on those stations, and such force placed under their direction, as may effectually repress any improper attempts of that nature:
"The Americans of the United States have great and valuable Fisheries upon their own shores, within the very extended limits of which it is neither just or proper that the subjects of this country should interfere; but, on the other hand, we desire to represent that our rights, equally sacred and valuable to us, ought to be secured from their undue interference, which, from their vicinity, and other local advantages, must inevitably destroy this truly valuable branch of commercial industry, for which above 2,000 persons have embarked from the port of Poole, and above 5,000 from the port of Waterford, during the present year, and which has advanced to its present unexampled magnitude by the discontinuance, during the war, of those vexatious and unwarrantable encroachments upon it heretofore practised by the inhabitants of the United States."
General Gascoyneseconded the motion.
Lord Castlereaghsaid, that he concurred with much of what bad been stated by the right hon. baronet. The right hon. baronet must, however, be himself aware, that there were many assertions in that Address, of which it was impossible that
[826
the House could now be cognizant. As to the value of those fisheries, he most completely coincided with him. They were not only valuable as a great source of wealth to the country, but they were still more so as a source of maritime strength. He coincided also with the right hon. baronet in his view of the relations between this country and America, as bearing upon this question. He considered that by the law of nations, any claim that America might formerly have put forward, but which had not been renewed by the treaty, had fallen to the ground. He therefore considered nothing of the treaty of 1783 to be in force, except what had been renewed and confirmed by the late treaty. By the law of nations, we had clearly the right of exclusive fishery within the jurisdiction of our own territories; but how far that jurisdiction extended, was a point open to future discussion. He acknowledged this right to be of great value; but, like all the other rights of the country, it should be confided to the management and care of the executive power. Having made those observations, he should move the previous question on the Address moved by the right hon. baronet.
Mr. Taylorwas extremely glad that the motion had been made, as it bad been the means of procuring this statement from the noble lord.
Sir John Newportfelt quite indifferent whether the previous question was carried, or whether the House would permit him to withdraw his motion. He had conceived it his duty to call the attention of Government to this important point, and he was happy to find that their ideas coincided so nearly with his own.
The previous question being put, "That that question be now put," it passed in the negative.

PETITION OF CAPTAIN ALEXANDER ORR.
Mr. Wynnsaid, he held in his hand a Petition from Mr. Orr, late captain in the Rothsay and Caithness Fencible Regiment, complaining of his being dismissed the service without a court-martial, and praying for inquiry into his conduct. The hon. gentleman then proceeded to state, that captain Orr had brought charges against another officer in the same regiment, who was acquitted, and on whose acquittal captain Orr was dismissed. He said that it was too great a power for a court-martial to assume to dismiss the

827]
prosecutor, because they had acquitted the prisoner. They could not judge of all the motives of the prosecutor. He believed the reason why captain Orr was dismissed, was because he had not taken other notice of his brother officer's conduct to him. This was an encouragement to duelling, and was subversive of military discipline.
The Petition was brought up and read, setting forth, "That from the year 1795 until the peace in 1802, the petitioner served as a captain in the Rothsay and Caithness Fencible Regiment; and in the year 1803 he obtained a company in the 1st or Berwickshire Regiment of Militia, in which regiment he continued to serve till the 26th July 1809, when he was dismissed the regiment, not only without any court-martial being held upon him, but even without any imputation of misconduct, except indeed the gratuitous and unfounded censure contained in the sentence of a court martial held upon ensign Nicholl, in which the petitioner was prosecutor, and which he had no opportunity of repelling; and that, as the cause of the petitioner's removal from the regiment was never intimated to him, he is at a loss to know against what charge of supposed misconduct he is to defend himself, conscious of never having failed in the punctual discharge of his duly while he had the honour to remain in his Majesty's service; and praying, that his conduct may be fully inquired into, and that the House will take such steps thereupon as to them shall seem fit."
Sir George Warrendersaid, that he had made inquiry into this affair, and could say that the hon. gentleman was mistaken as to the grounds of the dismissal of captain Orr. The grounds of hit dismissal were the failure of the charges he brought forward on the court-martial. The result of the court-martial was, that the charges were frivolous and vexatious. The court-martial also pronounced an opinion, that this proceeding did not appear to them to be wholly dictated by zeal for his Majesty's service. After such a sentence, it could not be supposed that his continuance in the regiment would have been advisable. Representations had been made of his conduct to lord Cathcart, who then commanded the forces in Scotland; and his lordship, being strongly of that opinion wrote to the lord-lieutenant of East Lothian to that effect. It was from the representations made from the lord-lieute-
[828
nant of the county to the secretary of state that this officer was dismissed; and he believed that the petitioner was entirely mistaken in supposing that it was for not fighting a duel that he was dismissed.
The Petition was ordered to lie on the table.

PETITION OF THE EARL OF ELGIN RESPECTING HIS COLLECTION OF MARBLES.
Mr. Robert Wardpresented a Petition from the Earl of Elgin, setting forth, "That at the period of the appointment of the petitioner to the embassy to Turkey, in the year 1799, several eminent artists and patrons of the Fine Arts, lamenting that, from the prejudices of the Turks, any remains which might still exist of ancient sculpture and architecture in Greece, were inaccessible and exposed continually to destruction, directed his attention, in an especial manner, to the benefit of rescuing from danger, and securing accurate information of those remains; and that having, on these suggestions, provided the best assistants Rome could afford, and being thereby, and by the employment of all other necessary means, enabled to avail himself of every favourable opportunity, as it arose, during and since his embassy, the petitioner now begs leave to transfer to the public what he humbly conceives to be a full attainment of an object of high importance to the progress of the Fine Arts; namely, a complete series of the sculptures which formed the principal ornament of the ancient temples in Athens, specimens of their most characteristic architecture, as well as drawings, casts, vases, medals, and inscriptions from Athens, and other parts of Greece; and that, as the circumstances attending his endeavours in the attainment of this object bear no resemblance to those under which any other collection was ever presented to the public, and as it is presumed that the series of sculpture in itself has no parallel in objects ever before purchased, the petitioner hopes he may be pardoned for soliciting that the House would institute an inquiry, upon such evidence as may be procured, into the merits and value of what he now offers, and take into its consideration bow far, and upon what conditions, it may be advisable that the property of the said collection should be transferred to the public."
The Chancellor of the Exchequerconsidered that the possession of these marbles would be a great acquisition to the public.

829]
If the Petition was received, he thought that it should be referred to a committee, to consider and report as to the sum that would be proper to give for the possession of them.
Mr. Hornerthought it important that the public should have the possession of these marbles; but he should wish that the matter might lie over till the next session, as there was not time in the present to come to as full a report as would be satisfactory. The Committee would have to inquire, not only into the actual value of these marbles, but as to the manner in which lord Elgin got possessed of them. It was surmised that it was in his public capacity he obtained them; and if that was the case, it was to be considered what degree of claim the public already had. The compensation to be given to lord Elgin was certainly very different, if he got them in his public character, from what ought to be given if he had acquired them in another manner.
Mr. Bankesagreed with his hon. and learned friend, and observed, that these marbles, from what he understood of the case, were more than half public property. He also understood that there had been a treaty with lord Elgin, and that very liberal offers on the part of the Treasury had been refused. It would be, however, much to be regretted that these marbles should be removed from the country, or from the capital.
Sir John Newportthought, that a full inquiry ought to be made into the manner in which the collection had been acquired. He was afraid that the noble lord had availed himself of most unwarrantable measures, and had committed the most flagrant acts of spoliation. It seemed to have been reserved for an ambassador of this country to take away what Turks and other barbarians had always held sacred. It was the duty of the House to ascertain the truth of these matters; for otherwise, in case they should consent to purchase the collection, they would evidently sanction acts of public robbery.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he had conceived, that it would be more satisfactory for the price to be settled by the House, than in a private bargain between the Treasury and the noble lord. It was certainly so late in the session, as not to afford the opportunity of any long inquiry: but a committee of such members as were best qualified to judge of the value of those useful works of art might
[830
make a report, and adjourn to next session. There were circumstances, indeed, that made it extremely inconvenient to defer the entire consideration of the subject; but if the collection could be deposited in some of the public buildings, the noble lord might not, perhaps, object to the postponement. He was inclined to believe, that the noble lord would consent to such mode of payment as might be satisfactory to the House; he had made the collection on the laudable principle of securing models for the artists of this country, and did not desire an exorbitant remuneration.
Mr. Rosesaid, there had been some difficulty as to the receiving these marbles into the British Museum on account of the want of room; but the trustees were now determined to receive them, if the noble lord could agree with the public as to the price.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobserved, that the noble lord threw himself entirely on the justice of Parliament.
Lord G. Cavendishsaid, he believed he could state that there would be no necessity to remove the marbles from their present situation till the next session of Parliament.
The Petition was ordered to lie on the table.

MUTINY BILL.
The report of the Mutiny Bill being brought up,
Lord Palmerstonproposed some new clauses, which were adopted; but upon the proposition of a clause, that any soldier who should be taken prisoner by the enemy should be liable to the forfeiture, not only of his pay during the continuance of such imprisonment, but of any arrears of pay due to him upon being so taken prisoner, if it should appear, upon investigation before a military tribunal, that such soldier had not used due exertion and energy to save himself from being so taken prisoner,
Mr. Hornerdeprecated the proposed forfeiture of the arrears due to a soldier upon being made prisoner, because an order for the payment of such arrears to his wife and family might have been transmitted by such soldier, while he was actually performing his duty. But he would not object to the other forfeiture proposed, in case that the capture of a soldier should appear to be the effect of his own will or negligence; for to allow him his pay during his imprisonment

831]
might well be regarded as a boon to the soldier who should make a voluntary or pusillanimous surrender to the enemy. He suggested, however, that any investigation upon a subject of this nature should rather take place before a Court-martial than a Court of Inquiry, and that the onus should not be imposed upon the accused of proving that his captivity was not the result of his own negligence or want of exertion.
Lord Palmerstonstated, that as to the mode of proof, it was proposed to examine the captured soldier himself, together with any evidence which could be adduced on the part of the Crown, in order to show the circumstances under which he was made prisoner. The clause itself, indeed, was suggested rather from what had already taken place, than from what was likely to take place again. It was notorious that several soldiers had, through intoxication or negligence, permitted themselves to be taken prisoners upon the Peninsula, to whom arrears of pay were due, and that on their return to this country those arrears were paid; no power existing by the Mutiny Act to withhold them.
General Gascoyne approved of the clause, and lord Proby opposed it. Mr. Manners Sutton concurred in the suggestions of Mr. Horner; and after a short conversation, in which Messrs. Whitbread, Preston, and Lockhart, lord Palmerston and colonel Wood took a part, the clause amended according to these suggestions was agreed to.
Mr. Bennetthen rose and said:
Mr. Brogden; I rise, pursuant to notice, to move certain clauses in the Mutiny Bill now pending. From the terms in which the Mutiny Bill and the Articles of War are usually described, one would be led to suppose that they contained something like a distinct, intelligible code of crimes and punishments; while, on the contrary, nothing can be imagined more vague and indefinite. For, although the Mutiny Bill professes to be a statement of military law, it contains no precise precept; every thing being left to the arbitrary judgment of a Court-martial, with whom it rests to decide upon the character of an accusation, as well as upon the punishment of the accused. By a particular clause, indeed, in the Mutiny Act, it is consigned to the discretion of a Court-martial to determine, and to punish whatever is contrary to military discipline:
[832
and thus a member of the British army is liable to be punished for an act which, until the moment punishment was awarded, might have been deemed innocent. It is imagined in this House that the Act which you are now passing comprises the whole body of Military Law, than which nothing can be more erroneous. For under the shelter of certain references in that Act, there is first "A Collection of Orders and Regulations" issued from the office of the noble lord; opposite (Palmerston), comprising near 700 pages. There is also a publication, technically called the Blue Book, intituled "General Regulations and Orders," issued from the office of the Adjutant-general, and, in addition to these, a variety of Orders and Circulars are issued daily, which equally become Military, not Constitutional Law; and may be termed the Rescripts of the Secretary at War. These are much too voluminous to be understood, and certainly are too complicated to come within the comprehension of the body of the British army.
Under all these considerations, therefore, Sir, I cannot but think the noble lord, and right hon. gentleman (Mr. Manners Sutton), assisted by his Majesty's law officers, and under the superintendance of proper military authorities, could not employ their summer leisure more justly, more humanely, or more agreeably, than in digesting and simplifying those numerous enactments, with a view to the establishment of some intelligible code for the government of our army, in order that every officer or soldier should know what laws he is called upon to obey. It is now, Sir, about 100 years since the first enactment of what might be called a Mutiny Act. In the first instance, that Act consisted only of a few clauses; but since that period a number have been added—with a view, no doubt, to multiply orders, but in no degree tending to render that code more complete or more definite.
Having made these prefatory observations, I shall proceed to adduce cases in support of the first clause I intend to submit to the House, which is, to "limit and restrain the power of the Crown to dismiss or cashier officers without a Court-martial." The necessity of such a limitation cannot, I conceive, be disputed in argument; and many facts have served to place the question beyond a doubt, for they have fully demonstrated the abusive exercise of that authority which at present

833]
is annexed to the Crown. Certainly an officer who brings groundless charges against his superior, should be punished: but he should be punished by trial, and by law, and not by the caprice or whim of any individual, be he who he may.
The first case I shall mention, is that of the officers of the 35th regiment, respecting which I have received, and I suppose every member of this House has received, a printed statement, which proves how little they deserved the fate they have experienced. They were commanded to prefer charges against their colonel, precisely in the form prescribed to them by the Horse Guards. These officers were in fact, ordered to prosecute on charges which they never originated, or were willing to sanction: they were full of clerical errors, which they were not even permitted to correct. The case of these officers was indeed most remarkable. Prior to the year 1801, if an inferior officer brought his superior to a Court-martial, and failed in obtaining a verdict, he became himself an object of trial; and if it were proved that his conduct had been improper, and that he bad not been actuated by a true sense of what he owed to the good of the service, he was broke. I do not, Sir, at all quarrel with the practice; it is right and salutary: it is necessary for the preservation of the discipline of the army. But it never was contended, before 1801, that the Crown had the power, or if it had the power, was it ever the practice to dismiss officers from the army, to deprive them of their purchased commissions without military trial, for the simple offence of failing in a military prosecution. Now what was the case of the 85th? The regiment had returned from Holland, after a campaign which, however discreditable to some persons, was honourable to that regiment. The officers lived together in perfect friendship, when unfortunately a quarrel arose between their lieutenant-colonel (Ross) and their major (Ottley); the latter wrote down to the senior captain, intimating to him, by the express desire of major Matthews (at that time the assistant secretary to the Commander-in-chief), that certain reports of his conduct on the part of col. Ross had reached the ear of the Commander-in-chief, and requesting information. The officers living upon the most friendly terms with their lieutenant-colonial, were most unwilling to furnish any evidence that might operate against him; they, how-
[834
ever held a meeting, and in consequence of the pressing demand from the Horse Guards, they returned an answer to the various inquiries submitted to them, which answer they also sent to col. Ross, who allowed they had no option, and that they could do no otherwise. To the great astonishment of the officers, however, one year after their report was made, they were ordered by the Commander-in-chief to become the prosecutors of col. Ross. In vain they remonstrated; in vain the senior captain hastened to London to obtain the revocation of this order; in vain they slated that many of their witnesses were out of England,—that they had no interest, no concern in the prosecution,—that it was foreign to their feelings, contrary to their opinions,—that they were witnesses not prosecutors;—in vain they, urged, that even if they were compelled to act as prosecutors, the charges were so drawn that they could not prove them, that they were contrary to the evidence they had been compelled themselves to give,—that they were full of clerical errors.—The answer was in all the insolence of military despotism, "That his Royal Highness ordered the eight officers to be considered as prosecutors,—that the Judge Advocate (sir C. Morgan) had drawn out the Charges, as they then stood, in a legal form, and that no alteration, would be permitted." In this way the trial began. The officers stated to the Court that they were compelled to come forward as prosecutors: they disowned the Charges in the present shape, and declared their inability to prove them.—As might have been expected, col. Ross was acquitted; but his prosecutors were cashiered—Now, it has been said, that these eight officers were privately informed, that if they proceeded in the prosecution, and failed, they would all be broke;—it is affirmed also, that a letter was written to that effect. Now, Sir, I am commissioned to state here, that no such message, no such letter was ever received; I am instructed to declare the statement a direct falsehood, be the person who he may who made it. How then is it to be endured, not only that officers should be dismissed the service, should be cheated out of their commissions, but that the Crown, to effect these mean purposes, should force them to become prosecutors against their will, and that it should turn witnesses into accusers? If such be the law, and the practice of the army, a Court-martial is a mere mockery: it is an

835]
insult to talk of a trial;—far better would it be to place the life and limb of the officer and soldier at the mercy of the Crown, acting by responsible ministers, than to hold out that as a boon, which is meant to be a curse, and to affect to govern by law, when there is no taw but the will of the Commander-in-chief. But what is more extraordinary in this transaction, the order was issued in his Majesty's name at a period (in 1801) when, according to the evidence of Dr. Willis, his Majesty was in a state of mental derangement: thus the name of the King was abused. Is it to be endured, that the King is to be dragged from a sick chamber to the council? That his hand is to be un-manacled at the will of a chancellor, or any other person, for the unworthy purpose of signing away the characters, the fame, the fortune of a body of gallant officers, and respectable men, many of whom had shed their blood in his service? Is it to be borne, that my lord chancellor (Eldon) is to drag forth the sovereign, from a state of personal restraint, to sign away the fortune and characters of eight gallant officers? And that they are not only to be thus deprived of their commissions, but the injustice and violence practised against them, is to serve as a precedent for the further perpetration of similar enormities? Their case has been quoted as an authority to prove the legality of the dismission of officers without trial. Severe as the blow, and cruel as the injury is to those brave officers, they feel them the more severely because they are thus made to furnish an authority for inflicting the same barefaced injustice on others.
The other cases which I shall now submit to the committee, are either taken from the individuals concerned, or from sources which I cannot doubt. Lieutenant Ridsdale I have seen, and his case is as follows: Serving with the Wexford militia, he had been grievously ill-treated by by the abuse of the royal authority in 1811. In aggravation of which I consider it, that his grandfather lost his life in the service of his country, as did his elder brother; and that his father served in the army no less than 40 years. Yet this Meritorious officer was the victim of abused power!—[Here the hon. gentleman read the charges and sentences of the Courts-martial which arose out of a momentary dispute with another office, in which he was in no way to blame.] Surely, Sir, from the complexion of these
[836
documents, it could hardly be supposed that lieutenant Ridsdale would not have been restored to the service, particularly as captain Royd was with all his censures so restored; a letter was however clandestinely written by his commanding officer, colonel Phair, of a slanderous description, by which it was prevented, and which letter be at first denied, and never could justify. The Commander-in-chief at last, from what reason I never could divine, except it was from his knowing him to be an ill-used person, gave him a commission in a West-India regiment, Previous to joining this corps, lieutenant Ridsdale thought it an indispensable, duty to clear his character from the aspersions cast upon it: when, instead of being himself made the subject of a court-martial, and colonel Phair being called, upon to prove his assertions, be (lieut. R.) was unaccountably compelled to prosecute colonel Phair: the consequence was, as usual, the rules of evidence were violated, his charges were not found proved, and he was dismissed the service! What must be the feelings of this young officer, when, upon endeavouring to get a hearing subsequently to this decision, he received a letter from general Torrens desiring him literally, "not to importune that office any more." If general Torrens is in the habit of thus treating officers who complain of oppression, it were better for the army and the office, that general Torrens should be removed from it. Now what, I ask, was the situation of this young man? What was he to do? He had been insulted, struck, dragged about like a felon, convicted of having sent a challenge; but, from the circumstances of his situation strongly recommended to mercy: but his colonel, underhand, interferes, and the mercy of the Crown is not extended to him. It is however extended to the prosecutor, who had been broke, and who ought from the nature of his offence, never to have been restored. At last, however, the Commander-in-chief gives lieutenant Ridsdale a commission: the moment he obtains it, "Now," he exclaims, "I am a soldier again; now my character can, be re-established." He then immediately applies for a court of inquiry; it is refused; he applies again; it is refused once more; he renews his demand, and he is ordered to prosecute colonel Phair: he does so; the Court-martial acquit colonel, Phair, and lieutenant Ridsdale is cashiered—Now what would gentleman wish this

837]
officer to have done? Was he to have submitted to the insinuations of colonel Phair? Was he to have joined his new regiment with the stain that colonel Phair had fixed on his name? For my own part, Sir, I think lieutenant Ridsdale acted honourably, though not wisely; for he ought to have known, that as the army is now administered, there is no safety in an inferior officer under any circumstances prosecuting a superior. He must patiently submit to the injuries to himself and to the service, whatever they may be.
The next case I shall adduce is that of captain Tuton, who was ordered to prefer charges against another officer in the form prescribed by sir John Stuart, contrary to his own judgment. What was he to do? Compelled by the regulations of the service to attend to the complaints made to him as superior officer, and ordered by his general to prosecute; he wished to put the charges into something like order, instead of the mere complaints as they were taken from the men's months; but he was prevented, and compelled to undertake their proof in the prescribed form. Yet in consequence of the decision of the Court-martial against his charges so preferred, this officer was dismissed by the alleged command of the King. But the case of this officer was aggravated by this circumstance, that the conduct of the Court-martial was so irregular, as to be condemned by the two solicitors who attended to conduct the prosecution and defence. In fact, I have it from undoubted authority, that such was the puerile conduct of the members of that Court, that, instead of performing their judicial functions, after publicly betting on the result of the trial, they chiefly amused themselves throughout with cutting papers and sticking them in the hair of the President!! The letter of the two solicitors, both of them most respectable men, is a proof of the nature of the tribunal; and of the propriety of making its decisions conclusive as to the characters and fortunes of those who are unfortunate enough to be prosecutors before it. I shall now read the Solicitor's letter, addressed to captain Tuton.
"Dear Sir; Those friends of yours who consider that you did not conduct the Court-martial properly on your part, labour under a great mistake, and they should be informed, that in the first place you did not wish to appear in the character of prosecutor against captain
[838
M'Arthur, and therefore merely stated the complaints of the men as you received them; and afterwards when you found, yourself driven into the situation of prosecutor, you called on Mr. Tanner and myself, for our professional assistance, with a view to the matter being conducted regularly, properly, and fairly; but such was the conduct of the Court (acting apparently under an extraordinary bias in favour of the prisoner!) that Mr. Tanner in a very early stage of the trial, seeing the inclination of the Court, and their determination not to be governed by the established rules of evidence which was contended for, and being disgusted with the very improper and irregular mode of proceeding, withdrew himself from the Court, and recommended you no longer to appear in the character of prosecutor. Though the Court obliged yon to proceed, and though I continued my attendance at the Court a day or two after, Mr. Tanner had withdrawn himself; it was not with any hope of assisting you, which was quite impossible; but merely to witness the novelty of such a mode of trial as I never before heard of, and such as I am willing for the honour of the army to believe was unprecedented. Improper bets were made in Court by the members and the president himself, as to the time the trial would occupy, if conducted in the regular way we contended for; and we were, contrary to every rule of evidence, precluded from giving such evidence as ought to have been heard, and such as must have changed the complexion of the transaction altogether very materially. But I need not enlarge on this, which is fully and accurately stated in your reply, particularly as to the questions you put to sir Charles Asgill, which be declined answering on account of its being private conversation, and which was not a legal objection.
"The Judge-advocate, (colonel Ryves) in various-instances, attempted to correct the Court in its proceedings, but without effect, and was evidently very much distressed at the improper and indecorous behaviour of the president and members. Mr. Tamlyn, who attended on behalf of the prisoner, has several times admitted to me that he never witnessed such proceedings in his life, and that in his opinion the president and members were highly culpable. Indeed, there can be but one opinion about it, and every one must regret that the army should be so dis-

839]
graced by such a proceeding; though I still trust it will not be deprived of your services, which, on a fair investigation of the matter in question, certainly would not be dispensed with.
"I can only say you have my best wishes that you may yet obtain justice, and remain, dear Sir, yours faithfully,
"Barnstaple, W. LAW."
June 20, 1814."
I shall make no comment on this letter; but if officers are to be cashiered by tribunals so conducting themselves, the tribunals must be reformed. The system must be reformed, or the army will become a service into which no gentleman will enter. I have taken the greatest pains to inform myself of the truth of the facts which I have brought forward; and I should have resorted to captain Tuton himself, if I had not been informed he had lately been gazetted as an ensign, which circumstance naturally made me delicate of subjecting him to any answer on the subject: and I trust that no other result of the present mention of his case will occur, than the accelerating the work so well begun.
In reference to the case I have just stated, I cannot but remark on the lamentable defects of Courts-martial in respect to the want of a person of the legal profession to guide their proceedings. It is shocking to think of the ignorance sometimes displayed. Nay, not only military officers are appointed to the important office of judge-advocate, but I have seen a letter from the office of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Manners Sutton)—I do not know if it happened in his time—where a president was called upon to nominate a person to officiate, and who should be acceptable to himself!
I shall next notice the case of lieutenant Blake of the 55th foot. The ground of the charge I cannot defend, but the procedure was most extraordinary. While a close prisoner in Windsor barracks, a Court-martial assembled for his trial in Holland. Having moved for a Habeas Corpus, which was refused, on the plea that the Court had no jurisdiction, he was released by the military authorities, and suffered to be at large, and repaired to London, when he saw in a public paper that a Court was assembling for his trial at Harwich. He applied to the office of the Judge-advocate, and was informed they had no knowledge of such a circumstance
[840
being about to take place. Almost immediately after, he received a notice to attend his trial; and he could scarcely arrive in time, without any witnesses; while those for the prosecution were all prepared and arrayed against him. The consequence of this trial was, that be was cashiered. Another case to which, Sir, I wish to call the attention of the committee, is that of ensign Cowell. I have attentively read that trial; and the more I consider all the circumstances connected with it, the more am I astonished. I understand the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Manners Sutton) was not present at it, but was represented by the Deputy Judge-advocate-general. And here I cannot but take occasion to observe, that this Deputy Judge-advocate not only fills that important situation, but also fills the by-no-means unimportant one of Chief Clerk to himself! and, in addition to these, is comfortably established in the business of an army agent. The latter office I think must evidently be very incompatible with the judicial duties of his original station. In fact, it is utterly impossible that these various avocations can be filled with equal attention, and least of all the important duties of Courts-martial. I wish, however, to ask the right hon. gentleman, whether he approves of that Court-martial (ensign Cowell's), as to its legal character? Whether he approves of the charges that were brought forward, whether of the evidence, whether of the garbled letters that were used, and lastly, whether as lego-military adviser of the Crown, he thought it his duty to apprize the Commander-in-chief that the sentence was at variance with the evidence?
From all these cases, Sir, and from all I have ever heard on the subject, I feel it necessary that some limitation should be placed to the power of the Crown. It is clear that that power has been grossly abused, and that abuse having been published to the whole world, it is, in my opinion, the bounden duty of this House to protect, by every means within its reach, the lives and fortunes of those gallant men who form the British army. I shall, therefore, Sir, conclude by moving a clause to that effect: viz. "That it shall not be lawful for the Crown to dismiss any officer without a Court martial, for any offence arising out of a Court-martial, whether he has been either prosecutor or witness.
The clause was then brought up, and upon the question being put,
Sir F. Floodoffered a few remarks on the case of lieutenant Ridsdale, and contended that he had most properly been dismissed the service. With regard to Courts-martial in general, which the hon. member had attacked, he thought them subjects of commendation, as they were courts of strict law on one side, and courts of equity on the other.
Mr. Manners Suttonhoped the House would not expect him to be prepared to go at length into all the cases stated by the hon. gentleman, some of which he had never heard of before. As for the first case, it had occurred many years before he came into office, and he did not at all know the minutiae of it. As to the case of colonel Phair and lieutenant Ridsdale, the Court-martial had taken place in Ireland, and the proceedings had never come to his office. As to captain Tuton's case, the assertions in his memorial had been flatly dented by the members of the Court-martial. Lieutenant Blake had been guilty of great outrages at Windsor, and afterwards sent in his resignation to the Horse Guards. It was not then thought proper to accept it, and he had been brought to a trial at Harwich, and found guilty. The hon. gentleman must have been misinformed respecting the notice of trial, as copies of the charges were invariably sent both to the prosecutor and the prisoners, before the day of trial was fixed. He next came to the case of ensign Cowell, and it gave him great regret to find this case so often alluded to. He was aware of the great difficulty and delicacy of the case respecting fighting duels, and was sensible of the inconsistencies in the Articles of War upon that head. He, however, apprehended, that greater evils would result from an alteration of them. He was satisfied the case of ensign Cowell was much misunderstood. He believed the facts of the case to be these: Ensign Cowell got into a personal quarrel at the theatre at Bourdeaux, with a man who was pressing into the box in which he sat. He then turned about to some officers near, and asked what they advised him to do. Their answer was—"Take no notice of him, we suppose that he is not a gentleman." Ensign Cowell shortly after asked the man whether he was a gentleman, and obtained his address. Ensign Cowell, however, let some days elapse without taking any farther notice, and the gentleman, a Mr. Hurley, then began to look for him.
[842
Ensign Cowell then asked for an apology, which was positively refused, and afterwards the explanation came from ensign Cowell, who said that he had not knows him to be a gentleman. The officers, upon hearing of this, refused to mess with him, and sent him a letter intimating to him that he should resign. He actually did send in his resignation, but afterwards retracted it, and called for a Court-martial. As to the complaint of officers being dismissed in consequence of failing in their charges, it must be observed, that Courts-martial were always granted when one officer wished to bring charges against another. The freedom of granting those trials could only be restrained by the liability of the persons bringing the charges. It was not for merely failing to prove charges that an officer was dismissed, but for bringing forward charges without any reasonable foundation for them. As to discretionary power, it was always liable to abuse, wherever it was vested; but the advantages to be derived from the honest application of a discretionary power were often found considerably to outweigh the evils apprehended from its abuse. He thought there was no species of discretionary power which might with greater safety be left in the hands of the Crown. Every act of it was done in the face of the day, and open to observation. He should therefore feel it his duty to resist the introduction of the clause into the Bill.
After some further observations, in which lord Palmerston, Mr. W. Smith, sir G. Warrender, general Gascoyne, Mr. Wynn, lord Compton, and Mr. Bennet participated, the clause was negatived without a division. Mr. Bennet said, it was not his intention to move the other clauses at that late hour; but he would take that opportunity of giving notice, that on Wednesday next he should move for leave to bring in a Bill to limit the number of lashes to be inflicted by the sentence of a Court-martial. The Report was then agreed to.

LOAN TO THE CORPORATION OF LIVERPOOL.
Mr. Birchrose to submit a motion to the House, founded on the transaction, which had come to his cognizance, between the Treasury and the Corporation of Liverpool. It appeared that the Treasury had lent to the Corporation of Liverpool, without the authority of Parliament, two sums—of 30,000 l. and of

843]
20,000 l. It was the more remarkable also that the second sum had been lent, although the interest of the first sum had not been paid. The security on which this sum was lent was a warehouse, or father shed, rented by Government for the purpose of warehousing tobacco, of which the value could not be above 10,000 l. It was true the rent which Government paid for this place was 5,000 l.; but this rent was fixed between the two parties, and was, he thought, an extravagant charge. The rent of the warehouse before rented by Government for the same purpose, was only 700 l. a year, and at the same rate this warehouse would not be worth more than 2,000 l. It was for the House to say whether this was sufficient security. The principle, however, of the loan, which was open to the imputation of being made subservient to the purpose of electioneering influence, was the most objectionable. The authority of Parliament had not been given, and the transaction could only be compared to the Joan to Boyd and Benfield, for which the minister of the day was obliged to ask an Act of Indemnity from Parliament. Loans to individuals, even when the authority of Parliament was not required, were not justifiable, except in such cases as the loans to the manufacturers some years ago, and that to the planters of Grenada. He should therefore move, "That there be laid before this House an account of any loan of money which may have been Advanced by the public for the docks at Liverpool."
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he did not intend to oppose the motion; but he should enter into a short explanation of the transaction. The loan to the house of Boyd and Benfield was very different from the present case; that was a loan of money which was in the hands of the Treasurer of the Navy, for navy purposes, to the contractors for the loan for the year; so that it was a loan justified no doubt by the circumstances of the case, of money, by the Government to those who again lent it to the Government. But in the present instance, the Government having contracted for a warehouse at Liverpool, for which they were to pay an annual rent, which was thought more convenient than to pay a large sum for purchase-money, the Corporation, of Liverpool, who were the contractors, represented that their funds would not enable them to proceed without a loan. They also slated, that
[844
on account of the circumstances of the times, they could not procure money at 5 per cent. from private individuals. The Government considering the security unexceptionable, a second application was afterwards made, which, though there was not the same claim on the Government, yet, as the money was to be applied to build a dock, which would materially assist in preventing smuggling, the Government thought fit to comply with it. Besides the rent paid by Government for the warehouse, which was double the interest of both the sums, they had the security of the Corporation estates, which produced a rent of 51,000 l. a year, and were worth much more than a million of money. The Government had always made use of its discretion in the purchase or building of warehouses for the purpose of collecting the revenue, and the present case came within the ordinary exercise of that discretion, as it was, in principle, no way different from a purchase of the warehouse in question. He ridiculed the idea of the loan having been made with a view to any influence on any election.
Mr. Wynnthought this advance of money most unconstitutional, and observed that it would, if acquiesced in, open a door to abuses of which no man could see the end. The same might be done for Bristol, or any other town which happened to be in favour with the Treasury. The town would first get the money from the Treasury, and then it would only remain to be justified to the House, which was easier than to make out a case for obtaining it from Parliament. Under a Government less pure, the loan might be open to the charge of being granted for the sake of parliamentary influence.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobserved, that the loan was merely an anticipation of the rent.
General Gascoynecontended, that the warehouse in question afforded most ample security to the Government, as more than 50,000 l. had been laid out on it before the money was borrowed from Government. The part which was not used by Government was let out by them, and had produced sometimes 10,000 l. a year.—so much for the overcharge of rent. He could not speak as to the law of the case; but as to the usage, the loan to Liverpool was by no means singular. Money had been granted to the London and other Dock Companies. The money which should hare been applied to build a

845]
walled dock, had been diverted to the purpose of building a warehouse foe the Government, and of course the Corporation was justified in applying to the Parliament, or rather the Treasury.
Sir J. Newportsaid, that though the hon. general did not profess to be acquainted with the constitution, he seemed well acquainted with the best way of procuring money for his constituents. The hon. member for Liverpool had asserted, that large sums had formerly been granted to the London Dock and other companies. But then they had been granted by the authority of Parliament. If the precedent of Liverpool were admitted, why might it not be extended to Bristol, to Glasgow, to Dublin, or to Cork?
Mr. Bankesexpressed his conviction that his right hon. friend had acted from the purest motives, but argued that the principle on which he had so acted was utterly inadmissible. It was high time that such a practice, if it had prevailed to any extent, should be stopped; and he expressed his satisfaction to find that the motion was to be acceded to; as it would put Parliament in possession of the fact on that point.
Mr. Bensonwarmly defended the conduct of the Corporation of Liverpool. An ample security had been given by them for the money advanced, the interest had been paid, and the whole transaction was one not of secresy, but of perfect, publicity.
Mr. W. Smithreprobated placing the disposal of any part of the public revenue at the discretion of the Treasury, instead of the discretion of Parliament. At the same time, he did not attribute any blame to Government but that inadvertence.
Mr. Birchin reply stated, that the Corporation of Liverpool bad applied, or had intended to apply, for a remission of the interest, amounting to 4,000 l. He denied that the transaction had been so public as it had been described.
The motion was then agreed to.

VACCINATION BILL.
Mr. Wynn,after alluding to the national benefit of the propagation of this antidote to the smallpox, and observing upon the necessity of doing away the prejudice that prevailed against it amongst the lower orders, through some instances of its failure, moved for leave to bring in a Bill, "For procuring the benefit of Vaccination to such poor persons as are desirous of receiving it."
Mr. Bankessaid a few words on the advantage of the process to society at large, and on the impossibility of preventing it from failing in a few cases.
Mr. Whitbreadthought it highly important that it should not be supposed that because vaccination had in a few instances failed, that inoculation with variolous matter had not failed also. He had known, instances of persons who had been inoculated with the natural small-pox, having taken the infection after a lapse of twenty years.
Mr. Bankesthought there had been as many instances of failure in cases of vaccination, as in those of variolous inoculation. He was, however, highly in favour of the former process.
Leave was given to bring in the Bill.