HC Deb 05 August 1836 vol 35 cc942-3

On the question that the Speaker do now leave the Chair being again put,

Sir Edward Codrington

rose, pursuant to a notice long standing upon the order paper, to move for a return of "all officers, of whatever rank, who have been deprived of their half-pay without their consent, or the investigation of a court martial, from the year 1790 up to the present period, with the alleged reasons for such deprivation: also a return of any persons whose half-pay has been restored to them subsequently to such deprivation, with the alleged reason for such restoration." He was induced to make this motion because, as the House knew, the subject, having been frequently brought under its notice, several instances of great hardship, in which officers of long service had been deprived of their half-pay without any alleged cause, or at least without any proper inquiry.

On the question being put,

Sir Frederick Trench

objected to the motion, both as a soldier and a Member of that House. Until another commonwealth was established in this country he hoped never to see the discipline of the army subject to Parliamentary control.

Mr. Charles Wood

was decidedly opposed to such a motion, as it was calculated to injure the service materially. The Government had undeniably the power to dismiss officers on full pay by calling in the aid of a court-martial. Officers on half-pay could not be compelled to undergo the latter ordeal, but the power of dismissal remained the same. He would not consent to parade a list of all the cases and causes of dismissal for the last forty-six years; but he had no hesitation in stating that, as far as he knew, no officer on half-pay was ever dismissed, except for conduct unbecoming a gentleman and a soldier. If the hon. and gallant Member thought that any particular individual in the list of half-pay officers were really aggrieved, let him bring the case before the House, and he (Mr. Wood) would undertake to give him every information the nature of the case admitted of.

Sir Samuel Whalley

thought that the hon. and gallant Officer would have done better if he had confined his motion to specific cases, especially as the hon. Gentleman (the Secretary for the Admiralty) had shown no disposition to deny proper and constitutional inquiry. He hoped, therefore, the hon. Member would not press his motion.

Motion negatived.