Commons Sitting of 3 May 1836

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Insolvent Debtors' (Ireland); Instruments of Sasine (Scotland); Turnpike Road (Scotland).
Petitions presented. By Mr. BARNARD and Sir WILLIAM FOLKES, from various Places, for the Repeal of the Duty on Newspapers.—By Sir WILLIAM FOLKES, from Norfolk, for Provision in the Tithes' Commutation Bill relative to the Fen Lands in the Bedford Level.—By several MEMBERS, from various Places, for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.—By Mr. POTTER, from Honiton, against the Lord's Day Bill.—By Mr. ELWES and other HON. MEMBERS, from various Places, for Inquiry into Agricultural Distress.—By Lord HENNIKER, from the Lords of Manors in Suffolk and Norfolk, against Copyholds, Manorial Boundaries, and Escheats Bill.—By Mr. W. MILES, from the Owners of Ecclesiastical Property in Somersetshire, against the Ecclesiastical Leases' Bill.—By several HON. MEMBERS, from various Places, against the Bishopric of Durham Bill.—By the ATTORNET-GENERAL, and Lord STANLEY, from the Licensed Vendors of Spirits in various Places, for the Repeal of the Duty on Licences. —By Major C. BRUCE, from Inverness, Complaining of the Expense incurred by Alimenting Prisoners after Condemnation.—By Colonel SEAL, from Brixham, for the Repeal of the Horse-tax.—By Mr. BROTHERTON, from

515
Preston, for the Amendment of the Factories' Act—By Mr. INGHAM, from the Parish Clerks of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, for Provision for their Support in the Marriages Bill.—By Mr. INGHAM and Mr. CLAY, from North and South Shields, for a Law Regulating the Construction of Merchant Shipping.—By Mr. WOOD and Dr. BALDWIN, from Whitehaven and Cork, for the Repeal of the Duty on Marine Insurances.—By Dr. BALDWIN and Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD, from various Places, for the Abolition of Tithes (Ireland); and from various other Places, for the Alteration of Bankrupts' (Ireland) Bill.—By Sir ROBERT PRICE, from Ross, in favour of Mr. BUCKINGHAM'S Claim.—By Mr. PEASE, from the Provident Society, Fetter Lane, for the Repeal of the Friendly Society's Act.—By Mr. ROBERT WALLACE, from Owners of Works on the River Esk, against the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Bill, Complaining of Distress; and from the Merchants of Edinburgh, for the Acceleration of the Mail to that Place.—By Dr. BALDWIN, from Cork, praying the House not to sanction the grinding of Foreign Corn in this Kingdom.—By Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET, from Newport, Monmouth, for the Suppression of Beer Shops.— By Mr. CHARLES ROSS, from Northampton, for the Repeal of the Duty on Fire Insurances.—By Lord ROBERT GROSVENOR, from Chester, against transferring the Business of the Local Courts to London.— By the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, from the Company of Merchants, Edinburgh, for the Reduction of the Stamp Duties.—By Lord Viscount CLEMENTS, from various Places, for the Speedy Completion of the Shannon Navigation.

LAW COMMISSIONERS (SCOTLAND).
Lord Stanleysaid, that he rose to pre-sent the petition of a gentleman with whom he had no manner of acquaintance, but who, it appeared, feeling himself aggrieved by a statement made in the 11th Report of the Scotch Law Commissioners, was anxious, for the purpose of clearing his character, to bring the matter before the House. It was the petition of Mr. Alexander Peterkin, who had been appointed, in the year 1814, Sheriff Substitute for the Orkneys, and was removed from that office by the Sheriff of Bute, in the year 1824. The petitioner stated, that subsequently to that period the Scotch Law Commissioners of Inquiry having, in the course of their inquiries, adverted to the power thus exercised by Sheriffs in Scotland, they had stated in their Report made to the House, that there had been two instances of the exercise of such power of recent date, but that it appearing that they had been perfectly warranted, the Commissioners did not feel called upon to interfere in the matter. The petitioner stated, that his dismissal was one of those instances, and that it would seem, from the wording of the passage referred to in the Report of the Commissioners, that it had been a dismissal warranted by the facts of the case. Now, so far was the petitioner from acquiescing in the decision of the Sheriff of Bute, that he had in 1824 commenced legal proceedings against him, which proceedings were now nearly being brought to a close. The petitioner felt it a hardship that this part of the Report of
516
the Commissioners should go forth to the public in such a shape as to cast an imputation on his character. He stated the petitioner had in private received from the Scotch Law Commissioners an assurance that was somewhat at variance with their Report. They admitted, that in his case no imputation attached to his character; that they had made no special inquiry into the facts of his case, though they had stated in their Report that on inquiry they found that his dismissal was warranted, and that they merely intended to convey, by that statement, that the Sheriff of Bute possessed the power which he had exercised. Now, no one disputed that; but the expression used certainly did seem to intimate that there was something in the case of the petitioner. The fact was not so, and the petitioner was therefore anxious to set Parliament and the public right upon the subject.
The Lord Advocatewas not aware that anything could be advanced against the character of this respectable gentleman. He did not believe that any charge had been made against him for his judicial conduct in the office he had filled. At the same time he was not cognizant of the facts of the case, and he could state nothing positively and of his own knowledge with regard to the facts of it. He believed, however, that he was correct in stating, that this gentleman had been removed from his office for nothing improper, and that no charge had been made against him.
Mr. Wallacewas glad that the subject had been brought before the House by the noble Lord. The lime was arrived when the power exercised by Judges in Scotland, of dismission of other Judges under them, should be done away with. The Judges of every grade in Scotland should be appointed and dismissed by the Crown alone. The practice of one set of Judges dismissing others had been attended with very injurious effects in that country. Inquiry-had induced him (Mr. Wallace) to come to conclusions very different from those of the Law Commissioners on the subject. It appeared, too, that this case had come into Court in the year 1824, and that it was now near its close in 1836. That fact spoke volumes as to the state of the law of the country. He trusted that the learned Lord-Advocate would endeavour to put an end to such a state of things, and that the House would assist him in reforming this disgraceful system of the Scotch Law Courts. There was a Judge who had been dismissed twelve years ago, who had not

517
been enabled, up to the present moment, to obtain a decision on his case.
Petition to lie on the table.

STAMP DUTIES ON NEWSPAPERS.
Mr. Goulburnheld in his hand a petition from certain individuals, the printers and publishers of those daily papers which had the largest circulation in the metropolis; and if any credit was due to the reports of what was represented to have taken place between his right hon. Friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) and those persons who had been allowed to have an interview with him on the subject of the Stamp Duties, this petition was worthy of the most serious attention of the House. It was reported that his right hon. Friend had declared, that his object in the proposed reduction of the Stamp Duties was to put down monopoly; but he (Mr. Goulburn) was sure that if any such expression fell from his right hon. Friend, he was not actuated by any partial feelings, or by a disposition to disregard the rights and property of any persons. If any one class of the community was less entitled to the appellation of monopolists than another, it was that which comprise those who were engaged in the conduct of the public daily press; for, whereas while the copyright of other authors was protected for a limited period by an express law, to the daily press no protection whatever was assigned, however great might be the expenditure of capital in the purchase of information: however extensive the literary labour employed, individuals situated as the petitioners were, enjoyed no protection from piracy, but were liable to have the fruits of their enterprise and talent pillaged from them the very next moment after publication. But if this argument was not sufficient to relieve them from the charge of being monopolists, he thought that he could prove that these individuals were no more liable to that charge than were those who, having employed their capital and talents in a particular branch of business, had succeeded, by their superiority and industry in surpassing all their competitors. The object of this petition was to represent to the House the injurious effects of a clause which the right hon. Gentleman opposite had proposed to introduce into his Bill for regulating the Stamp Duties. By that clause it was declared, that henceforth a fixed newspaper duty should attach to a sheet of a particular size, and if they exceeded that size they should be subject to a
518
double duty. Of that regulation the petitioners complained; and they complained of it, because, in their opinion, it would be partial in its operation; they complained of it because it would occasion a great loss of capital to them; they complained of it because it would be detrimental to them in a financial point of view, and injurious to the general interests of the revenue. It was necessary, in order to understand the prayer of the petition, that the House should know the state of the law on this particular subject. Many years ago it was the law that a newspaper should pay a duty according to the size of the paper; and by a statute passed, he thought in the year 1804, the size of a newspaper was limited to thirty-two inches by twenty-two; and that law continued for a certain time. But as the taste for information gained ground, and as the state of society gave persons an interest in a greater variety of subjects, it was found to be very difficult for editors and proprietors of newspapers to satisfy their customers by confining themselves within the limits which the law prescribed; and experiments were made, first by allowing a supplement to be published, at half the price and duty charged on the original paper. Afterwards Mr. Huskisson, in the year 1825, brought in his Bill, which met with the universal concurrence of the House, to take off all restrictions on the size of newspapers, and to leave it to the discretion of every individual to print his paper on what sized sheet he pleased. In consequence of that general arrangement, and in consequence of the increased demand for this kind of literary productions, proprietors of newspapers embarked their capital in the adaptation of machinery, each man according to his own particular fancy or the taste of his readers, for the purpose of publishing his paper in that size and form which he considered to be most desirable. It had happened that the Times, the Morning Herald, the Morning Post, the Standard, and perhaps some others, had adopted the plan of publishing a double-sheet newspaper, instead of a single sheet. The Morning Chronicle, however, took another line, and instead of adapting its machinery to the publication of a double-sheet of the then ordinarily sized paper, it extended the size of its original sheet. Now, it had so happened that in the clause which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to introduce into the Bill now lying on the Table of the House, he had calculated and proposed a size pre-

519
cisely suited to the dimensions of the Morning Chronicle. [Hear.] The House would not suppose that he meant to impute that his right hon. Friend opposite had any intention of favouring the paper which supported his own views to the prejudice of those who opposed his views. That was not the purpose which he had in view—that was not the purpose of the petitioners; but all he would say was, that by an accidental circumstance the right hon. Gentleman had framed the clause so as to suit the size of that paper—a paper belonging to a particular branch of the daily press, and not any of the others; and that gave to these petitioners a just and reasonable ground of complaint. They (the petitioners) stated that they could not conform to the altered size without making a change in their machinery, which would be attended with very considerable expense and loss. He believed that it had been stated since his right hon. Friend made his first proposition, that he had determined to alter the size of newspapers, and to estimate the size by its superficial contents in inches. It had been stated, that 1,530 superficial inches was to be the size in future. Now, it was possible that, by this arrangement, many of the parties who would have been aggrieved by the original proposition of the Bill might be relieved; but still this plan, pressing as it did against the individuals who now complained by their petition, it would be but justice for the house to take their case into consideration, and to afford them a remedy; for their case was not in any degree remedied, although the aggregate number of sufferers might be in some degree diminished. He should be prepared—[Cries of "Order," and "Chair."]
The Speakersuggested, that the right hon. Gentleman was going further than he ought. As long as the right hon. Gentleman confined himself to the statements of the petition, for the purpose of making the House acquainted with them, he was perfectly in order, but when he went beyond that into an argument upon the question, he was irregular.
The Chancellor of the Exchequertook the liberty most humbly to entreat the House, as this was a question which really more or less involved the character of a public officer of the Crown, to allow the right hon. Gentleman to have the fullest opportunity of explaining all the statements of the petition. But he should also claim the full power of not allowing those statements themselves, or the inferences drawn
520
from them, to remain uncontradicted, or without explanation. He knew he should be able to satisfy his right hon. Friend that those statements and inferences on this subject were entirely at variance with the whole of his conduct.
The Speakersaid, he had interrupted the right hon. Gentleman only with a view of calling his attention to the rule of the House; but that rule would not preclude him from making any explanation of portions of the petition which he might consider necessary.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, the only addition he had to make to the petition was, that the regulation complained of would be partial in its operation, and he was sure that his right hon. Friend would agree with him that it would press severely upon the parties who were in the habit of publishing double sheets. He would add further, that the restriction to a particular size was calculated to be injurious both to trade and to the revenue. It was hardly necessary for him on that occasion to offer any reasons why parties should not be as unrestricted as possible as to the mode in which they desired to carry on their business. He was sure the House would feel that the proposed regulation was one which must have the effect of interfering with the liberty of the subject with regard to the mode in which individuals chose to transact their business. He would further mention that the petitioners stated, if they should transgress the proposed law, they were to be subjected to a double duty, and that the additional duty would operate on them as a penalty, and perhaps effectually prevent the publication of double sheets. At present, the double sheet produced a revenue of a very large amount, and therefore this regulation in a fiscal point of view was one of the very worst that could be adopted. If the House thought that he ought not then to enlarge on the subject of the petition, he should desist; but he must say, that he felt sorry that he was not able to enter into it more fully, and that it was not fair to the petitioners themselves not to be allowed to state all their views. This, however, he would state, that the proposed Bill would materially affect their interests if it were carried in its present shape. Though he felt himself very inadequate to do justice to the claims of the petitioners, he hoped the House would not suppose that their case was not of a much stronger nature than he had been able or permitted to to make out.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwould first take the liberty of calling the attention of the House to the facts, or rather the allegations of the petition, and to the inferences which had been drawn from them. He did not find any fault with his right hon. Friend for the course which he had pursued. He should abstain from discussing those parts of the petition which his right hon. Friend had been precluded from stating; but he would take upon himself to say, that if the House would do him the favour to accompany him through the few words he should have occasion to address to them, they would admit that there never were more grievous and base misrepresentations—never more scandalous imputations—calculated to injure and destroy the character of a public servant, uttered, than those which had been put forth on another occasion in connexion with the petition now before the House. He would not address himself to any of those Gentlemen who were connected with him in political sentiments, but he would place himself in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman himself, and he would be satisfied to abide by his judgment. The House would allow him to observe, in passing, that he by no means warranted any statements which had gone forth respecting interviews which had occurred between him and persons who had desired to see him on this subject. He did not complain of this practice which had grown up; Gentlemen might exercise their own discretion, but he would say that it was a practice most subversive of public convenience, and detrimental to the discharge of official duty, when hon. Gentlemen were received for the purpose of communicating with the Government, that unauthorized reports of what passed should go forth, capable as they were of being mistaken or misrepresented, not being reduced to writing, and not expected to be published by the parties who made them; but being in fact exparte statements, which could neither be contradicted nor explained in the quarters to which they were forwarded. He made no complaint on this subject; he admitted that every class of persons had a right to have access to the Government officers on fitting occasions; but he would say, if that conversational intercourse was to be carried on with freedom, without which it could not be carried on with effect, the confidence of those who made communications ought not to be abused. Let an
522
opinion be asked, and let it be abided by but let not unauthorized statements be made, and depended upon as correct. Disclaiming all participation in those reports, he admitted, for he wished to conceal nothing, that at one of those interviews he stated that he objected to the continuance of the system prayed for by the petitioners, because he thought it would be favouring a monopoly. He did not care where that monopoly existed, whether it was for or against him; he said, that in fixing this restriction his object was not to create a monopoly, and he imagined that in fixing an extra duty on enlarged newspapers, it was but as just and as fair that an additional charge should be made for the conveyance of a double sheet by post, as it was to make an extra charge for the transmission of a double letter.
Mr. Goulburnsubmitted, that the right hon. Gentleman was not pursuing a fair line of argument in making these remarks, unless he were permitted to reply to them, which he should be quite prepared to do.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, his right hon. Friend should have a full opportunity to reply to him. With regard to the charge made against him, whoever the parties might be who made the charge, he would say that there was no shadow of a pretence to justify them in imputing to him one of the basest acts that could be imputed to any public man—namely, that in framing a general measure he was so regardless of the public interests, and of the sacredness of the trust reposed in him, that he had made use of that general measure to subserve either his political views or party animosities, and to commit an act of injury towards persons who had embarked their capital in trade under the encouragement of the existing law; and at the same time, that, in so doing, he had sought to give advantages to others because they participated in his political feelings. Therefore he was bound to say, without arguing the general question, that he had adopted the principle of the double stamp because he thought it a fair and just one. It was stated, that he had drawn a line most ingeniously for the purpose of protecting the Morning Chronicle, and that he had thereby most ungenerously injured the interests of the other papers' to which his right hon. Friend had referred. Now, he would tell the House distinctly, and upon his honour, that which he really bad done. On fixing the prin-

523
ciple of a stamp duty on a single sheet, he told the officers of the Stamp-office to measure the largest newspaper sheet that was to be found in circulation in the metropolis, and he took the largest because that comprehended the less; at the time he gave that direction, he could assure his right hon. Friend that he did not know which paper that would affect, or which it would not. But he would go a step further, in order to show the principle upon which he had acted. The next communication he received came from the newspaper proprietors themselves; he had been in communication with those who represented these very individual petitioners, and he had also been in constant communication with their Committee, and therefore he never was so astonished in his life, all these arrangements having been made with their own privity, some at their suggestion, well knowing, as they did, every step that had been taken, that this petition, involving him in personal charges, should be presented from the very men who participated in all he did. It was next said to him— "If you fix the length and width of newspapers, you will create great inconvenience and expense, and entirely disarrange our machinery." He therefore proposed, instead of taking the length and breadth, to take the superficial contents in inches, and with that the parties appeared to be perfectly satisfied. It was done, in point of fact, at their suggestion; he consulted with them, and endeavoured to meet their own case, in order to prevent the disturbance of their capital; yet that had become the very ground of their animadversions. But that was not all. He was informed, that although the dimensions mentioned were those of the largest paper published in the metropolis, there were provincial papers of larger dimensions than that. He was told it was a York paper, and he directed it to be measured, and the measurement to be communicated to the individuals concerned in the business, and they should have the benefit of it. Up to that moment, so little did he know of the politics of the paper, that he did not even know the name of it; but he knew by the measurement made at the Stamp-office that it was the largest paper. His right hon. Friend might differ from him as to the question of finance; he might think the measure a bad one; but he was sure that when he appealed to him, he would, after this plain and simple statement, acquit him pf having acted with bad faith towards
524
any persons whatever on this subject. He must say one word more; this might be, as his right hon. Friend said, a bad financial measure; it might be a bad species of legislation; Mr. Huskisson deserted it in 1825, though it was introduced in 1804; but he had an authority to bring forward on the question to which he attached much importance. His right hon. Friend himself prepared a Stamp Bill in 1830, and though he presented this petition, his right hon. Friend then introduced this very clause—a clause which would have the effect of restricting double sheets. He held the clause in his hand, and his right hon. Friend should have an opportunity of reviewing it. The difference between that clause and the proposition which he had made was this—that while his right hon. Friend would have restricted the size of the sheet to 36 inches by 23, he proposed that the limits should be 43 inches by 34. The difference was, that the maximum of the right hon. Gentleman's clause was only 828 inches, while his maximum was 1,530 inches. The Times newspaper at that time supported the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was then a member; and he should be the last man to impute to his right hon. Friend a disposition to do anything to affect the interests of any paper; but his clause would have had that effect with regard to the Times, so nearly did his calculation approach its size. Without, however, dwelling on this topic, which would be more properly discussed hereafter, he would put it to the House whether he had not cleared himself from imputations which had been made against him where he had no opportunity of replying to them, but which, if true, if it could be proved that he had acted thus, would render him utterly unworthy, not only of the high station which he held, and of a seat in that House, but of all intercourse with Gentlemen. If he had been guilty of such a base act as to have framed a general measure for the purpose of destroying the property of newspaper proprietors adverse to the Government, and of affording undue encouragement to newspapers of an opposite character he should have been unfit to live in civilized society. He put it also to the House, whether he had not proved from the public records that the right hon. Gentleman had furnished a full justification of the principle he had adopted? It was of great importance that he should not be misunderstood on this subject, and therefore

525
he had trespassed longer on the House than he had intended. He had been put upon his trial, by the allegations of the petition and statements made elsewhere, and he had now only to ask the House whether he was guilty or not guilty?
Mr. Goulburnthought it but just to repeat, that he threw no imputation on his right hon. Friend for having made the selection of a particular paper as the model for the future size of newspapers. His argument went only to show that the restriction was unfair to others. He did not believe there was any ground for the charges which had been alleged against his right hon. Friend; he expressly stated, that in the course of his observations what he stated was, that it had happened, by some accidental circumstance, that a particular size had been fixed upon, and that the restriction to that size was injurious to the interests and property of the petitioners. With respect to what his right hon. Friend had said on the subject of the Act of 1830, this might not be the time to enter into an explanation of that question; but he would say, that he was not to be bound by every draught of a Bill which might have been found at the Treasury, as draughts were always subject to subsequent alteration. But he was bound by the schedule of duties which he had submitted to the House of Commons, and in that schedule he was confident there was no restriction as to the size of newspapers, and that there was an allowance for supplements at half the duty. The schedule therefore proved, that the paragraph in the draught which the right hon. Gentleman had quoted had been reconsidered and rejected.
The Petition was read as follows, and laid on the table:—
"TO THE HON. THE COMMONS OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND IN PARLIAMENT ASSEMBLED.
"The humble Petition of the undersigned showeth—
"That your petitioners are printers or proprietors of daily newspapers in this metropolis, and have learnt that a measure is now in progress before your honourable House, by which, if completed, their interests will be materially injured—the information of the public derived from the daily press greatly impeded—and the revenue drawn from the several duties to which newspapers are liable, diminished.
"In the Schedule of new duties on stamps, it is proposed that 'no newspaper shall be printed on any sheet or piece of paper exceed-
526
ing forty-one inches in length and twenty-six inches in breadth, unless the same shall bè stamped for denoting the payment of double the duty by this Schedule imposed on any newspaper.'
"Now, your petitioners beg leave to state to your honourable House, that the effect of this clause will be to prevent absolutely the publication of what are called double papers, and thus to cramp the undersigned in the just and necessary exercise of their business. The partiality of the measure will be no less striking, when laid before your honourable House, than its general oppressive character; for the admeasurement recommended to be imposed by the new Act is exactly such as will spare a journal unaccustomed to publish double papers, which is peculiarly attached to the present Administration, and oppress and impoverish all the others which adopt a more independent and impartial line of policy.
"That the law now existing with reference to the size of newspapers has been in operation ever since the year 1825, at which time the late Mr. Huskisson was so convinced of the impolicy and injustice of restrictions similar to those now proposed, that he introduced an Act leaving to printers the exercise of their own discretion with respect to the size of their journals, thus establishing the principles of free trade in this as in other commercial property.
"That in consequence of this rational, as well as liberal view, the then Parliament repealed those restrictions upon the size and form of newspapers, which it is now attempted to reimpose; and so thoroughly convinced were your petitioners that it could never be attempted to bring so erroneous and even barbarous a principle into action again, that their machinery, and all their mechanical arrangements, have been formed and established in the confidence that they could not hereafter be so restricted and harassed in the fair operation of their business. The proposed law would also greatly inconvenience the paper-makers.
"By the intended measure, therefore, the greatest risk to property, which is become valuable through an immense outlay of money and labour, will be incurred; the amount of which property is of itself a pledge to the stale of the good conduct and character of those who are embarked in the management of the daily journals. The diffusion of useful intelligence, also, being an object which it is desirable to promote, your petitioners beg to state that the limitation of the size of a paper is a more direct impediment to the spread of knowledge than a high price; because a combination of small subscriptions enables the poorest people to read the journals even at their present price, whilst a compulsory maximum of size will prevent a newspaper from publishing more than a fixed quantity of matter, except at the expense of an additional stamp.
"The loss to the revenue, also, will be no

527
less obvious than the impediment to the obtaining information; inasmuch as the extra number of columns which go to the composition of what is called a 'double sheet,' are filled almost exclusively with advertisements—and thus the obstacle thrown in the way of publishing such advertisements, and of consuming a double quantity of paper, will operate in a two-fold manner against the derivation of any profit to the public from the additional stamp of one penny, which is levelled against journals of more than a given size.
"Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that your honourable House will not sanction, in its existing form, a measure which bears with such peculiar and even personal hardship on certain individual newspapers, whilst it violates the plainest principles of free trade, and tends to defeat the productiveness of duties already established—viz. that on advertisements, and that on the manufacture of paper; contracting and diminishing the sum total of information circulated amongst the reading public, and not even providing an equitable copyright protection to the capital and literary labour profusely expended by the daily journalists, in the constant acquisition and preparation of new matter to meet the wants of the community.
"And your petitioners, &c.
"JOHN JOSEPH LAWSON.
"E. R. HEARN.
"CHARLES BALDWIN.
"THOMAS PAYNE."

GALLERY FOR. LADIES.
On the Motion of Mr. Grantley Berkeley, the Report of the Select Committee appointed last Session with respect to the admission of Ladies into a part of the Strangers' Gallery, was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Grantley Berkeleysaid, that in rising in pursuance of his notice to move that the recommendation of the Committee be adopted, he felt great regret at the circumstance that, owing to his motion not having come on in the ordinary course of time, many friends of that motion were not present. He was at a loss, however, to understand what objection could be made to the adoption of the recommendation of the Committee. That Committee had been fairly chosen, and their report was impartial and unprejudiced. He had never heard a single sound reason advanced why ladies should not be admitted into that House for the purpose of hearing the debates, provided they were placed in such a situation that they could not interfere with the business of the House. He did not know what might be the case with other Members, but he was sure that their presence would
528
make no difference in his thoughts. There might certainly be hon. Gentlemen of a more inflammable nature; but he did not think that was an objection which would be seriously urged. For his part he was persuaded that if ladies were once admitted into the gallery much good would be the result; and especially that, in many cases, debates would not be so prolonged as they were at present. It had indeed been alleged, that if ladies were present, many hon. Members who were not now in the habit of speaking, would hold forth, and at considerable length; but he did not think that such would be the case. On the contrary, in his opinion many hon. Members who spoke much better in the newspapers than they did in that House would abstain from speaking, if ladies were present to judge of the comparative merits of their spoken and their reported speeches. Knowing, however, that almost every hon. Member who was listening to him wished to dine, and anticipating no objection to his immediate proposition, he would detain the House no longer, but would at once move, "That it is the opinion of this House, that the recommendation of the Select Committee appointed in the Session of 1835, with respect to the admission of ladies into a portion of the Strangers' Gallery be adopted, together with the plan for the purpose of Sir Robert Smirke; and that directions be given to that architect to proceed as speedily as possible in the execution of his plan, at such hours as may not interfere with the business of the House."
Mr. Potterhoped the House would agree to the motion of the hon. Gentleman; for he really could not see any objection to ladies hearing the debates of the House. The plan had been already tried in both Houses of Parliament—in that House when the Lords occupied it, and. no objections were urged against it, that he ever heard of. In the ventilator of the old House of Commons every evening ladies had been seen listening to the proceedings, without any objection being made, or its being considered improper. Females were as much interested in the proceedings of Parliament as the other sex, and if any portion of them were desirous of hearing the debates, why should they be prevented? It was well known, and acknowledged by all, that they possessed very great influence in society, and it was, surely, of importance that they

529
should be treated as rational beings, and be enabled to exercise that influence properly. The beneficial influence of a virtuous and enlightened mother over her son generally continued through life, and why should she (if her son were in Parliament) be prevented from hearing the manner in which he discharged his duty? Why should the wife of a Member be prevented from hearing the debate? During the Session of 1833 and 1834, he had repeatedly observed hon. Members take their wives and daughters into the ventilator, particularly when subjects of importance were under discussion, and he felt convinced they would not have done so had they supposed the least injurious consequences to have followed. In the Chamber of Deputies at Paris, the front seats of the galleries were appropriated for ladies—he had repeatedly seen them there, and they appeared to take an equal interest in the proceedings—and he had never seen the least appearance of levity in their behaviour. In Congress Hall, at Washington, they were admitted, and he understood, also, at other legislative assemblies. Surely in this country they were not going to act on exclusive and oriental principles towards the female sex.
Mr. Kearsleyhoped and trusted, that every hon. Member who was blessed with daughters would negative this idle and ridiculous proposition.
Dr. Bowringhad supported the former motion on the subject, and would support the present. No evil had resulted in other countries from allowing females to hear the debates of their legislative assemblies. In the German states they were admitted; and their presence had not been found in any respect to hinder the progress of public business. On the contrary, their influence, as on all other occasions, had been found friendly to decorum, and friendly to the bridling of the manly passions. The character of females in this country stood so high, that he was persuaded no improper language would be used in their presence, and therefore that they would exercise salutary control. He had never known anything but good result from the presence of females; and he was therefore at a loss to understand why they should be refused admission into that House.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that in the Irish Parliament ladies were allowed to be pre-sent. The cause of their original admis-
530
sion was this. In former days a hospitality of a particular kind was exercised in Ireland to such an extent, that Members, of the Irish House of Commons used to come drunk to the House. The remedy proposed and adopted was to admitla dies into the gallery, and from that moment not a single drunken man ever presumed to make his appearance.
Mr. Villiersobserved, that as he was neither "blest with daughters," nor felt any necessity to "bridle his manly passions," he might be considered an impartial judge on the present occasion. They had had friends of all classes in that House— friends of the Church, friends of the farmers, friends of the manufacturers, friends of the people, and now they had friends of the ladies. The change which it was proposed to make might be considered an organic change. In the first place, however, he was not aware that it was called for. He was not aware that any excitement existed among ladies on the subject; he was not aware that any petitions had been presented from them respecting it. He certainly did not see that any harm could result from the admission of ladies into the gallery. But would the thing end there? Were there no ulterior views? He wished to learn also how the admission of ladies was to be regulated? It would be impossible to admit as many ladies as there were Members of the House. Was the right of selection to be vested in the Secretary of State for the Home Department? If so, that right hon. Gentleman might subject himself to the charge of giving an undue preference to ladies of a peculiar description; he might be accused of being influenced in his choice by corrupt motives. He hoped that if the hon. Member for Gloucestershire really intended to introduce a Bill on the subject, he would not do so in the present Session: he hoped the hon. Member would give an opportunity of letting the matter be canvassed in all the populous towns of the kingdom.! To him it appeared to be so difficult to understand all the bearings of the subject, that he did not think that in fewer than three Sessions it would be possible to comprehend them all.
Captain Pechellhad last year supported the motion, and would support it on the present occasion. He hoped that the hon. Member for Gloucestershire would be more fortunate with respect to his fair

531
clients than he (Captain Pechell) had been with respect to the client whose case he had brought under the consideration of the House.
Mr. Grantley Berkeleyshortly replied, assuring the hon. Member who had addressed the House last but one, that he had no ulterior views whatever.
The House divided—Ayes 132;— Noes 90;—majority 42.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Gully, J.

Archdall, M.

Hale, R. B.

Bagshaw, J.

Halford, H.

Baldwin, Dr.

Harland, W. C.

Baring, H. B.

Harvey, D. W.

Barnard, E. G.

Hay, Sir A.

Bateson, Sir R.

Henniker, Lord

Beaumont, T. W.

Hindley, C.

Berkeley, hon. F.

Hogg, J. W.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Horsman, E.

Bish, T.

Hume, J.

Blunt, Sir C.

Hutt, W.

Bowes, John

Jackson, Sergeant

Bowring, Dr.

Jones, W.

Brady, D. C.

Kemp, T. R.

Bridgeman, H.

Knightley, Sir C.

Brotherton, J.

Law, hon. C. E.

Brudenell, Lord

Lawson, A.

Buckingham, J. S.

Lister, E. C.

Buller, C.

Lowther, J. H.

Burdon, W. W.

Maclean, D.

Butler, hon. P.

Maunsell, T. P.

Campbell, Sir H.

Molesworth, Sir W.

Cayley, E. S.

Mullins, F. W.

Chapman, L.

Musgrave, Sir R.

Chapman, A.

Nagle, Sir R.

Chetwynd, Captain

O'Brien, W. S.

Chichester, A.

O'Connell, D.

Codrington, C. W.

O'Connell, J.

Coote, Sir C.

O'Connell, M. J.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

O'Cennell, M.

Crawford, W. S.

O'Conor, Don

Dick, Q.

Oliphant, L.

Divett, E.

Parrott, J.

Dundas, hon. J. C.

Parry, Sir L. P. J.

Dundas, J. D.

Pease, J.

Eaton, R. J.

Pechell, Captain

Elley, Sir. J.

Perceval, Colonel

Etwall, R.

Pinney, W.

Fancourt, Major

Plumptre, J. P.

Fector, J. M.

Plunket, hon. R. E.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Polhill, F.

Fergusson, rt. hon. C.

Potter, R.

Forbes, W.

Poulter, J. S.

French, F.

Power, J.

Freshfield, J. W.

Price, S. G.

Gaskell, D.

Pryme, G.

Gaskell, J. M.

Richards, John.

Gisborne, T.

Robinson, G. R.

Gore, O.

Roche, D.

Goulburn, Sergeant

Roebuck, J. A.

Grote, G.

Ruthven, E.

Guest, J. J.

Scholefield, J.

532

Scott, Sir E. D.

Twiss, H.

Scourfield, W. H.

Vivian, Major C.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Wakley, T.

Smith, B.

Wason, R.

Smyth, Sir H.

Whalley, Sir S.

Strickland, Sir G.

White, S.

Stuart, Lord D.

Wilkins, W.

Surrey, Earl of

Williams, W.

Talbot, J. H.

Williams, W. A.

Talfourd, Sergeant

Wiliamson, Sir H.

Tennent, J. E.

Wood, Alderman

Thomas, Colonel

Young, Sir W.

Thompson, Colonel

TELLERS.

Trevor, hon. A.

Berkeley, hon. G.

Tulk, C. A.

Forrester, hon. G. C.

List of the NOES.

Baillie, H. D.

Lennox, Lord G.

Baines, E.

Lincoln, Earl of

Balfour, T.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Baring, F.

M'Leod, R.

Baring, T.

Manners, Lord C. S.

Barry, G. S.

Marjoribanks, S.

Bentinck, Lord W.

Marsland, T.

Bethell, R.

Maule, hon. F.

Bolling, W.

Morgan, C. M. R.

Bonham, R. F.

North, F.

Bramston, T. W.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Buller, Sir J.

Palmer, General

Cavendish, hon. C.

Parker, M.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Chalmers, P.

Pigot, R.

Chandos, Marquess of

Rickford, W.

Chaplin, Colonel

Rooper, J. B.

Childers, J. W.

Russell, C.

Churchill, Lord C.

Russell, Lord J.

Clerk, Sir G.

Russell, Lord C.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Ryle, J.

Colborne, N. W. R.

Sharpe, General

Conolly, E. M.

Sheldon, E. R. C.

Crawley, S.

Smith, R. V.

Curteis, E. B.

Somerset, Lord E.

Dillwyn, L. W.

Speirs, A.

East, J. B.

Steuart, R.

Eastnor, Lord

Strutt, E.

Egerton, Lord F.

Stuart, Lord J.

Ellice, rt. hon. E.

Sturt, H. C.

Evans, G.

Trelawney, Sir W.

Fort, J.

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Turner, W.

Grimston, Lord

Vere, Sir C. B.

Halse, J.

Vesey, hon. T.

Hastie, A.

Vivian, J. H.

Heathcoat, J.

Walker, R.

Hill, Sir R.

Wallace, R.

Hodges, T. L.

Walpole, Lord

Hope, J.

Walter, J.

Hotham, Lord

Warburton, H.

Howick, Lord

Weyland, Major

Ingham, R.

Wood, C.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Wood, Colonel

Kearsley, J. H.

Wynn, rt. hon. C. W.

King, E. B.

Young, J.

Knatchbull, Sir E.

TELLERS.

Lefevre, C. S.

Villiers, C. P.

Lefroy, rt. hon. T.

Methuen, P.

APPOINTMENT OF LORD BRUDENELL.
Sir William Molesworth.—The object of the motion, of which I have given notice, is to call in question an appointment in the army. I do this, upon the principle that some officer of the Crown ought to be directly responsible to this House for the administration of the military department of the State. I contend that the Commons of England have a distinct right to demand an explanation with reference to any appointment in the army which may seem to them objectionable. That right is founded upon the same basis as all the other rights possessed by the Commons. It will be said that this is an attempt to interfere with the prerogative of the Monarch.— By no means.—I make use of a perfectly constitutional doctrine, when I affirm that the prerogative of the Monarch can never be injurious to his people; consequently, if I prove that the appointment is an improper one, I prove, by the very terms of the proposition, that the appointment in question could not result from the exercise of the Royal Prerogative, but must have resulted from the power of some one who ought to be made responsible for his conduct. But the people have to pay for these appointments; therefore, it is the duty of the representatives of the people not to pay for any appointment which is not a fitting one, and, if this be their duty, it is clear that they are bound to examine into the fitness of every appointment with reference to which there may be any reasonable grounds of suspicion. The Commons have the power of controlling all the departments of the State, and have exercised that power; over some departments that power is exercised more frequently,—over others less so. The mode in which that power is generally exercised is, first, by asking an official explanation with reference to an appointment; if that explanation be not satisfactory to the House, and the appointment be persevered in, the next step is to move some Resolution condemnatory of the appointment; if this be carried, and without effect, the next step is an address to the Crown to cancel the appointment, or to dismiss the person who made the appointment, or an impeachment of the person responsible for the appointment; if all this be vain, then the next step is to stop the Supplies; and if this be likewise ineffectual, the last and ultimate appeal is those who sent us here to be their faithful representatives.
534
Such is the constitutional chain by which the representatives of the people have asserted their right, and proved their power to control all the departments of the State. The first step, namely, that of demanding an official explanation, is generally sufficient; for then the arguments for and against the appointment are stated, and, from the tone of the House, it appears whether the appointment can be persevered in or must be cancelled. Thus, a few weeks ago, the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, asked certain questions with reference to the appointment of magistrates;—the answer of the noble Lord who is responsible for those appointments was satisfactory to the majority of the House, and then the question dropped. Thus, last year, a noble Lord was appointed to an embassy to a northern court; that appointment was deemed an objectionable one by the noble Lord, the Member for Stroud, who put a question with regard to it. The subject was subsequently brought under the consideration of the House, by my hon. Friend the Member for Tipperary, who was seconded by the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Kirkcudbright, and supported by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Nottingham. These right hon. Gentlemen very properly disregarded the assertions of the other party,—that they intended to interfere with the prerogative of the Crowe. They, by their acts, distinctly asserted the right of the Commons to control all departments of the State; they demanded an official explanation; the explanation of the right hon. Baronet opposite did not appear satisfactory; the appointment was given up,—in other words, it was cancelled, —and my right hon. Friend had the extreme satisfaction of vindicating the power of the Commons, in defiance of those who endeavoured to shield themselves from responsibility behind that which they were pleased incorrectly to term the prerogative of the Monarch. Indeed, when-ever we hear that term "prerogative" made use of within the walls of this House, we may feel convinced that some abuse is about to be defended—some attempt is about to be made to escape inquiry—to shrink from responsibility.
In times past, the prerogative of the Monarch was said to extend over every department of the State. Loud would have been the outcry and imminent the danger of being sent to the Tower, if any hon.

535
Member had then presumed to question the fitness of an ambassador, or the appointment of a magistrate. Those times are passed; and now the heads of each department in the State, except one, are responsible to the Commons, either by themselves or delegates, and may be called upon to answer for their conduct by any Member of this House. From this responsibility they never shrink. Thus, in matters concerning the Home Department, the noble Lord is responsible for each individual act. In matters concerning the Colonial Office, my hon. Friend, the Member for Devonport, is responsible in the name of Lord Glenelg, whose conduct he invariably explains in the most ample manner. In the navy, the First Lord of the Admiralty is a Member of the other House; but some of the junior Lords are in this House to answer for his conduct: similarly, in all other departments of the State, except one—in the army. I have shown that the Commons have the same right to demand an explanation with regard to the appointments in the army, as they have to demand an explanation with reference to the appointment of ambassadors, magistrates, &c.; consequently there ought to be some person connected with the Government in this House who should be held responsible for the administration of the army; but there is no one. I asked a question some time ago with reference to an appointment in the army, the propriety of which seemed to me questionable. I demanded an official answer. The Secretary-at-War told me that he was not responsible; the leader of the House of Commons informed us that the Ministers of the Crown were not responsible for the individual acts, but only responsible for the general conduct of the Commander-in-Chief. Now, I wish clearly to be understood not to impugn the general conduct of the Commander-in-Chief—not to call in question his general administration of the army, which administration, I believe, is satisfactory and deserving of high praise —but I demand an official explanation with reference to a particular act of the Commander-in-Chief, which act I intend to impugn. The right hon. and gallant Officer, the Member for Launceston, was the only person who seemed desirous to take the responsibility for this act of the Commander-in-Chief upon himself; but I hardly suppose his Majesty's Ministers would consent that he should be con-
536
sidered the official organ of the Commander-in-Chief in this House, how eminently so ever the right hon. and gallant Officer may be qualified for the task. Thus it appears there is no one within the walls of this House connected with his Majesty's Government who is directly responsible to the Commons for the administration of the army. This, Sir, is a great evil; for the only responsibility, in the first instance, is that of the Ministers of the Crown to this House, and that responsibility is founded upon the power which the House possesses of withholding its support to those Ministers; if, therefore, the head of one of the great departments of the State be not a Minister of the Crown, the control of the House over his conduct would be very slight; in other words, he would be irresponsible. But it is the acknowledged principle of the Constitution that every officer of the State, except the Monarch, is responsible. Because the Monarch is not responsible, every one of his acts must be performed with the concurrence of some person who is responsible. In the army this person is the Commander-in-Chief. This responsibility being admitted in principle, what is the provision made for enforcing it in practice? The old mode of enforcing responsibility was by punishments; but this mode has become obsolete and nugatory; moreover, by its very nature it is inapplicable, except in cases of definable crime. The days of impeachment are passed; moreover, it would be absurd to impeach the chief of a department for merely one objectionable appointment; and it would be equally useless to move an address to the Crown to remove the functionary. Thus it is evident, if these were the only means of enforcing responsibility, an immense number of objectionable acts would be performed; for it is the nature of all Ministers—the past, the present, and the future —to do objectionable acts, if they can do them with impunity. I affirm not this in reproach of any individual Administration, but I affirm it universally of all men vested with power, whatsoever their political sentiments may be; if they possess power and can abuse it with safety, they will abuse it; and the means by which they ought to be prevented from doing objectionable acts are—not to deprive them of power, but to make them truly responsible to those who alone have a permanent interest in good government—viz. to the people

537
through their representatives. I have shown that the old mode of enforcing responsibility by punishments is become obsolete: unless, therefore, its place had been supplied by a new mode of responsibility, there would be no responsibility at all, and the recognised first principle of this and every other representative government would remain a dead letter. This has been prevented by the growth of a less severe, but far more effectual, responsibility, which consists in the liability of being called to account by this House, with the consequent chance, not of punishment, but of losing office. Such, Sir, is the real responsibility of the Ministers of the Crown to the nation. It consists, in the first instance, in their being obliged to answer the questions of the representatives of the people—in their being compelled to give satisfactory explanations of their conduct. I call for the extension of this species of responsibility to the chief of the army. He is acknowledged to come as much as any Minister of the Crown within the constitutional principle of responsibility. He is, in consequence, liable along with them to the severe, but for that very reason, practically obsolete and ineffectual responsibility. He wears, like them, the badge of responsibility, but they have happily become liable to the reality of it; so ought he. How eminent, how illustrious, soever he may be—how irreproachable soever his general conduct may have been—(and none of these positions do I intend in any way to controvert)—nevertheless I contend that he ought not to escape from responsibility. For these reasons, I consider that one of his Majesty's Ministers ought to be at the head of the army—ought to be held responsible to this House for the administration of the army, and be present by himself or delegate in his place in the House of Commons, to answer to the questions and complaints of the representatives of the people, with reference to his conduct in the administration of military affairs. The consequence of there not being any one within the walls of this House, who is authorized to explain the conduct of the Commander-in-Chief is this, that I am most reluctantly obliged to bring a specific charge against him, and to call upon the House to appoint a Committee to inquire into his conduct.
In order to justify the House in acceding to this motion, I must state reasonable and apparent grounds of suspicion with refer-
538
ence to the conduct of the Commander-in-Chief. I charge the Commander-in-Chief with having made an improper appointment. My grounds for suspecting that appointment are founded upon the fact, that the officer appointed was censured in terms so strong, that if that censure be a just one, he is, in every way, unfit to command a regiment. On the other hand, if that censure be an improper one, it cannot fail to be highly injurious to the army to place in a station of important trust an officer against whom that censure stands recorded and uncancelled in the order-books of the army. I wish distinctly to be understood to pronounce no opinion whatsoever with regard to the justice or injustice of that censure,—not that I should (if I felt it necessary) in any way shrink from avowing my opinion; but, because this subject is beside the question, as I do not intend to impugn the past conduct of the officer in question, but the present conduct of the Commander-in-Chief, in assenting to this appointment after having promulgated the General Order which I will now read to the House. This General Order is dated February 1st, 1834, and contains the decision of a court-martial with reference to certain charges brought by Lord Brudenell against Captain Wathen. I will read the decision to the House:—
"The Court having taken into its serious consideration the evidence produced in support of the charges against the prisoner, Captain Augustus Wathen of the 15th, or King's Hussars, his defence, and the evidence he has adduced, is of opinion, that he is not guilty of any of the charges preferred against him. The Court, therefore, honourably acquits him of each and of all the charges.
"Bearing in mind the whole process and tendency of this trial, the Court cannot refrain from animadverting on the peculiar and extraordinary measures which have been resorted to by the prosecutor.
"Whatever may have been his motives for instituting charges of so serious a nature against Captain Wathen (and they cannot ascribe them solely to a wish to uphold the honour and interests of the army), his conduct has been reprehensible in advancing such various and weighty assertions to be submitted before a public tribunal, without some sure grounds of establishing the facts.
"It appears, in the recorded minutes of these proceedings, that a junior officer was listened to, and non-commissioned officers and soldiers examined, with a view of finding out from them how, in particular instances, the officers had executed their respective duties— a practice in every respect most dangerous to

539
the discipline and subordination of the corps, and highly detrimental to that harmony and good feeling which ought to exist between officers.
"Another practice has been introduced into the 15th Hussars, which calls imperatively for the notice and animadversion of the Court— the system of having the conversations of officers taken down in the orderly-room without their knowledge—a practice which cannot be considered otherwise than revolting to every proper and honourable feeling of a gentleman, and as being certain to create disunion, and to be most injurious to his Majesty's service.
"His Majesty has been pleased to approve and confirm the finding of the Court.
"Although it would appear upon an attentive perusal of the whole proceedings, that some part of the evidence might reasonably bear a construction less unfavourable to the prosecutor than that which the Court has thought it their duty to place upon them; yet, upon a full consideration of all the circumstances of the case, his Majesty has been pleased to order that Lieutenant-Colonel Lord Brudenell shall be removed from the command of the 15th Hussars.
"The General Commanding-in-Chief directs that the foregoing charges preferred against Captain Augustus Wathen, of the 15th or King's Hussars, together with the finding of the Court, and his Majesty's commands thereon, shall be entered in the general order-book and read at the head of every regiment in his Majesty's service.
"By command of the right hon. the General Commanding-in-Chief."
"JOHN MACDONALD, Adjutant-General."
Either the decision of the Court-martial is correct, or it is incorrect. Either the order of the Horse-Guards, founded on that decision is proper or improper. I wish to argue this question in the manner which may be least painful to the feelings of individuals. I wish to call in question as little as possible the past conduct of the noble Lord. I am grieved that it is necessary for me even to allude to that conduct; for he, I think, has been most severely and most painfully punished, in the manner most agonizing to the feelings of an hon. Gentleman; nothing could justify the dragging of this question again before the public, except the circumstance of that noble Lord's being appointed to a situation of high trust. I do not seek to censure, again, that noble Lord; but I seek to censure him who has appointed the noble Lord. I ask, how the confidential adviser of his Majesty in military affairs has dared to make this appointment, after having sanctioned the General Order which I have read to the House, after having directed the General Order to be proclaimed at the head of
540
every regiment in his Majesty's service? Perhaps it may be said, that the Com-mander-in-Chief considers the decision of the Court-martial to be incorrect. If there be in this House any Member authorized to speak in that functionary's name, I call upon him hereafter, in reply to me, to answer that question distinctly in the affirmative or negative. Perhaps it may be said, the Commander-in-Chief means this appointment as a sort of underhand atonement to the noble Lord, as a species of underhand acknowledgment of the injustice with which he considers the noble Lord has been treated. If this be the case, then, Sir, I affirm the noble Lord is one of the most deeply-injured individuals—one of the most cruelly-treated persons in this country —deeply injured and cruelly-treated in not having been permitted to exculpate himself by means of a general Court-martial; for this appointment in no way or manner effaces the decision of the Court. The decision still remains, and can only be blotted out in the same manner as it was made known—namely, by a General Order to be issued from the Horse-Guards, to be read at the head of every regiment in his Majesty's service, proving that the decision in question is unjust, false, and calumnious. Will the Commander-in-Chief dare to take this step? But it may be contended, that the noble Lord is satisfied; this, unfortunately, is not the question. The question is, will the public be satisfied? Will the British army be satisfied? Will the officers of the gallant regiment which the noble Lord is appointed to command—will they be satisfied? No; they will not consider this appointment as tantamount to a proof that the decision of the Court-martial was incorrect; they will reason in the following manner; they will refer to the tribunal which passed this sentence; they will read over the list of gallant and honourable names—they will say, these men, on their oaths, came to this decision. They will then refer to the circumstances of the trial —they will find that the noble Lord brought charges against one of the officers of his regiment for conduct unbecoming the character of an officer and a gentleman—they will find that the Court-martial fully and honourably acquitted the prosecuted officer of each and all the charges brought against him. They will then find that the Court deemed the charges so weighty and so serious, and the evidence adduced in support of them so weak, so frivolous, and so unsatisfactory—they will find that the

541
Court thought that the measures adopted to obtain evidence were so improper and so reprehensible, and the defence so complete and so ample—that the Court were convinced that the noble Lord had been induced to bring these weighty charges by other motives than those solely of upholding the honour and interests of the army—they will find that, in consequence of all this, the Court felt it to be its duty (following thereby the daily example of the Judges on the Bench) to animadvert on the conduct of the prosecutor, and to reprimand the noble Lord in the harsh and reproachful terms which I have read to the House.
Though it may be asserted, that the Court went out of the line prescribed, to it in coming to this decision, that question is one of no import. The question which the British army will canvass is this:—Was the decision correct or incorrect? To this they will reply, by referring to the names of the officers of whom the Court-martial was composed, and then pronounce, unfortunately, in the affirmative. They will then consider the circumstances which followed this decision—they will find the noble Lord applying for a new trial—they will not, however, consider this fact as the slightest proof of the injustice of the decision; for they will observe that every person, how justly soever condemned, would wish, would call, for a new trial, as much might be gained—nothing could be lost— thereby. But, Sir, the refusal to grant a Court-martial will, to them, seem overwhelming proof that the Commander-in-chief could find nothing in the proceedings of that Court-martial which could justify a new trial, though he palliated the hardship of the decision by stating that some portions of the evidence might reasonably bear a construction less unfavourable to the noble Lord. Thus, Sir, the officers of the British army will, undoubtedly, consider that the decision of the Court-martial is a correct one, and will persevere in this belief till the contrary be proved. I again ask, what is the opinion of the Commander-in-Chief with reference to that decision? Why, if it was an incorrect one, was it not cancelled at the time, and a new trial granted? If the contrary be the case—if the Commander-in-Chief consider the decision to be a correct one, I ask, how he dares to make such an appointment?
An attempt has been made to throw a portion of the responsibility for this appointment upon my right hon. Friend, the Member for Coventry, because, in 1833, he
542
stated to the Commander-in-Chief that no officer ought to be put upon half-pay who was not entitled to be re-employed. This principle is, perhaps, a very correct one, but the question is not with reference to the principle, but whether the Commander-in-Chief ought, after the decision of the court-martial, to have put the noble Lord upon half-pay? For this act my right hon. Friend could not be responsible—for this act the Commander-in-Chief is responsible, and now the Commander-in-Chief is again responsible for appointing the officer in question as the fittest person to command a regiment-It may, perhaps, be contended that, though the decision of the court-martial is correct, yet the noble Lord has been sufficiently and severely punished; this I do not deny—. those strong and reproachful terms must have been almost maddening to a person of the noble Lord's honourable feelings. But he who discusses this question as one of punishment utterly misunderstands the whole subject. The question is not with reference to punishment, but with reference to the fitness of an individual for an important trust. Undoubtedly, it is a great hardship to an officer that he should never be re-employed. But that hardship is the result of his own alleged misconduct—that hardship is no concern of the public—the question for the public is, not whether sufficient pain has been inflicted upon the noble Lord—not whether sufficient pain has been inflicted, in order to deter the generality of persons from the commission of similar offences;— but the question is, whether it be proper to confide so important a trust as the command of a regiment to one whose conduct, in a similar command, was so solemnly decided to have been most reprehensible, most dangerous to the discipline of his corps, and most injurious to his Majesty's service. This is the view of the question which will be taken by the officers of the regiment which he is about to command. They will not unreasonably ask these questions—they will say, "is the harmony—is the good feeling, which has so long existed amongst us, of so little consequence in the eyes of the Commander-in-Chief, that he should appoint to command us, one who has been solemnly declared to have introduced into his previous regiment a practice 'highly detrimental to that harmony and good feeling which ought to exist between officers?'" They will again ask, "is the discipline and subordination of our regiment of so little consequence in the opinion of the head of the army, that he should send

543
amongst us a lieutenant-colonel whose conduct in his previous regiment is stated, by a court-martial, to have been "in every respect most dangerous to the discipline and to the subordination of his corps?" "Is," they will again ask, "our honour to be considered as nothing by the Commander-in--Chief, that he should place at our head a person whom he himself had only two years ago directed us to proclaim to our brother officers,—three times on parade to make known to our men,—as having introduced into his regiment 'a practice, which cannot be considered otherwise than revolting to every proper and honourable feeling of a gentleman?'" "Our commanding officer," they will say, "must not only be without fear, but without reproach; wipe out this reproach; prove, proclaim to the British army, that the decision of these gallant officers and honourable men is unjust, false, and calumnious;—then, and not till then, shall we receive the noble Lord with pleasure, shall we obey him with satisfaction." These, Sir, if I mistake me not much, will be the terms in which the officers of this gallant regiment will express themselves. A more gallant regiment does not exist in his Majesty's service, nor one that has better served its country—in Egypt, in the Peninsula, at Waterloo, with the army of occupation in France, thence,—seventeen years ago, removed to India, at Bhurtpore, and elsewhere, it has distinguished itself: some of its officers have been nearly as many years in the army as the noble Lord has lived years in this world. The two majors have served with this regiment since the years 1806 and 1811. With what feelings will they view the advancement over their heads of this young officer, who has never heard the sound of a musket, except in the mimic combats of a review, who entered the army in 1824, with unexampled rapidity obtained an unattached lieutenant-colonelcy in 1830—in 1832, the command of a regiment—in 1834, two years afterwards, was removed from that command for alleged misconduct—and now, in 1836, two years more, is deemed the fittest and most proper person to command their regiment? They will murmur, and most justly—loud will be their indignation; they will say, that which is said in every part of this town where this question is discussed—they will say, that courtly influence, courtly favour, and courtly intrigue, have biassed the otherwise sound judgment of the Commander-in-Chief, and compelled that distinguished and otherwise irreproachable officer, to make
544
this seemingly most reprehensible appointment—an appointment which cannot fail to produce the painful belief in the minds of all connected with the British army, that provided an officer possess wealth and influence, it matters not what his past conduct may have been—it matters not what the solemn decision of a court-martial may have been against him; neither that conduct nor that decision will be a bar to his future promotion, nor an impediment to his advancement, over the heads of veterans, to the command of those whose conduct has ever been irreproachable. This belief, if it were to become general, in my opinion, is one highly injurious to the honour, to the discipline, and to the subordination of the British army, and this fully justifies me in demanding from the House a Committee to inquire into the conduct of the Commander-in-Chief. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving—
"That it be referred to a Committee to inquire into the conduct of the Commander of the Forces in appointing Lieutenant-Colonel Lord Brudenell to the lieutenant-colonelcy of the 11th Light Dragoons."
Mr. Humeseconded the motion.
Lord Brudenell: Sir, I must crave the indulgence of the House, for a short time, whilst I make a few observations with reference to the subject which has been brought under their notice—and in rising to justify my own character, I am aware that I have rather a delicate task to perform, on account of the very limited space which is left open to me; for, on the one hand I am bound carefully to abstain from impugning the decision of the court-martial, which was held for the trial of an officer of the 15th Hussars, whilst that regiment was under my command; and, on the other hand, to avoid saying anything which might appear disrespectful with reference to the exercise of the King's prerogative, which deprived me of the command of that regiment. For the House will readily believe, that if I bowed with submission to that decision— that if I suffered with patience and becoming deference to the King's authority, and the recommendation of the General Commanding-in-Chief, that severe infliction— that I should be little disposed now to deviate from that respectful course after having succeeded in being reinstated in my former position in the King's service.
With reference to the court-martial held in the 15th Hussars,—in consequence of the acquittal of the officer brought to

545
trial, I have been much blamed for having instituted those proceedings. Sir, I am quite willing to take my full share of whatever blame may be attached to that transaction; but I beg that it may be clearly understood, that, on that occasion, I acted under the guidance—more or less by the advice, and certainly with the full sanction —of the general officer commanding the district. I shall first show to the House that, upon any emergency of the sort, I was bound, by the orders of the army, to consult the General commanding the district. The reprimand which I am about to quote upon a field-officer, in temporary command of a dragoon regiment in this country, about four years since, will prove to this House, to what danger I should have exposed myself had I not followed that course:—
"REPORT OF A COURT OF INQUIRY.
"That—acted injudiciously in not suspending all proceedings against— in relation to the military offence wherewith he was charged, and laying before the General of the district a full statement of the case of℄and of the opinions so expressed by him, in order to obtain from the General commanding the district instructions applicable to the occasion."
And this officer was in consequence reprimanded in a General Order issued from the Horse-Guards in 1832, for "a deficiency in care, discretion, and judgment."
With the recollection of this reprimand, passed upon another officer, I consulted the general officer commanding the district upon every point, and so entirely did he concur with me in opinion relative to the conduct of the officer in question, that he transmitted to the Commander-in-Chief a special report on the subject, in which, after stating that that officer had conducted himself so improperly in his presence, that it was unfit and inexpedient that he should remain any longer in the 15th Hussars, he concluded by recommending Lord Hill to remove him from the regiment.
This was the ground-work of the court-martial, and when I was afterwards ordered to prefer charges against the officer, I submitted them to the general officer of the district, who revised and approved of them.
Why do I mention these circumstances? In order to prove to the House that if the bringing those charges against the officer in question was the cause of my removal
546
from the command of that regiment, that surely I was treated with sufficient harshness and severity.
The officer was tried upon those charges. The general officer to whom I have already referred,—and who is still in command of the same district;—was the principal evidence upon the trial: the officer was honourably acquitted of all and every one of the charges, and upon that part of the subject, Sir, I shall not think it consistent with my duty to make any further observation. But if any hon. Member really thinks that I have not been treated with sufficient severity, I beg now to state to the House, that although there are numberless cases upon record of officers having been brought to trial and honourably acquitted, I am not aware that any commanding officer, after having acted as prosecutor, has ever been deprived of his command. I believe that there was no precedent for my removal.
The court-martial, after the acquittal of the officer brought to trial, proceeded to pass very strong animadversions upon myself as prosecutor; and I must now repeat what I have already stated in those official letters which have been printed, and laid before this House, that those animadversions were not borne out, or justified, by the evidence; neither were they afterwards sanctioned by the terms of the General Order which removed me from the command of the 15th Hussars.
"His Majesty has been pleased to approve and confirm the finding of the Court.
"Although it would appear, upon an attentive perusal of the whole of the proceedings, that some parts of the evidence might reasonably bear a construction less unfavourable to the prosecutor, than that which the Court have thought it their duty to place upon them; yet, upon a full consideration of all the circumstances of the case, his Majesty has been pleased to order that Lieutenant-Colonel Lord Brudenell shall be removed from the command of the 15th Hussars."
And this view of the case was afterwards corroborated by a letter, dated Horse-Guards, 22nd of February, 1834:—
"The King is graciously pleased to signify his satisfaction at the temperate and judicious manner in which your Lordship has, in that memorial, entered into the explanations which appeared to you requisite in consequence of the animadversions made on your conduct by the general court-martial lately held at Cork. His Majesty is further pleased to observe, that those explanations have tended to confirm the opinion which his Majesty has already expressed through the medium of the

547
General Order of the 1st instant,—namely, that some parts of the evidence adduced before the court-martial in question might reasonably bear a construction less unfavourable to your Lordship than that which the Court have thought it their duty to place upon them. It was on this mitigated view of the case, that his Majesty acted when he directed the removal of your Lordship from the command of the 15th Hussars, without proceeding to any measure which could affect your Lordship's place and rank in his Majesty's service."
This letter was written in answer to a memorial which I had submitted to his Majesty through the General commanding-in-chief, earnestly requesting that my conduct might be brought before a general court-martial, composed of officers competent to try an officer of the rank which I held in the army, or that my conduct might be investigated by a court of inquiry. I should have endeavoured to show, before either of these tribunals, that my conduct did not merit the strong animadversions passed upon it by a court-martial before which I was not upon my trial, and which was not competent to try me. I should have also shown, that the measure which was so severely animadverted upon by the Court, was not unprecedented in the service, although, perhaps, that would not be considered as any very strong justification of it.
Now, Sir, with regard to that measure, —I resorted to it only upon a few occasions during the time I commanded the regiment, under particular circumstances, and always on points of duty; neither did I desire that any secrecy should be observed, in proof of which I have to state, that I was the first to tell an officer, under my command, that I had adopted it.
But, Sir, I have been informed by the highest military authorities, that the measure which I resorted to was an objectionable one, and that the adoption of it was an error in judgment. Sir, I am bound to believe, and therefore to admit, that this was the case; and no officer could more deeply regret than myself, that in my zeal and anxiety to maintain the discipline and efficiency of that corps which I had the honour to command, I should have been guilty of an error in judgment,—but further than this I will admit nothing;—on the contrary,—I here firmly and confidently deny, before this House and before the public, that I ever committed any act during the time I have served in the
548
army, which can reflect the slightest degree of discredit upon my character.
The good feeling and good opinion of all ranks in the army, not excepting the great majority of the officers who served under me in the 15th Hussars, have been manifested towards me in a variety of ways, which I will not occupy the time of the House by endeavouring to describe to them, further than by presently reading a few letters which I have received from some of the most distinguished general officers in the army, expressing opinions favourable to my re-appointment; but I must first take the liberty to quote, as briefly as possible, the proceedings of two or three courts-martial, to prove to the House, that neither under the circumstances of an officer brought to trial being honourably acquitted, or, even with the addition of animadversions passed upon a commanding officer who had acted as prosecutor, has it been the usual custom of the service to deprive a commanding officer of the command of a regiment. The first case which I shall read to the House, is a court-martial which took place in the East Indies, and I here beg to state that I shall give neither the names of the officers, the regiments to which they belong, nor the quarters in which they were stationed,— and it is rather a curious fact, that this court-martial took place in the very same month, and the same year, in which the court-martial was held in Cork.
"EAST-INDIES.—It appears by the proceedings of a general court-martial, held at—in 1833, that Lieutenant—of the—regiment of Infantry, was tried on the following charges, namely—
"For conduct to the prejudice of good order and military discipline, and unbecoming, contemptuous, and insubordinate towards Lieutenant-Colonel—in the following instances, &c. &c.'"
The following is the sentence; namely,—
"The Court having found the prisoner, Lieutenant——,of his Majesty's— regiment, or — regiment of Infantry, 'not guilty' of any of the criminal acts set forth on the foregoing instances, do therefore acquit him of the charge.
"The Court, in closing their proceedings, feel themselves imperatively called upon to record, that the foregoing charge originally preferred, and subsequently persisted in, arose from private feelings, and had not for its object the well-being of the service."
Which sentence was approved and confirmed as far as relates to the acquittal of

549
the Lieutenant, but the animadversion upon the commanding officer was disapproved of by the Lieutenant-General commanding the presidency.
This sentence was read at the head of every regiment in the service, and the commanding officer retained his command. And what afterwards happened to this Lieutenant-Colonel? He was in temporary command of the regiment; and upon the senior officer, Lieutenant-Colonel— returning from the command of a province, he was himself brought to trial, and the following are the charges:—
"Head Quarters,—
"East Indies,—1834.
"At a General Court-Martial, holden at —, in the — 1834, Lieutenant-Colonel —, of his Majesty's —regiment, was arraigned on the under-mentioned charge.
"For disobedience of orders, and highly insubordinate and general disrespectful conduct, unbecoming the character of an officer, and a gentleman towards me when in command of the—provinces, in the following instances, &c. &c."
Signed by the senior Lieutenant-Colonel.
"The Court finds the prisoner guilty of 'disobedience of orders,' and of disrespectful conduct,' but acquits him of all other charges."
The following is the sentence:—
"The Court having found him, Lieutenant-Colonel ——, guilty to the extent above stated, doth sentence him to be reprimanded in such a manner as the officer to whom these proceedings are to be submitted may see fit, and further specially to be admonished, to be more circumspect in future in his conduct towards his superior officers."
The Court then proceeded to animadvert upon the conduct of the prosecutor in strong terms, and the proceedings are approved by the Commander-in-Chief of the Forces in the East Indies.
Therefore this Lieutenant-Colonel stood, after the first general court-martial, in a similar situation to the one in which I was placed after the court-martial, held in Cork; he is afterwards himself brought to trial, found guilty of some of the charges, sentenced to be reprimanded in a General Order, which is read at the head of every regiment in the service, and I need scarcely add, that he still retains his command.
The next case I have to adduce is a court-martial held also in the East Indies.
550
"At a general court-martial holden at ——, on—1832,&c, Major—, of his Majesty's—or— regiment of foot, was arraigned upon the following charges, namely.
"1st. For highly unofficerlike and disrespectful conduct, in having suspended, and thus rendered ineffectual, a standing order of the regiment.
"2nd. For conduct highly unbecoming the character of an officer, in having wilfully and knowingly made a false report, &c.
"3rd. For conduct subversive of good order and military discipline, in having on or about the — last, ordered the officer of the main-guard to leave his guard, &c."
The Court acquitted the officer brought to trial of all these charges, and animadverted upon the conduct of the commanding-officer in the following terms:—
"The Court cannot conclude their proceedings without expressing their regret, that the prosecutor did not adopt the means which he had at his command to ascertain how far the charges now investigated were susceptible of proof, before he resorted to the extreme measure of bringing an officer of Major —'s standing and high character before a court-martial."
The above proceedings were confirmed, but disapproved of by the Lieutenant-General commanding the presidency.
The Major brought to trial was an officer of twenty-four years' standing in the service, and he and the same Lieutenant-Colonel are still doing duty together in the regiment.
The only other case which I shall ad-duce; is one to show, that commanding officers are sometimes severely reprimanded in General Orders, for errors in judgment, or negligence, without being removed from their commands. The following is a copy of a reprimand promulgated in a General Order, dated Horse Guards,—,1819, upon Lieutenant-Colonel—,commanding the—
"The Prince Regent considers such inattention and negligence in a commanding officer to be highly reprehensible and deserving of his marked disapprobation, which his Royal Highness has been accordingly pleased to command shall be communicated to Lieutenant Colonel—.
"The Commander-in-Chief directs that the foregoing charges preferred against Lieutenant Colonel—, of the—, together with the finding of the Court and the Prince Regent's pleasure thereon, shall be entered into the General Order Book, and read at the

551
head of every regiment in his Majesty's service.
"By command of
"His Royal Highness,
"the Commander-in-Chief,
(signed) "HARRY CALVERT,
"Adjutant-General."
These commanding officers were all left in command of their respective regiments: three out of four are still in command; the fourth was only removed in consequence of his regiment being disbanded.
I shall now proceed to read the letters which I have received from general officers relative to my re-appointment; but I must first, with the permission of the House, commence by reading a letter, which I received some time since from Major-General Sir Henry Bouverie, under whose orders I was stationed more than half the period during which I had the honour to command the 15th Hussars.
"Head Quarters, Northern District,
"Ledstone Hall, Pontefract,
"April 15, 1834.
"My Lord,—Your Lordship's letter of the 11th reached me here yesterday. I can have no hesitation in declaring that, with the exception of one occurrence, I had every reason to be satisfied with the conduct of the 15th Hussars, under your Lordship's command, during the period which they passed in this district, and that occurrence, which it is needless to say more about, was not, in my opinion, to be attributed in the slightest degree to your Lordship.
"With respect to the discipline of the regiment in quarters, and to its efficiency and appearance in the field, the riding and the precision and quiet with which the movements were executed when I reviewed the regiment, I cannot speak too highly; and if my testimony on these points, as well as to your zeal and unwearied attention to all parts of your duty as Commanding Officer, is acceptable to your Lordship, I beg that you will do me the favour to accept of it.—I have the honour to be, your Lordship's most obedient humble servant,
"H. BOUVERIE, Major-General.
"Lieut.-Colonel the Lord Brudenell, &c."
The next which I have to read is one from the present Master-General of the Ordnance, Sir Hussey Vivian:—
"O. O., Nov. 4,1835.
"My dear Hardinge,—I know not how I can assist Lord Brudenell further than I have done, and that was by stating to Lord Melbourne that, as the circumstances that occasioned his removal from the 15th, took place whilst he was serving under my command, I was quite prepared to say, and would say, were I in the House of Commons, that I should be very glad to see him replaced in a
552
regiment of cavalry. I told Lord Melbourne, and I at the time reported to the Horse Guards, that I never saw a regiment in finer order than the 15th, or an officer more zealous in the discharge of his duty, than Lord Brudenell; that he had faults, no doubt; for these he has suffered very severely, and is still suffering, and it would give me great pleasure to assist in restoring him to the service; and seeing no reason whatever why he should not return to the service,—on the contrary,—being of opinion that his case was, upon the whole, a hard one, I can have no objection to this, my opinion, being made known; of all men, perhaps, I have the greatest right to give an opinion, from the circumstance, as I began by stating, of my having commanded in Ireland when the general court-martial took place.
"Ever very faithfully yours,
"H. VIVIAN."
The next is an extract from a letter from Lieutenant-General Lord Strafford, lately a Member of this House, as Sir John Byng.
"London, November 8th, 1835.
"I cannot hesitate to commit to writing what I said to you, that if Lord Hill (who must be the most competent judge) should think fit to re-appoint you to a regiment, I should be ready to defend such re-appointment, either in Parliament or in private society."
The next is from Major-General Sir Frederick Ponsonby.
"March 20, 1836.
"My dear Lord,—I have given every consideration in my power to your case, and I must say that, in my humble opinion, you have been treated with great severity; and if you are not permitted to effect the exchange into the 11th Dragoons, you will be treated with positive injustice.
"I gave you this opinion in December last, and I am strengthened in the belief, that it is correct, from having conversed with many officers of all classes in the army, and I have found scarcely any one who has differed in opinion with me.
"Believe me, very sincerely yours,
"F. PONSONBY, Major-General."
And the last is from Major-General Sir Edward Blakeney, at present commanding the forces in Ireland, under whom I was for some time stationed, and who inspected the 15th Hussars under my command:—
"Dublin, April 28, 1836.
"My dear Lord,—I have had great pleasure in seeing that the General Commanding-in-Chief has recommended you to his Majesty for restoration to full pay, and your consequent appointment to a lieutenant-colonelcy in the 11th Light Dragoons.
"In field movements, and the ready appli-

553
cation of cavalry, I considered you one of the most intelligent officers that served under my orders; and I confidently anticipate, from your experience of the past, and the judicious application of your zeal for the service in future, you will prove to the army at large that you are deserving of the act of justice Lord Hill has performed, in recommending your restoration to full pay.
"With wishing you, my dear Lord, every success, believe me always very faithfully yours,
"EDWARD BLAKENEY."
These are the general officers who are favourable to my re-appointment to active service; their high characters and distinguished services are well known to the public; and no person who has listened to their names can suppose that party-bias could have influenced their favourable opinions with regard to myself.
And, Sir, I may here state, that the opinions therein expressed, as far as they relate to the 15th Hussars whilst under my command, are only confirmatory of all the Reports which were addressed to the Commander-in-Chief by the different general officers who inspected the regiment previous to the court-martial in question.
And, perhaps, I may here add to the testimony of these general officers one other circumstance—that, immediately after the close of the proceedings of the court-martial at Cork, the general officer (Sir John Buchan) who had presided on that occasion, gratuitously made a request to inspect the service squadrons of the regiment under my command (for the regiment had been for some time under orders for Portugal), when, after a more than usually minute inspection, he expressed himself in the strongest terms of approbation. Undoubtedly, Sir, the great portion of that praise was addressed, as it was justly due, to the distinguished regiment under my command: but, perhaps, it was excusable in me, as the commanding officer, to take to myself some small portion of it; and it was under this impression that, when that general officer left the garrison of Cork, I felt confident that he entertained a very favourable opinion of me as a commanding officer.
Sir, there are many cases upon record, both in the navy and army, of officers who have been reinstated by the King's prerogative—some, after having been dismissed the service by sentence of courts-martial, others, after having had their
554
names erased from the Army List, by the prerogative of the King. I am well acquainted with some of the circumstances of these cases: but as the faults of those officers have been forgiven by their Sovereign, and probably forgotten by the public, I think it would be an invidious course for me to drag their names again before the public; and, therefore, I shall refrain from doing so, whatever advantage I might possibly thereby derive in point of argument.
The House heard, upon a former occasion, the candid and manly statements of the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and the noble Lord, the Secretary-at-War, relative to the understanding which was come to between the Commander-in-Chief and the Secretary-at-War, at the time I was placed upon half-pay, with regard to my eligibility for future employment. Until then, I was not aware of that circumstance:—but I do not hesitate to say, that unless I had felt confident that after a certain period of time I should be restored to my former position in the service, I should have resigned my commission; for, Sir, it is not-to be supposed that unless I am fit to serve the King in the profession to which I belong, that I could derive any satisfaction from having my name left on the Army List, and continuing to draw half-pay from the public purse.
Sir, it is under these circumstances that the General Commanding-in-Chief has recommended his Majesty to appoint me to a second lieutenant-colonelcy in the 11th Light Dragoons, stationed in the East Indies.
Having made this statement to the House, in which it has been my most anxious desire to pay all due respect to the King's Prerogative, as well as to the noble Lord who holds the situation of Commander-in-Chief, and feeling that I have nothing more to add, I shall think it the more proper course for me to withdraw from the House during the further discussion upon a subject which is personal to myself; but, Sir, before I do so, I must return my thanks to the House, for the kindness and attention with which they have been pleased to listen to this my statement of details—details which I am aware must be very uninteresting to the great majority of the Members of this House, but which relate to a subject of the great-

555
est importance to myself, as being intimately connected with my honour and character, which are as dear to me as life itself. [The noble Lord left the House.]
Viscount Howick: I feel sure, Sir, from the tone this discussion has already taken, that the House entertains much the same opinion as I have myself adopted of the course pursued by the hon. Baronet, and that they think with me, that he has submitted the present motion rather with the view of placing a formal question before the House, on which to raise a debate, than with any serious intention of calling upon the House to accede to the terms of the proposition he has submitted. The hon. Baronet has moved for a Committee to inquire into the conduct of the Commander-in-Chief, who has appointed the noble Lord (Brudenell) to the lieutenant-colonelcy of the 11th Dragoons. I believe most Members of the House are aware that the motion which the hon. Baronet has now submitted to the House, is not the one of which he originally gave notice. Almost every gentleman, who hears me, is aware that, in the first instance, the hon. Baronet gave notice of a motion, not for a Committee to inquire into the proceedings of the Commander-in-Chief, with reference to this subject, but of a direct vote of censure upon that officer. The hon. Baronet has, however, departed from his original intention, and has substituted for the motion of which he at first gave notice, that which he has just now submitted to the House. The hon. Baronet has not stated to the House his reasons for this alteration; but I think, in the course of his speech, he afforded sufficient indication of what those reasons were, and if I do not greatly mistake their nature, he has acted quite rightly in withdrawing the motion he originally proposed.
I conceive, Sir, that the hon. Baronet was influenced by the consideration that a motion for a vote of censure upon Lord Hill, for appointing the noble Lord to this commission, could be considered in no other light than as a vote of this House, pronouncing that noble Lord unfit, for evermore, to serve his Majesty. The hon. Baronet felt that such a vote would necessarily bear this construction; and natural considerations of justice and equity at once made him sensible that the proceeding would be one of such monstrous and crying injustice, that he
556
could never, for one moment, call upon the House to accede to it. Because, Sir, what is the position in which the noble Lord stands? He was, it is true, openly censured by the court-martial, and it is equally true that, in pursuance of that censure, he was removed from the command of his regiment; but as I said on a former occasion, and as the papers before the House clearly bear me out in stating, it was, at the time of his removal, most distinctly understood that he was not to be considered as a person unfit ever again to serve his Majesty. The whole of the correspondence proves this fact in different ways. In the first place, the Commander-in-Chief and my right hon. Friend near me had, most properly, only a few months before, come to the distinct understanding, that no officer, who was considered unfit ever again to serve his Majesty, should be placed upon the half-pay list—that the half-pay list, to use the words of my right hon. Friend, should not be made the refuge of officers removed from the service on account of their misconduct. More than this, Sir, in the letter in which the King's pleasure respecting Lord Brudenell was formally communicated to the Secretary-at-War, it was distinctly stated, that his rank and place in the army were not affected by that proceeding. Under these circumstances, I apprehend, it is quite clear that the noble Lord was not considered, at that time, as removed from the army, and I am quite satisfied that the hon. Baronet felt, that—not having been visited with the punishment of removal—it would be the very height of injustice, if, without any opportunity of being heard in his own defence, the noble Lord were to be adjudged to suffer a punishment of such severity, not by the sentence of a court-martial, but by the vote of a popular assembly, in which subjects of this nature cannot possibly be discussed with that fairness and that temperance which are so essential to their impartial consideration. Well, but the hon. Baronet has asked, why Lord Brudenell was not, at the time, brought to a court-martial? I will fairly admit to the hon. Baronet, that I am not in the slightest degree acquainted with the reasons of his not having been brought to a court-martial. All I know is, that the noble Lord applied for a court-martial, and that the court-mar-

557
tial was refused; but that if it had been granted, and he had been brought to a general court-martial, the severest sentence that would have been passed upon him would have been, in all probability, the very one which he underwent. I ask the House,—the noble Lord having applied for court-martial, and that court-martial having been refused—I ask, whether it would have been just to him if he were afterwards told that he was condemned by a parenthesis in the finding of a court-martial,—a court-martial on another officer,— without the noble Lord's being called upon to offer any of those explanations of his conduct, of which, from what we have heard in the House to-night, there can be no doubt that it is to a greater or less extent susceptible? I do not say whether those explanations would be satisfactory or not; on the contrary, I, for one, have thought it my duty carefully to abstain from even reading the evidence on this subject. I have felt that I had no right to do so, or to form my opinion on such grounds, when the officer implicated had no opportunity of explaining himself, and was not called upon for his defence. I say it is impossible, on the finding of the court-martial, conveying the censure, which I admit it does, without having heard the noble Lord, to come to a resolution that would, in fact, subject him to the punishment to which he would have been justly subjected, had he, after a full, fair, and adequate opportunity of explanation, been found guilty of the misconduct imputed to him. The hon. Baronet then, feeling that for these reasons it would not be an act of justice to the noble Lord to come forward with so severe a Resolution as he at first contemplated, alters his motion; and what is it that he now proposes? A Committee of Inquiry. A Committee to inquire into what? Not, be it remembered, into the failure of the Commander-in-Chief to visit with due severity the offence of Lord Brudenell, supposing any to have been committed, but to inquire whether the Commander-in-Chief has or has not properly exercised his discretion in restoring the noble Lord to full pay. In what manner this inquiry is to be conducted, I own, I am altogether unable to understand. What facts are the Committee to elicit, of which we are not now possessed? Let me ask the hon. Baronet what he proposes that the Committee shall do? This House, indeed, can at
558
once censure the appointment; but if it shrink from performing this act itself, will it delegate to a Select Committee the odious act which it will not take upon itself? Does the hon. Baronet want a Committee to condemn the appointment?—[Sir William Molesworth: For the purpose of inquiry.]—For the purpose of inquiry! Yes! but with what view is it to inquire into the appointment? With a view to condemn it; or with a view to approve of it?—[Sir William Molesworth: Either the one or the other.]— The hon. Baronet says either the one or the other. He will not ask the House to appoint a Committee with a view to no condemnation, because it is evident and palpable to everybody, that this means nothing at all; on the other hand he will not appoint it with a view to censure, because that is only another way of committing injustice. If the hon. Baronet proposes a Committee of this kind, that Committee, if appointed, could only be considered as appointed to re-try the case—as a Committee appointed to do that which, if it ought to have been done at all, should have been done by a court-martial. Well, Sir, then the hon. Baronet says that a court-martial ought to have been appointed for the purpose. As I said before, I am not here to express any opinion upon that point, either for or against the propriety of such a step. Of course I was not in office at the time, and I am not aware what were the considerations on which the prayer of the noble Lord was rejected. But I say, the court-martial having been refused, this House having taken no proceeding to insist on that court-martial being summoned, and this House having been perfectly aware, all along, that the noble Lord was placed on the half-pay list, we have no right now to go back; to declare that a different course shall be pursued; and that the noble Lord shall be tried—not by a fit and proper tribunal, to take cognizance of military offences—but by a Select Committee of the House of Commons. I believe it is generally admitted—I have not heard it disputed by any one—that under the circumstances in which the noble Lord was placed on the half-pay list, he was not necessarily to be considered as a person incapable of all future employment in his Majesty's service. The moment this is admitted, the question simply becomes one as to the exercise of discretion by the Commander-in-Chief, in selecting this

559
particular officer for employment. Is there any ground whatever for imputing misconduct to him? If there be, then I admit a Committee of Inquiry would be the proper and legitimate resort; but if there be not, it certainly does appear to me that there are no Parliamentary grounds whatever for instituting the inquiry which the hon. Baronet proposes. Although the whole of the latter part of the hon. Baronet's speech was occupied with the individual case of Lord Brudenell, the earlier portion of it bore on a totally different subject. The hon. Baronet said, that there must be some responsibility for the manner in which all the functions of the Crown are exercised. No man can possibly dispute the soundness of that doctrine. It is a position in which I, for one, most cordially concur.
My noble Friend distinctly proved, on a former evening, that there is a person responsible for the exercise of all the functions of the Crown in this House. The Commander-in-Chief is the person who is responsible for individual acts connected with the management and control of the army. No acts connected with its regulation can take place but by his advice and his recommendation, and for his conduct in advising and recommending the Crown he is most distinctly responsible. Beyond this, as my noble Friend has justly observed, the Members of the Government in this House are distinctly responsible for continuing the Commander-in-Chief in his office. I admit to the hon. Baronet that there is a distinction between the responsibility of the administration for the time being for the conduct of the Commander-in-Chief, and the responsibility he bears for the acts of those officers who are more immediately connected with the Government. The hon. Baronet, in the opening of his speech, stated this point very fairly. He said that so long as the general conduct of the Commander-in-Chief,— (to which he himself admitted no objection could be made in the present instance, inasmuch as he conceded that he had no fault to find with it,)—that so long as the general conduct of the Commander-in-Chief was unimpeachable, so long the Government of the day were justified in maintaining him in his office. But, says the hon. Baronet:—
"This is not a sufficiently close and stringent responsibility—I want a different kind of responsibility—that kind which consists in an
560
officer being here, in this House, to answer any question and meet any objection that may be made to the exercise of any particular power of the Crown committed to the department over which he presides—I want somebody like the Secretary for the Colonial Office, or the Secretary for the Home Office, to answer for the acts of the Commander-in-Chief."
Upon this question I can only say, that whenever the hon. Baronet chooses to bring it before the House, it will be perfectly open for its inquiry and consideration. If he be dissatisfied with the existing state of things in this respect, he may suggest a remedy, and bring it specifically under the consideration of the House; but I say that upon the present occasion I will not debate the question. I will not commit so great a cruelty and so great an injustice towards an individual, as to debate, under his name, a great general question. If the system be faulty, let the system be attacked, and let the system be changed; but do not let us try to wound the system through the side of an individual—do not let us, under another pretext, aim at an individual Member of this House, and an officer, who, I am sure, every Gentleman must feel, from what has passed in this House, has already suffered most severely. I say, do not let us punish him for the purpose of introducing such a change of system as we may, on general grounds of policy, hold to be expedient. That is an entirely separate and distinct question. It is one on which I think, in the present case, it would be an act of injustice towards the noble Lord whose name is involved, if I were in the slightest degree, one way or other, to pronounce an opinion. For these reasons it appears to me that the Committee which the hon. Baronet has asked for is one which cannot be granted. The only real, tangible, and useful object for which that Committee can be required, is the establishment of some general change of policy. If an inquiry of that description be required, it is not the motion the hon. Baronet has made; and I therefore call upon the House not to give their assent to a motion which cannot be considered otherwise than as a censure passed upon an individual who has not had a fair and legitimate opportunity of being heard in his own defence.
Lord George Lennox: Seeing so many hon. Members anxious to speak upon the present question, I shall detain the House only for a very few moments. The hon.

561
Baronet, the Member for Cornwall, has stated that the decision of the court-martial must be either correct or incorrect. Now, Sir, I boldly avow that, in my opinion, their decision was incorrect: but at the same time, I beg not to be misunderstood, and that I attribute no improper motive to any member of that court-martial, who, I have no doubt, were actuated by most honourable feelings, but I maintain that they have, by their decision, fallen into error. I find they state that "his (Lord Brudenell's) conduct has been reprehensible in advancing such various and weighty assertions to be submitted before a public tribunal without some sure grounds of establishing the fact." Now, Sir, what are the facts? There were six charges preferred against Captain Wathen. The three first were revised and approved of by Major-General Sir Thomas Arbuthnot. Nay, more than this; the three first charges were supported on oath by Major-General Sir Thomas Arbuthnot, and corroborated by the evidence of Colonel Turner and Captain Cochran, the Major-General's aide-de-camp. Now can it be said Lord Brudenell's conduct has been reprehensible in advancing such weighty assertions, and that he had not some sure grounds of establishing the facts, when the charges were not only supported by the evidence of the Major-General commanding the district, but brought forward by his order? The hon. Baronet has also stated that Lord Brudenell's promotion has been most rapid, and that he has obtained the command of his regiment after having been only six years in the service. I admit that Lord Brudenell has been most fortunate, and his promotion most rapid; but it must be remembered that he has obtained that promotion by purchase, and in his own regiment, and when he has been the senior officer for purchase; that he has never been jobbed from regiment to regiment to obtain promotion, or put over the heads of older officers, but has obtained it by being the senior for purchase in his own regiment. I shall only add, that, for my own part, after twenty-four years' service, I should be proud, indeed, to be able to produce such high testimonials as Lord Brudenell has this night produced, and which must be the more gratifying to that noble Lord, coming as they do from some of the most distinguished officers in our service.
Mr. Humewas anxious to state to the House how much he differed from the noble Lord, and how completely the noble Lord had, in his opinion, established grounds in favour of the inquiry which he opposed. The noble Lord, the Secretary-at-War, was not the only hon. Member who had done this. The noble Lord who was the object, as some considered, but whom he did not consider the object of that motion, had made statements to the House which induced him to think that he had good reason to complain that he had been very ill-used, and that an inquiry was due, in justice, to him. The noble Lord who had spoken last, had brought forward a new point. He had told the House that the court-martial had acted improperly, and that persons who supported, on oath, the charges brought against an individual officer, had given a verdict in opposition to the evidence. The noble Lord in thus impugning the conduct of the most hon. tribunal that could be established for the trial of military, had, in his (Mr. Hume's) opinion, made out a case for inquiry. He would only add on this point, once for all, that in his opinion the noble Lord (Brudenell) had made out a case of great grievance. He was undoubtedly unfortunate in bringing forward charges which, in the opinion of the court-martial, were not substantiated; but he did think, from the noble Lord's own statement, that there were grounds of complaint against Lord Hill's exercise of discretion. He (Mr. Hume) had no hesitation in saying that, for himself, the complaint he made was principally against Lord Hill, for having, as Commander-in-chief, sanctioned the verdict of the court-martial, and proclaimed its sentence, in the terms they had heard that night, at the head of every regiment in the service, and now coming forward and re-appointing the noble Lord, without any explanation to satisfy the minds either of officers or men that that sentence was a harsh and unjust one on the noble Lord. He now wished to address himself to the observations of the noble Lord, the Secretary-at-War, relative to the alteration in the motion of his hon. Friend. His hon. Friend had undoubtedly departed from his original intention—and why? Because, not having paid attention to the practice of the House in former instances, when it had exercised its undoubted right of instituting an inquiry into similar transactions, he found that he might have been

563
met with an objection on a point of etiquette and form had he adhered to his original motion, and moved for an inquiry, not only into the circumstances of the appointment, but of the disgrace of the noble Lord, by his removal from the command of the 15th Hussars. The course his hon. Friend had now taken, was warranted by what had taken place in 1788, on a charge brought in that House against the Admiralty for having passed over several officers in a promotion, which was discussed on three occasions. He would quote the opinion of two of the first men whom the House would be disposed to follow, as far as regarded the precedent. The case on which he rested the justification of the hon. Baronet was this:—A motion was brought forward by Mr. Bastard for a select committee to inquire into the conduct of the Admiralty, and the discussion was terminated by the rejection of the proposition, though certainly not by a very great majority. Both Mr. Pitt and Mr. Fox condemned the conduct of the First Lord of the Admiralty. The motion which Mr. Bastard then brought forward was, "That it be referred to a committee to inquire into the conduct of the Admiralty in the late promotion of Admirals." On that occasion Mr. Pitt said, that "the present was the proper mode of proceeding, and that the House had a constitutional power of inquiring into the conduct of any department of Government, with a view either to censure or punishment, was unquestionable, and whenever a case was made out strong enough to warrant suspicion of abuse, that deserved either censure or punishment, he should ever hold that to be the indispensable duty of the House to proceed to inquire." Mr. Fox on that occasion said, that "the motion being a motion for a committee he should vote for it; because it was the constitutional province and the undoubted duty of that House to watch over the executive departments, and, where they had cause to suspect abuse, to institute an inquiry, with a view either to censure or to punishment." Taking the opinions of these two eminent statesmen for his guide, his hon. Friend, the member for Cornwall had an undoubted precedent on which to proceed on the present occasion. The House had now only to inquire whether it had. a case such as Mr. Pitt and Mr. Fox both alleged to be sufficient to justify inquiry—namely, a case which warranted suspicion that the
564
conduct of the Commander-in-Chief had not been such as that House would be prepared to sanction. He asked the House to consider what effect the re-appointment of Lord Brudenell to the command of a regiment, after the sentence of a court-martial had led the Commander-in-Chief to remove him publicly from the command of another regiment, would have on the private soldiers of the British army. Hon. Members had defended flogging a few nights ago in that House, on the ground that it was necessary to maintain the discipline of the army. How could that discipline be maintained when the privates saw an officer re-appointed to a regiment, who had been removed from another regiment as unfitted to command it? Hon. Members might not like the contrast which he was going to draw between the mode pursued by the Commander-in-Chief to maintain discipline among the officers in the army, and the mode pursued to maintain it among the privates. He contended that Lord Hill as Commander-in-Chief had done great injury to the army by promoting an officer on whom a court-martial had infixed so severe a censure. He admitted that Lord Brudenell had not been permitted to defend himself before that court-martial. He admitted also that Lord Brudenell had shown a proper sense of what was due to his own character, by demanding that his conduct should be submitted to the consideration of another court-martial. When the noble Lord asked for that court-martial, he ought to have had it granted to him, and Lord Hill had, in his opinion, treated the noble Lord with great harshness in refusing it. He said that Lord Hill had refused to grant Lord Brudenell the court-martial for which he asked; for Lord Fitzroy Somerset, in reply to Lord Brudenell's letter, which he stated had been laid before the General commanding-in-chief, used these words; "There is nothing in what you have now brought under his Lordship's notice which would justify him in re-opening the question, or in recommending that the decision, which has been come to upon it should be reversed." What were they to conclude from such language, except that Lord Hill considered the conduct of Lord Brudenell to be such as the sentence of the court-martial had described it to be —that he was not inclined to reverse it,

565
and that he had therefore removed the noble Lord from the command of his regiment? He believed that it was a regulation well-known in the army, that an officer who was deemed unfit to perform the duties of his station in one regiment, was also deemed unfit to perform them in any other. If that were so, then he contended that Lord Hill's conduct in re-appointing Lord Brudenell to the command of a regiment, exhibited a want of that due attention which justice required to be paid to the officers of the army, and in the maintenance of discipline set a very bad example to the private soldiers. It would be impossible to maintain discipline among the private soldiers, if they allowed the General commanding-in-chief to declare in one day, in front of every regiment in the service, an officer guilty of unofficer like behaviour, and to re-appoint him on the next to a high command, without making any attempt to remove from his character the stigma which the previous declaration had cast upon it. He maintained, that under all the circumstances of the case, the House must come to this conclusion, that Lord Hill had not made this appointment upon principles of justice, but upon grounds of private favour and partiality. ["No, no"] Had Lord Brudenell been a poor unsupported subaltern, instead of being the son of a powerful nobleman, would Lord Hill have dealt so favourably with him as he recently had done? Lord Hill, he insisted, had either been guilty of injustice towards Lord Brudenell, in not granting him a court-martial, or, if he thought the sentence of the former court-martial could not be reversed, had been guilty of injustice to the service, in placing an incompetent and incapable officer at the head of a regiment. Lord Brudenell had read to the House several letters from officers of high military rank, declaring that they were dissatisfied with the sentence which the court-martial had given against him; but surely the House would not consider those letters, however respectable the authors of them might be, as equal in authority to the sentence which thirteen officers had given upon their oaths. In point of fact, those letters did not apply at all to the merits of the present case, and did not shake in the slightest degree the justice of the sentence. If Lord Brudenell had been harshly used, and he did not mean to say that his Lordship had not
566
been harshly used, who was it, he would ask, that had used him harshly? Who but the General commanding-in-chief? The noble Lord who filled the office of Secretary-at-War had taken great pride to himself, in the speech which he had delivered against the present motion, for not having read any part of the evidence produced upon the court-martial. To him it appeared that the noble Lord had taken pride to himself for a circumstance which he ought to have been most reluctant to acknowledge. Filling the situation which the noble Lord did, it was his duty to have made himself master of the whole of that evidence, and the House had a right to expect from him (Lord Howick) an expression of opinion upon it. The noble Lord ought to be responsible to the House for appointments like the present. We ought not to have a Commander-in-Chief whom nobody knows. It was with a view of ascertaining by whose authority Lord Brudenell had been re-appointed to the command of a regiment, and whether it was by the authority of the noble Lord, that the present motion had been brought forward. He now, therefore, came to the conclusion that the motion of his hon. Friend, the Member for Cornwall, ought to be supported—1st, because it was conformable to precedent; 2nd, because there was no other tribunal competent to inquire into the merits of this appointment; 3rd, because Lord Brudenell asserted that he had been denied justice; and lastly, because Lord Hill had set a bad example to the army in placing at the head of a regiment, without any additional inquiry, an officer who had been declared, but two years ago, by a court-martial, whose sentence was read to every regiment in the service, incapable and unworthy of command. ["No, no."] If a committee were granted to him, he would undertake to prove before that committee other instances of gross partiality and oppression on the part of the Commander-in-Chief. Why did hon. Gentlemen opposite murmur when he said this? Because they were afraid, that if a committee were granted to him, he should prove all his allegations before it. He admitted, that in his private character no man stood higher in his estimation than Lord Hill; but in his official character, in his management of the patronage of the army, Lord Hill set a bad example both to officers and privates, by rewarding with one hand the

567
man whom he punished with the other. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members might cry out "Oh, oh," as long as they pleased; but to all such cries he would persevere in answering "Yes, yes." Why did hon. Members opposite contend for the continuance of the use of the lash in the British army? Only because they said that it was necessary for discipline; therefore he contended that the same degree of discipline that was measured out to the high officers of the army should be carried downwards to the privates. The most ample grounds had been laid for inquiry, and he hoped that the House would do justice to its own character, and to all parties by granting it.
Sir Henry Hardinge: I do not mean, Sir, but for a very few minutes to interfere with the natural impatience of the House to come to a division upon this subject; for there is no doubt that that impatience has been universally expressed, both before and after the hon. Member for Middlesex sat down. I do not mean to follow that hon. Member through his unconnected and somewhat contradictory speech. Indeed, it would be difficult to follow him in his praise of Lord Hill for his private merits, and through his dispraise of Lord Hill for his official demerits;—in his eulogies upon Lord Hill as an honest and independent man in private life, and in his accusations of that noble Lord as a Commander-in-Chief, influenced by his love of the nobility and by his oppression of the poor unsupported subaltern. All these topics of praise and dispraise, of eulogy and censure, have been so oddly dovetailed one into the other in the hon. Member's speech, that I fairly confess it is beyond my comprehension how these glaring contrarieties can be made to cohere at all together. It is no easy matter, then, to follow the hon. Member through the various topics of his incongruous speech, and, for my part, I. will save the time of the House by not attempting so unprofitable a task. Still there are some points in the observations of the hon. Member, to which I must be permitted briefly to advert. The hon. Member has taken pains to collect the different circumstances of the Admiralty case, in which those illustrious statesmen, Pitt and Fox, are stated to have concurred in the opinion, that the House had a right to inquire, when circumstances strongly warranted a suspicion, that the mode in
568
which the patronage of the different public Boards was managed, was by gross partiality and corruption. Now, I will briefly inform the House in what respect the case to which the hon. Member has referred differs from the case which is now before the House. The Admiralty case was a case of patronage—the present case is a case of discipline. It is not the province of this House to inquire into the discipline of the army. The Legislature passes the Mutiny Act, by which the King is empowered to make Articles of War for conducting the discipline of the army. The discipline of the army is vested in the King, and not in Committees of the House of Commons. If this House should be of opinion that the patronage of the army is disposed of corruptly by those in whose hands it is placed by the King, it would be a just and legitimate exercise of its powers, on a strong case of corruption being made out, to inquire into the manner in which that patronage is managed; but this case, being a case arising out of the sentence of a court-martial, is not one of patronage, but is a mere matter of discipline. What are the facts? A court-martial was held, an officer was accused, and was acquitted, and the conduct of the prosecutor was animadverted on severely in the finding of the Court. The Commander-in-Chief, it is said, assented to the animadversions made upon the conduct of the prosecutor at the time the sentence was confirmed, and, therefore, it is argued that he has acted inconsistently in now restoring the prosecutor to the full pay from which he was removed. On the contrary, I assert that the Commander-in-Chief never gave his unqualified assent to the animadversions of the court-martial on the prosecutor. He did, indeed, assent to the sentence of acquittal upon Captain Wathen, which was pronounced by thirteen officers of rank, acting under the solemn responsibility of an oath; but in the General Order, promulgating the sentence of the army, it is distinctly stated, that the evidence will bear a construction less unfavourable to Lord Brudenell, than that which the Court have put upon it. I will not impugn the justice of that sentence, for, as the noble Lord, the Secretary-at-War, has well observed, that is quite foreign to the question now before the House. I will give Captain Wathen the full benefit of his acquittal by that court-

569
martial. But when that court-martial, having fulfilled their duty, which was to to try Captain Wathen, and not Lord Brudenell, travelled out of its proper course to censure Lord Brudenell, who was not on his trial, and was never heard in defence, I trust that the House will not consider me as saying too much when I assert that, in that respect, they came to an erroneous decision. My opinion is decided on that point. I think that the animadversions made by that court-martial upon the motives and conduct of Lord Brudenell, were made on a mistaken view of Lord Brudenell's proceedings, and an exaggerated impression of the evidence. First, with regard to the motives of Lord Brudenell in instituting the charges against Captain Wathen,—they state that "they cannot ascribe them solely to a wish to uphold the honour and interests of the army." Now, I contend that there is not a tittle of evidence to support that allegation. It is an allegation made without evidence—it is a mere suspicion—it is an impression produced by the nature of the defence made by Captain Wathen—it is an impression not supported, but contradicted, by the evidence and all the undisputed facts of the case. In my opinion, the Court proceeded on suspicion and not on evidence, in attributing motives to Lord Brudenell on a point where his conduct in making the charges against Captain Wathen were actually approved and recommended by his superior officer, the Major-General of the district. Then they call that "a system" and "a practice" which, according to the evidence, was not done in more than a single instance. They complain that Lord Brudenell listened to a junior officer, and examined non-commissioned officers and soldiers, with a view of learning how the officers executed their duty; and this they stigmatize as a practice most dangerous to the discipline of the army. I am convinced that if Lord Brudenell had known that he was on his trial, and was to be censured for this single act, and had been openly and fairly examined by the Court upon that point, he could have satisfactorily explained to the members of the Court that what they, contrary to evidence, term his "practice," was not his "practice"—that it was a solitary act, in which he was justified by the peculiarity of the case—that it was the only act of the kind that he had committed during the two years in which he
570
had been in command of the regiment; and that which was called his system and his practice, was in reality no system, no practice, but was an act which the conduct of Captain Wathen justified him in adopting. I could, in like manner, go into other details, but the able statement of my noble Friend himself has rendered such a course unnecessary. It appears, however, to me, that the object of the present motion is to attack the conduct of Lord Hill, rather than that of Lord Brudenell. The merits, however, of Lord Hill's administration of the army are too well known to the House to require any vindication on my part; they have recently been admitted by his Majesty's Government, and the House at large, and I shall therefore leave the imputations which have been made against it, without any reply, under the full conviction that none is required. The House will, perhaps, do me the kindness to recollect, that I have, upon all occasions, objected to the practice of converting this House, being a popular assembly, into a court of appeal from the decisions of courts-martial; but as some doubts have been expressed as to the intentions of Lord Hill, when he removed Lord Brudenell from the command of his regiment, in consequence of the sentence of the court-martial, it may, perhaps, be as well to explain why I have said, that Lord Hill did not assent to the justice of the animadversions of the Court upon Lord Brudenell's conduct. In the General Order, announcing that his Majesty had been pleased to confirm and approve of the sentence of that court-martial, the Commander-in-Chief stated very distinctly, that "upon an attentive perusal of the whole proceedings, it appeared that some parts of the evidence would reasonably bear a construction less unfavourable to the prosecutor than that which the Court had thought it their duty to place upon them." This appeared to me, at the time, to be tantamount to a declaration on the part of Lord Hill, that he did not assent to the animadversions which the court-martial had passed upon Lord Brudenell. This, my impression, was confirmed by the correspondence which passed on this subject between the War-Office and the Horse-Guards, when Lord Hill placed Lord Brudenell's name upon the half-pay list, because he could not have been placed upon half-pay unless it was with the intention of restoring

571
him to the service after he had suffered some time the penalty of being removed from activity to inactivity. In fact, the harmony of the regiment seemed to the Commander-in-Chief to justify the removal of the commanding officer; but it is very evident from the correspondence, and the refusal to grant Lord Brudenell a court-martial, that it never was intended to remove Lord Brudenell permanently from the active duties of his profession. To restore him, from the command of the 15th Hussars to the second lieutenant-colonelcy of the 11th Light Dragoons, cannot, therefore, be deemed an act of patronage, but is simply an act of discipline, resulting from a court-martial, on the details of which this House, or any Committee of this House, ought not to sit in judgment. This view of the question is capable of proof, and appears from every part of the correspondence.
Though I came down to the House prepared to enter fully into this part of the subject, I am not disposed to detain the House in its present temper of decidedly negativing the motion. I am also equally indisposed to enter into the other question which has been mooted, somewhat irregularly, this evening, as to the duties of the Commander-in-Chief, and his responsibility to this House in the performance of his duties. I will avow, at once, that in my opinion, the Commander-in-Chief ought not to be a political character. He ought to manage the army without reference to political bias; and the best mode of securing that freedom from political bias in the Commander-in-Chief is by taking care not to make him a political character, if you make him a political character, it is all but impossible that political motives will not interfere with the impartial discharge of the duties of his office. As to the motion of the hon. Member for Cornwall, "that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the conduct of the Commander-in-Chief of the Forces in appointing Lieutenant-Colonel Lord Brudenell to the command of the 11th Light Dragoons," it is, in reality, a motion to censure Lord Hill for an act of discipline—not for any misconduct in the exercise of his patronage, for there is no patronage in the case. It is, therefore, a motion calling upon the House, and on very slender grounds, to take under its charge the discipline of the army—to usurp one of the most ancient
572
and most important prerogatives of the Crown, and to do that which has not been attempted by any Government, or Parliament, in this country, since the year 1642.
I will suppose, for the sake of argument, that the hon. Member has carried this his most unconstitutional motion. I will suppose that he has obtained his Committee. The hon. Member has already before him all the details of this transaction; but he may say,—when Lord Hill appears before the Bar of the Committee, and alleges that he has meted out justice to Lord Brudenell by punishing him for a time, and by restoring him afterwards to his rank and duties, on the ground that he never intended to ruin Lord Brudenell's prospects in the army; that the case did not require his removal from the service, and that he has been already severely punished; the hon. Member may say— he is not satisfied with that explanation, and that he wishes the members of the court-martial to be summoned before him, to explain the grounds on which they passed those animadversions on the motives and conduct of Lord Brudenell. I will next suppose that my gallant and valued friend, the president of the court-martial, and the hon. and gallant Member for Rye, who was also a member of it, are called before this Select Committee, sitting in judgment on Lord Hill on a professional question of military discipline. To the first question which the hon. Member for Cornwall would put to the president, he would reply, "This Committee is neither a court-martial nor a court of law. I have taken an oath not to disclose to any person any of the opinions or votes of the members of the Court which have come to my knowledge, and with all deference, I cannot, and I will not reply to your question." The necessity of secrecy is so binding on the members of the court-martial, that they can only be absolved from their oath by a court-martial or a court of law; and my feeling on this point is so strong, that when I was asked on a former evening by the hon. and gallant Major opposite, who was a member of the Court, whether I intended to impugn the finding of that court-martial, I declined to answer the question, from a feeling that, if I had impugned it, the hon. and gallant Major could not have disclosed any of the circumstances which might have formed its justification; but which would have dis-

573
closed his opinion and vote on those transactions. How then can the hon. Member for Cornwall hope to carry his case further than it is carried at present? The plain matter of fact is, that this Committee is intended to be nothing: else than a fishing Committee to attack Lord Hill; for what said the hon. Member for Middlesex?—"If I get this Committee, I shall be able to produce other instances of partiality and oppression on the part of the authorities at the Horse-Guards."
This Committee, then, is to be a Committee to usurp the prerogatives of the Crown; such a Committee as no House of Commons has appointed since the sitting of the Long Parliament, and which, I trust in God, no House of Commons will be induced ever to appoint again. With regard to my noble Friend, Lord Brudenell, I could read to the House a letter from my gallant Friend, Sir Hussey Vivian, the Master-General of the Ordnance, speaking in the highest terms of his qualifications as an officer of cavalry; but, after the handsome testimonials which my noble Friend has this evening produced of his high character as an officer and a gentleman, any further addition would be a mere work of supererogation. I have no doubt that a question of this kind will not be decided by party feelings, but by that impartial spirit of justice which ought to characterize, and always has characterized, English gentlemen; but I beg to remind those who think that party considerations ought to overpower all others, that the majority of the testimonials which have been given to my noble Friend, proceed from officers of rank and station, who are not of the same party politics with my noble Friend, but who generally support or vote with the Members of his Majesty's Government. It may be said, that these testimonials being of recent date, have been given for a particular purpose,—to bolster up a weak case; but such a suspicion would be refuted by the evidence which could be furnished previous to the existence of the court-martial, from the inspection of Reports of every General-Officer under whom Lord Brudenell has served, and which constitute so many unexceptionable proofs of Lord Brudenell's ability to command a regiment; and, consequently, so many justifications for Lord Hill's exercise of judgment in replacing him in another regiment. Under these circumstances I con-
574
ceive that the animadversions which have been thrown out are as uncalled for, as the Select Committee of Inquiry, and I repeat my deliberate opinion that the mode of Lord Brudenell's restoration is merely an act of justice to the individual and to the service, and I cannot refrain from again offering my noble Friend my sincere congratulations on his restoration to the active duties of his profession, in which I am convinced I am joined by the great majority of the most valuable officers in the British army, and I am equally convinced that he will prove, as he has previously done, that he is well qualified to serve the King with credit to himself, and advantage to the service.
Mr. Ellicesaid, that he was anxious to offer a few words of explanation on this subject. The House was aware, from the correspondence which had recently been laid on the Table relative to this case, that he had expressed his opinion to the Commander-in-Chief as to the mode in which officers were placed on the half-pay in cases of this kind. The Commander-in-Chief announced to him, in this case, the reason for the course he intended to take before laying the new appointment before his Majesty, previous to placing the noble Lord on the half-pay. He then stated, that with respect to placing the noble Lord on half-pay after what had taken place, he entertained very serious doubts. He did not think that the noble Lord should be placed on half-pay, unless they allowed him to be brought before a court-martial, or unless they should qualify the sentence of the court-martial by the proper military authorities to meet his objection. The noble Lord having, however, taken the line which he had thought proper to do, and demanded a court-martial, he (Mr. Ellice) stated to the Commander-in-Chief that if he, under the circumstances, had been placed on half-pay, he would have resigned his commission rather than have accepted the pitiful allowance of half-pay, when he found that inquiry was refused him. Lord Hill did qualify the sentence of the court-martial in the way which had been stated to the House. He agreed with the right hon. and gallant General opposite,—that the members of the court-martial had gone beyond the duty prescribed to them. The same proceeding often occurred in the other courts of justice, when the jury expressed an opinion on the conduct of the prosecutor. Where,

575
however, it was followed by so severe a sentence as the removal of an officer from his regiment, the circumstances would appear the more striking. He felt, then, that if there was not some qualification placed on the sentence, that the full effect of it would be felt as a punishment. Lord Hill, he knew, had great doubts on the subject, and it was not without hesitation and the greatest consideration that they agreed on the course that was followed. The Judge-Advocate had been consulted on the subject, and his opinion had been laid before his Majesty. Under these circumstances, it followed that it could not be otherwise than that the appointment, by Lord Hill, of Lord Brudenell was in unison with his own opinion. He was aware that nothing could be more objectionable than inquiry into the proceedings of a court-martial. But he still thought that they should not punish an officer without hearing him in his defence, or hearing from the competent authority a declaration that the opinion of the court-martial went further than the case called for. He might have thought a little more favourably of the case at the time than he ought, because it appeared to him that Lord Brudenell had been borne down by the decision of the court-martial. He thought that the proceeding was hard in itself,—stronger than the circumstances of the case justified. The Secretary-of-War, however, had no discretion in these cases; indeed, he had no more to do with them than the hon. Member for Middlesex, or any other hon. Gentleman. With respect to not pressing Lord Brudenell's demand for a court-martial, he would read an extract from the letter of Lord Fitzroy Somerset to that noble Lord; he states,—
While, however, the King feels for the situation in which your Lordship is placed, and does justice to your anxiety for an inquiry into your conduct in those respects in which it has been impeached on the occasion referred to, his Majesty is yet clearly of opinion that, to assemble a court-martial, or to institute any other proceeding for that purpose, would be to depart from long established practice, to contravene principles of acknowledged authority in the military administration of justice, and to set a precedent of most inconvenient and injurious example.
If such were the opinion of those to whom was intrusted the discipline of the military force of the country, it would not have become him to press for a court-martial.
576
He was sure that every hon. Gentleman must agree with him in admiring the conduct of the noble Lord, after he had been censured by the court-martial, and for the language he had used with respect to it. He also concurred with the gallant General in saying, that he was sincerely glad that the noble Lord had been replaced in his Majesty's service. In consequence of what had fallen from his noble Friend, as to the general question respecting the army, he would only observe, that that question required such dispassionate discussion, that he thought it could be better taken up by the Government than by the House. A Commission was appointed for the purpose of considering whether the civil and military departments in the army could not be consolidated, each under their respective heads. The Commission sat a considerable time, and examined a great many witnesses. Upon this commission he and Sir James Kempt attended, but it had not been his good fortune to agree with that gallant General in his opinions upon the subject. His opinion was, that the separation which already existed was too great, and was attended with very considerable inconvenience; and, moreover, that any further attempt to separate the two departments would be attended with considerable danger. What at present was the condition of the army in consequence of these divided functions? The Commander-in-Chief had a thousand appeals made to him, and so great were the subdivisions, that he himself did not know on what or on whom to depend for the defence of his own conduct, if defence should become necessary. It was astonishing how many persons were connected with the war department. The Judge-Advocate, the Secretary-at-War had each his own department independent of the Commander-in-Chief. As to the Secretary-at-War, that functionary had less to do with this department than the Home-Secretary; for every commission was countersigned, not by the Secretary-at-War, but by the Home-Secretary. [No!] There was not a commission of an Ensign which was not signed by the Secretary of State, and usually the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The Home-Secretary, the Commander-in-Chief, the Lords of the Treasury, the Judge-Advocate, had all to do with the matter before it came to the Secretary-at-War. The House would not

577
find him hazarding a rash opinion upon this subject; but of this he was perfectly satisfied, that things could not safely remain as they were. He would not trespass upon the House by stating what he conceived Would be the consequences which might ensue; but this he knew, that the army suffered very much from not having a sufficient protection from high quarters, from not having a high and responsible authority to represent them in his Majesty's Councils, as every other department of the state had. There ensued great difficulties, also, from these causes to the colonial service,—difficulties which deserved the particular attention of the Government and Legislature, if it were considered a desirable thing to maintain an army in a state of effectiveness. He had stated the difficulties of the case; but he was not prepared, at the present moment, to propose a remedy for them. He was well aware that any change in a long established system must be attended with great difficulties. Yet, notwithstanding the difficulties, something must be done to unite the various branches of this department of the State under one head. He would not then go into any details of the remedy. He must deprecate any motion which would have the injurious effect of interfering with the general, calm, consideration of the subject. He could not but think, moreover, that any such Committee as that moved for might lead to interminable inquiries. He therefore hoped the hon. Baronet who brought forward the motion would withdraw it, more especially as the hon. Baronet must see that all had been done by bringing it forward which he could have desired.
Major Curteisasserted the strict honour and impartiality of the court-martial, and considered the censure passed upon it as most undeserved. The members of it were highly honourable men, and returned their finding upon oath. As for the noble Lord, he most cordially desired to tender to that noble and gallant officer his congratulations upon an appointment which he was so well qualified to fill, with honour to himself and advantage to the army.
Lord George Lennoxbegged to say, that he for one had not passed any imputation upon the motives of the court-martial.
Mr. O'Connellhoped the hon. Baronet would not press his motion. [Divide.] He could assure hon. Members, that unless he felt it his duty to express
578
his opinion upon this question, he should not trespass upon the House at that late period of the evening. He had one strong objection with regard to the course which had been already pursued in bringing forward this motion—namely, that, whilst it was apparently levelled against one individual, it implied censure on the conduct of another. If the conduct of the noble Lord (Brudenell), who was indirectly censured by the motion before the House, deserved to be attacked, why was not that attack made directly? If the attack had been made directly, he was convinced it would, because it ought to, fail. He had a deep and strong conviction that Lord Brudenell was an injured man. He had been convicted without a trial, and punished without any charge having been brought against him. He gave the court-martial that decided on the case of Captain Wa-then, full credit for integrity. He personally knew but one man amongst them; but he knew that one would not do an intentional wrong. They did, however, err most grossly—they were decidedly wrong,—and went far beyond the bounds of their duty in censuring a man who had not been heard upon the point which incurred their censure. Why should they censure an officer who was not called upon, or prepared for a defence? Surely, though the peasant had a right to equal justice with the peer, the peer had also an equal right to it with the peasant. Was censure to be passed upon a man against whom no direct charge was brought—who was not, therefore, prepared with witnesses on the subject for which he was censured; —and when this man demanded a fair and full trial, for the purpose of bringing forward evidence, was that trial to be refused him? The noble Lord called for a court-martial, and he was refused. Was that justice? He begged leave to differ from the right hon. Baronet (Sir H. Hardinge) in his notion of discipline. He knew of no advantages of discipline which were at variance with justice. The right hon. Baronet denied the right of that House to interfere with the decision of a court-martial. Why, courts-martial acted under an Act of Parliament, and, therefore, like other judicial proceedings, their verdicts were subject to revision. If the circumstances had occurred to a person of lower rank, would justice have been done? No; nor had it even been done in this case. Here there was conviction without a trial—

579
punishment without proof offered of a charge. The noble Lord's name had a censure set down against it in every orderly book in the service; and his future descendants were liable to have it cast up against them. Here was a stigma fixed on the noble Lord. It was said, that to grant a court-martial under these circumstances, would be against the practice. To do justice would be against the practice. To give a man who had been condemned unheard, an opportunity of vindicating himself, against "practice?" Indeed!—so bad a practice should not be suffered longer to remain, and the sooner it was done away with the better. The noble Lord, in his speech of to-night, had attracted the sympathy of all who heard him; but still that was not a vindication— not the vindication he had a right to demand—whilst the censure remained in the regimental books. The conduct of the Commander-in-Chief was wrong and unjust; and he hoped the poorest man in the army would reap the advantage of the censure which had to-night been cast upon the practice. If the motion related only to Lord Hill, and did not involve Lord Brudenell, he certainly should have supported it, not from any feeling which he entertained towards the former, but merely to express his abhorrence of a practice which condemned a man unheard; and, when he demanded a trial, refused it.
Captain Berkeleycould not agree in the opinion that this question ought not to be pressed to a division. He thought, in justice to Lord Hill, in justice to Lord Brudenell, the sense of the House should be taken upon it. The motion might certainly have been brought forward in a better form. If its object were to attain the ends of justice, some other mode should have been adopted; but it seemed as if it had been framed for the double purpose of attacking Lord Brudenell through Lord Hill, and Lord Hill through Lord Brudenell. The proper form would have been, if there were no ulterior object in view, for the hon. Baronet to have moved for an humble address to his Majesty, praying him to grant the court of inquiry which had been eagerly sought for on behalf of Lord Brudenell. As to the stigma which was said to attach to the noble Lord, he must differ from the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. He would merely state a fact, which would also answer as a contradiction to what was
580
said by the hon. Member for Middlesex, that if this had been the case of an humble man, and not one of noble blood, no redress would have been accorded. The hon. Member for Middlesex, by-the-by, seemed desirous to push the punishment of Lord Brudenell to a degree of harshness not hitherto known. The fact to which he alluded occurred in his own profession (the navy). It was the case of a man who rose from before the mast, and who, though once condemned to death, by his good conduct afterwards raised himself so high in the profession, that he died holding the rank of post-captain.
Sir William Molesworthwas quite ready to comply with the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, not to take up the time of the House by dividing. There were, however loud calls for a division, and
The House divided;—Ayes 42;—Noes 322:—Majority 280.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

O'Connell, D.

Attwood, Thomas

O'Connell, J.

Barnard, E. G.

O'Connell, M. J.

Bish, T.

O'Connell, Morgan

Bowring, Dr.

Phillips, Mark

Brady, D. C.

Pryme, George

Bridgman, H.

Roche, D.

Brocklehurst, J.

Roebuck, J. A.

Brotherton, J.

Ruthven, E.

Buller, Charles

Scholefield, J.

Crawford, W. S.

Strutt, Edward

Divett, E.

Thompson, Col.

Dundas, J. C.

Thorneley, T.

Ewart, W.

Villiers, C. P.

Gillon, W. D.

Wakley, T.

Grote, George

Wallace, Robert

Hector, C.J.

Warburton, H.

Jervis, John

Wilbraham, G.

King, Edward B.

Williams, W.

Leader, J. T.

Marshall, William

TELLERS.

Marsland, Henry

Molesworth, Sir W.

O'Brien, Cornelius

Hume, J.

List of the
NOES.

Adam, Sir Charles

Barclay, Charles

Agnew, Sir A.

Baring, Francis T.

Alford, Lord

Baring, H. Bingham

Alsager, Captain

Baring, W.

Alston, Rowland

Baring, Thomas

Angerstein, John

Barry, G. S.

Arbuthnot, hon. H.

Bateson, Sir R.

Archdall, M.

Beckett, Sir J.

Ashley, hon. H.

Bell, Matthew

Attwood, M.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Bagot, hon. W.

Beresford, Sir J. P.

Baillie, H. D.

Berkeley, hon. F.

Baldwin, Dr.

Berkeley, hon. G. C.

Balfour, T.

Berkeley, hon. C. C.

Barclay, David

Bernal, Ralph

581

Bethell, Richard

Eastcourt, Thos. G. B.

Blackburne, I.

Fancourt, Major

Blackstone, W. S.

Fector, John Minet

Boldero, Henry G.

Feilden, W.

Boiling, W.

Fergusson, Sir R. A.

Bonham, R. Francis

Ferguson, G.

Bradshaw, J.

Fergusson, rt. hon. C.

Bramston, T. W.

Finch, George

Bruce, Ld. E. A. C.B.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Bruce, C. L. C.

Fleming, John

Bruen, Col.

Foley, Edw. Thomas

Bruen, Francis

Folkes, Sir W.

Bulwer, Edw. G.E L.

Forbes, Wm.

Burrell, Sir C. M., Bt.

Forester, hon. G. C. W.

Butler, hon. Pierce

Forster, Charles S.

Byng, G.

Fort, J.

Byng, G. S.

Fremantle, Sir T. W.

Calcraft, J. H.

Freshfield James W.

Campbell, Sir H.

Gaskell, J. M.

Canning, Sir S.

Geary, Sir W. R. P.

Castlereagh, Vise.

Gisborne, T.

Cayley, E. S.

Gladstone, Thomas

Chalmers, P.

Gladstone, Wm. E.

Chandos, Marq. of

Glynne, Sir S. R.

Chaplin, Col.

Goodricke, Sir F.

Chapman, Aaron

Gordon, Robert

Chichester, A.

Gordon, W.

Childers, J. W.

Gore, O.

Churchill, Ld. C. S.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Clayton, Sir W.

Goulburn, Sergeant

Clive, Edw. Bolton

Graham, Sir J.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Grant, hon. Colonel

Codrington, C. W.

Greisley, Sir R.

Colborne, N. W.

Grey, Sir G.

Cole, Vise.

Grimston, Viscount

Compton, H. C.

Hale, Robert B.

Conolly, E. M.

Halford, H.

Conyngham, Lord A.

Halse, James

Coote, Sir C. C., Bt.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Corbett, T.

Hardinge, Sir H.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Harland, W. Charles

Crawley, Samuel

Harvey, D. W.

Cripps, Joseph

Hastie, A.

Curteis, Edward B.

Hawes, Benjamin

Dalbiac, Sir C.

Hawkes, Thos.

Dalmeny, Lord

Hawkins, J. H.

Darlington, Earl of

Hay, Sir J., Bart.

Dick, Q.

Hay, Sir A. L.

Dillwyn, L. W.

Hayes, Sir E.S., Bart.

Donkin, Sir R. S.

Heathcote, G. J.

Dowdeswell, Wm.

Heneage, Edward

Dugdale, W. S.

Henniker, Lord

Dunbar, George

Hill, Lord Arthur

Duncombe, T. S.

Hill, Sir R. Bart.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Hobhouse, Sir J.C.

Dundas, hon. T.

Hodges, T. L.

Dundas, J. D.

Hogg, James Weir

East, James Buller

Hope, hon. James

Eastnor, Viscount

Hope, Henry, T.

Eaton, Richard J.

Hotham, Lord

Egerton, Wm. Tatton

Houldsworth, T.

Egerton, Sir P.

Howard, R.

Egerton, Lord Fran.

Howard, hon. E.

Elley, Sir J.

Howard, P. H.

Ellice, E.

Howick, Lord

Elwes, J.

Hoy, J. B.

Eastcourt, Thos. S. B.

Hurst, R. H.

582

Hutt, W.

Pinney, William

Jackson, Sergeant

Plumptre, J. P.

Ingham, R.

Plunkett, R.

Inglis, Sir R. H., Bt.

Powell, Colonel

Johnstone, J. J. H.

Praed, W.M.

Jones, Wilson

Price, S.G.

Jones, Theobald

Pringle, A.

Kearsley, J. H.

Pusey, Philip

Kerrison, Sir Edward

Rae, Sir Wm., Bart.

Knatchbull, Sir E.

Reid, Sir J. Rae

Knight, H. G.

Rice, right hon. T. S.

Knightley, Sir C.

Richards, J.

Knox, hon. J.

Rickford, W.

Labouchere, Henry

Ridley, Sir M. W.

Law, hon. C. E.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Lawson, Andrew

Rooper, J. Bonfoy

Lee, John Lee

Ross, Charles

Lefroy, Anthony

Rushbrooke, Col.

Lefroy, Thomas

Russell, Lord John

Lennox, Lord G.

Russell, Lord Charles

Lewis, David

Ryle, John

Lincoln, Earl of

Sanderson, R.

Loch, James

Scarlett, hon. R.

Lopes, Sir Ralph

Scott, Sir E. D.

Lowther, Col. H. C.

Scott, James W.

Lowther, J.

Scourfield, W. H.

Lucas, Edwards

Seymour, Lord

Lushington, S. R.

Sharpe, General

Lygon, hon. Col. H. B.

Shaw, Frederick

Mackinnon, W. A.

Sheldon, E. R. C.

Maclean, Donald

Sheppard, T.

Macleod, R.

Sibthorp, Col.

Mangles, J.

Sinclair, Sir George

Manners, Lord C.

Smith, J. A.

Marjoribanks, S.

Smith, hon. R.

Marsland, Thos.

Smith, Robert V.

Martin, J.

Smyth, Sir G. H., Bt.

Maule, hon. F.

Somerset, Lord E.

Maunsell, T. P.

Somerset, Lord G.

Methuen, P.

Speirs, Alexander

Meynell, Capt.

Stanley, E. J.

Miles, William

Stanley, Edward

Miles, Philip J.

Stanley, Lord

Mordaunt, Sir J., Bt.

Steuart, R.

Morpeth, Viscount

Stewart, Sir M. S., Bt.

Mosley, Sir O., Bart.

Stormont, Lord

Neeld, Joseph

Stuart, Lord James

Nicholl, Dr.

Stuart, V.

Norreys, Lord

Sturt, Henry Chas.

O'Conor Don

Surrey, Earl of

Oliphant, Lawrence

Talfourd, Sergeant

Packe, C. W.

Tancred, H. W.

Paget, Frederick

Thomas, Colonel

Palmer, General C.

Thomson, C. P.

Palmer, Robert

Thompson, Ald.

Palmerston, Lord

Townley, R. G.

Parker, M.

Trelawney, Sir W. L.

Parker, John

Trevor, hon. Arthur

Parnell, Sir H.

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Parrott, J.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Parry, Sir L. P.

Tulk, C. A.

Patten, John Wilson

Twiss, Horace

Peel, Sir R., Bart.

Tyrrell, Sir J.

Peel, rt. hon. W. Y.

Vere, Sir C. B. Bart.

Pemberton, Thomas

Verner, Colonel

Perceval, Col.

Vesey, hon. Thomas

Pigott, Robert

Vivian, Major

583

Vivian, John Ennis

Williamson, Sir H.

Wall, C. B.

Wilson, Henry

Walpole, Lord

Wodehouse, E.

Walter, John

Wood, C.

Wason, R.

Wood, Colonel

Welby, G. E.

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Wemyss, Capt.

Wynn, rt. hon. C. W.

Westenra, H. R.

Young, G. F.

Weyland, Major

Young, Sir W.

Wigney, Isaac N.

Wilbraham, hon. B.

TELLERS.

Williams, Thomas P.

Clerk, Sir G.

Williams, W.

Corry, hon. H. T. L.

PRIVATE BILLS.
Mr. Harlandwas anxious to call the attention of hon. Members to the situation in which landowners and other proprietors were placed under the usual provisions of Railway Acts, and to state the grounds upon which he thought justice required that some alteration should be made in them for the future. At present any proprietor, whose property was taken by Act of Parliament, for the purposes of a railway, was liable to be called upon by the Company to furnish an abstract of his title-deeds, and to prove, at his own expense if required, their validity; and in case of his failing, to make out what was termed a marketable title, the company was empowered to withhold the payment of the purchase money from the vendor, and to pay it into the Bank of England, under the name of the Accountant-General. The object of the motion he was about to submit to the House was, to relieve the landowner from all expenses incidental to furnishing the abstract, and verifying his title, and to throw them in every case upon the party who came to Parliament to force the sale. There were so many hon. Members more conversant with the sale and transfer of property than he was, that he felt it unnecessary to dwell upon the difficulties which frequently attended deducing a marketable title, resting, as it often did, upon a proof of pedigree—requiring an examination of parish registers in different parts of the country, which was difficult, owing to the present defective mode of registration. Nor was it necessary to examine, in detail, the expenses which might arise in getting and assigning terms of years, in cases where the property was under the trust of a long and intricate settlement; it would be enough for him to remind hon. Members, that a title, which was a safe-holding title, might often be rejected as not marketable, and that the difficulties
584
and expenses attending legal proof were often the greatest in cases of long possession, where the moral right that the owner had to his property was the most indisputable. He merely alluded to these considerations, in order to show how desirable it was that Parliament should endeavour, as far as possible, to protect proprietors from being put to unnecessary expense, from unreasonable objections taken to their titles on the part of Railway companies; and also, how necessary it was, that it should provide, as far as was possible, against the proprietor's being called upon to make an unnecessary exposure of title-deeds and family settlements, which had, in many instances, led to a ruinous course of litigation. The question was, how to effect the object he had in view. He begged to call the attention of hon. Members to a practice which of late years had been adopted in cases of voluntary sales, where, in order to protect the vendor against frivolous objections to his title, it had become the practice to fix the expenses attending the verifying of the abstract upon the purchaser; and he ventured to suggest, that Parliament could not do better than give the same protection to those, whose property it disposed of by its own act, as that which, in voluntary transactions, the vendor had found it necessary to provide for himself. This could not be looked upon as a mere shifting of the expense from the proprietor to the company who purchases; though, even if it were so, it is only just that these expenses should be thrown upon the company that forces the sale, and taken off the proprietor, who was an unwilling party to the transaction. But it would have a further, and a still more beneficial result, namely, that the company finding themselves saddled with the expenses, would rest satisfied, except under very peculiar circumstances, with a mere abstract of the title-deeds, and thus the-proprietor would be saved from an unnecessary exposure of his family affairs. Such a provision was necessary in order to secure the proprietor, in some cases, against downright pecuniary loss. Take, for instance, a case where only a small portion of an estate is taken for the purposes of a railway, and where the purchase money is of trifling amount, but where the title to the whole estate is involved in the title to this portion of it; and in order to substantiate it, the owner may be put to enormous expense, and be

585
driven to the exposure of the whole of his title-deeds and his family settlements. He knew two cases in point, of recent occurrence. In the one case, the purchase-money was under 50 l., and the expenses incidental to furnishing the abstract, and proving the title, amounted to 200 l.; in the other case, the purchase-money was 100 l., and the expenses were 200 l. Here then, in one case, the landowner lost his land and 150 l., and in the other, besides the loss of his land, he was 100 l. out of pocket by the transaction. It was no argument to say, "Oh! these are extreme cases, and, consequently, of un-frequent occurrence." He should doubt that assertion, inasmuch as both these cases occurred at no great distance from each other, in time and space. But it was the bounden duty of Parliament, when it compels a person to sell his property,— (and rightly compelled him, where public advantage was likely to accrue from it),— and when it exposed him to many annoyances which he would gladly avoid, to take care, by every means in its power, to guard him against the possibility of his suffering pecuniary loss from the transaction. It might be objected, that the throwing this expense upon Railway companies might, in some instances, check speculation. The public, however, would suffer no loss in the suppression of those schemes, which could not bear this trifling expense. The bubble must be lighter than air itself that would burst under so slight a pressure, whilst this could throw no serious obstacle in the way of those well-digested and maturely-considered undertakings, which were likely to cause either great local advantage or great national benefit. The Clarence Railway Act contained a clause providing that these expenses should be borne by the Company, and he had so framed his motion as to make it equally apply to Canal, and all other Acts which provided for a compulsory sale of property. He begged to move, "That it be an instruction to all Committees on Private Bills to make provision, that all the expenses incurred in furnishing abstracts of titles to estates, and in proving the same, shall be borne by the parties requiring such proof."
Mr. Philip Howardseconded the motion.
Mr. Brotherton Mr. Brotherton moved, that the House do adjourn.
Mr. Arthur Trevortrusted the hon.
586
Member would not press the question of adjournment, as it was so highly important that the House should come to a decision upon the question which had been brought forward by his hon. Colleague.
Sir Robert Inglisthought that, in the very exhausted state in which the House was, it was impossible that the question could be decided satisfactorily, even to the hon. Member who brought it forward. He trusted, therefore, that he would consent to the adjournment of the debate.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerentreated the hon. Member for Durham to take the course proposed by the hon. Member for the University of Oxford, and consent to the adjournment of the debate.
Debate adjourned till Thursday.