HC Deb 05 April 1837 vol 37 cc775-8

On the question that the Speaker do leave the chair, to go into a Committee of Supply,

Colonel Thompson

said, he had a notice upon the book, which he should have been glad to have brought forward many weeks ago, and of which he should have been happy to have offered some explanation when the notice was given, if he had not been prevented by forms of the House, which he hoped were a portion of the wisdom of our ancestors, and not our own. The consequence of his being prevented from giving any such explanation was, that he had received a number of letters, from which it appeared that there was a persuasion that he intended to enter into an examination of the details of the office of the commander-in-chief. Now, he begged to say, that he had no more intention of doing that, than he had of inquiring into the details of the office of the Archbishop of Canterbury, if there was one. His object was simply to bring before the notice of the House, that the government of the army was withdrawn from the practice and application of that constitutional law, which, according to the principle settled in times of struggle and danger, gave us a remedy for, and prevention of the misapplication of the power of the Crown, by placing the administration of all the important departments of the state, in the hands of the ministers whose real responsibility consisted in the necessity for all going out of office together, whenever they ceased to be able to maintain a majority in that House. Though not a lawyer, his object could not be mistaken by any fair inquirer. If that mace or its predecessor could tell stories, it would speak of times when there was little doubt of what our forefathers meant by the customs and constitution of the realm, as distinct from Acts of Parliament. But, not to travel out of his immediate line, when the Mutiny Act said, that the raising and keeping up an army in the realm without consent of Parliament, was against law, was there a drum-boy that believed that meant, against an Act of Parliament? It was written and stamped upon the minds of all men that there was a law in this country to which even statutes made in that and the other House of Parliament were subservient. To that law, therefore, he appealed, and he would ask whether the government of the army had been kept in the state in which it had been placed by their forefathers? What on this point said history? When the Tories came into office, the first time he believed they had a chance after the Revolution, did they continue the Duke of Marlborough in his office of commander-in-chief an hour longer than they found themselves unable to withdraw him from abroad? When the Whigs again came into power under George I., they restored their commander-in chief; and, on the next change of ministry, which took place, he believed, on Sir R. Walpole's retirement, the commander-in-chief, like other ministers of state, was again changed. He contended that these precedents, occurring as they did in critical times, when it was unsafe to tamper with the just jealousy felt by the people of that formidable machine a standing army, justified him in saying, that by the ancient law and practice of the realm, there ought to be a constitutional administrator of the army, removable with the other ministers, as there was of the king's navy and the king's courts. By giving up this point, a door would be open to every possible mal-practice and mal-application of the military force, and we might be paying for the maintenance of a numerous and expensive army,— amounting to about 100 regiments of foot, and thirty of cavalry—without knowing whether they might not at any time be directed against ourselves. Look to the case of Spain; did any one believe that the government would have committed themselves to all the dangers and difficulties arising from sending out a force in so avowedly inferior a state of discipline—without casting any disparagement on those who were engaged in it— had they not known that the army was not really at their disposal? They could move the marines, because they were under the direction of the Admiralty; and the artillery and engineers, because they were under the master of the ordnance; but of the superb regiments of infantry and cavalry which made the rest of the British army, the constitutional and responsible advisers of the Crown knew they could not move a corporal's guard. They could not move a single soldier towards Spain. And the result of this misgovernment of the army was, that our countrymen engaged in the Spanish struggle must suffer all the misfortunes which were daily falling upon them. Again, there were some apprehensions of this country being involved in a struggle with Russia. Was there nobody to tell the northern autocrat, that the British army was not, in fact, at the disposal of the constitutional ministers of the Crown, and though the King's government might wish to put a stop to his aggressions, that army might even be directed to his assistance? It had been said by some hon. Gentlemen in that House, that they hoped never to see the day when the army should be brought under the control of the House of Commons. If this was merely an expression of personal opinion, he had no more wish to interfere with it, than he had for interference with his own. But if it was to be taken as the expression of a political party, then he must say, that the construction put upon it by the political party to which himself belonged was, that those hon. Gentlemen hoped the army would always be under the direction of an irresponsible power behind the throne, which power should be themselves. In this country there had not been wanting instances of the dangers that might arise from the government of the army being in the hands of others than the responsible ministers of the Crown. In the unfortunate events which had occurred at Bristol, it was believed that the king's ministers were not held the proper judges of the time and mode of allowing military execution to commence upon the erring men, and that the governors of the army had had recourse to extraordinary measures to effect that end. In the event of similar circumstances occurring in Ireland, was there no fear of the military force being directed by irresponsible persons? Had there not already been—though he knew this was a sore subject for hon. Gentlemen opposite—a disposition manifested in certain quarters to tamper with the army? The direction of the army was manifestly the sorest point in the concernments of a free country; and therefore it was the last that ought to be withdrawn from the securities furnished by the practice of the constitution. But if it was so withdrawn, what was the consequence, but that the moment the power became illegal, the right to obedience vanished? He was not disposed to modify one jot of his assertion, that the only security any country had against arbitrary power, was in maintaining the principle, that obedience was coeval with legality. Let those who exercised power illegally, take the risk; he did not not mean to stir from his position, that if the major was true, the minor and conclu- sion followed. He hoped hon. Gentlemen would not imagine he had come down with any expectation of making a grand coup de lance on the present occasion, but to make a beginning with a subject which, by pains and perseverance, would be carried to some fruit. He had not even asked anybody to second his motion; but if anybody did, he would certainly go to a division. If they did not, he knew very well where he should go and say, that no man had stood by him; and he did not believe that in the end he should be the worse for that. If, however, as he hoped would be the case, some hon. Gentleman came forward to his support, he would, by dividing the House, give himself the pleasure of recording, with the "two or three gathered together," who might be willing to assist him, in his sentiments on this question. He now moved, as an amendment to the motion for going into Committee, that the government of the army, as at present conducted, is against law, and no man is held to obedience to the same; and that no supply be granted till remedy applied.

No hon. Member seconding the Amendment, the original motion was carried, and the House went into a Committee of