§ Mr. Gillinquired of the right hon. Baronet (Sir H. Hardinge), pursuant to notice—first, whether the right hon. Baronet was aware that two officers of the 76th Regiment of Foot at Devonport had been under arrest since the 14th of July, for the space of eight months, in consequence of a dispute, and to prevent evil consequences? Secondly, did the right hon. Baronet know that application had been made in the months of December and January last on behalf of one of these officers by letter to the Horse Guards, desiring to know the charges made against him? and if such was the case, what notice had been taken of those letters? Thirdly, had the right hon. Baronet any objection to state the grounds of the arrest, and the reason why they had not been either released or had their case submitted to a competent tribunal for trial? Lastly, he wished to know whether it were not contrary to the 107th Article of War to continue an officer under arrest for more than eight days without giving him the benefit of a court-martial?
§ Sir H. Hardingesaid, in answer to the first question of the hon. Member, he had heard that two officers of the 76th Regiment of Foot had been arrested, and that they had been put under arrest on account of a dispute, and to prevent further consequences. As to the application on behalf of one of the officers, some letters, he was aware, had been addressed to the Horse-Guards. The next question put to him was, if he had any objection to state the grounds of the arrest, and whether the officers ought not to have been released or put upon their trials. The hon. Member alluded to the 107th Article of War. He did not carry the Articles of War 862 about with him at his own fingers ends, but would state the reasons why the two officers had been placed under arrest. One of them, a junior officer, was the bearer of a challenge to a senior officer, and in consequence the challenge was accepted. Both the officers had been placed under arrest in consequence. After being arrested the junior officer had made the most ample apologies, which were accepted by the other, and the aggressor, who was very much in the wrong, was about to be tried by court-martial for his conduct. The other was not so much to blame. About that time measures were in contemplation by the Commander-in-Chief to suppress Duelling, and he intended that these parties should be tried under the new arrangement. They were therefore arrested for a period, and, as both had violated their duty in an unjustifiable manner, the Commander-in-Chief punished them by arrest at large, while they were not allowed to attend at mess, or wear their swords, or do duty on parade. Under these circumstances the Commander-in-Chief, bearing in mind that they had been so long under arrest, intended to release them immediately, after a suitable admonition.
Captain Bernalasked if it was not the case that by the Articles of War no officer could be kept under arrest for more than eight days, without being brought to a court-martial?
§ Sir H. Hardinge.—Certainly not. Any officer might be kept under arrest for a longer time by the order of the Commander-in. Chief.