§ Captain Pechellwished to put a question to the right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Cockburn)on the subject of a court martial which had been held on board the Cor- 199 morant, in the Pacific, on Lieutenant Bridge, for a breach of the 23rd Article of War. He understood that officer had been dismissed the service, and that the captain of the ship had been a member of the court martial. He wished to ask the right hon. and gallant Officer whether the statement was correct, and whether the Board of Admiralty considered such proceedings to be regular? If not, he would then inquire what steps they had taken to recompense Lieutenant Bridge for all the calamities which had befallen him.
§ Sir G. Cockburnsaid, it was true that a court martial had been held upon the officer named by the hon. and gallant Member, and that he had been found guilty of a breach of the Article referred to. He had, in consequence, been dismissed the ship, but not the service. The captain of the ship was a member of the court martial; but that was very common in the service. If the hon. and gallant Officer would look to the words of the Act, he would see that the Admiralty had no jurisdiction—the interference of the Admiralty was particularly guarded against. The officer, he begged to repeat, had not been dismissed the service, and would, he had no doubt, be employed again.
§ Captain Pechellwished to know whether the hon. and gallant Officer considered the proceeding regular?
§ Sir G. Cockburnthought the proceeding perfectly regular. The captain was obliged to sit on the court martial, and the members of that court were the only persons who had a right to judge of his capability to sit amongst them.
§ Captain Pechellinquired if Lieutenant Bridge had been appointed to another ship?
§ Sir G. Cockburnsaid he had not, but he was quite eligible, and probably would be.