§ MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that certain differences have arisen between Colonel the Earl of Wilton and Lieutenant Colonel Dickson, both of the 2nd Tower Hamlets Militia, with reference to the affairs and discipline of that Regiment; and if it is true that the Constable of the Tower has made an application to have Lieutenant Colonel Dickson's name, 1700 unless he would consent to resign, removed from the Army List, without giving that Officer, after thirty-three years' service at home and abroad, any opportunity of vindicating his conduct before a proper Military Tribunal?
GENERAL PEELsaid, that he had been called upon by Lord Combermore, the Constable of the Tower, to obtain Her Majesty's approval to Colonel Dickson's dismissal from the service. This difficulty arose in dealing with the case: when a Regiment of Militia was disembodied there was no power to bring an Officer to a Court Martial. A Court of Inquiry was merely preparatory to a Court Martial; the Horse Guards were therefore unable to grant a Court Marshal, which Lord Combermore had also applied for. He had also received a letter from the Earl of Wilton containing charges against Colonel Dickson, and he (General Peel) had forwarded that letter to Lord Combermore, in order that he might inquire into them. Lord Comber-mere thought that all the charges were proved by documentary evidence; but he (General Peel), did not think that the more serious charges were proved, although there was certainly enough to show that Colonel Dickson's conduct in command of the Regiment during the period of its embodiment had not been consistent with the rules of the service and with military usage. He had, therefore, called upon Colonel Dickson to resign. Colonel Dickson refused to do so, and desired to have an inquiry; and it was, therefore, his (General Peel's) intention to appoint a certain number of Officers to make that inquiry.