The Earl of Winchilsearose, pursuant to the notice he had given, to present two petitions complaining of the practice of requiring Protestant soldiers on foreign service to take a part in religious ceremonies in Catholic countries, and praying also for some compensation to two officers who were dismissed the service by sentence of Courts-martial, for conscientiously refusing to take a part in such ceremonies, and sending a remonstrance to their commanding officer against being called on to take a part in such ceremonies. On the subject of the first part of the prayer, he would say, that Catholics having been exonerated from attendance on Protestant worship, he thought that the same principle ought to be extended to Protestant soldiers. He must also say in the outset, that no one felt more than he did the necessity of strict military obedience, and he must also admit, that the Houses of Parliament were nut the fit places to review sentences of Courts-martial. Still he thought there were circumstances in this case which might fairly come under the consideration of the House. The noble Earl then stated the particulars of the case of Captain Atchison and another British officer who were in 1823 tried and dismissed the service for disobedience of orders in refusing to attend some Catholic ceremony at Malta, (for which see Hansard, vol. xix. 783—third series). It was not, he said, his intention to found any Motion on these petitions. He would leave the matter in the hands of Government, and he hoped it would receive due consideration.
§ The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that as he was the Master-general of the Ordnance at the time the officers alluded to by the noble Earl were dismissed from the service, he was anxious to make a few observations on the subject. On the 6th of October, 1823, he received a Report from Malta, informing him that two officers on duty there had disobeyed orders conveyed to them by the Commanding-officer; and on the 8th of the same month he sent back a 816 letter, directing the two officers who had so acted to be arrested. He then communicated with the Duke of York, at that time Commander-in-chief of the army, and he inquired of his Royal Highness whether the proper course to pursue would be to strike the names of those officers out of the Army List, for a deliberate Act of Insubordination, if not of mutiny, or to direct that they should be tried by a Court-martial. His Royal Highness, who entirely approved of the steps he (the Duke of Wellington) had taken, recommended him to advise his Majesty at once to dismiss the officers from the service. His conduct in this affair had also been approved of by another Superior-Officer, the Commander-in-chief in the Mediterranean, General Sir Thomas Maitland. That officer arrived at Malta on the 5th of November, 1823, and without any previous communication with him, or his Royal Highness the Duke of York, published an Order of the Day expressing the opinion he entertained of the behaviour of the two officers in question, and directing, for the purpose of preventing the recurrence of a similar Act of disobedience, that they should, until further notice, be relieved from all duty. On receiving a copy of this order, he sent a letter to Sir T. Maitland, desiring him to order the officers to be tried by Court-martial; and on the verdict of the Court-martial the officers were cashiered. The noble Earl had said, that one of these officers was dismissed his Majesty's service because he would not ring a bell. That was not a correct account of the matter; for the charge preferred against him before the Court-martial was, not that he had declined to ring a bell, but had refused compliance with a general order, not the order of a Catholic priest, directing certain guns to be discharged. The noble Earl had argued, that those officers ought to be excused obedience to the orders which had been conveyed to them, because Roman Catholic soldiers were relieved from the necessity of attending the service of the Church of England. But their Lordships should bear in mind, that the Act which these officers were ordered to perform was no act of divine worship, but one which fairly fell within the scope of the military duty of officers stationed in foreign countries to execute. It was of the greatest importance that troops, on going abroad, should not be allowed to show any disrespect to the people of the countries to which they were sent; and with reference to Malta, it was provided by 817 treaty, that respect should-be paid to the inhabitants. To the prayer for compensation, with which the petition concluded, he thought their Lordships ought not to pay any attention. These officers belonged to the artillery, and officers in that branch of the service never purchased their Commissions. Therefore, if on leaving the service, they were to receive remuneration, they would receive money for the loss of a Commission for which they never paid any money. In fact, to grant remuneration to these officers would be to hold out a premium for disobedience to orders.
§ Earl Grey, knowing who was at the head of the Ordnance Department, and who was at the head of the army, at the time the transaction brought under the notice of the House took place, could feel no doubt that full justice had been administered in the case; and this was the conclusion at which he had arrived after a full investigation of the facts. The offence of which these officers were found guilty was a breach of military discipline of the most serious importance. These officers were not called upon to participate in the religious ceremonies of the Roman Catholics at Malta, in such a way as implied any belief on their part in the doctrines of the Church of Rome. He was of opinion that the sentence passed on these officers was a just one.
§ The Petition to lie on the Table.