every other member. With respect to the first speech of the right hon. the secretary of state, he had been provoked by the doctrines laid down in that speech to make the observations he had done, and when he was stopped in proceeding in those observations, he had had recourse to that mode which the case itself justified him in resorting to, independent of such interruption. From the time when he first became a member of Parliament a case had not before occurred in which he would have thought it necessary to exercise that discretion till that day, and in that instance he had acted up to the best of his judg ment; the occasions of doing so could be but very rare. With respect to the gallant officer under the gallery, he gave him and his brother officers every credit for their manly and judicious forbearance and moderation in the recent disturbances; still, however, it was no reason if among a thousand of the soldiers, with the excep tion of one man, they had all conducted themselves with temper, and that that one man had been guilty of murder; there was no reason why that one man should escape with impunity. He asked the chancellor of the exchequer, as a lawyer, if the verdict of a coroner's inquest was not sufficient to dispense with the sending a bill before a grand jury? The whole of the evidence taken before an inquest was taken upon oath. He thought, therefore, it indispensible that this man should be put upon his trial. He would ask the chancellor of the exchequer, if he or any of his colleagues knew who this man was? If they did, ought they not to give him up to trial? this would put an end to further proceed. ings. He did not complain of the conduct of the soldiers in general; on the contrary, he understood that their conduct and moderation had been praiseworthy; still, however, he would say, that in cases of as great emergency, the peace of the city had been preserved by the wisdom, firmness, and clemency of an honourable member of that House-the then chief magistrate, and that without calling in the aid of the military. Under all the circumstances of the case, he felt that he was justified in making the motion he had made, and that he could not consistently consent to withdraw it. Mr. M. A. Taylor, stated, that he was coming down Sackville-street when the unfortunate shot was fired. The carriage in which he and a noble friend of his were, was stopped by the guards, and directed another way, as, in consequence of the excessive tumult of the populace, it would be necessary to fire. He then got out of the carriage, and proceeded towards an alley, when he heard a pistol discharged, and from the sound of the report, he had no doubt that it had been charged with blank cartridge. Shortly after he heard a shot from a musket, and he thought, from the quarter from which the noise issued, that the shot had been fired from some window in the range of houses opposite, and not from the military then passing [Hear, hear!]. He was at the entrance of the alley, and on hearing the shot, and observing the direction, he made the best of his way down the alley [A laugh]. He hoped that the man who fired the fatal shot, if any of the military had done so, would surrender himself to justice, as, under all the circumstances of the case, there could be little doubt that he would be acquitted by a British Jury [Hear!] Captain Agar observed, that a question had been put to the right honourable gentlemen opposite, whether they knew who the man was that fired the unfortunate shot. He said that several other shots had been fired at the same time, and he doubted very much, if the man himself who fired the unfortunate shot knew that he had fired it. It was also to be observed, that the military did not fire till ordered by the magistrates [Hear, hear, hear!]. The motion was then negatived without a division. [CAPTAIN FOSKETT'S PETITION.] Mr. Lyttleton rose to present a Petition from a Mr. Foskett, a captain in the 15th regiment of dragoons, praying relief from the pressure of severe and long-continued grievances, suffered by him in consequence of that redress having been deferred and ultimately denied to him, to which, by the articles of war, he felt himself entitled. The person by whom the petitioner alleged himself to be in the first instance, and principally, aggrieved, was the colonel of the regiment, his royal highness the Duke of Cumberland; and a further allegation was, that the petitioner had been obstructed in his due course of seeking for his remedy against such alleged grievances, and that such obstruction was in direct violation of an article of war, which article left no discretion in the commander in chief, but to forward the complaint and lay it before his majesty, taking his majesty's pleasure thereupon, 1 and acting accordingly. Now, with respect to the statement of facts contained in that petition, he (Mr. L.) would not as sume that statement to be true. He would not say that the commander in chief had actually given the refusal complained of. He had, however, felt it his duty to present the petition, and if the House should think proper to receive it, he should fol low up that motion with such ulterior proceeding as might best suit the general wishes of the House. He should be glad to be enabled to ascertain those wishes, and to act according to them; or if the mode for obtaining the redress sought for, adopted subsequently by him, should not be approved of, he would be willing to acquiesce in any other that might be generally thought less exceptionable. He then moved that the petition be brought up. General Craufurd said, that he must positively protest against such a petition being received by that House. He thought it would be establishing a dangerous precedent; they could not be too cautious in interfering with the military government of the army, which was exclusively vested in the crown. As for the article of war alluded to, it was never understood to be imperative and positively obligatory on the commander in chief. If it were so, it would give rise to great confusion, as if every imaginary grievance of officers were to be so disposed of, there would be 30 or 40 courts-martial and courts of inquiry in a month, a circumstance that would be utterly subversive of all military discipline, and ruinous to the army. It was, therefore, necessary that the commander in chief should have a discretionary power to resist, in his own person, all such mugatory applications as this was. He would pledge himself to prove that the complaint of this officer was not only nugatory, but vexatious; and, like many other cases of complaint, proceeded from one of the most remiss officers of the regiment against his colonel. Mr. Whitbread rose to order. The question was upon bringing up the petition, and it was out of order to enter upon a discussion of the petition itself, with which, not yet being before the House, members were unacquainted. General Craufurd resumed. He could not comment upon the petition, though he felt himself bound to oppose its being received, but he would contend that the article of war in question did not deprive the commander in chief of a discretionary power. He then argued generally against the dangerous consequences resulting from insubordination in the army. If that House was to be thrown open to such complaints; if one officer might petition, why not a regiment? If his petition was received, they would have forty more of a similar nature, before the end of the sessions; and then what a ferment, what irregular convulsions, what factious divisions attaching themselves to the different parties in that House would arise and spread through the army; they would have a petitioning army, a parliamentary army, and who could foretell the consequences? He repeated his conviction, that the commander in chief had done nothing more than exercise a discretion vested in him, and that that House should be cautious in submitting the military government of the army, which was a part of the undoubted prerogative of the crown, to the controul of the many-headed monster. Mr. Whitbread said, that he and many of those sitting near the gallant officer could ease his apprehensions of any alarming consequences resulting from a discussion of this sort. He (Mr. W.) had in 1806 presented a petition from Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, and yet forty more had not been presented that session, nor one more. A motion had been made in the course of last session, respecting what was thought the improper promotion of a certain offcer, lord Burghersh, and that motion was not only acceded to, but had such effect, that that promotion was revoked; and yet there were not forty other motions in the same session, nor one other motion of a similar tendency. So much for the imaginary fears of the gallant officer. He knew well the necessity of due subordination to the preservation of discipline; but he thought that discipline was in no inconsiderable degree maintained by the power of remonstrance vested in every junior officer against the injustice of his superior. He knew also, that nothing could be more foolish in principle, or mischievous in practice, than the taking the army out of the hands of the crown; but how had the motion before them any such tendency? it was to receive a petition, that complained of the course of remonstrance between the officer and the crown having been obstructed. It had been stated that the commander in chief had a discretion vested in him by law, which discretion he had only exercised in lant friend would be prevailed upon to withdraw his opposition: at the same have taken an opportunity of personally presenting his remonstrance to the King. He thought the commander in chief had shewn capt. Foskett great kindness, if, forbearing to make a report of that which might have been prejudicial to his character, he had offered him a majority in another regiment. That he thought might be the case. The article of war which had been spoken of was generally understood to refer to pecuniary matters. He however, was not against the petition being brought up. the case before them; but the fact was, that the article of war gave no such discretion. [Here he read it to the House-time he thought that the petitioner might It stated in substance, that the officer aggrieved should prefer his remonstrance to the colonel of the regiment, to be by him forwarded to the commander in chief, who was thereupon to examine into, and report upon, the merits of the case to his Majesty.] Here the words were “to examine into and report upon"-report upon; not to determine, but to report-according to these words, and none could be plainer, there was no option whatever. Sir David Dundas did not report-he determined. But the gallant officer said that he knew the contents of the petition, and that he believed the grievances alledged therein to be imaginary. Why, really, he thought the sufferer the best judge whether they were so or not. Against that opinion of the gallant officer there was opposed his (Mr. W.), who had read the statement of them, and thought them heart-breaking. He doubted if he himself could have survived them. But it was said that they could be proved to be imaginary-it was to that proof they challenged them. General Craufurd here interposed, and said, that the epithet he had used was 'nugatory.' Mr. Whitbread in continuation said, that if they were indeed nugatory that would be best proved by receiving the petition; they could not be warranted in presuming them to be so before they heard them. But did the gallant officer know that sir David Dundas had offered to capt. Foskett since he had presented his remonstrance, a majority in another regiment? Did this Jook as if the commander in chief had conceived the complaint of Mr. Foskett to have been either frivolous, vexatious, or nugatory? He thought that an opposite conclusion was to be inferred from that offer. As to putting the army under the controul of the many-headed monster that that House was a many-headed monster could no doubt be easily proved, but that it assumed any share in the military government by inquiring into abuses whether military or other, was not so clear, He should vote for bringing up the petition, not thinking that it would tend to those irregular convulsions (though, by the way, he had not heard of regular convulsions) of which the gallant officer was só apprehensive. Mr. Manners Sutton was for the petition being received, and trusted that his gal Mr. Lockhart also opposed the petition; as receiving petitions from the army would, in his opinion, be highly injurious to its welfare and efficiency. The House ought not to be applied to but when there was no other source of redress open to the subject. Mr. Lyttleton observed, that in the answer of the military secretary of the commander in chief, to the letter of the petitioner, no ground was stated why the remonstrance was not duly forwarded. He should not advert to the ornamental parts of a gallant officer's speech, they had been already so adequately answered. It had been said that the petitioner should have gone and made his bow at the levee, and presented his remonstrance; that he thought would have been an irregular and disrespectful proceeding. The petitioner had taken a better and more regular course. He could not adopt the explanation that had been given by the judge advocate, nor, if he could, did he think that it solved the difficulty. He had not the smallest notion that this motion would have been opposed. He only asked of the House to hear the petition, and put the case into a proper train for investigation. He was not acquainted with capt. Foskett, and when that gentleman applied to him to present his petition, he frankly told him his reluctance, that it was very little his disposition to institute any accusatory measures against a prince of the blood, and more particularly so, on account of the inquiry proceeded in during last sessions, respecting the duke of York; and also from having observed, that the House were by no means disposed to entertain questions tending to an interference with the military government of the army. This, however, was mere matter of feeling, and ought not to be allowed to inter fere with a principle of public duty. If that House was to be deterred from the steady performance of its duty, either by the influence of the crown upon the one hand, or popular tumult on the other, it signified very little whether they sat or not-what they did or what they omitted to do. Mr. Secretary Ryder observed, that when he was judge advocate it was always considered discretionary with the commander in chief to lay the memorial of any officer before the King or not. The Petition was then brought up, and read, as follows: "To the Honourable the House of Commons, in Parliament assembled.-The Humble Petition of Henry Foskett, Sheweth; That your Petitioner has been an officer in the 15th light dragoons, above 13 years, and senior captain in that regiment above four years. That, during the last mentioned space of time, he has, in various ways, been made to suffer, from his colonel, his royal highness the duke of Cumberland, the most injurious treatment, amounting to no less than a course of systematic oppression. That, in the year 1806, in a manner contrary to the acknowledged custom and constitution of the army, his royal highness endeavoured to promote an officer of the 15th Light Dragoons, and junior to your petitioner, in preference to him, to a majority in the regiment, which purpose he was prevented from effecting, solely by the interposition of his royal highness the duke of York, at that time the commander in chief. That your petitioner having, on the above occasion, solicited a week's leave of absence, in order the more certainly to obtain such interposition, by means of a personal appeal, in support of a memorial transmitted to the commander in chief, he was, for five successive months, most vexatiously refused that indulgence, although he was, at that very time, entitled, under general orders, to leave of absence for two or three months, and although junior officers were then actually allowed that permission. That your petitioner, notwithstanding his final success, in thus preventing a junior officer from being raised above him, has, from that time, been unjustly deprived of promotion, in the usual course of his regiment, to the injury not only of your petitioner, but of all the captains and subalterns of the corps, whose promotion has thereby been, and still is, entirely stopped. "That, in the year 1808, when the 15th Light Dragoons was ordered upon foreign service, in Spain, your petitioner, though senior captain, was directed, by his royal highness the duke of Cumberland, to remain at home with the recruiting squadron. That upon complaining to the commanding officer of the regiment, of a management so inconsistent with the established custom of the army, and fraught with such extreme hardship to your petitioner, he (the commanding officer) disdaining all participation in the transaction, referred your petitioner's complaint officially to his royal highness the duke of Cumberland, by whom it was dismissed, and who declared the arrangement to be unalterable. "That your petitioner thereupon thought himself bound to solicit the interference of the commander in chief, when the duke of Cumberland, in explanation of his own conduct, permitted himself to cast on your petitioner's character the most injurious aspersions, which, notwithstanding the authority from whence they came, were soon proved to be utterly unfounded; as the commander in chief, though at first induced by them to sanction the arrangement of which they were the assigned cause, yet, upon further remonstrance on the part of your petitioner, and on further consideration of the case, his royal highness was graciously pleased to revoke his consent to the arrangement in question, and to direct that a captain should be sent home from the regiment in Spain, upon whose arrival the petitioner was to be at liberty to join; a permission, however, of which, gracious and accepta. ble as it was, your petitioner was not able to take advantage, as the regiment soon afterwards returned home; and thus your petitioner was oppressively made to sustain the irreparable loss of an opportunity, so anxiously desired by every British officer, of serving his sovereign and his country, against their foreign enemies. "That your petitioner having suffered, during so long a time, such heavy and complicated injuries, finding himself shut out from all hopes of advancement in his profession, by the avowed determination of his commanding officer (expressed in terms the most injurious) not to recommend him for promotion; and at the same time, rendered an insurmountable obstacle him redress) to make his report to his Majesty thereupon. That this request being attended with no other effect than an offer of promotion in a regiment of infantry, which your petitioner could not accept, consistently either with his own just claims, his wounded feelings, and his, aspersed character, or, in the situation in which he was placed, with what was due from him to the army, he has since, in two subsequent letters, explicitly repeated his request, that the commander in chief would investigate his complaints, and report to his majesty thereupon; to which request he at length received an official answer from the military secretary, dated February the 12th, 1810, and couched in the following terms: Sir;-I have not failed to lay before the commander in chief your letter of 'the 10th instant, and I am directed to acquaint you, that sir David Dundas does 'not see sufficient grounds for complying 'with your request. (Signed.) to the advancement of every officer, junior to himself, in the regiment; having in vain repeatedly and earnestly called for the strictest investigation of his conduct, and declared his, readiness, and even his anxiety, to meet any charge that could be brought against him, and perceiving that fresh complaints of ill-treatment only served to subject him to fresh aspersions; your petitioner saw that he had no chance for redress, but from the justice of the commander in chief.-That he, therefore, in the month of July, 1809, laid his case before his excellency, imploring his interference and protection. That this communication was accompanied with testimonials to the undeviating good conduct of your petitioner, from almost every commanding officer of the regiment, under whom your petitioner had served; and who must have had far better opportunities of observing his general deportment, than his royal highness the duke of Cumberland. That while your petitioner's complaints were before the commander in H. TORRENS.' chief, his just claims to promotion were "That, by this refusal, on the part of again defeated, by the introduction of of the commander in chief, to comply with ficers from other regiments, to fill up the your petitioner's request, as above stated, two majorities of the 15th Light Dragoons, unless your honourable House shall be which were then vacant:-Then seeing pleased to afford him relief, he has no himself thus excluded from all prospect means of redress for the wrongs which of relief, in the ordinary course, your pe- have been heaped upon him, in his milititioner was reduced to the necessity of tary character; in as much as the 12th soliciting, from the commander in chief, section of the articles of war, afford the an application in his favour, of the 12th only remedy, of which an officer of the section of the articles of war, which states army, who has been wronged by his colothat, If any officer shall think himself tonel, and by him refused redress, can avail be wronged by his colonel, or the com- himself; and that, therefore, the denial of manding officer of the regiment, and justice in your petitioner's case, by the shall, upon due application made to him, commander in chief, in direct violation of be refused to be redressed, he may com the articles of war, is a most serious inplain to the general commanding injury, not only to your petitioner but also chief our forces, in order to obtain jus⚫tice; who is thereby required to examine into such complaint, and either by himself, or by our secretary at war, to make his report to us thereupon, in order to receive our farther directions.' "That your petitioner accordingly on the 26th of September, 1809, addressed a letter to colonel Gordon, military secretary, for the consideration of the commander in chief, in which, after briefly recapitulating the injuries, of which he had ineffectually complained, he expressly requested the commander in chief, in conformity with the 12th section of the articles of war, to examine into the complaints which he had laid before him, and (unless he was graciously pleased to afford VOL. XVI. to the whole army, by rendering nugatory the only remedy afforded to officers against the acts of their superiors, and by thus depriving them of the inestimable right, so amply secured to every other class of British subjects, that of employing the means provided by the law and constitution, for the redress of oppression and injustice. "All which your petitioner most humbly submits to the consideration of your honourable House, being ready to verify the same. And he implores your honourable House, to afford him such relief, as to its wisdom shall seem meet.-And your petitioner shall ever pray, &c. (Signed) 3 C HENRY FOSKett. |