Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

The consequence of which was, as Blackstone says, that no one dared to petition. The punishment of death, in case a petitioner was wrong, or was made appear to be in the wrong; in case he was confused and brow beat out of his senses, or was outsworn by perjured witnesses; the punishment of death, in such a case, would, infallibly prevent every one from even thinking of petitioning. But, the Czar might have rendered the prevention nearly as complete in theory, and quite as complete as to ali useful purposes, by only inflicting the punishment of jail and fine, and by providing some other little preliminary precautions, which it would be useless to point out to you very particularly.-Returning now to the right of petitioning in this happy country, and especially the right of petitioning the House of Commons, the law says, that no petition, touching important matters in Church or State, shall, unless it obtain the consent of three justices of the peace, or the majority of the grand jury of a county, or, in London, of the Lord Mayor, Aldermen and Common Council, he signed by more than twenty persons, and that no petition shall be presented by more than two persons at one time. But, gentlemen, this being too much, it has been, by an order of the House of Commons I suppose, provided, that, to them, no petition shall be presented, except by one of themselves; so that, if the doctrine imputed, by the newspapers, to Messrs. Dundas and Plumer be sound, the right of petition is a right to petition one of the menbers of the House to permit us to petition the House itself; or, in other words, a right to pray to be permitted to pray! Nor, do I, indeed, see how the doctrine of Mr. Whitbread removes the difficulty; for, suppose none of the members will present your petition. What are you to do? Mr. Whitbread says, it is their "bounden duty to do it, pro"vided the petition be couched in proper

nd decent language," of which, observe, they are to be the sole judges; but, he does not say, that, if they refuse to perform this

bounden duty," any consequences follow with respect to themselves. So that, after all, the invaluable right of petition," is a right to pray to be permitted to pray. This right, so largely exercised by Mr. Johnstone, produced, what? Not redress; no, nor even any motion for redressing his grievance, but merely the laying of his petition upon the table of the House. It was, the newspapers tell us, contended, by Mr. WilHam Dundas, that the complaint was upon a enbject, with which the House had no right

meddle; whence we are, of course, to

conclude, that, in the opinion of this gentleman, at least, the House of Commons have nothing at all to do or to say with the species of power that is exercised over the officers of the army, a service which swallows up almost one half of the taxes annually collected inthis taxed country. I have before asked, and I now ask again if this country be, as we are told, from high authority, it is and must be, a military country, and if every man, having any command in that military, be placed, both as to fortune and reputation, at the sole and absolute will of the king, what sort of government must this country be under? Leaving you, Gentlemen, to answer this question; leaving you well to consider of the matter; leaving you to make up your minds thereupon, I shall now proceed to notice a speech, given by the newspapers, as made upon this occasion by General Fitzpatrick, the present Secretary at War, first laying that speech before you, just as I find it in the newspapers: "The Secretary at "War, although the honourable gentleman,

had declared that it was not his intention to follow up the presentation of the peti"tion with any motion, would trouble the "House with a few words on the subject,

because an opinion had gone forth that he (the Secretary at War) had pledged him"self to bring forward a motion, founder on the case stated in this very petition, and

[ocr errors]

he was therefore glad to have an opportu"nity of publicly refuting that assertion. "The fact was (as those gentlemen who

[ocr errors]

were members of the last parliament must "recollect) that when he had given a no"tice on this subject, he observed that in

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

other cases as well as the present, great "abuses had arisen in the administration of military justice, from the practice of confiding to the Judge Advocate General the "high an important trust of receiving his Majesty's pleasure, with regard to the sentences of Courts Martial, and that it was very improper that matters of suck consequence should be decided upon with "out a reference to the Commander in "Chief. At that period, therefore, he had "given notice, that in the ensuing session "he would bring forward some motion on "the subject. In giving that notice, he "had stated that the petitioner's, as it was

[ocr errors]

έσ

one of the most recent, was also one of "the strongest cases in point. Subsequent"ly the change in administration had taken place; he had entered into office, and in consequence of the representations which "he had thought it his duty to make on the "subject, he was happy to acquaint the "House, that the practice complained of

66

"would in future be discontinued. The "Judge Advocate General would still com"municate to his Majesty the sentences of "Courts Martial, but the decision of his

Majesty thereon would be received by the Commander in Chief, and be by him "communicated to the army at large. Of "the present case the Commander in Chief "had no cognizance but that which he de"rived from the Judge Advoca.e General.

One object of the petitioner, namely, to recover his rank in the army, was by no means a fit subject on which to institute a discussion in parliament; and the other object, to prevent the recurrence of such a case, the statement which he had just "made shewed it had been already attain

[ocr errors]

Par

ed. He could not refrain from saying 4 thus much in refutation of the calumnies "that had been so liberally vented against "him."-As to the "calumnies" that may have been vented against this honourable, nay right honourable, man, we will speak by-and-by. But, first let us see how Eis doctrine about the powers of parliament, squares with what is, upon other occasions, asserted with regard to those powers. liament has, without any qualification, been called omnipotent; nor did I ever hear of any one who thought himself guilty of blasphemy in so calling it. We know that, to us ward, it has great powers, witness the taxes, which its acts compel us to pay. It can do almost any thing; but, it cannot, it seems, even make an attempt to afford redress to an officer of the army. That little department, upon which eighteen millions a year of our taxes are expended, is, as to the treatment of its officers, quite out of its jurisdiction. The parliament can, indeed, alter the laws for the raising and the dismissing and the trying and the punishing aud the rewarding of the non-commissioned officers and soldiers; but, as to the management and treatment of the officers, it is, according to General Fitzpatrick, incompetent to meddle in the smallest degree; though, you will observe, gentlemen, that this same honourable man, did, before he came into office, give notice of a motion, which he meant to make in the House of Commons, touching the treatment of officers of the army, and even touching the treatment of this very Mr. Johnstone; and why did he give that notice, if the restoring of that gentleman to his rank (the withholding of which from him was the alleged grievance) was V not a fit subject whereon to institute a discussion "in parliament?" What did he mean to do by that motion? He must have had in view some parliamentary enactment, resolution,

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

or address, which would have had for its object the redress of Mr. Johnstone's grievance, or, at the very least, the prevention of similar grievances in future. If his intended motion had not one, or both of these objects, the inevitable conclusion is, that it was a motion intended merely for party purposes; a motion to assist in harassing the then ministers, and in driving them from their places. In the reported speech abovequoted, he would seem to affect to believe, that, from being in office, he has been able to effect, by his mere influence, that which he wished the parliament to effect. He says, "I am happy to inform the House. "that the practice complained of will, in "future, be discontinued. The Judge Ad"vocate General will still make the report "of the proceedings of Courts Martial to the "king, but, the decision of his Majesty "thereon will, in future, be received by the "Commander in Chief, and be, by him com"municated to the army." Well, and what is this? What has this alteration done for the officers of the army? The decisions of the king used to be conveyed to the Duke of York by the Judge Advocate General, and now the Duke of York is to take them immediately from the king himself. A mighty change indeed! General Fitzpatrick told the House, while he was out of place, that he "could not conceive why the lives, for"tunes, and characters of his Majesty's mi

litary officers should not be entitled to as "solema a consideration as those of every "other subject in the country." But, is this object now effected? Has the alteration, above-described by him, rendered the mode of deciding, in these cases, more solemn merely by causing the Judge Advocate General io cease to convey to the Duke of York the decision of the king? Have the "lives, "fortunes, and characters," of the office s of the army derived any security from this alteration? This mere alteration in the mode, by which the king's decisions are to be conveyed from the king to the army? But, before we proceed any further, let us see the whole of this famous general's speech, as it stands reported, under the date of the 28th of June, 1805, which speech I have once before published, but which, perhaps, Gentlemen, some of you may never have read, and which every one of you should read, because this subject is, of all others, the most important.-"I rise, Sir,

to mention a subject, on which it is my "intention hereafter to submit a motion to "the House; and I wish to take the pre"sent opportunity of doing so, because it "relates to that military administration

"which is to form part of the business of this day's discussion. The present advanced state of the sessions will prevent my being able to bring forward any mo"tion, though I wish it much. It is, how.. "ever, a subject of such extreme importance, "that it is necessary for me to take some "notice of it. The House may be assured "I shall state it in form on a future oc"casion and as early as possible. The subject consists of a very gross and "alarming evil;-one which, I apprehend,

[ocr errors]

has but lately crept into the administra"tion of the Military Law of this country. "I trust, the practice to which I allude is "an innovation of not many years standing. "I am informed it is. It respects the exe"cution of the duties of the office of Judge "Advocate General of the army. I find,

[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

tion the Royal Prerogative; but I am sure no man will contradict me when I say, that a Prerogative of such extent ought to be exercised under the advice of responsible Ministers The law of this country enables his Majesty to appoint "Courts Martial for military offences. The law places in his Majesty the right of confirming or remitting their sentences, "but I do not believe that the law or the "constitution of this country could ever in"tend that the officer of the Crown, in the "exercise of such a prerogative, should be "the Judge Advocate of the army. I be.

lieve he is at present the sole adviser of the Crown. I believe that this practice has prevailed only during a part of the time the Right Hon. Baronet has been in possession of it.-Formerly the transmis"sion of sentences of Courts Martial was

through the office of the Secretary at "War. The Secretary at War of course "became responsible for the advice he gave. "With respect to his decision, I am not

[ocr errors]

sure that I think that was sufficiently solemn for a decision of so important a pint. I cannot conceive why the lives, "jortunes, and characters of his Majesty's military officers, should not be entitled to

66

[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

ought to be observed with regard to the "Sentences of Courts Martial; but that "will be a question for future consideration. "That this practice does prevail, and has "been attended with great hardship to individuals, I shall be enabled to shew in a case that has lately occurred, and has spread the greatest alarm throughout the "whole army. I allude to the case of "COLONEL COCHRANE JOHNSTONE, a gen. tleman, who, after a Trial by a Court "Martial, and an honourable acquittal, has, at the instance of the Judge Advocate, been exposed to the penalties and punishment attendant upon guilt."This is what I shall submit to Parliament. "I am aware that an appeal from the Sen

66

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

tence of any Court Martial to this House "is a delicate question; but in the present "case the appeal is in favour of the Court "Martial, and seeks redress against the "effects of undue influence. I beg pardon "for dwelling so long on the subject. I "have risen to give this notice, and I shall

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

bring forward the motion early next Ses"sions. It will consist of two branches; one will be a complaint against the "exercise of the office; the other will "refer to the means of defining

[ocr errors]

the

power of the officer, and will suggest some provisions as to the manner of "his conducting himself in future."Now, gentlemen, what was it that this honourable patriot out of place" wished much” to bring forward to the House of Commons ? What was it that was of "extreme impor portance?" What was it that was "a gross and alarming evil?" What was it that was "not warranted by the laws and constitution of this country?" What was it that had "spread the greatest alarm throughout the whole army?" Why, forsooth, as the gallant and right honourable general now tells the House, it was the practice of the Judge Advocate General being employed to convey the decisions of the King to the Duke of York! Merely this! It was to do away this practice, that the honourable man now tells the House, he was going to bring forward a motion consisting of" two branches.” But, the honourable man, when he was out of office, told the House, that the concerns touching the lives, fortunes, and characters of other classes of his Majesty's subjects, were decided upon by the King in Coun

[ocr errors]

"cil; and, that he thought, the same so

.

lemnity ought to be observed, with regard "to the sentences of Courts Martial." But, now, behold, he had nothing more in contemplation than merely an alteration in the mode of conveying the decisions of the King to the Duke of York; which alteration, he is "happy" to inform the House, will, in future, take place!-Now, gentlemen, as to the "calumnies," which have been vented against this honourable personage, though I have never seen, or heard of, any such, I admit the possibility of attributing to him acts of wickedness and of baseness of which he has not been guilty, and, of course, I am ready to acknowledge, that calumnies may have been vented against him; but, while, I unequivocally make this acknowledgment, I positively deny, that I ever took part in such calumnies, having never done any thing more, with respect to him, than state a few plain and undeniable facts, namely; that, when he made the speech, giving notice of his motion for the next session, he was out of place; that, soon after Parliament met again, he was in place; that, soon after he was in place, he gave notice, from the Treasury bench, that he should not bring forward the motion, of which he had given notice from the opposition bench; that soon after that he, who had sold his commission as captain in the guards twenty years before, and who had never served a single day since, had a regiment given to him, worth about fifteen hundred pounds a year; and, finally, that, as Secretary at War, it was with himself to sign and pass his accounts and vouchers as colonel of a regiment. These are plain, undeniable, historical truths; and, until such truths are styled calunny, it will not, I am persuaded, be believed that I, at any rate, have participated in venting the calumnies, of which this right honourable person is reported to have complained. Here, gentlemen, I should take my leave ofthis subject; but, I cannot refrain from saying a word or two upon the conduct of the news papers respecting it. They have not published the petition of Mr. Johnstone, and their excuse is, that "the case is already "before the public." Yes, it was already before the public, though not in the same authentic and solemn form; but, what had they to do with placing it before the public' Not one of them ever made any publication of it; not a line did they ever insert upon the subject; and, had not this work of mine been in existence, not a word of it would the nation have known unto this day; though, during the time, that this most inportant case has been crying aloud for pub

licity, the columns of these most corrupt prints have been daily filled with quack-advertisements, with accounts of ministerial dinners, royal airings, and paid-for paragraphs in praise of Madam Catalani. Yes, Gentlemen, as I had occasion to declare to you during the late election, I am convinced, that the proprietors and editors of these prints are the basest, the very basest of all mankind, their hirers only excepted.

The next subject, Gentlemen, to which I am desirous of turning your attention, your Constant attention, is one which was frequently touched upon during the election; I mean, the foreign troops now supported by us, and kept up and quartered in the heart of our country. What sentiments our forefathers entertained upon this subject, and in what language they thereon rémonstrated with their sovereign, you will have seen from the passage which I have taken for my motto. Those sentiments I entertain, I am confident you entertain them; and, I, for my part, live in hopes of seeing a House of Commons, by whom such sentiments will again, in such language, be expressed. In order that we may have a clear view of the matter in question, let us first hear what the constitution says with respect to the keeping up of foreign troops in this country. Mr. Blackstone, who, as I before observed, was looking out for a judgeship when he wrote his book, has the following passage upon the nature of our constitution as relating to the military. "To

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

prevent the executive power from being "able to oppress, says Baron Montesquieu, "it is requisite that the armies with which "it is entrusted, should consist of the peor ple, and have the same spirit with the people; as was the case at Rome 'till "Marius new-modelled the legions, by enlisting the rabble of Italy, and laid the "foundation of all the military tyranny that ensued. Nothing, then, according to these principles, ought to be more guarde "ed against in a free state, than making "the military power, when such an one is

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

necessary to be kept on foot, a budy too distinct from the people. Like ours, "therefore" (I beg you to mark this), it "should wholly be composed of natural

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

subjects; it ought only to be enlisted for a short and limited time; the soldier "should live intermixed with the people; no separate camp; no barracks; no in. "land fortresses should be allowed." This Mr. Blackstone died some years, I believe, before the days of Pitt's power; an event very much to be regretted, because it would have been so delightful to hear him justi

(as he certainly would have done) all the introducing of foreign troops and all the camps and barracks of Pitt and Delancey. But, here we have his description of what the constitution was, in this respect, at the time when he wrote, which was just about the time that the present king canie to the throne. Not, however, to the opinions of any one are we to confine ourselves; for, besides the evident danger and disgrace of having foreign troops stationed amongst us; besides the absurdity of talking about popular freedom in a country where the king should have the power of introducing foreign troops at his pleasure,; the act of settlement, that act which contains the conditious, upon which the crown was settled upon the present family, expressly provides that no "office of trust, civil or military, shall ever be held by any one, who is not a native of this kingdom, or who is not born of parents “natives of this kingdom." So that, if there were any doubt, if there could be any doubt, as to the introducing of foreign soldiers, it is impossible there can be any with respect to the introducing and keeping up of foreign officers. Yet, have we now several battaliens of foreign soldiers in this kingdom, and these soldiers are under the command of foreign officers too, which foreign officers do, as a matter of course, occasionally take the command in the towns, barracks, and camps where they are stationed, and must necessarily, at times, command not only our native soldiers but our native officers also; and, it must be evident to you, that our fortresses, our dock-yards, and our arsenals, may be committed to their guardianship.- Gentlemen, in the year 1794, some Hessians were landed in the Isle of Wight, upon the ground of its being dangerous to their health to keep them on board of ship, until the time when the vessels would sail, they being destined for foreign service. In consequence of that landing, without the previous consent of Parliament, Mr. Grey (now Lord Howick) made a motion, declaring it to be unconstitutional and illegal for the King to intoduce foreign troops without the consent of Parliament previously obtained, which motion was supported by Mr. Whitbread, Lord George Cavendish, Mr. Francis, Mr. Serjeant Adair, Mr. Yorke, Mr. William Smith, and Mr. Fox. The motion was opposed by Pitt, whose majority, of course, voted against it. Upon this occasion Mr. Francis said: "Not a word, indeed, does the bill of rights "contain about introducing a foreign army. "The men who framed it, did not suppose "it possible, that it could ever enter into

66

[ocr errors]

66

[ocr errors]

an English heart to maintain, that the "King, by his prerogative, could, in any "circumstance, bring a foreign force into "Great Britain, without the consent of "Parliament. But, a distinction is taken, "which is supposed to be prodigiously ma"terial. The ministers cannot introduce foreign troops in time of peace. What "does this signify? They assert, that the King can make war when he pleases, and "in time of war he can introduce foreign troops; so that, if this doctrine be sound, "he can introduce foreign troops when he pleases. If it be lawful, on that ground, "to bring in four thousand Hessians to-day, why not ten thousand Austrians to-mor row, and twenty thousand Russians the "day following? A base, corrupt, and abject people, when once they are properly frightened, will submit to any "thing for the sake of being defended. "The English nation will be threatened "with a French invasion, and, instead of being called upon to defend themselves, "will be told, that they may be perfectly quiet, for that the King has subsi"dized an army of Germans, and will take care to protect them, without giving them

[ocr errors]

66

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

any further trouble. I trust that English"men will look a little to the conclusion of "this doctrine, before it be too late."These were the sentiments of Mr. Francis, now, alas! Sir Philip! But, he ought to be spared for the sake of what he has done in times past. He has left us (for I regard him as defunct) many, very many excellent maxims and arguments; and to him we owe those statements, without which we were unable probably to think upon subjects connected with that grand scheme of plunder and euclty, the East-Indies.—In returning to the subject of the Hanoverian troops, you will perceive, gentlemen, that the consent of Parliament has been obtained in this case, or, at least, Acts of Parliament have been passed authorizing the raising and the keeping up of these troops. But, this does not do away my objection to it; for, gentlemen, to what measure did Pitt or any other minister, of late days, ever fail in obtaining the consent of Parliament ? The Act of Settlement provides, that no foreigner shall hold, in this kingdom, any place of trust, civil or military; and, to suppose that this meant to exclude foreign officers from our army, while it left room for the introducing of both foreign officers and foreign troops into the nation, there to remain established, is an absurdity not, for one moment, to be tolerated.--The expense of these Hanoveriazis is enormous, in propor

« ForrigeFortsett »