, seeing an hon. member in his place, rose to put a question to that hon. gent. (Mr. Whitbread) respecting our transactions with America. It would be recollected that observations had been made tending to intimate that he (Mr. Canning) had actually told a lie before that House, and in the face of the world, with regard to the instructions which he, when in office, had given to Mr. Erskine. The papers which served fully to elucidate this subject had been now nearly two months before the House, and no proceeding was taken in pursuance of the object, with a view to which the hon. gent. called for those papers. He therefore thought it necessary to ask, after such a public imputation as he had alluded to, had been cast upon his character, whether the hon. gent. meant to bring forward any motion upon this question, and at what time he would feel it convenient to do so.

stated, that in consequence of the pressure of public business for some time back, he had not yet been able to read the papers alluded to by the right hon. gent. But he would take care to examine them in the course of the recess, and if they did not serve to dislodge the impression he had been induced to entertain upon this subject, he should certainly feel it his duty to submit a motion to the House respecting it.

expressed a hope that the hon. gent would either bring the matter under discussion, or state his reasons for declining it, so that the intimation, of which he had reason to complain, should not remain uncontradicted.

replied, "undoubtedly"—and adding, that he felt himself bound to apologize to the right hon. gent. for the delay which had already taken place.

rose to put a question to the secretary of state for the home department, (Mr. Ryder) with respect to a subject which considerably agitated the public mind. He saw in the newspapers a proclamation, offering a reward for the discovery and apprehension of persons alleged to have fired at some of the military in the course of the late Disturbances; and he saw also the report of a coroner's inquest upon the body of a man who had been unfortunately killed in Piccadilly on the 7th instant, who had found a verdict of "wilful murder against a life-guardsman unknown." Now he wished to know whether it was Intended by his Majesty's ministers to issue a proclamation, and whether it was in the contemplation of government to take any Steps towards discovering the offender, whom he understood, it could not be difficult to find out, as he was one of a rear guard, consisting of only six persons.

admitted, that if the concluding statement of the noble lord were correct, there could of course be little difficulty in discovering the offender alluded to, if offender there were. His Majesty's ministers had undoubtedly instituted an inquiry, into all the circumstances connected with the conduct of the soldiery and the populace during the late unhappy tumults, and he was enabled to state as the result of that inquiry, that there was no instance in our history where it was found necessary to collect and employ the troops, in which the forbearance and moderation of the soldiery were so remarkable, while they were not only pelted by the populace with stones and mud, but actually fired upon. This moderation was, indeed, not only manifested during the period in which the army were engaged in Piccadilly, but upon the Monday when the prisoner was conveyed to the Tower. Such was the result of the inquiry, which his Majesty's ministers had instituted. As to the particular event adverted to, he was assured that no shot was fired by a soldier, until several shots were fired at the troops from the same place to which the fatal shot was directed. Under these circumstances it could not be expected that government should issue a proclamation such, as that required by the noble lord; nor did he think, unless a different result should appear from farther inquiry, it would be consistent with its duty to issue any proclamation whatever.

agreed with the right hon. gent., that the conduct of the soldiery throughout had been very exemplary; but did that right hon gent., mean to say, standing in that House as a minister—

rose to order, observing, that as there was no question before the House, the hon. member was not warranted in proceeding farther. He had no objection whatever to at discussion of the case referred to, but he felt the impropriety of allowing a speech to be made under the present circumstances upon the subject, and to go forth without any answer.

remarked upon the point of order, that it was deemed generally inconvenient to the House to extend a conversation of this nature; beyond the mere answer to the question proposed. If it were desired to carry the subject farther, the practice was according to the custom of the House to give notice of a motion. He begged pardon for interrupting the hon. member; but being appealed to on the score of Order, he felt it his duty to state his opinion.

expressed his resolution to avail himself of his right to make a motion, without giving any notice; arid that motion would be, That the verdict of the coroner's inquest should be laid before the House. He was really much astonished at the very extraordinary doctrine laid down by the right hon. gent. What! did the right hon. gent, mean to assert that the verdict of a coroner's inquest was not deserving of any investigation—that it formed no ground for additional inquiry—that no step should be taken in consequence of it? Was it not due to the cause of justice, to the feelings of the public, to the character of the soldiery, one of whom was accused, of murder, by this verdict, that an inquiry should take place? Such an inquiry, indeed, seemed peculiarly due to the vindication of the, troops; for until the guilty individual was discovered, the whole body was liable to be implicated in the imputation that verdict conveyed; and why should not a proclamation be issued in order to facilitate that discovery? But it appeared from the statement of his noble friend, that there was an obvious facility towards that discovery, within the reach of ministers, without any proclamation whatever? Why should not such a facility then be immediately resorted to? Surely no minister would pretend to disregard the verdict of a coroner's inquest, to assume the right of a grand jury, or to prevent that case which a coroner's inquest pronounced to be wilful murder, from being referred to a jury for trial. It was clearly necessary that the inquiry should be followed up on this business, for the satisfaction of the public and in vindication of the soldiery. If it turned out, from that inquiry, that the statement of the right hon. secretary was well founded, that the conduct of the troops was in all instances marked by forbearance and moderation, and that several shots were fired from the place where this murder was alledged to have occurred, then the inquiry would be most satisfactory; but yet it could not be argued, that because the soldiery in general behaved well, the murder of an innocent man by one of those soldiers, ought to be overlooked. Such an inference alone could warrant the disposition betrayed by the doctrine of the right hon. Secretary, and therefore he felt himself irresistibly impelled at once to oppose it. Therefore indeed he was urged to the assertion of his right to make a motion without notice, which he should be otherwise indisposed to do, if he was not so pressed. The hon. gent. concluded by moving that a copy of the verdict of the coroner's inquest be laid before the House.

hoped the House would feel that he had done no more than his duty in stating the usual order of the House upon a case of this nature; and on any future occasion he should content himself with merely a similar statement, leaving any hon. member to use his own discretion afterwards, and to the judgment of the House.

disclaimed the slightest intention of finding fault with the conduct of the chair. But he hoped it would be remembered that his conduct was not without precedent; for a right hon. gent. (Mr. Canning) had in the course of last session, made a motion in that House, at a late hour of the night, without any previous notice, at which he would himself, have attended, if he had been aware of the intention to bring it forward.

as the hon. gent. had alluded to the motion which he (Mr. Canning) had conceived it necessary to make during the last session, in justification of the Speaker's conduct; felt it incumbent upon him to explain that that motion arose out of events which had taken place in the course of the same evening; and which had created in him a reluctance to suffer the separation of the House without bringing the subject distinctly before them for their opinion. That was a case, therefore, of so particular a nature, that it could scarcely be adduced as a precedent, and had no analogy to the manner in which the hon. gent. had brought forward the motion under discussion. At the same time, he readily admitted that the hon. gent. had exercised an undoubted right; he should, however, vote against him, on the single ground that the House were taken by surprise.

while he cheerfully admitted that the Speaker exercised the discretion reposed in him by the House in a manner that must afford general satisfaction, yet contended, that the doctrine maintained by the right hon. secretary of state was of such a nature, that the country at large would be much dissatisfied were it to pass, without immediate animadversion. Willing, as he was, from his own personal observation, and from the reports of others, to bear testimony to the general good conduct of the soldiery, yet when a coroner's inquest had brought in a verdict of wilful murder, it was most extraordinary to hear a secretary of state say that he was making such and such inquiries; thus putting himself in the place of a jury of the country. He did hope that the right hon. gent. had made this declaration rashly, and without being aware of its tendency and extent. As had been well argued by his hon friend, if ten thousand men behaved well, it did not follow that one might not be guilty of murder.—When a coroner's inquest brought in a verdict of "wilful murder against a person unknown" it was only by a jury that the case could be tried.—The secretary of state was a justice of peace; did he,, in making the inquiry which he had described, take the depositions on oath? On such a trial as his, the right and wrong of the case could never be permitted to stand. He repeated his persuasion, that the right hon. gent. would have been more guarded had he been aware of the tendency and extent of his observations.

was grateful for the opportunity afforded him of explaining himself. He was perfectly ready to reassert, that in his view of the case the line taken by his Majesty's government was the only line which, consistently with their duty, it was possible for them to adopt. The hon. gent. opposite must have strangely misunderstood him when he represented that no inquiry had taken place. He (Mr. R.) had distinctly stated to the House in the course of his former observations, that as soon as the facts were known to his Majesty's government, they instituted a strict inquiry into the conduct of the populace on one hand, and of the troops on the other; and the result was, that they had resolved to advise his Majesty not to issue any proclamation on the subject. Another hon. gent. had asked whether the inquiry had taken place on oath? It was necessary that the nature of the evidence to be given before the privy council should be previously examined. Some witnesses had been examined before the privy council on oath: others had been examined by other persons, in order to ascertain whether or not their evidence ought to be given before the privy council on one side of the question or on the other.—He said on one side or on the other, although it did not appear that in any case the troops had acted in a manner which could call for disapprobation. The inquiry was still proceeding. Hitherto, certainly, he for one had not thought it expedient to advise his Majesty to issue his proclamation upon this subject. The hon. gent. opposite seemed to think that it was indispensible to issue a royal proclamation whenever a coroner's inquest brought in a verdict of wilful murder. This was to him a new principle. Whenever this question came to be agitated—which he trusted it would not to night, although the hon. gent. had thought proper to make his motion without any notice, in contradiction to the uninterrupted usage of the House, for which alone he should oppose it—but whenever the hon. gent. might choose to bring it forward, according to the recognized practice of the House, he had no doubt of being fully able to vindicate the conduct of government, and to prove that they would have acted erroneously, had they, on the evidence before them, advised his Majesty to issue his royal proclamation.

admitted the general good conduct of the soldiery, but he begged the House to recollect, that one inoffending individual had been murdered; and the good conduct of thousands was no atonement for that crime.

stated, that there was an inquiry in the city to-day, in consequence of an unhappy event similar to that under consideration. The firing of the soldiery had been productive of very unfortunate results in that quarter; but in stating this he wished it to be understood, that something must be allowed for provocations. There were undoubtedly some attacks made upon the soldiery in the city, but neither those attacks, nor their general moderation, could plead for such a crime as that to which the motion before the House referred; and therefore he would support it.

thought this motion ought to be resisted, from the irregular manner in which it was brought forward; and particularly because there was no urgency in the case that called for any departure from the usual forms of the House. There was in fact no object in view which could not be answered, without resorting to the irregularity complained of, to which irregularity the hon. mover seemed to have been prompted solely from a desire to make a speech. But, if the conduct of the hon. member were sanctioned, any other member might take the same course, arid the House must be aware of the inconvenience to which such a practice would lead. He would submit it therefore to the good sense of the House, whether, if they had any regard to their established course of proceeding they could countenance the irregularity of the hon. gent. who, in the first place, had made a motion without having given any notice, and, in the second place, had made that motion although there were several notices on the paper which were entitled to priority. But, he would ask, what was the urgency of the case which, demanded that the motion should be made on that day? Was, then, any thing to be immediately proposed in consequence of it? What was the hon. gent.'s object? He had only made the motion because he had been interrupted in irregularity, He had not risen to make the motion, but he had made the motion to protect himself. He had taken the House by surprise, and unprepared. On that ground alone, therefore, the motion ought to be negatived; for there was no excuse for departing from the established usage. But, independently of that consideration, were the House to take into their own hands the administration of justice while in its progress? Were they to be the inspectors of Verdicts of coroners' inquests and indictments for murder? Were they to stand in the situation of grand jurors? If any abuse had occurred, that certainly would be a sufficient ground for a parliamentary proceeding. But what answer had his right hon. friend made to the question, whether or not his Majesty had been advised to issue a proclamation offering a reward for the apprehension of the offender? His right hon. friend had replied in the negative, and had added, that, as far as he could judge from the inquiry which had been instituted into the circumstances of the case, he did not think he should be disposed to recommend such a proceeding; the inquiry, however, still pending, the result of which might alter his opinion. If the House had instituted the same inquiry as his Majesty's government they would have arrived at the same conclusion. It evidently appeared that the soldiers had behaved with marked abstinence generally; but that on the particular spot which was the scene of the unfortunate event in which the discussion originated, the people assembled in an alley, which prevented the horses from approaching them, and assailed the soldiers with brickbats and even fired at them with ball. He saw an hon. officer in his place, who having been on duty in that part of the town, on that occasion, could, if he were so disposed, afford every satisfactory information on the subject. If the House entertained the motion before them, they would depart from the practice which had been found convenient for such a length of time, and would soon have cause to repent that departure.

felt himself called upon, in consequence of what had fallen from the right hon. the secretary of state, and from the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer, to state to the House what he knew upon the subject, having on Saturday the 7th inst. been on duty in that part of Piccadilly where the unfortunate event which was now under discussion had occurred—an event deeply painful to the feelings both of the civil and of the military force. He lamented that he had to rise on such a serious and melancholy occasion, but he begged leave to state the circumstances which he had witnessed, as from his own situation on the spot (near St. James's Church), from his own knowledge, and from the knowledge of others (he having as an officer particularly investigated the transaction), he was persuaded that he could give information which it was out of the power of any other hon. member to afford or procure. He would take upon himself positively to assert, that before any firing on the part of the troops, the populace fired upon the soldiers. One man near him was shot with a ball through the jaw. (Hear, hear, hear!) Even after this occurrence, the soldiers were not allowed to load their pistols, but the magistrates exerted their authority to repress further outrage. Both the civil and military power were, however, pelted by the populace, and from ten to twenty shots were fired by the people before he heard one fired by the soldiers. (Hear, hear, hear!) He did not state this as hearsay, but as matter of fact, he being on duty at the place where there was a considerable detachment of from 60 to 100 men, and not merely a rear guard, as a noble lord had mistakenly conceived. Should this subject be discussed at any future period he would go into greater lengths upon it, but at that time he did not think it was necessary to add any thing to that, which he had already stated.

did not approve of this sort of discussion, as it might send an individual before a jury to be tried for his life under circumstances very partial and oppressive.

rose, but scarcely begun to speak when

spoke to order; if the hon. gent. had a right to make a motion without observing the usual forms of the House he had no right to speak a second time.

decided, that it was perfectly in order for the member, who originated any question, to deliver his sentiments a second time in his reply after other gentlemen had offered their observations upon his motion.

then rose again and said. that if it was the object of the hon. gent. to impede his speaking, the means resorted to would not have answered that end, as it would be in the power of any gentleman to move the previous question, which would open the debate to him and 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 judgment; 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 exception 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 proceedings. 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.

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!]

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.

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, and acting accordingly. Now with respect to the statement of facts contained in that petition, he (Mr. L.) would not assume 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 follow 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.

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 nugatory 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.

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.

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 factions 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.

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 officer, 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, that 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 the case before them; but the fact was, that the article of war gave no such discretion. [Here he read it to the House—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.—

here interposed, and said, that the-epithet he had used was 'nugatory.'

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 look 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 so apprehensive.

was for the petition being received, and trusted that his gallant friend would be prevailed upon to withdraw his opposition: at the same time he thought that the petitioner might 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.

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.

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 interfere 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.

observed, that when he was judge advocate it wag 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, Captain in the 15th Regiment of Light Dragoons:

"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 acceptable 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 to the, advancement of every officer, junior to, himself, in the recipient; 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 chief, his just claims to promotion were again, defeated, by the introduction of officers from other regiments, to fill up the two majorities of the 15th Light Dragoons, which were then vacant:—Then seeing himself thus excluded from all prospect of relief, in the ordinary course, your petitioner was reduced to the necessity of soliciting, from the commander in chief, an application in his favour, of the 12th section of the articles of war, which states that, 'If any officer shall think himself to be wronged by his colonel, or the commanding officer of the regiment, and shall, upon due application made to him, be refused to be redressed, he may complain to the general commanding in chief our forces, in order to obtain-justice; 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 be was graciously pleased to afford 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.) H. TORRENS.'

"That, by this refusal, on the part of the commander in chief to comply with your petitioner's request, as above stated, unless your honourable house shall be pleased to afford him relief, he has no means of redress for the wrongs which have been heaped upon him, in his military character; in as much as the 12th section of the articles of war, afford the only remedy, of which an officer of the army, who has been wronged by his colonel, and by him refused redress, can avail himself; and that, therefore, the denial of justice in your petitioner's case, by the commander in chief, in direct violation of the articles of war, is a most serious injury, not only to your petitioner but also 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) HENRY FOSKETT.

Capt. 15th Lt. Dragoons."

then moved, That the petition be laid upon the table.

objected to this; as it was a complaint for not being promoted, according to the expectations of the individual who petitioned. His Majesty had a right to promote whom he thought fit; and it would be improper for the House to interfere. The person promoted over captain Foskett, was not a junior, but a senior officer to him. The reason why he was not sent with, the regiment to Portugal was, because his troop was the worst in the regiment, and therefore the fittest to be left on the recruiting service. When the House knew the cause of his not being so rapidly promoted as he expected, they would acquiesce in the justice of his colonel. The cause was this: Captain Foskett, an old officer, had gone out as a second in a duel, with two boys of 16 and 17 years of age, and suffered them to try to murder each other, by firing no fewer than six shots. It was great grace and indulgence in the duke of Cumberland, that this was passed over at the time; for had it been reported to his Majesty, captain Foskett's name would have been struck oat of the army list.

said, he had not any knowledge, and never had heard any thing of capt. Foskett, but what he had heard from his hon. friend. He would admit, if that was true which was stated by hon. gentlemen opposite, that his name deserved to be struck off the military list, and on that account he ought not to have been offered a majority in another regiment. He had offered to produce recommendations, in favour of his character, as an officer, and there was not a voucher offered to shew they did not deserve full credit. Under these considerations, he could not see an objection to the petition being laid on the table.

thought it was highly improper that the House should interfere.

could not perceive where the cause of complaint lay. There was no charge of a junior officer being raised to rank above him.

thought no beneficial result to captain Foskett could arise from the petition being ordered to lie on the table. No allegations were made of his having been refused promotion improperly. No junior officers, it appeared, had been promoted in preference to him. He had no right to complain of being left behind when the regiment went on service. That was a regimental arrangement, which rested in the first instance with the colonel of his regiment, in the next, with the commander in chief. It had been at first so arranged by the colonel of his regiment, and it was in a way of being redressed by the commander in chief when the regiment returned. But it was then said, why was he appointed to replace an officer in Spain, and why offered a majority in another regiment? seeing his conduct had been improper. If he had been concerned in a duel two or three years before, though that might be an obstacle to his promotion in his own regiment, yet if it was not thought proper to bring him to a court martial on that account, it was hard that that should hang over him for ever, and prevent his rising in another regiment. With respect to the article of war, the utmost extent of it was, that the commander in chief should examine each complaint, and report upon it to the king, where the case required it. This case was not thought to require it. The army, it appeared, understood that article to refer exclusively to pecuniary matters. What was there to complain of, when, because the commander in chief could not report favourably, he declined making any report at all? If he complained of marching in the rain, or any thing equally frivolous, would it be said a report should be made? Under all the circumstances, as he apprehended no ulterior mischief from it, if it were a matter of doubt whether or not the petition ought to lie on the table, he would, in all such cases, give no opposition to a motion to that effect.

thought it was quite a different case, where a commander in chief was called on by an officer for a court-martial, which he took at his own risk, and a commander-in-chief thinking he ought to be brought to a court-martial, and making it a barrier to the officer's promotion, and although he will not bring him to trial, keep it hovering over his head. He should vote for laying the petition on the table.

was not inclined to make many remarks, as he would have an opportunity, on a future day, to enforce his arguments. The petitioner complained that he was aspersed, because he was a second in a duel, where something like murder might have taken place. He had made every inquiry into the circumstances of this duel, and learned that general shots had been fired, but that the petitioner had tried every means to prevent it; but, from the abusive language of one of the principals, he could not succeed. One of them was wounded slightly in the leg. Both of the principals were put under an arrest, and, after a short time, dismissed from that arrest. He could not therefore allow captain Foskett's character to be whispered away, or assertions made that could not be supported. He had applied to his lieut. colonel for a court-martial, which was granted as far as his influence went. It had been said by an hon. baronet, that the reason captain Foskett was left behind was, that his troop was the worst in the regiment; this he did not know; but he had learned it was unusual to leave a senior captain at home, when his regiment was ordered on foreign service.

The petition was then ordered to lie on the table.