The simple question before the Court, according to all the experience I have had, is merely a point of military discipline. The crime with which the Prisoner stands charged is, in fact, unqualified disobedience, for which there cannot be found even the shadow of justification.

"According to military law, Mr. President and Gentlemen, an implicit obedience to command may be termed (and is) the chief military vir66 tue, in relation to which all others are secondary ;—whence may be "inferred that the absence, or want, or absolute renunciation, of that "quality constitutes one of the greatest military offences, and is liable to "the most exemplary punishment.

"It is indeed evident that none of the purposes for which an army is "constituted could be effected but by the concentration of its force, only "to be obtained by the unity of command; whilst an utter annihilation "of its efficiency would take place if the individual members of that "body were permitted to obey orders, or not, at their own discretion. "It is in this view, therefore, and in order to ensure consistency, energy, "and effect in its operations, and security to itself, that the Constitution "has submitted the actions of the army to the directions and control (in 66 every thing) of one supreme commander, from whom, by a number of "communicating branches in an uninterrupted course, all orders descend "to the individuals, near or remote, attached to the military profession, "and every officer and soldier is bound implicitly to obey."

* I have taken the liberty of marking this pàssage, having found, when arranging these papers for the printer, that it is a literal extract from a most respectable work on martial law, by E. Samuel; a book which the Prosecutor some time ago recommended very strongly to my attention.

And as this paragraph stands between two others, both of which are absolutely necessary to understand this author's sentiments on the subject, I supply them in this note.

At page 283 Mr. Samuel begins this subject." The only offence which remains to “be considered under this article (Mutiny) is disobedience to the lawful commands of

66

a superior officer." Then follows the above extracted passage. After it Mr. Samuel continues," So general is the rule that the orders of a superior shall be imperative on the military inferior, that it will not admit of exception, unless in the instance "when the orders, or more accurately speaking, the things commanded to be done, are "directly repugnant or contrary to law. In the case only where the orders would “afford no legal excuse in a court of law for the act committed under them, can the "inferior question or hesitate to obey the commands he receives from his superiors, "such as if he were directed in a moment of delirium by his officer to fire on a peace“able and unoffending bystander, or if such a thing could be supposable, to plunder "the property, or commit, or assist in committing, some personal injury on a fellow"subject. It is only then in orders which, if executed, would effect some palpable outrage against moral or religious obligations, which all laws profess to regard, "and which cannot be superseded by the partial regulations of a particular society, "that soldiers can hope to find indemnity in resistance to the commands of a supe

Prompt, ready, unhesitating obedience in soldiers to their superiors is so necessary to the safety of the military state, and to the due accomplishment of every thing entrusted to it, that nothing, in fact, could be more detrimental and destructive than to have it understood, or even for one moment supposed, that any instance of military disobedience, hesitation, or remonstrance, could pass unquestioned.

"rior. And even then, when the alternative is between two offences, and the choice "must be determined by the adoption of the less instead of the greater, of the dis"obedience of the command, or of the commission of some outrageous civil or "military crime; the responsibility will always be upon the inferior, and in this case a dreadful responsibility, to shew that the commands which he would otherwise be "bound to obey, are manifestly and palpably illegal; else he may involve himself in "the guilt, and certainly in the penalty of a positive crime, under the supposition or pretence of avoiding an imaginary one."

66

And a little further on Mr. Samuel adds,—“ Except in the solitary instance where "the illegality of an order is glaringly apparent on the face of it, a military subordi"nate is compelled to a complete and undeviating obedience to the very letter of the "command received."

I believe most persons will agree in the sentiments of Mr. Samuel, thus taken entire : and I indulge hopes this publication will shew that the conduct for which I have been tried, and my defence of that conduct, rested on principles similar to what Mr. Samuel has advanced. These proceedings will shew,-1. That the officers of Government were transgressing their authority, and attempting to violate a personal right, in sending me to discharge a service which I was not engaged or bound to perform under any circumstances; the service as specified in the orders being manifestly not a military service in any one sense; this is now proved by the abandonment of this service, and the way in which it is at present conducted, as mentioned in the Advertisement. 2. The things commanded to be done were directly repugnant and contrary to the acknowledged law of God as received in the British empire, (which law is declared to be part and parcel of the law of the land,) and this not merely in some general respect, but repugnant and contrary to specified points of the practical religion of the empire as by law established, as well as of our constitutional law; and if I had been forced to act as required, it would have been a palpable outrage on my moral and religious obligations, as publicly acknowledged. 3. As my personal rights in the national religion are as clearly defined as the rights I have in my property, and the undisturbed enjoyment of both are as dear to me and as sacred in the eye of the Constitution as the same belonging to my fellow subjects who are not in the army, I was allowed to assert and protect my own rights as much as if I had not been in the army and the rules of discipline cannot lawfully be used to make me violate, as it were, my own rights, by forcing me to give them up, any more than they could lawfully be used to make me an instrument or agent in violating the rights of a fellow subject in his religion or property.

I wish it to be observed here, that I did not mutiny against, or even disobey, my superiors when they were acting against me in the manner which will be seen. Wishing to shew every respect to the service and to my superiors, I simply petitioned in behalf of my rights, in the way the articles of war, as much as the constitution, have provided for officers when they have any cause of complaint.

Having troubled you, Mr. President and Gentlemen, with these few general remarks, I shall conclude with requesting your application of them to the offence with which the prisoner stands charged; and which it is now my duty to prove in evidence, it being an offence of a most extraordinary nature, holding out a highly dangerous example to the army in general.

Happily for the well-being of that army and for the interests of the state, the present question is brought before a competent tribunal, with whom it will rest to enforce those sound principles of military obedience and subordination to which it has become my duty to call your most serious attention.

The Prosecutor here produces to the Court the letter, as follows, (marked No. I.) which is read, and ordered by the Court to be inserted on the Proceedings.

LETTER, No. I.

Chief Secretary's Office,
Valetta, 4th Aug. 1823.

I have the honour to acquaint you that application has been made to Government for salutes from Castle St. Angelo and St. Michael's Tower on the 9th and 10th instant, being the eve and anniversary of St. Lorenzo, the tutelar saint of Vittoriosa.

His Honor the Lieutenant-Governor has been pleased to grant salutes on the 9th instant at noon, and on the day following at half past ten A.M., and in the evening during the procession, from Castle St. Angelo, accompanied by the tolling of the Castle bell, which His Honor requests you will order to be carried into effect: but the situation of St. Michael's Tower being in the vicinity of the naval arsenal, His Honor cannot allow of any salute being fired from that place.

Lieutenant and Acting-Adjutant Somerville of the Royal Artillery being called on by the Prosecutor, is duly sworn, after having had the charge against the prisoner read to him,

Q. by Prosecutor. Who was acting Adjutant of the Royal Artillery at Malta in August last?—A. I was.

Q. Do you recollect any salutes being ordered to be fired from Fort St. Angelo in the aforesaid month ?-A. I do.

Q. On what day?—A. On the 9th and 10th of August.

Q. Did you communicate any orders to Capt. Atchison, verbally or in writing, upon the subject of such salutes?—A. I wrote to Captain Atchison by order of Major Addams, desiring him to give directions for those salutes being fired.

Q. Is this a copy of the letter you allude to?-A. It is.

Here the officiating Judge Advocate reads the letter, which is ordered by the Court to be inserted on the proceedings, (and marked No. II.)

SIR,

LETTER, No. II.

Fort St. Elmo, Aug, 9, 1823.

and that you will

I am directed by Major Addams to inform you, that you will proceed to St. Angelo with as little delay as possible. On your arrival you will apply to Lieut. Dawson for the letter which was forwarded to him, requiring salutes to be fired on this day and to-morrow, give directions for those salutes being fired accordingly. I have the honour to be, Sir, Your most obedient servant, (Signed)

Capt. Atchison, RI. Artlry.

&c. &c. &c.

JOHN SOMERVILLE,
Lieut. R. Artlry. Act. Adj.

Q. About what time of the day did you send this letter (now read) to Capt. Atchison?-A. To the best of my recollection about ten o'clock. Q. Did you receive any answer to that communication either verbally or in writing?-A. I did not.

Cross-examination.

Q. from the Prisoner. Did you ever communicate to me any displeasure on the part of Major Addams for my alleged disobedience of orders, or for writing the letter of the 9th of August last?-A. I did not.

The Prisoner having no further questions to put, nor the Court, the witness is directed to withdraw.

Prosecutor calls on Brevet-Major Addams, Royal Artillery, who being duly sworn, after having had the charge read to him, answers the following questions,

Q. to second Evidence. Who commanded the Royal Artillery stationed at Malta in August last?—A. I did.

Q. Did you visit Fort St. Angelo as commanding officer of the Royal Artillery any time during the month of August last?-A. Yes.

Q. On what occasion?-A. On the 9th I particularly visited it for the purpose of firing salutes.

Q. What occurred on your arrival in that Fort on the day mentioned? -A. On my arrival at Fort St. Angelo, I sent an orderly gunner to Capt. Atchison to say that I had arrived in the Fort, and wished to see him. Capt. Atchison almost immediately came to me. I then asked him if he had received the orders that I directed Lieut. Somerville to send him, and if he could obey the orders he had received. He then immediately put into my hands a letter. The purport of the letter will speak for itself.

Q. What is become of that letter?-A. The letter was sent with the other papers to Sir John M'Leod, Deputy Adjutant-General of Artillery in England.

Q. Is this letter the original, or a copy?

On the letter being shewn to Witness, he answers,-It is the original. Here the letter was ordered to be read by the Officiating Judge Advocate, and to be inserted on the proceedings. (Marked No. III.)

SIR,

LETTER, No. III.

Fort Angelo, Aug. 9, 1823.

I have to acknowledge a letter received from Lieutenant and Acting Adjutant Somerville, desiring me to "proceed to Fort Angelo without "delay, and to apply to Lieut. Dawson for the letter forwarded to him, 66 requiring salutes to be fired on this day and to-morrow; and that I am to give directions for these salutes being fired accordingly."

66

I proceeded agreeably to this order; and, receiving the instructions sent to Lieut. Dawson, found that salutes were to be fired, and the Castle bell was to be tolled during the processions on the eve, and on the anniversary of St. Lorenzo, the tutelar saint of Vittoriosa, at the periods therein stated.

It is with the greatest concern I state that I have found that I am