A Legal View of the Schley Inquiry. the armistice at the wish of his superior officer, without regard to his own wishes.1 Afterwards, in a debate as to whether the ministry should be condemned for miscon duct and neglect, leading to the convention of Cintra, Sir Arthur Wellesley himself, who
121
which should ever assemble. It was not a court before which any officer would desire to be tried, and that "if he had been tried in any other manner he must have been ac quitted."2 The Chancellor of the Exchequer ex-
Cofiyrighttd by B. M. Climdimt, MR. 1x7 SOLICITOR F St., Washington, HANNA. D. C.
had resumed his office of Chief Secretary for Ireland said, with reference to another mem ber's criticism of "courts of advice" as not useful because not binding, that "he per fectly agreed with the noble lord in the wish that this might be the last court of this kind ■ Hansard's " Parliamentary Debates." 1st Series, Vol. 12, 151. Jan. 25, 1809. Hough, ch. 17.
plained that courts of inquiry were resorted to instead of courts martial when the in formation of the government was not suffi cient to warrant the bringing a distinct charge against a particular officer. Mr. Windham in attacking the ministry ridiculed the* Hansard, open court 1st Series, of inquiry Vol. 12,as935. an absurd Feb. 21, make1809.
