Quote
Some curious military legal proceedings appear to have taken place at Hilsea Barracks on a charge against a pensioner named Morphy, who has been engaged there as canteen manager. Morphy was discharged from the Army with an exemplary character after twenty-five years’ service, and was appointed canteen manager at Hilsea in October, 1892. On October 9, 1894, he was charged with embezzling £24, and received a month’s notice to quit. He asserted, and asserts, that he had a complete answer, and that the apparent deficiency was only due to an error of book-keeping. In this he is supported by his solicitor, and, indirectly, by what followed. A court of inquiry having assembled, Morphy was ordered for trial by district court-martial. He instructed his solicitor, who obtained permission to inspect the books. On November 8 Morphy was placed under arrest. A few days later, however, the court of inquiry reassembled; the order for a court-martial was cancelled, and the prisoner was ordered to be released. The date of his release was November 13. No official explanation was given him of the abandonment of the charge; but he has been led to understand that the reason was a technical error in regard to the section under which the proceedings were taken, which sounds very like nonsense.
The most serious question in regard to this case is whether the man was subject to martial law at all, and consequently liable to arrest and imprisonment. He had been discharged from the Army two years previously, and there seems to be nothing in his engagement as canteen manager which could alter his status as a civilian. Even if he was subject to martial law while canteen manager, his engagement terminated by notice on November 8, yet he was kept a prisoner for five days longer. If this view of his position be correct, he has the strongest of claims to compensation for the wrong done him. But this is not all. On his ultimate release he was informed by the Colonel that he could not apply for a character. He was thus pronounced guilty while denied trial, and was cast adrift after twenty-seven years’ military life without any chance of finding civil employment. He has been out of work ever since. Whatever remedy he may have in the civil courts, it is an absurdity to expect a man in this position to commence actions against the Commanding Officer at Hilsea, or the Secretary of State for War, or whoever may be responsible for his treatment. His case should be brought before Parliament, and if this is properly done, I hardly think that Mr. Campbell-Bannerman can withstand his claim for redress in some shape.
— Truth, Thursday May 23, 1895 (source)