Feb. 28th, Lord Barrington acquainted the House of Commons that Lord George Sackville had been put under arrest for disobedience of orders. The Speaker had been much averse to the trial of a member who was no longer in the Army, and hoped it would be opposed: but it was not. Lord Milton,[97] brother-in-law of Lord George, was empowered by him to say that the trial was what he earnestly desired. Lord Barrington then moved an Address of Thanks to the King for the communication, and for his Majesty’s tenderness of the privileges of the House. This being readily agreed to, Lord Barrington said it was _nemine contradicente_; but Doddington[98] had faintly said no, and the Speaker said there had been a negative. Sir Francis Dashwood then said, that he had not opposed the Address, as Lord George wished the trial; but he hoped the measure would be considered hereafter in some Mutiny Bill, and that the time might be limited how long persons who had quitted the Army should be liable to martial law. Doddington added, “that everybody seemed to agree it ought not to remain law; that he did not think it law; nay, that Lord George might have been tried while he was a military man. Martial law was growing upon us, would eat up the banks, and overflow the whole. The Mutiny Bill fell to the ground every year, but, like the giant, recovered new strength on touching it.” Sir John Rushout added, that, were he in the Army, he would not sit on the trial of any man out of it. Sir Francis Dashwood promised to call for a revisal of the Mutiny Bill, if nobody else did.