The Sun.
London, England, 1837-12-19 00:00:00

HOUSE OF GOMMONS.-DEr. 18
HIGHWAY ACT.

Mr. ORMSBY GORE presented a petition from some
parish in Suffolk against the Highway Act.
THE BALLOT.

Mr. PHILPOTTS presented a petition from the city of
Gloucester, signed by 1,100 persons, and which therefore, as
the population of the city was only 1,500, might be con-
sidered as speaking the sentiments of the majority
of the inhabitants. The petitioners stated that prac-
tices now prevailed at elections for Members of Parlia-
ment, which were quite subversive of the Constitution—
for that a large portion of the constituent body were pre-
vented from exercising their franchise in accordance with their
own opinions, by undue influence and intimidation prac-
tised by conflicting political partisans; and that many were
induced, by corrupt and unworthy motives, to give their suf-
frages. And the petitioners earnestly prayed of that House
to remedy these crying evils by granting them the protection
of the Ballot.—( Hear.)
Mr. LA MBTON presented a petition from South Shields,
in the county of Durham, signed by 2,000 persons, complain-
ing that at the last general election a universal system of
bribery and intimidation was carried into operation through-
out the entire country, and had been al4o resorted to in
an alarming degree at the election for North Durham.
The petitioners stated that they saw workmen com-
pelled by their masters to vote against their consciences,
the tradesmen by their customers, and farmers by their land-
lords. The petitioners stated that by these means the
franchise had been rendered inefficient, and even injurious,
2nd that they believed the. Ballot to be the only effectual
remedy for such evils.
The petition was ordered to be laid on the table.
HARBOUR OF FISHGUARD.

Mr. Alderman THOMPSON presented a petition from the
Shipowners and Merchants of Sunderland, complaining of a
clause in the Bill which passed last Session relative to the har-
bour of Fishguard. By this clause toll was levied on all ships
which navigated St. George's Channel, whetherthey entered the
harbour or not. The petitioners stated that the effect of such a
provision as tliis:was most injurious to the interests of commerce,
and oppressive to the public. They prayed that the House
would adopt some means to relieve them from its pressure ;
and the Hon. Gentleman expressed a hope in addit;on, that the
Right Hon. the President of the Board of Trade would not
allow the Session to pass without bringing in a Bill to repeal
the clause.

Mr. G. F. YOUNG said that he had a petition to the same
effect to present to the House from the merchants and ship-
owners of Wexford. The petitioners stated that tbey had not only
to pay a. heavy passing toll, but that they bad also to pay toll
on all goods landed in the harbour of Wexford, for the sup-
port of the harbour of Fishguard. The petitioners stated
that the clause was ruinous in its effects to commerce, and
prayed that the House would adopt some measure to relieve
them from the operation of it. He had a question to put to
the President of the Board of Trade on this subject, as soon
as he should see the Right Hon. Gentleman come into the
House.

Sir C. STYLE supported the petition, and expressed his
belief that the House must have passed the Billin utter igno-
rau'eis that it contained the clause complained of.

CASE OF MR. ROWLAND MILNER.

Sir E. CODRINGTON said he had a petition to present
to which he begged to call the attention of the House, as it
was important to the whole of the profession to which he be-
longed. The petitioner, Mr. Rowland Milner, stated, that in
1821, be was a Lieutenant in the Navy, and received a letter
from the Admiralty stating that he had in the year 1810
committed an act of which be had never heard a word be-
fore. He begged of Hon. Gentlemen to give him their
patience, as it' was a matter of great importance, and in-
volved something which they had heard so mueh of the other
night, the " eternal principles of justice."—(Hear, hear,
hear.) It appeared that Mr. R. Milner had given a power
of attorney and an affidavit to a person to receive his half-pay.
There was a form laid down, by which there could be no
difficulty in proving the fact, because no half-pay officer
could empower an agent to receive his pay without an
affidavit. On receipt of that affidavit, and referring to the
book -for the name of the officer, the money was
paid, and if the man personally receive-d
his halt-
pay, he must sign his name in a book at the Pay-
office. Nothing, therefore, could be more simple or easy of
detection. The petitioner was charged with receiving his pay
himself: and giving a power of attorney to another to receive
it in his stead. It appears that the affidavit was dated July,
1810, at which period this officer was on full pay. There-
fore the affidavit included a part of the time, amounting to
ninety-six days when he was on full pay. Anybody looking at
the Affidavit would at once have ascertained that it was a for-
gera. It was well known that officers could not be called on to
account for their conduct by court martial after the expiration
of three years, if serving in England, or four years if serving
abroad: He was called on by the Admiralty to account for
this, and in answer he stated that he had never heard of
the man nor of the transaction. What could he, or what
could any innocent man, say more ? A second letter was
sent from the Admiralty requiring further explanation, and
his reply was to the same effect as the former. Mr. Milner was
immediately struck off the list ; he was not brought face to face
with his opponent, but was at once deprived of his half pay.
He then wrote to the Admiralty demanding a court-martial,
but the answer was, that the time limited for such investiga-
tion had expired. But it would appear that the time had
not expired for exercising a meat arbitrary discre-
tion. . Mr. Milner had then called upon the Admiralty
to prosecute this person in a court of justice.
They said it was no part of their duty to do so ; but as they
had taken away the means of Mr. Milner, there was no other
party. There were many particulars is the case which he
would not trouble the House with, and he would not state any
thing which he did not believe to be true. He fully believed
that the man was as innocent as he ( Sir Edward Codring-
ton).—(Hear bear, hear.) He had no interest in the
matter further than to see justice done. He had been very
unfortunate in bringing these cases before the House. He
had been now occupied for three years in attempting to lay
the cases fairly before the public, and as yet had not been
able to obtain a decision. All he wanted on the present oc-
casion was that the petitioner might be proved guilty
or acanitted.—( Hear, hear.) The proof was in the hands
of the Admiralty, and he called upon them to bring it forward.
Their answer might be, that they could not now bring for-
ward the accuser—he knew they could not. Since the case
bad been in his hands, Mr. Milner had made enquiries respect-
ing him, and found that he was dead ; but he ( Sir Ed-
law d Codrington) had then letters in his pocket
from that party, acknowledging that he never knew Mr.
Milner, that he had forged the affidavit which he enclosed,
and begging merely that it might be used against him in a
court of justice. The charge against Mr. Milner was made by
the Solicitor to the Navy, and it was that Mr. Milner went
abroad and sent for his half-pay ; the alleged ground was that
he had received an accommodation of 121.—( Hear.) The
fact was, that if he had taken his affidavit to any of the
Dock-yards, he would have received an advance of 451.
upon it. Mr. Milner did go abroad in 1810, but the fact was
that he had received no half-pay till 1811; and had the alleged
affidavit been given by him, he would have lost 96 days half-pay.
He had called upon the Admiralty to produce the affidavit
upon which the charge against Mr. Milner was made, but
they could not do so, for it was in his ( Sir Edward Cod-
riogton's) pocket, with an acknowledgment of its being a
forgery, in the handwriting of Mr. Milner's accuser.
The whole case was an error from beginning to end ; how
that error had taken place he could not say ; but of this he
was certain, that it was most disgraceful to the Board.
Now, to show that the document he had alluded to was
a forgery, he bad in his hand the instance of a surgeon's
assistant, in which there bad come a bill signed by him nomi-
nally, which, on being presented at the Navy Office, was paid.
That bill was not a genuine bill, and when the bill which had
been really signed by the man was presented, it was found that
a bill, purporting to have his name had been paid, and the
three proper officers had declared that the real bill was a for-
gery. Captain Milner had declared that the statements
in the petition were true, and he was ready to attend
at the bar of the House and make oath to it. All
that the petitioner asked, was, that the House would
take into consideration the situation in which he was
placed, and would give him such redress as the justice of
the case deserved. The Gallant Admiral considered that the
petition was well worthy the consideration of the House.
The SPEAKER inquired whether the petitioner asked for
a remuneration in money ?
Sir E. CODRINGTON said that he did not : all he asked
for was that the House would restore him to his just rights.
Ho trusted the House would award him that sum of which he
had been deprived, and do him all the justice they could.
He had the papers in his pocket, and would be very glad to
show them to any gentleman who might wish to look at them.
Colonel SIBTHORP made an observation that was not
beard in the gallery, and the petition was ordered to lie on the
table.