The Sun.
London, England, 1841-03-19 00:00:00

CASE OF CAPTAIN LA. ROCHE.
Mr. ALSTON then rose to move that the petition
of Captain La Roche, R.N., be raterre.l to a S.:•lect
Committee. After referring to the services of the pe-
titioner, the Hon. Member stated that Captain La
Roche was brought to a court-martial for not having
brought to action and engaged a brig and sloop in the
port of Cherbourg, and the charge having been, as was al
leged, partly proved, he was thsrnissed from bis command.
The Hon. Member then read a correspondence which
had taken place upon the subject with the Government
arid with various officers in the service, the later of
whom all bore strong testimony to the high professional
character of Mr. La Roche. This gentLiTnan was a
very old man, and all he desired was the means of
passing his last days in comfort. The Hon. Member
concluded by urging the House to support his motion.
Captain PECHELL seconded the motion.
Sir THOMAS COCHRANE opposed it as one
biEbly prejudicial to the public service. He was sorry
to take this course, but he felt it-to be his duty to do so.

Sir C. ADAM said it would only be.- cocessary
for him tl address the Ilouse very shortly. He
deeply regretted this ease had been brought for-
ward, for was sure that no ecurt-rnartia', and no
Court of Aduoralty could act otl-erwise than had been
done in this e:.se. In 1507 thin cflie.rr had Leca found

guilty by a court•martial, for not pern:itt;ng a frigate
under his cornroaA to go i!ito action, and V:

consequence dismissed fr;;rn I;i3 er-an:and. Aftr the
ccurt-martial Cai.tain La Roche suffered six months
to elapse before 1:o made any representation to too
Afltnir ly,
n 3wthothritf)tker
proper
rinitr7) htiiiik,c3asset,,y anstep swered toot
they did in the
mattlr. He then wrote more t'lan one offensive letter
to the glen Fir,.;t Lord of the Admiralty on the sob
.ct‘ Vt7l!,-,-; Board ot Almiraltv found the son
fence of Cie court-rfa::itial was founded upon cvideace
that could not c the smal'e6t degree impu;o,d,
they felt they could not place him on the retired list
of Captains. Cuptaiu Li Roche sert a me-
morial to the Board of A‘trniralty in, the year
1838, but the Board thought there were sufuel,nt
reasons for refusin..; the prayer ot the memorial.
lie thought the application was one to which the
House could not consent. The case having buc de-
cided by tl:e sentence of a Court properly constituted,
it would be highly improper for the House to acectle to
the motion.
" • • • •

Captain PECHELL said the G illant Admiral had
argued as an Admit al of 1807. He lied (leek(' the
eutherity of the Ho:: -e to interfere, contending thet the
Government was vested with the administratien of the
effeirs of the navy, end the subject shou!il never be dis-
cuesed ley Parlaenert. There were mangy' things which
slesuld l e considered in reletion to this patitien. Ttic
cireurns'ences in which Csptain Le Roche was pieced
W.7•re very pecudar and ditlicul?. Tee object of ;he
French frigate and corvette was to decoy the Eeglisli
frieate under very powerful batteries ; and lie had
risked the less of his ship tione:,cs“rily he would no
doubt have b-en censured as stronely as he was now
fele, ;ie exercise of prudence. It shuuld also be remem-
bered' that a frigate of thirty-six 12-pounders
was opposed to a French frigate of fifty 18-pounders.
It wee not fair to keep baele eny P.ci circumstances
which tended to !I'm,: the motion in a favourable
It had been said :het Captain La Roche had del tyed
his application to Parliament from 1808 to 1830.
Why had he done so ? Because he knew thet he could
never obtain redress under the old sy,tete. When a
Liberal Government come into power he Immediately
applied to have his case re-considered.
Mr. ALSTON replied.
Strangers were ordered to withdraw ; but on our re.
turn to the gallery we found thrt the motion had been
withdrawn.
Mr. JOHN O'CONNELL move.l for Returns of
each British Colony, Dependency, or Possesiion,
in
which, since the Legislative Union between Great Bri-
tain and Ireland, down to the pre eat time, the 'office or
offices of Chief or other Justice, or Judge, or Magis-
trate of any Supreme or District Court of Law',
Equity, or Admiralty, or Attorney or Solicitor-General,
has or have existed or been created : The name of
each such office or offices in each such Colony respec-
tively, together with the date of creation : The name
and salary of each person appointed to each such office,
with the dates of each appointment : Whether such
person waa.at the time of his appointment, a member of
the bar of. England, Ireland, or Scotland, and of which re-
spectively. The Hon. Member said, in the last ten years
only five or six appointments of this nature had been
placed at the disposal of the Irish Bar. Within the
last year there had been tweety important legal ap-
pointments made in the colonies, and of these only one.
bad been referred to that Bar. Even that one was of an
inferior nature, namely, the District Judgeship in Ja-
maica. He trusted that, under these circumstances,
the House would not reject his application.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said it was quite impos-
sible to give the information asked for by the Hon.
Member. He must, therefore, object to the motion.
Mr. JOHN O'CONNELL inquired if the Noble
Lord would give his consent if the last paragraph were
struck out ?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he had no objection
to give similar Returns to those granted in 1832.
The motion, omitting the last paragraph, was then
;agreed to.
IMPRISONMEN'r OF WILLIAM BAINES.
Mr. EASTHOPE said that when he gave notice
of his motion with respect to the petition of William
Mines, he stated that it was not his intention to go
into the general question of the abolition of Church-
rates, but as much as possible to confine bimeelf to
the grievance complained of by the petitioner. Ho
was aware, and the House must be aware, that it
would be very difficult, if not impossible, to state the
case of William Baines, who was now immured in
prison for- the nonpayment of a Church-rate, without
referring generally to the question of Church-rates.
He woul b
d however,e haadsfar madeat the outset, by adhering as possible, redeem the en-
gagement
strictly and closely to the case of this individual, and
avoiding as much as possible the general question of
the propriety or impropriety of such impositions. It
would be in the rcoollection of the House that this
petitioner stated that on the 17th of May, in the year
1838, the inhabitants of a parish in Leicester, made
a Church-rate of sixpence in the pound, which to this
petitioner amounted to 21. 55.; that that was demanded
of this petitioner in the month of August, and was by
him then refused ; that when summoned before
two of the Magistrates the petitioner dis-
puted the validity of the rate, and required
them to withhold giving judgment in his case, and the
case was thereupon dismissed. The petitioner then
received a citation from the Arches' Court of Canter-
bury, dated November 15, 1838, to which be paid no
asoles,eggaluenptrioycereedceinivge,doaf
attention. He was thereupon pronounced in contempt,
eice,waltnhd
wwahsichahfteerstvoaorkdsnosenrovtei
monition for the payment of toe rate and costs, amount-
ing, in all, to 1271. Be. He went on to state that he
was arrested in November last by the Sheriff's officer,
taken from his family and business, and has ever since
that time been a prisoner in the county gaol of Leices-
ter. He then proceeded. to state that it was unjust to
make a c:amand upon him for the support of a form of
worship which his conscience disapproved ; that it was
unjust, inasmuch as he believed that the demand was
bad in law to send him for a remedy to an Ecclesiastical
Court, and thus to call upon him to recognise the au-
thority of the dignitaries of a Church of which he was
not a member, and to seek, at an enormous expense,
a decision involving his rights, at the hands of parties
who were interested in giving judgment against
him ; that it was unjust to take his person and
confine him in gaol, when he had been guilty of no crime
against society, and had merely carried out his principles
as a dissenter from the Established Church, choosing te
obey God rather than man. Now he (Mr. Essthove)
not mean to argue that this care had been dealt with dic-
farently from the case which had formerly come under the
consideration of the House ; but he did intend to present
the case to the House as one which was ill calculated
either to serve the interest of the Church, or to aroma?
any change of conduct on the part cf those who dissented
from i'. —( Hear, been )
Before the proceeding. cote-
menced in the Ecclesiastical Court, the churchwardens of
the perish called a general meeting or vestry, to take into
cons,dcratinn the propriety of ploccellag further in the
case, and they were unanimously of opinion that. it wis in-
expedient to do so, on the ground that Parlour:ant in-
tended to make an alteration in the law t egardieg Church-
rates. He had the honour of presenting to the House
that day a pe,it;on from Leicester, signed ey 6 000 mita-
bi'arite of all sects and paitL.s. An address had also
gone up to the Throne, signed by 7,000 females of
Leicester; and he could safay 5537 that no ques-
tion had ev:r excited more general , interest
They
sympathy in that borough than Mr. W 7ines s case. hey.
felt that the means taken to enforce the payment of
Church-rates in the case of an honourable and indep.enclent
minded man, was a violation of all the principles of ji.rt.ice,
and was not calculated to advance the interests of religion.
How could such scenes and such occurrences possibly be-
nefit religion in any way ?—( Hear, hear.) The question
had been already dis.cuseed in OA House, and they were
aware what the sentiments t f the Noble Lord (J. Rui-
se'l) were on the subject. He bedeved it teas geaerally
acknowledged that these occurrences ywere itt-aoripted to
promote the cause of ieligiore or the interests of the Es-
tablished Church. He thought it eas extremelyinjudi-
cious to continue the enforcement cf a law which acted
against all the feelings of reli:;ioa
and buinanity. Hedid
not think the stifle:jogs and imprisonment of Mr. Baines
were required for the maintenance of any religieas worship,
nor could not advance the it,tere4ts of any reagents ceme
muriity. If be entered at any ;eiigth i Ito the subject or
Church-rates generalh, he felt ilia' he should be offe, adieg
against the pledge he -had given to the 1-I.:use, but ne.R-
gretted much to find that there existed in the minds
of some parties on that subject much. b.tterness
and uncharitableness, instead of the kindly fsel-
inga which should prompt them to devise a remedy for
tic grievance. He would remind the House that no
Church-rates were levied in Leicest -r, except in that one
parish, and no individual bad more honestly and sincerely
lamented the effeete produced by that
.li:filet:on than the
clergyman who presided. Mr. Ersteme, a name veer,
rateU (en,' of bee Gir.
hope) that of the fr;..eit'''''• of his life
ts-td tLet noth:e - es Iseee. tboi, eee
end put to suChseenes, The question v. as not confined to
the loyalty of Leicester, for already twenty-six indivi-