The Sun.
London, England, 1846-08-10 00:00:00

BOARD OF ORDNANCE.

On the order of the day for going into Committee on the
Ordnance Estimates being read,
Mr. HUME moved the following resolution—" That a Se-
lect Committee be appointed, to inquire into the conduct of
the Board of Ordnance, in their refusing to inquire into al-
leged malversion of the public stores by officers et that depart-
ment, and into the cause and manner of dismissal of Daniel
Toner, a pensioner for good service in the Artillery, from het
Majesty's service, without allowing the said D. Toner to be pre-
sent at the Court of inquiry, or to he heard on his own defence.
The only charge against Daniel Toner was, that en coming
into the pay-office he was desired by one of the clerks to take
off his hat. He refused, however, to do so, as not being in
accordance with usage to do so. This individual was afterwards
dismissed on this trumpery charge, which ought never to have
been made, as it is even now not customary to take off their hats
in that office. It appeared also that twenty-three pieces of
ordnance were stolen from the arsenal at Woolwich, and that
Board afterward refused to inquire into the malversation, al.;.
thi.ugh Daniel Toner offered such in'ormation as would tend
to the detection of the cu'prits. He complained of the depart-
ment not being conducted in a proper manner, and he thought
that a committee of inquiry was necessary. He would, there-
fore, move that a Committee be appointed to investigate all
the circumstances.
Colonel PEEL said the motion of the Hon. Member con-
tained two serious charges against the late Master General of
the Board of Ordnance. First, for refusing to inquire into al-
leged malversation of the public stores, and the dismissal of
Daniel Tonor without being heard in his own defence. As to
the first a Committee of inquiry was appointed by the Board,
all the evidence was heard and examined into, and Mr. Jones,
for certain irregularities, was dismissed the service. Daniel
Toner was hear as prosecution, and towards the close of the
inquiry, he was asked whether he had any other charges
against Mr. Jones, and the answer was, " Not at present,"—or
whether he had any charge against any other individuals in the
service, and he said, " None whatever." Till the present
time he (Colonel Peel) had not heard of this offer by Colonel
Toner. As for the second charge, two letters were sent by
the clerk of the pay-office to the civil officer, com-
plaining of incivilities on the part of Colonel
Toner ; that he alone, when an order had been
made that all the labourers, in running into the office, should
take off their hats, refused to comply with it. The case was
referred to the Board at Woolwich, and Lord Bloomfield, on
hearing it, ordered that Torneer should be suspended imme-
diately suspended; and, as he ( Colonel Peel) thought, pro-
perly so, when insubordination was manifested in the service.
He said he had stated the facts of the case, and would certainly
not object to the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry.
Colonel FOX said that he believed the late Board In..d acted
tenet properly in a case of such gross insult, and that the pre-
sent Board would have acted in precisely the same way.
Mr. HUME said that the Gallant Gentleman (Colonel
Peel) had made no answer or explanation about the refusal of
evidence offered by Turner in the case of the theft of the
pieces of ordnance.
Colonel PEEL said the Hon. Member asked why there was
no inquiry mace ; a letter was sent to the storekeeper, the
storekeeeper directed him to address his letters to the secretary
of the board, which was the only regular way.
Mr. HUME said he had a letter of the 29th January, re-
fusing to hear evidence on it.
Captain PECHELL said this motion reminded him of
several petitions presented by himself from a gentle-
man at Fort William, who had in vain requested
a Board, in order that he might substantiate some charges of
malversation by a certain barrack-master at Fort William. He
He could not recall the particulars, but the Gallant Colonel had
it to his power to refer to the particulars, which had several
times appeared in petitions before the House, although he
(Captain Pechell) was sorry to say in vain. He hoped, how-
ever, that the present Beard would act differently from their
predecessors.
Mr. HUME said, considering the late period of the session,
he would withdraw his motion for a Committee, but he was
sorry at the result of the present discussion.
Mr. HENLEY said the explanations which had been offered
were far from satisfactory.
Mr. WILLIAMS then moved, pursuant to notice, for a
copy of the circular (No. 58) issued by the Lords Commission-
ers of the Admiralty, and the accompanying memotandum,
dated the 13th day of November, 1830, which gives authority to
flog seamen and marines serving inherMajesty'sshbipys
Lieutenantandvessels
of war. A copy of the 9th charge preferred
Walker, commanding her Majestyihs2stteamday steamer
of May, 3, to
,belfBore4the
Court-martial assembled on the
t ryCaptainfiePggiginotg, ofa hersea Majesty'sman
o f
the ship B a ram
sent an
Alban
Cap-
tain Pigot with an order to Lieutenant Walker, both
and the
war-
rant
for
dated the 28th day of May, 1832 ; also of the minutes of the
evidence in support of the charge, and for the defence. A copy
of the minutes of evidence given before the court-martial as-
sembled, on the 9th day of August, 1844, to try Lieutenant
W. H. Bridge, of her Majesty's steamer Cormorant,
and of theof charge
the
courtpfe against And thathi an m,
and
dumtlehe
judgment
address be presented to her Majesty, that she will be
generously pleased to direct that the opinion of the law officers
of the Crown be obtained as to tte legality of the sentence
passed on each of the cases of the courts-martial, and also as to i
the legality of the proceedingool the one OA Lieut. Midge.