The Sun.
London, England, 1834-06-09 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT,

THIS DAY, MONDAY, JUNE 9.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

The SPEAKER took the chair at a quarter past twelve
o'clock.
Upon the motion of Mr. FITZ SIMON, the Kingstown
Harbour Bill was read a second time.
Upon the motion of Mr. O'CALL AGHAN, the
Mealiffe Enclosure Bill was read a second time.
The West of England Insurance Company Bill was read
a third time and passed, on the motion of Mr. DIVETT.
Upon the motion of Lord W. HILL, the Bembridge
and Belfast Roads Bill was read a second time.
Mr. RUTHVEN presented a petition from the
Chamber of Commerce of Dublin, against that part
of the Dublin and Kingstown Harbour Bill which goes
to separate the harbour of Kingstown from that
of Dublin.

Upon the motion of the LORD ADVOCATE, the
Leith Harbour Bill was ordered to be read a second time
this day six months, the honourable and learned member
stating that it was desirable that the bill should not be
proceeded with at present. The hon. and learned member
presented three petitions in favour of the bill.
Mr. J. WOOD presented a petition from a parish in
Lancashire, against certain clauses in the Poor Laws'
Amendment Bill, and from some place in the county of
Derby, against the Beer Bill.
Mr. E. ROMILLY presented a petition from certain
individuals of the county of Shropshire, against the altera-
tions in the Beer Bill ; and from the borough of Usk, in
favour of the alterations of the same bill.

Mr. NEELD presented a petition from Swinton, in the
county of Wilts, in favour of the church.
Mr. J. HEAT HCOTE presented a petition from Ti-
verton, Devon, against the Poor Laws' Amendment Bill.
Sir E. CODRINGTON presented a petition from an
individual of the name of Williams, a surgeon in the navy,
complaining of having been dismissed from the navy without
any just cause, and stating that the charges against him
were utterly false. The hon. and gallaa member denied
the right of the Admiralty to dismiss any officer from his
Majesty's service under the circumstances of the present
case. It was exercising a Royal prerogative contrary to
law, the consequence of which might be very severe.
(Hear, hear.) He knew that it was in contempla-
tion at one time at the Admiralty to strike him
(Sir E. Codrington) off the list, from political mo-
tives, but they did not dare to do so, for they knew that
he (Sir E. Codrington) had it in his power to appeal to
the opinion of his country, and that he would do so. But
here they thought they might trample on an officer with
safety, because he was not in a situation to resent ill-
treatment. He hoped the house would insist on having
the case fully inquired into.
Mr. LABOUCHERK defended the conduct of the
Board of Admiralty in exercising their authority in the
case, which they minutely investigated in 1826, and were
satisfied of the correctness of the allegations made against
him before they struck him off the list of half-pay officers.
Major BEAUCLERK said, whether the allegations
were true or false, the petitioner had not been treated in
a proper and constitutional manner. An officer ought not
to be deprived of the reward of his services ; and if the
petitioner had done anything derogatory to the character
of a gentleman and an officer, he ought to be tried by a
courtmartial. _ _

---
Sir JAMES GRAHAM coincided in the opinion ex-
pressed by Mr. Labouchere, and said it was proved by in-
disputable evidence that the petitioner was a swindler, and
therefore they felt justified in dismissing him from the ser-
vice. He denied that the gentlemen composing the Board
of Admiralty could be capable of acting against any indi-
vidual on the motive attributed to them by the hon. and
gallant admiral, namely, to curry favour with their supe-
riors. If he (Sir J. Graham) had seen any thing incon-
sistent with the character of an officer and a gentleman in
the conduct of the hon. and gallant admiral himself he
should neglect his duty if he failed to recommend this
Majesty to dismiss him. Under a monarchical govern-
ment like ours, it was necessary that an arbitrary control
over the army and navy should be vested in the Crown, so
far as it regarded promotion and dismissal.
Admiral ADAM said the Board of Admiralty was an-
swerable to the King and the country for their conduct,
and it was not likely they would be guilty of any injustice.
Sir E. CODRINGTON, in reply, said he had been
misrepresented ; he never denied that his Majesty had no
power, or that the King should not have the power of pro-
moting or dismissing officers. He never said that a man
who had behaved inconsistently with the character of
an lofficer and a gentleman, ought not to be dismissed,
but what he said was, that a man who had earned a sti-
pend by long and valuable services ought. not to be deprived
of it, though he was dismissed from the profession. The
hon. member for Taunton had spoken of his in-
sinuations. He was not a man to insinuate, but
he always spoke out boldly what he meant,
and would say to that hon. gentleman's face, and the hon.
baronet's too, whatever he might say behind their backs,
insinuations had been made against him, as if he had ever
brought the profession into dishonour ; but he would
say there was no one who had strove more than himself to
advance the honour of the profession. He knew how
cases were treated by the Admiralty, and it was his inten-
tion to have all t e eases of d smissal within a given pe-
riod brought before the house, for that was the proper
place in which to investigate such cases. He was
the last man to say any thing derogatory to the
authority and dignity of his sovereign ; all that he
meant was to deprecate the assumption of the King's name
by any bo iy of men to do that which was unjust.
(Hear, hear.) The petitioner and his accusers had
never been brought face to face, and therefore he
(Sir E. Codrington) had as much right to believe the pe-
titioner as he had to credit the stateme is of his ac-
cusers. (Hear, hear.) He himself had felt something
of the injustice with which the Board of Admi-
ralty acted towards individuals who came under their
ban; he had courted inquiry, and desired a courtmartial
which had been refused, and continued to be refused, and
he had been kept in the back ground because he would not
make himself politically subservient to party. (Hear,
hear, hear.) He should have an opportunity yet
of setting that and other matters to rights, and the Board
of Admiralty might depend that he was not to be deterred
from doing his duty either to the public or to himself.
The hon. and gallant member then presented a petition
from another medical officer in the navy, complaining that
after spending nearly the whole of his life in his Ma-
jesty's service, he was now about to be thrown on the poor
rates, having been refused his pension because he had, in
want of other employment, served on board a private
trader.

Sir J. GRAHAM denied that there was any injustice
in this case, and said that if complaints of this nature were
daily made, the discipline of the navy was at an end, and
he would not envy those who had brought about such a
state of things.
After a few words from Captain Du NnAs and Mr.
LA BO UCH E RE, the petition was laid on the table.
Mr. RUMBOLD presented a petition from the seamen
of Great Yarmouth, complaining of distress.
Mr. COATES presented a petition from the dissenters
of Wellington, praying for the removal of their disabilities;
and a petition from the same place, against the Beer Bill.
Mr. C. FERGUSSON presented a petition from Kirk-
cudbright against church patronage.
Colonel LEITH HAY presented three petitions from
places in Scotland, praying that no alteration might be
made in the law of patronage. He would venture to say
that these petitions expressed the opinion of the majority of
the enlightened population of Scotland. The hon. and
gallant member presented a petition from Great Beau-
tchheamupni in B
s
vers
petition. itiuecsk. s,
Hageaidnisdt admissionotohteogreeio
th
eof p
rdoi;
es er n toefr st
htoe
Mr. C. FERGUSSON said that the great mass of the
population of Scotland were opposed
and the
the
majorityp sen t system
ttehme
of church patronage in Scotland, an
General Assembly had expressed themselves hostile to it.
The petitions were then laid on the
table.
Sir J. ASTLEY presented two petitions from Wilts in
favour of the church.
u es
BLAKE
aoLt
obLAI
miQKs
ahuEke
edll
spoocr
nheusueNer
ncthe,d
regulationa presentedn d
several pt
oe
at ipti
eim petitionot npi
t improve
fm
esm t
hfßfreroloa npmm theodr ttb
Presbytery of Old Stirling, against church patronage.
therd
county of Galway, against tithes ; and a petition praying
of
Lord A LENNOX presented a petition from Chichester
upon the subject of drunkenness ; also petitions in favour
oafgltilhhinrreos..t church rates.
theA
Galway, with respect to the pilots employed by the cor-
poration.

Mr. ROBINSON recommended the hon. member to
bring the subject of the pilotage before the commission of
corporation inquiry.
Mr. F. O'CONNOR supported the petition for the
total abolition of tithes.

Mr. DUNLOP presented petions from Renfrew, &c.,
in favour of the better observance of the Sabbath, and
against church patronage.
Petitions were also presented by Col. Arbuthnot, from
Dumfries, in favour of church patronage ; by Mr. Dash-
wood, from Aylesbury and Amersham, against the
Church Rate Bill ; by Sir W. Foulkes, from se-
veral parishes in the county of Norfolk, against
certain clauses in the Poor Laws' Amendment Bill,
and others from the same county, against the Tithe
Commutz.tim Bill; by Mr. Finch, from Stamford, against
dissenters ; by Mr. Bethel, from 13ridgington ( York ),
against the Poor Laws Amendment Bill ; by Mr. Hall
from Timsbury (Somersctshire), against admission of dis-
senters into the universities; from Dudley insupport of the
church, and from Stafford against the Poor Laws' Amend-
ment Bill ; by Mr. Forster from two parishes in Stafford-
shire in favour of the church ; by Mr. Parker, from Shef-
field, against the Beer Bill, and from the same place in
favour of it ; by Mr. Wilson Patten, from the parishes of
Warrington, Luleham, and other places in Lancashire,
in support of the church, and against the Dissen-
ters, and several from the same county against the
Poor Laws' Amendment Bill; by Sir Andrew Ag-
new, from the parish of Almonbury (York ), in favour of
the Ministers' Appointment Bill ; by Sir T. Fr_e_mora7.l,4
from Buckingham against the Dissenters, from II '