The Sun.
London, England, 1835-05-13 00:00:00

BREACH OF NAVAL DISCIPLINE.

The same Noble and Learned Lord seeing the First Lord of
the Admiralty in his place, would ask him a question upon a sub-
iect which had caused considerable surprise to him and the public
at lare—the subject was a very great outrage committed by a
Captain in the Navy (Lord Ingestrie, as we are informed), in
respect to a gentleman who was passenger on board his ship.
Nothing was imputed to this person beyond bad temper,
vet he was not brought to a court martial ; and when
he recollected the case of a most deserving officer who had
been dismissed from the service of which he was an ornament,
and to which his whole heart, and soul, and life, were
devoted, he could not help thinking, as the case was one of
infirmity of temper of the same description, that it was some-
thing extraordinary that the Noble Officer in the present case
was not also tried. If the facts were not true—if they were
all fiction—he should be truly delighted to find it so; but if
they were true, that inquiry should take place which had taken
place in the case of an ordinary Captain, who was not pro-
tected by powerful friends.
Lord AUCKLAND had received no distinct account of
the circumstances referred to ; the whole rested upon vague
rumours, and newspaper reports.—( Hear, hear.) If the cir-
cumstances were regularly brought before him, he should con-
sider it his duty to act as he should be advised to do by those
whom he should consult.
Lord BROUGHAM thought that the Noble Lord ought
to direct inquiry to be made in the proper quarter, as, whether
these rumours were well founded or not, they were very pre-
valent, and were believed out of the House, and their disbelief
of them would not make the country discredit them.
Lord MELVILLE made a few observations which were
not heard in the gallery.
Lord BERESFORD repeated that both parties were satis-
fied, thematter was solely of a private nature, and he could not
conceive what purpose the Noble and Learned Lord could have
in bringing it before the House. The only effect of it could be
to revive a private quarrel.
Lord BROUGHAM begged to tell the Noble Vis-
count that it was the first timehe had ever heard that a
legislator was prohibited from introducing a subject of this
kind.—( Cries of " Hear, hear.) A course precisely
similar was pursued in the House of Commons by Sir Francis
Burdett, and again by Mr. Wyndham. The Noble Viscount
has, therefore, a lesson to learn, if he thinks it is the first time
that a subject of this description was brought under the con-
sideration of the Legislature. It was not a private
question, but one of a positive public character—re-

quiring, nay, demanding public cognizance, whether
in this House or in the House of Commons. It was a prac-
tice countenanced by the Constitution—the Noble Vis-
count may smile at the name of the Constitution, but whatever
Constitutions the Noble Viscount may have been at the death
Qr birth of—whatever Constitution he may have observed the
practice of, the English Constitution authorised the doctrine he
contended for, when he asserted that the House and the Go-
vernment were called upon to notice the present transaction
as a distinct public breach of discipline in a public officer, and
not, as asserted, merely a private affair.
Viscount BE RE S FORD denied that he sneered at the
mention of the Constitution made by the Noble and
Learned Lord. He neither sneered at it, nor did he
intend to sneer or look so, when it was named. He repeated,
it was a private quarrel, and was settled by the parties quite to
their satisfaction.

The Marquis of SALISBURY considered it was neces-
sary to use caution in bringing matters of this kind before their
Lordships.
Lord BROUGHAM replied.
Lord COLVILLE took a similar view of the subject
as the Noble Marquis (Salisbury,) but he differed from the
Noble and Learned Lord as to the manner in which the ques-
tion was brought before the House of Commons.
Lord BROUGHAM did not make his objection on ac-
count of the injury done to the individual. His objection,
which he had stated distinctly, was to the breach of disci
pline committed by an officer of the navy, in using for
private purposes—and he cared not whether the individual
against whom the outrage bad been committed forgave him or
not—the force entrusted to him for the performance of a public
duty.

The Earl of COLCHESTER explained.
The Duke of BUCCLEUGH said that he did not
rise for the purpose of prolonging the conversation, but
he wished to state, on the information of a person who was
on board the vessel at the time, that there was nothing in
the case which would warrant the rumours and reports that
had been circulated. He knew not how these reports bad
originated, but he was satisfied that there was nothing in the
conduct of that Gallant Officer to call for the interference
of the Admiralty. He felt himself bound in justice to the
Gallant Officer to make that statement.—(Cheers.)
The Earl of BUTE presented a great number of petitions
from parishes in Argyleshire, Ayr, &c., in support of the
Church of Scotland.

On the motion of the Earl of SHAFTESBURT, their Lordships
adjourned to Thursday next.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, MA: 12.

The House resumed its sittings this day, the Speaker taking
the chair at the usual hour, viz., half-past three o'clock.

During the recess several alterations have been made in the
House ; two new stairs have been erected, leading from the
body of the House, behind the Speaker's chair, up to the gal-
leries ; and the Speaker's chair has been advanced about
four feet nearer to the centre of the House ; it still, how-
ever, retains its clumsy shape, and will be equally, if not more,
effective in rendering the Speaker, and some of the Members
who take up their position in the neighbourhood of the
Speaker's chair, inaudible. There is a great improvement in
the ventilation of the House, several new ventilators having
been made in the roof, and in other parts of the House.