Star.
London, England, 1821-07-03 00:00:00

PREVENTIVE SERVICE.

Sir W. DE CRESPIGNY rose to bring under the
notice of the House a subject to which he considered
some attention was due—he alluded to the manner
in which General Warrants were issued from the Ex-
chequer in aid of the Preventive Service. He apo-
logized for bringing on a matter of this sort so late
in the Session, but he was unable to bring it on
sooner, as it was only on Saturday last that the ne-
cessary documents were put into his hands. The
Hon. Baronet then went on to state his reasons for
calling the attention of Parliament to the subject.
He named the cases wherein the execution of General
Warrants had been attended with the most serious
inconvenience. One of these cases was that of a Clergy-
man in the Isle of Portland, who, upon going to
church, was assaulted in the rudest way by some
seamen of the Preventive Service, and though he
made strong complaints of this treatment in the pro-
per quarter, no redress was given. The other case
was that of a respectable married woman, at Wey-
mouth, of the name of Gibbs, who was so brutally
treated , by the same seamen, hat her life was put
in danger. These seamen were licensed, it would
seem by their warrant, in thus insulting indivi-
duals, under pretence of searching for smuggled.
goods. It appeared to him that if such things were
suffered to go by with impunity, no man's wife or,
daughter was safe from insult. The Hon. Baronet
concluded by moving for a copy of the warrant issued
to a man named Brooks, engaged in the Preventive,
Service at Weymouth or the Isle of Portland ; as also.
for information upon the steps which had been taken,
to redress the Rev. Mr. Madden for the insults which
had been offered him.
The C H ANC ELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said,
that he knew nothing of the cases alluded to, but he
thought the Honourable Baronet might have taken,
some other mode of getting information and redress,'
by applying at the proper offices, than by thus,
bringing the matter under the consideration of Par-
liament. He considered this an improper place for
calling for such information, and he therefore moved
the previous question.
Mr. BENNETT recommended the Hon. Baronet
to withdraw his Motion.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said,
that if application was made at the Treasury, he
would do all in his power to procure the most satis-
factory information.
Sir J. SEBRIGHT agreed with the Right Hon.
Gentleman, that inquiries had been more properly
made elsewhere than in this House. He himself had,
often heard complaints made of the same nature as
this, but he had invariably received the most satis-
factory answers at the Public Offices, or from the
Commanding Officers. Being upon his legs, he could
not help saying that he thought the service in gene-
ral, but more particularly the Army, was greatly
prejudiced by this sort of appeal to Parliament oa
every occasion.
Sir W. DE CRESPIGNY said, he had brought
the matter forward, upon an understanding that re-
dress had been asked, but reliased at the Treasury.—
He had no objection, however, to withdraw his Mo-
tion, and be directed by the Right Hon. Gentleman
as to the course by which redress was.to be obtained.
The Motion was then withdrawn.
NAVY hiALI•PAY.
Mr. F. BUXTON held in his hand a Petition from
two individuals, which stated cases of great distress.
It related to the conduct which the Gentlemen en-
trusted with the direction of the Admiralty had
adopted towaxdsthe Petitioners ; and though he (Mr.
Buxton) was always ready to do these Gentlemen
credit for their exertions, he could not help saying
that their conduct in this instance. was marked by
groat harshness. The Petition came from two La-
dies, Mrs. Bevan and Mrs. Harrison, the former of,

whom was-the wife of an Officer that had been con-1
tinuallt engaged in the service since 1780. In 1781
he was sent to the West Indies, returned in 1784,
and was sent again in 1786. He was engaged in the
subsequent French war for sixteen years, and he then
fell a victim to that-greatest of visitations—insanity.
His wife received his half-pay, and Government sup-
ported him in his illness until 1818. In that year,
applying for the half-pay, his wife was told that an
order of the Admiralty had been made, by which
one-half of his half-pay was to go to the support of
her husband. This was the greater hardship, as the
Lady had had no previous notice, and had besides,
counting upon receiving this money, contracted debts
which now pressed heavily upon her—(Hear, hear).
The effect of the order, therefore, was of a retrospec-,
tive nature. It was a case of great hardship, and the
only answer given to the representations of these
Ladies was, that they might have the entire of the
half-pay if they would maintain their husbands.—
With regard to one of the Petitioners,_ she was in great
distress indeed ; her furniture and effects having been
seized, and herself actually turned out. The other
had been for some time attached to the service of a
Lady who was now dead, and her distress was also
very great. The rule of the Admiralty was attended
with great hardship ; and, indeed, supposing the prac-
tice to have existed fur more than a century, the de-
privation of these women of their husbands half-pay
was a great injustice, for they had, in fact, a right
to it. These Ladies had been receiving the half-pay
for fourteen years, and it was very bard that they
should now be deprived of it. The Hon. Member
concluded by moving that the Petition be brought up.
The SPEAKER asked, of what nature was the
prayer of the Petition—whether it was for pecuniary
relief or not?

Mr. BUXTON said, it was in some measure for
the restoration of their salaries. _ _

Mr. BANKES thought the Petition could not be
received consistently with the forms of the House.
The SPEAKER said, that if the Petition sought
pecuniary relief alone, it could not be received in its
present shape. This House could not grant money
without a recommendation from the Crown; not that
because this recommendation was wanting to carry
the grant through the House, but in order to check
applications which would, if this form was not ne-
cessary, be made without number to the House. He
observed, however, that if there was any doubt on
the subject, it would be well to read the Petition, and
the House might then judge what steps it was pro-
per to take upon it.
Sir JOSEPH YORKE said the half-pay had been
already granted.
Mr. BANKES said, that however painful it was
to their feelings to refuse the Petition of an indivi-
dual, yet the Standing Order of the House could not
be transgressed.
Mr. W. WYNN was of the same opinion.
Sir G. COCKBURN said, that as an objection
arose to the Petition of a formal nature, it might be
irregular to go into the merits of the case; he could,
however, shew that the Petitioners had no claim at
all upon Government.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said that that
was not ground enough for receiving this Petition.
By this argument, the rules of every department of
the State might be constantly brought before the
House. It was said pecuniary relief was not the
prayer of the Petition, but he was not quite sure that
to obtain money, the Petitioner would begin by
breaking the rule. The arrangement of all these mat-
ters belonged properly to the Executive Government.
Mr. BENNETT recommended his Hon. Friend to
withdraw the Petition for the present.
Mr. BROGDEN stated that the Orders of the
House would not admit a claim for pecuniary relief,
without a recommendation from the Crown.
Mr. BUXTON consented to withdraw the Peti-

non for the present, and bring it forward to-morrow,
in a less objectionable form.—Petition withdrawn.

DELAYS IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY.

Mr. BENNETT presented a Petition from Jane
Dawson Doubleday, complaining of delay in the
Court of Chancery ; Petitioner stated that she had a
suit in that Court since 1807, and was most anxious
that it should be determined..—The Petition was
laid upon the table, and ordered to be printed.