Commons Sitting of 15 February 1810

CAPTAIN WARWICK LAKE'S COURT MARTIAL.
Sir Francis Burdettrose to call the attention of the House to a very interesting subject which he thought demanded their most serious consideration. He had no other authority relative to the fact which he wished to bring under the observation of the House, than the statement he had seen in the public newspapers, that a sea captain, in the British service, had been lately brought to trial by a court-martial, for a most inhuman act of wanton and deliberate barbarity towards a British seaman on board his own vessel. It was stated that he had put this seaman ashore upon a barren rock in the Western Islands without provisions, and exposed him to perish by famine; a circumstance which accidentally reached the knowledge of government through the

425
American newspapers. This officer was brought to trial by a court-martial, and on being proved guilty of the fact, he was merely sentenced to be dismissed the service. What the hon. baronet wished to know was, whether the government of the country meant to stop here with such a fact in proof before them, or, whether they meant to take any further steps upon a subject so disgraceful to the service, so materially interesting to the life and security of every seaman in his Majesty's fleet; a circumstance which, if so slightly passed over, might have the most serious effects in the naval service. As no farther, steps were taken, nor seemed to be intended by government, he felt it his duty, in his place as a member of parliament, to call the attention of the House to the subject. He hoped, however, that government would not allow it to pass over without taking some further steps; for if such wanton and tyrannical occurrences were once suffered to obtain with impunity, there would be an end of all order and good government in our fleets.
Mr. R. Wardsaid, he knew nothing more of the transaction than that the captain, to whom he supposed the hon. baronet had alluded, was brought to a court-martial for the fact stated, had been found guilty, and sentenced by the court-martial to dismissal from the service. That sentence had since been carried into effect, and the board had it not in its power to do more.
Sir F. Burdettsaid, that he did not think his question had been answered. Was such a heinous act as the one in question to be allowed to pass with such comparative impunity? If it was, the principle might be carried to such an extent as to affect the security of the country in its most vital point. Was it to be endured—
The Speakersaid, that if the hon. member had any notice or motion to ground upon his statement, it would be for him then to proceed to make it, but that it was not conformable to the usages of that House to admit of the continuance of any discussion not arising out of a motion, as such must necessarily be productive of much inconvenience to the regular course of business
Sir F. Burdettsaid, that he thought the question arising out of the statement he had made of much greater importance than any, involving the temporary convenience of gentlemen. (Cries of Chair! chair!) Matter of convenience ought to
426
give way to matter of life and death, affecting the subject. If indeed they felt nothing for the lives and liberties of English seamen—
The Speakersaid, that it was imperative upon him as long as the House would support him, to insist upon the due observance of the rules and usages that regulated their proceedings. It was contrary to the practice of that House to admit of any debate when there was no question before them, or to entertain any motion of importance without a previous notice.
Sir F. Burdettsaid, that he felt it exceedingly hard upon him to be beat down in such a manner, in the statement of what he thought a great public grievance. (Chair! chair!) The hon. baronet then said, that he would take a day or two to consider what would be the best form to bring the matter before the House, and that he would for the present content himself with that general notice

ABUSES IN THE NAVY AND BARRACK DEPARTMENTS.
Mr. Wardlerose, in pursuance of notice, to move for certain papers respecting the appointments to civil situations in the barrack department and some of the departments of the navy. He had stated on a former evening, that it was his intention thereon to found generally some propositions for bettering the situation of a large body of useful, meritorious public servants, who had suffered materially from the system of abuse which had been carried on in some of the navy departments. His object in this motion was to shew to the House, that many instances had occurred of abuses in the appointments of both departments; and if the papers should be granted, he would pledge himself to prove his statement to be perfectly correct. Apprehensive, however, that the papers would be refused, he should feel it necessary to go into the subject at some length, in order to shew that he had not brought forward his motion without sufficient grounds. A gentleman had applied to him not long since, who had stated to him certain instances of abuses, and requested he would take some notice of the subject in the House. He had assured him, that having a place in the naval department, horn which he was obliged to retire, he was told by an officer that he was intitled to some remuneration in consequence; and that upon this subject he had applied without effect to the lords of the Admiralty. The same gentleman also stated that he was informed

427
it was not unusual, when lord Barham was comptroller of the navy, to sell places in the navy office. Mr. Wardle said he did not know how such a practice could be considered fair or proper, as he recollected that a prosecution had been some time ago directed against a person for only attempting to purchase a place under government. Indeed he could not have supposed that the practice could be looked upon as innocent, if he had not heard from an hon. member to whom he had communicated his motion since he came down to the House that it was not considered any abuse. He did not know, whether lord Barham would vindicate the practice; but as things were circumstanced, he conceived it highly necessary that inquiry should take place: more especially when so late as the 31st of October, 1809, a specific charge was made against a Mr. Prentice, for the sale of clerkships in the barrack department, five or six places were stated to have been actually sold by him; but no inquiry on this subject had yet taken place. He therefore stated the facts, and trusted the House would go with him in calling for the papers; and he would be content to abandon his charge, if he did not substantiate it from the vouchers.
In the Navy Pay Office and Admiralty, he understood that the appointments were made on a fair and equitable footing; the salary being proportioned to length of service; but there were other offices where the case was quite the reverse. In the Navy Office for instance, it was usual to promote junior clerks over the heads of men who were many years their seniors in the service. There was one instance in which a junior clerk, who had been but 11 years in the office, was promoted to a place of 300 l. a year, over the heads of senior clerks who had been from 27 to 30 years in the service. That fact he should undertake to prove to the satisfaction of the House, if the papers for which he intended to move should be granted. Such a practice as this would, he was convinced, appear to the House to call for a speedy and effectual remedy. It was his opinion that it could not be justified upon any public grounds, and could arise from no other cause than that some of the places were sold, and others not. He would repeat the assertion, that to him the difference in the amount of these salaries was to be attributable to no other cause; and all he asked for were the do-
428
cuments, in order to shew that it must be so.—There was another point to which he wished their attention to be directed concerning the superannuated list, and particularly the case of a gentleman who had been superannuated against his will. The officer to whose case he alluded, had been obliged to retire on an allowance of 170 l. per annum, and a boy of 14 years of age was then appointed to his situation, over the heads of senior clerks, and at a raised salary. [In what department? across the table.] In the Sick and Hurt Office; and the case he should prove if the documents should be granted to him. The usual mode of superannuating officers was entirely done away in this instance. He wished also to bring the case of Mr. Butt, a case of much hardship, under the consideration of the House. [What date? was asked.] In the year 1794. With regard to the pension list in that office on its being removed from Somerset House to Dorset Square, he should shew that one officer, the secretary, was pensioned off at his full salary of 500 l. and an assistant appointed in his stead at a raised salary of 1,000 l. being exactly double what the former officer had.—In addition to all these cases, he had another not less worthy of the attention of that House to advert to, namely, the creation of several new offices, with very unmerited salaries annexed—salaries for which no duties of correspondent value were to be performed. These practices took place amongst the commissioners of the navy, and the new offices were given to the members of the Committee of these commissioners. One gentleman, for acting as chairman of that Committee, was allowed 200 l. in addition to his former salary of 1,000 l. and each of the members had an additional 150 l. But to entitle these gentlemen to such augmentation of income, no additional duties were required of them. All the business they had to do was performed within the usual hours of their sitting, and in the Committee-room; so that he should contend that no additional salary ought to have been allowed to them.—Having said thus much, in order to satisfy the House as to the grounds of his bringing these subjects under consideration, he should not trespass longer upon its time, but conclude with moving, "That there be laid before the House copies of all letters which passed between the lords commissioners of the admiralty and Mr. Butt, late clerk in the Navy Office, relative to his claims

429
for compensation, and his subsequent resignation, between the 1st of May, 1809, and the 16th of January, 1810; and also, copies of all letters which passed between the first lord of the admiralty and that person within the same, period."
Mr. R. Ward, observing that the hon. gent. had divided the object of his motion in his notice under two heads, one as relating to the admiralty, the other to the barracks, said, that of course it could not be expected that he could speak to the latter part. As to what had been said by the hon. member relative to the case of Mr. Butt, he must be allowed to say, that he misrepresented the case itself, as much as he had done what he (Mr. Ward) had communicated to him on that subject since his coming to the House that day. The hon. member had represented him as having said, that the practice he denounced, namely, the sale of offices, was not an abuse. Now, he had never said so, nor was he of that opinion. He had asked for the date of the case respecting Mr. Butt, because he had never before heard of it. He supposed it, however, to have been a case of the sale of an office. Such a case, he knew, was abstractedly an abuse; but, if the practice was sanctioned by long usage, it could not justly have been considered criminal in those concerned in it. As well might it be considered criminal in judges to sell offices in the courts of law, though the parliament recognized their right to dispose of them for money. The noble person whose name had been mentioned by the hon. gent. Could, he was convinced, have no objection to the fullest investigation of every transaction which took place during his official service. But before the House should sanction such an inquiry, it was bound to see that good grounds were laid for it. What was the fact? In 1786, a Committee was appointed to inquire into the extent and propriety of fees. Lord Barham, then sir C. Middleton, who was at the head of the navy board, and the other commissioners of that board, were examined before the Committee, and fairly and openly stated that their salaries were made up in part of gratuities and fees received in consequence of the practice alluded to. The report of the Committee declared that the practice was a bad one, but not that the exercise of it was an abuse or criminal in any of those who had been concerned in it. The words of the report were, "That the practice of receiving
430
gratuities on the appointment of clerks was bad, though it had been sanctioned by-long usage." In ten years after, the practice was abolished, and in consequence the salary of the comptroller was raised from 500 l. nominally, to 1,500 l. and an addition of 200 l. given to the other commissioners. As to what had been said by the hon. gent., with respect to the promotion of a junior over senior clerks, as he had not stated any specific case, nor charged the practice as having been founded in corruption or undue motives, the House, he was persuaded, would not think this an inquiry to be entertained, to the great detriment of public, business, and the mischievous embarrassment of the public offices. The Sick and Hurt Office, to which the hon. gent. had alluded, no longer existed. It was incorporated with the Transport Office, and this change had given rise to arrangements highly advantageous to the public service. If the hon. member charged the pension which had been granted to sir W. Gibbons, on the suppression of the board to which he had belonged, as an instance of corruption, he must go on to charge the beneficial arrangements which followed the suppression of that office, as a corrupt transaction. The pension was granted upon the same principle as governed every similar case. Upon all these grounds, he should vote against the motion, so far as the navy board was concerned.
Mr. Wilberforcehoped that the hon. gent. would withdraw his opposition to the motion, because, as the question had been brought forward, it would he much more reputable for the noble person alluded to, that a full and thorough investigation of the case should take place. As the friend of that noble lord, he wished that the inquiry should proceed, and should be sorry that any proceeding in that House should prevent the question from being placed in the clearest possible light. He could state of his own knowledge, that all the arrangements for reform which had been adopted subsequently to the report of 1786, had been introduced at the express desire of lord Barham. In short, that noble person, at the time, consented to remain in office only on the condition that these reforms should be carried into effect.
Mr. Noelconcurred in the sentiments that had been expressed by the hon. gent. of his noble relation. He was certain that it was the wish of his noble relation that the motion should be assented to, because any

431
inquiry must tend to set forth his character in its true light.
Sir F. Burdettconceived that it was necessary the papers should be produced. The hon. gent. had allowed that it was injurious to the service that the practice should be continued, a practice which he stated was sanctioned by time. This was the general argument when any thing was wrong: it had been so in the case of lord Macclesfield, but he was not aware that the feelings of those times were not to govern the present. Lord Macclesfield had been found guilty of selling the places of masters in Chancery, and a severe punishment had followed. According to the statement of the hon. gent. this improper practice ought to have stopped in 1786. Now, his hon. friend had stated similar transactions to have taken place in 1794. Was not that a reason for inquiry? The hon. gent. had stated, that sir W. Gibbons had a pension given him, on the incorporation of two departments; but he did not know the fact before, nor would he pretend to say it was a job, though it looked very like one, but he was at a loss to conjecture why it was that a commissioner of the Sick and Hurt Office, should have a pension. What possible services could he have done to the public, that they should he burthened with a pension for him?
Mr. W. Polebegged to state, that when he was secretary to the admiralty, it was the anxious wish of lord Mulgrave, that the same regulations which prevailed in the navy pay-office and in the admiralty, might also be adopted in the navy office. But from the constitution of the establishment of the clerks, it was found, after an attentive investigation of the case, that these regulations could not be introduced into the pay-office, without a considerable sacrifice of expence. In this opinion too the commissioners of Naval Revision concurred. This statement he felt it his duty to make, and he hoped it would be satisfactory to the hon. gent.
Mr. Whitbreadshould vote for the papers, on the ground of what had been stated by his hon. friend, and the two friends of the noble lord.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerdid not think the House ought to feel in the same manner as the friends of the noble, lord, nor agree to the motion, unless a sufficient ground were laid for it. The Report of the committee of 1786 recommended the abolition of fees, and an increase of sa-
432
lary in lieu of them. The Order in Council for the abolition of the fees did not issue till 1796, so that the old practice continued till that period. As the fact, to which the paper moved for applied, had taken place before that period, he trusted the House would not think any inquiry into a practice, not then prohibited, necessary. As to what had been said relative to a transaction in the barrack department, it would have been desirable that the hon. gent. had been more explicit.
Mr. Wardle, in reply, informed the right hon. gent. that a written statement had been given in to the commissioners of the barrack board on the 31st of October last, by Wm. Pearse, a clerk in that department, containing an accusation against a Mr. Prentice, another clerk employed in a very responsible and confidential office in that department, that he had sold the offices in it, and that too since the bill of the right hon. gent. against the sale of offices. It also charged him with having employed clerks to prepare false accounts. He had further to state, that a letter had also been written to the lords of the treasury, stating the practice, and calling their attention to it. He had himself seen the letters, and he could assure the House, that they would bear out his statement.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerdeclared his readiness to agree to the motion for the production of these papers.
Lord Folkestonehaving received information, that, in consequence of a prosecution sometime since instituted against a firm for the sale of offices in the city, the penalties of which prosecution the parties were now suffering, some papers or letters implicating other parties in similar offences had been put into the hands of the law officers of the crown, he wished to be informed by these gentlemen, whether such documents had been given to them; and if so, whether it was their intention to take proceedings against the parties so implicated.
The Attorney-Generalanswered, that it had been stated by the parties, the objects of the prosecution (Messrs. Pohlman and Keylock,) in order to give colour to their own practices, that persons high in office were concerned in the sale of offices. Amongst others, it had been stated that the duke of Portland made 30,000 l. a year by the sale of offices, and also that the lord chancellor was engaged in the practice. Upon such grounds he could not

433
harbour the slightest suspicion, still loss institute a prosecution. He had no paper of the kind mentioned by the noble lord put into his hands, and consequently he had no proceedings to institute.
The Solicitor Generalstated, that he neither had received any such documents nor information.
Mr. Hiley Addingtonsaid, that after the statement which an hon. member had made of existing abuses in the Barrack department, he should support his motion respecting them, but he should oppose the production of the correspondence between the first lord of the Admiralty and Mr. Butt, as no specific charge was made against lord Barham.—The first motion was then put and negatived without a division.
Mr. Wardlenext moved for a general return of all the clerks in the different departments in the Navy Office, Navy Pay-Office, Sick and Hurt, and Transport Board, with the dates of their entries, ages, periods of their service, salaries at which they entered, and the augmentations since made to them, &c.
Mr. R. Wardsaid, the hon. member might as well move for a committee of the House, to take into consideration the salaries allowed to every clerk in the different offices under government, and that, too, without any case made out. If the hon. gent. however, would come forward with any specific case, or with any corrupt charge, he should be ready to second his motion.
Mr. Wardlerepealed what he had already said, that there were in these departments senior clerks, unexceptionable in point of character and ability, of 27 years standing, with salaries of 200 l. a year, and junior clerks in the same offices, without better qualifications, who had salaries of 400 l. or 500 l. a year.
Mr. D. Giddysaid, all considerations being equal, he should certainly wish to give the preference to seniority; but if there could be any one thing more ruinous than another it would be to act on this as a general principle, particularly in public offices. It would go the length of saying, that a person who was the senior must be preferred even over one of the greatest capacity.—The motion was put and negatived without a division.
Mr. Wardlethen moved for a copy of the Memorial or Statement from Mr. W. Pearce, late clerk in the Barrack department, sent to the commissioners on barrack
434
affairs, in 1809, with a letter to the lords of the treasury, calling their attention to that memorial.—Ordered.

EMBEZZLEMENT BILL.
Sir John Newportmoved that this bill be recommitted. The House having resolved into the Committee,
Mr. Rosethought that some case should have been laid before the House by the hon. baronet, as the ground upon which he had thought it right to bring forward this measure. He did not feel it necessary to augment the list of felonies, without cause; and he was apprehensive, that if the Bill were to pass in its present form, it would be productive of great inconvenience and embarrassment to the public service. Gentlemen of respectability would not feel desirous of engaging in the public service in places of great trust in the collection of the revenue, with the penalty of transportation hanging over them, as would be the case if this Bill were to pass; and upon a charge so difficult to be defined, and so easy to be misrepresented and misconceived as embezzlement.
Sir John Newportexpressed some surprise at this delicate sensibility on the subject of penalties when they approached a public office, where the son or the brother of a great man might be affected. He had stated on a former occasion the circumstance of a collector, who had absconded with 27,000 l. of the public money in his hands, and had afterwards been taken with 7,000 l. of it in his possession, as the ground of this bill. In that case, if the clerk of that collector had been guilty, he would have suffered death; but as the law at present stood, no adequate punishment could be inflicted upon the principal, and, therefore, the law officers had not thought it desirable to proceed against him. It was to remedy this glaring defect in the law that he had brought forward this bill. When he considered that the right hon. gent. must have been a party to the passing of a bill imposing the penalty of death on the clerk or cashier of a bank for embezzlement; and also to the act, rendering it a transportable offence to shoot, ensnare, or kill deer in a close park or paddock, he could not help admiring his tender sensibility on the present occasion. But whatever might be the tender sensibility of gentlemen, he would contend, that it was the duly of that House, to mete out equal justice to all; to have but one and the same law for the rich and for the poor. Could they forget the cases of Mr.

435
Villiers and Mr. Hunt, as well as others which had recently occurred, or could any one, who reflected upon the consequences of such cases remaining unpunished, think the punishment of transportation was too severe for the crime of fraudulently embezzling or making use of public money? It would be for a jury to determine what was the embezzlement. Convinced of the justice and necessity of the measure, he had brought it forward.
Mr. Rosedisclaimed any wish to protect public delinquents, and declared himself as ready as the hon. baronet, to punish any offender, convicted of a crime of that description.
The Attorney Generalthought there was a very essential difference between the cases of embezzlement of Bank, South Sea Company, and merchants' clerks, and the situation of receivers of public money. These receivers often mixed the public money with their own, and had frequently a certain time allowed them to keep it in their hands, so that it would be impossible to say when they fraudulently made use of it; whereas, clerks of merchants, of banks, or of the South Sea Company, had no right to mix their master's money with their own, and if they did, and made use of it, so as not to be able to pay when called on, it was clearly a fraudulent embezzlement. He thought the doctrine urged by the hon. baronet, that the House made severe laws for the poor, and not for the rich, was as improper as any that had been used in that House.
Mr. H. Thorntonobjected to the term, "fraudulently made use of," and proposed, that instead of "use of," should be substituted, "away with," so that the words would then be "fraudulently made "away with."—On the question being put,
The Solicitor Generalstrongly objected to the whole principle of the clause, as going to deprive government of every security it now had, in the event of any deficiency arising in the accounts of receivers of public money. At present the embezzlement of public money was punished as a misdemeanor, by which the delinquent was subject to unlimited fine and imprisonment, and even to pillory; while, at the same time, all his property, of whatever description, his person also, end all the property of his sureties, were subject to Writs of Extent, for the security of the debt due to the public. By the present measure, however, supposing a
436
public defaulter to flee the country, not only the property of his sureties, but even any estates he himself might leave behind him, would be free, as the debt must merge in the felony.
Sir S. Romillyconcurred, that great inconvenience would result from making this felony. But the objection might be obviated by leaving out the word felony, and supposing the offence to remain a misdemeanor, subject, however, to the proposed punishment by transportation for seven years, which might be inflicted at present for perjury, and other misdemeanors. He did not say, however, that all offences of this nature ought to be so heavily punished.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that leaving out the word felony would be a considerable amendment. But there was still a difficulty as to what part of using or making away with would be liable to the punishment. The first thing must be to define this exactly, and then certainly there could be no objection to the infliction of a severe punishment on the transgression of the law. But, at present, he suggested, that the Chairman should report progress.
After a few words from Mr. H. Smith, and Mr. Thomson, the Chairman reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again on this day se'nnight.