Commons Sitting of 18 July 1811

CONDUCT OF THE VICE ADMIRALTY COURT AT MALTA—ARREST OF LORD COCHRANE.
Lord Cochranerose and said:
Sir; The delay that has taken place since my return to England, and the legal authorities I have consulted, will, I trust, evidence that I trespass on your attention with reluctance, relative to the conduct of the judge and members of the court of vice admiralty at Malta; partly from a desire to avoid the possibility of private motives being imputed to roe, but chiefly from a conviction that parliament should not interfere in matters cognizable in the courts of justice.
How far, under the last impression, I am warranted in calling upon this House to exercise an authority in the present instance, will appear by the opinions of sir A. Piggott, Mr. Holroyd, Mr. Leach, and of another learned gentleman who is not now in his place. "Process of the Courts," says sir A. Piggott, "does not extend to Malta, there is no mode whilst they are abroad to compel appearance to actions here." The answers of the other learned gentlemen being the same in substance, I need not detain you by reading them.
Three years have passed since I memorialed the admiralty on this subject; it cannot therefore be said that I have acted with precipitation. Indeed, I have had time enough to reflect, and I do assure you, that I am fully aware of the responsibility which I shall incur if I fail in establishing whatever accusations I bring against a judge presiding in one of his Majesty's courts, and against those acting under his authority; but furnished as I am with original documents, having the signatures of the judge and members of the court, I am not inclined to shrink from the task of proving their violation of the acts on your table, especially of the 37, 38, 39, and 41st sections of the 45th of his present Majesty, chap. 72d. The first of which empowers the King in Council alone, to make or alter a table of fees to
1018
regulate the charges in courts of vice admiralty, and yet, the members of the court of Malta fabricated one for themselves, which the judge subsequently altered by affixing a note in his own hand, abolishing the table in toto, except by reference to certain unascertained charges made in a distant court, which were not set forth. This note is as follows: "At a meeting of all the members of the court shortly after its arrival, for the purpose of settling what should be considered as reasonable fees, it was agreed, that in no instance they should exceed the proportion of one third more than those paid for similar services in the high court of admiralty in England," signed "J Sewell:" who thus assumed the authority of the king in council, in open violation of the 37th, and in contempt and defiance of the penalties enacted by the 38th and 39th sections, which declare that, "receiving or taking any fee or fees beyond those specified in the table aforesaid," that is, the table authorised by the King in Council, shall be punished by the loss of office; and further, "demanding or receiving any sum or sums of money other than the fees aforesaid, shall be deemed and taken to be extortion and a misdemeanour at law, and shall be punished under and by virtue of this act." Words cannot convey a more distinct prohibition, and yet, I hold in my hand demonstration of an opposite line of conduct being pursued by the court. This is not all, the law directs that the "Table of fees, authorised as aforesaid, shall be suspended in some conspicuous part of the court in which the several judges of the vice Admiralty court shall hold their courts." At Malta, however, it was concealed, first, during five years in a drawer, and when taken therefrom in consequence of loud complaints on the subject of their charges, it was affixed, not in some conspicuous part of the Court," not in the Court at all, but on the door of a private room behind the Registry, where suitors could have no access to it.
Sir, the fabricating, altering, and concealing the table of fees is, perhaps, the least profligate part of their conduct. What will the House think when they find that John Jackson the Marshal, who, to the knowledge of the judge, acts also as Proctor in defiance of the law, is in the constant habit of charging his clients of, the navy, for attending, feeing, consulting, instructing and admonishing himself, and

1019
this in the very teeth of the 41st Section, which enacts, that "No Registrar or Deputy Registrar, Marshal or Deputy Marshal, of or belonging to any of his Majesty's courts of Vice Admiralty, shall, either directly or indirectly, by himself or themselves, or by any Agent or Agents, or any person or persons whomsoever, act or be concerned in any manner whatsoever, either as an advocate or Proctor." Mr. Jackson's charges are so ingenious that I must beg leave to read a few of them. "Attending in the Registry and bespeaking a Monition, two crowns; paid for the said Monition, under seal and extracting, nine crowns; copy of the said Monition fur service, two crowns; attending the Marshal (himself observe) and instructing him to serve the same, two crowns; paid the Marshal fur service of said Monition, two crowns; certificate of service, one crown; drawing and engrossing an affidavit of service two crowns; oath there to and attendance, two crowns two reals and three scudi." How exact!—ten shillings and two pence three farthings for an oath that he had attended on himself with a Monition! One of these bills was taxed by the Deputy Registrar, who admitted these iniquitous charges. Yes, Sir, they were allowed and admitted by Stevens the Deputy Registrar, who treats his friends with Burgundy and Champaigne out of the proceeds of captures made by the navy, from which fund, John Locker the sinecure Registrar, like the sinecure Registrar at home, also derives his unmerited emoluments. I ask, is it fit that the reward granted by his Majesty and the legislature to the navy, for the toll and risk which they undergo in making captures from the enemy, should be thus appropriated?
That I had a right, to demand the taxation of such a bill as that which I have shewn, there can be no doubt, even if I could not produce the opinion of his Majesty's Attorney-general to that effect. Yes, the opinion of sir V. Gibbs, and of the Solicitor-general, signed also Charles Robinson, William Battine, T. Jarvis, to all of whom, the memorial which I presented to the Admiralty was referred in April 1809. "The expences," say these learned gentlemen, "in this case do not appear to have been brought to the knowledge of the court so as to have given the judge an opportunity of exercising his judgment upon them; that would be the proper mode of redress for grievances of this description."
1020
Thus instructed, I addressed the judge on my return to Malta, in February last soliciting that he would be pleased to, direct my bill to be taxed, to which he returned the following answer, addressed on his Majesty's service, "My lord in; reply to your letter of yesterday's date, I, beg leave to refer you to your proctor for the information you are desirous of, it not-being the practice of the vice admiralty, court here, any more than the court of King's-bench in England, to enter into private correspondence with suitors on the subject of their suits or of any matters connected with them. Signed, J. Sewell."
It appeared extraordinary that I should be referred to the person complained of, as judge in his own cause. Still, however, in compliance with Dr. Sewell's advice, directed my agent to make the application, and the following, as might have been anticipated, was the ingenuous gentleman's reply. "Sir, My bill in this case having been delivered to you so long ago as the 8th of August 1808, and having been paid by you soon after, I was a good deal surprized at your note, received yesterday, informing me that Lord Cochrane wishes to have the said bill taxed, and therefore I beg that you will apprize his lordship that it is a thing quite unprecedented to tax a bill which is paid. I should have supposed that the advice I gave his lordship, not to proceed in this cause, would have exempted me from the suspicion of having made unwarrantable charges." Signed, "John Jackson."—As the unwarrantableness of the charges did not rest on suspicion, I wrote to Mr. Jackson myself, who answered, "I humbly conceive that your lordship is not now entitled to demand a copy of your account, and therefore I beg that you will excuse me from complying with such demand" I next required him to submit my account for taxation, this he also declined, as follows, "My lord, in reply to your letter of this day, I have to inform, you that I cannot consent to open an account that was closed two years ago, and that is my only objection to my bill, in the cause of the King George, being taxed, which I hope your lordship on reflection will see to be a reasonable objection-I confess that I did not consider the lapse of two years to be any objection at all particularly as I was absent from Malta when the bill was paid, and no earlier opportunity had offered to call for a revision of the charges: for this reason, and forti-

1021
fied with the opinion of the learned gentleman opposite (sir V. Gibbs) about a month afterwards, I again addressed Dr. Sewell on the subject, who, so far from "exercising his judgment," on the marshal's iniquitous bill of costs, did not condescend to take the slightest notice of my communication, though furnishing him with extracts from Mr. Jackson's written refusals.—Neither did the Judge reply-to a note delivered to him on the following day.
Being thus excluded from the "proper mode of redress for grievances of this description;" I proceeded to the court room of the vice admiralty for the purpose of comparing the charges contained in numerous bills in my possession, with the established fees, which I was instructed by the acts of parliament, "should be suspended in some conspicuous part of the court," every part of which I searched in vain; neither was the table In the registry, where his Majesty's advocate directed me to look for it, who, on my returning into court again, to make further enquiry, said, that I would find it affixed on a door leading to the adjoining room.
That mutilated paper, concealed contrary to law, I was accused of having taken down and carried away, from a place where it could not have been affixed, except in defiance of these statutes, and in contempt of justice. That, Sir, was the paper for which I was followed through the streets of Malta for the space of a week by the deputy auctioneer, stiled in the judges' warrant and attachments by the title of "deputy marshal," but who, in fact, never had an authority from the marshal; perhaps, because the marshal was conscious of having vitiated his powers by the illegal acts of which he was guilty, and thus thought to escape the consequences which might arise from the acts of his nominal deputy. So loosely are things conducted in that court! Surely no reasonable man can blame me for refusing to be taken to jail by the deputy auctioneer. Indeed, Chapman admits, in his affidavit of the 24th of February, that my objection was to his want of authority; for, I naturally concluded that unless he was an officer of the court his acts might be disowned, and thereby the guilty would escape punishment.
That this was the view which I took of the case, will appear, by my offering no resistance to James Houghton Stevens, who was appointed, on Chapman's nomi-
1022
nal resignation; I say. Sir, that I offered no resistance, for, by refusing to walk to jail, I did no more than decline, by an act of my own, to contribute to illegal proceedings.
It is not my intention to trouble the House at length relative to this affair, which is of trifling importance, compared to the mischiefs that arise from the system-of plunder and abuse practised in the court" of vice admiralty. However, it may not be improper to mention, that I was con-ducted by the keeper of the jail to a place with a broken window, barred with iron, furnished with an old chair, and a close stool in the corner. From this, however, I was removed, as the judge began to fear the consequences of his illegal acts; and on the third day, being brought from the keeper's room to the court of vice admiralty, there, without an accuser, except the judges, that learned and worshipful gentleman attempted in the absence of proof to administer a long string of interrogatories, which I of course refused to answer, and thereby furnish what might be construed by him into evidence of my having taken away his illegal table. Being farther pressed and threatened, I delivered a Protest in writing "against the illegal warrant issued by William Stevens, an examiner and interpreter to the vice admiralty court of Malta, registered merchant, commission broker, and notary-public, calling himself deputy registrar of the court, and professing to act under an appointment for John Locker, sinecure registrar, and further against the illegal endeavours to execute the warrant by John Chapman, deputy auctioneer, acting for and on behalf of—Wood, late private secretary to lord Castlereagth, a non resident, enjoying an income of about seven thousand pounds sterling per annum, derived from the sale of prizes, and the goods of merchants trading to Malta, but calling himself deputy marshal of the vice admiralty court, and professing to art under in appointment from John Jackson, proctor and marshal, contrary to law; and farther against all acts of the said John Jackson, in the capacity of marshal, by himself or his deputy and against John Locker, sinecure registrar, and William Stevens, calling himself deputy registrar; John Locker having, under the signature of William Stevens, taxed bills of fees and expences of the court of vice admiralty, wherein the fees of the said John Locker and William Stevens in their capacity of

1023
registrar, deputy registrar, examiner, interpreter, &. &. &. are made and examined by themselves, and in which various illegal charges were allowed and suffered to be made by John Jackson, as proctor, for attending, feeing, consulting, and instructing himself as marshal; in which double capacity he acts, in defiance of the 41st and of the 45th Geo. 3rd, chapter 72." And further, I solemnly protested against John Sewell, styling himself judge of the aforesaid court, for refusing by letter dated the 13th of January, 1811, to order satisfaction to be given by the said John Jackson, referring to him a judge in his own cause; and likewise for not having given any answers to official letters delivered to him, bearing date the 19th and 20th of February, 1811, on the same subject. And further I protested against the said John Sewell, for not complying with the Act of Parliament, which directs, "That a table of fees shall be suspended in some conspicuous part of the court, in which the several judges of the court of vice admiralty hold their sittings."
Sir, the judge at first refused to receive any protest, but afterwards did so; and afterwards I was re-committed to prison, not for contempt of court, but for the old accusation of not having complied with certain warrants addressed to a person styled deputy marshal, who never had an authority to act as such. That no proof existed of my having taken the table of fees, will appear by the following affidavit of commodore Rowley, commissioner Fraser, and captain Murray Maxwell of the navy:
"Be it known to all persons to whomsoever it may concern, that on the 2nd day of March, in the year of our Lord 1811 personally came and appeared before me the undersigned notary public Percy Fraser, com-missioner of his Majesty's navy, resident in the island of Malta, Charles Rowley, esq. captain of his Majesty's ship Eagle, and Murray Maxwell, esq. captain of his Majesty's ship Alceste, and solemnly made oath that on the aforesaid 2nd day of March, whilst the court of vice admiralty of the said island of Malta was sitting, they severally and distinctly heard John Sewell, L. L. D, the judge thereof, and whilst sitting in his judicial chair, admit in open court, and in the presence of divers persons there assembled, to the right honourable lord Cochrane, that there existed no proof in the aforesaid court of his said lordship's having taken down the paper in
1024
question, by the judge aforesaid called the table of fees. (Signed)
"PERCY FRASER,
"C. ROWLEY,
"MURRAY MAXWELL."
"On the 2nd day of August, 1811, the aforegoing attestation was duly sworn at Malta, where stamps are not used:—before me, "CHA. EDW. FENTON,
"Notary Public."
Notwithstanding the confession of the judge in open court thus attested, I remained unnoticed three days longer in the public jail, where, I now clearly saw that it was the intention of the judge to detain me until the packet had sailed for England, and probably until she returned to Malta with instructions. I therefore wrote to the governor, who, having consulted Messieurs Moncreiff, Forrest and Bowdler, three gentlemen of the law sent me their opinion, that his excellency should not interfere with a court, acting, as they were pleased to call it, under his Majesty's authority, although in violation of the law. I addressed the president also, who said, that the courts of Malta could not interpose. Indeed, had it been otherwise, little good could have been, expected from an appeal to these courts, which are still governed by the iniquitous and oppressive Code of Rhoan, to the disgrace of all the ministers who have ruled, since the surrender of the Island to England. Sir, The Maltese stipulated then that a constitution securing property and rights should be granted, and trial by jury, but these have been denied, and examinations are still taken, and sentence pronounced with shut doors, by their judges whose appointments are during pleasure. I do not impute blame to his excellency the governor, for whom I have a high respect, yet I must say that the system of blending the military and civil authority cannot fail to become oppressive. Ministers have no better excuse for this union of power contrary to the express stipulation of the inhabitants, of the island than a despicable petition signed by the dependents on government, and shamelessly transmitted; and received as the voice of the people! Being furnished with affidavit, that the judge did not intend to proceed in the matter on the next, court day, I resolved, as the door was locked and guarded, to get out by the window, which I accordingly effected; and the following proclamation was issued for

1025
my apprehension, in which I am designated by as many names as if I had been a notorious thief.

CONDUCT OF THE VICE ADMIRALTY COURT AT MALTA—ARREST OF LORD COCHRANE.

  ESCAPE OF LORD COCHRANE.
  "Whereas the Honourable Thomas Cochrane Esquire, otherwise the Honourable Sir Thomas Cochrane, Knight, Companion of the most Honourable Order of the Bath, commonly called Lord Cochrane, escaped out of the custody of James Houghton Stevens, the Deputy. Marshal of the Vice Admiralty Court of this Island, from the Prison of the Castellanea during the course of last night. This is to give notice, that whoever, will apprehend or cause to be apprehended the said Lord Cochrane, and deliver him into the custody of the said Deputy Marshal, shall receive a reward of Two Thousand Scudis currency of Malta, and that whoever will give such information as may lead to the apprehension, of any person, or per son, who was or ere aiding and assisting, the said Lord Cochrane, in such his escape, shall receive upon such conviction, if only one person was so aiding and assisting, the sum of One thousand Scudis, or if more persons than one were so aiding and assisting then upon the conviction of each of such persons the sum of Five hundred Scudis, not withstanding that in such latter case the person so giving information shall himself have been aiding and assisting to the said escape.—Witness my hand, this sixth day of March, 1811.—JAS. H. STEVENS, Deputy Marshal.—No. 188 Strada Stretta."
  Now, Sir, although the treatment which I received is altogether foreign to the main point, yet I am desirous to learn from you as Speaker of this House, whether my imprisonment was or was not a breach of the privilege of parliament?
  The Speaker.—I do not know whether the House expects me to reply to the questions which the noble lord has put to me, perfectly new as one appears to be; but, as far as my information goes, I will give it, if the House thinks fit that I should do so. (Hear, hear!) With respect to the privileges of the House, I know of no means of enforcing its privileges, but in the usual way, from time immemorial, by its own officers; and I never knew one instance of any-officer having been sent across the seas at the instance of any member, on a complaint of insult offered to him
  1026
  personally (Hear! hear!) So much for the question of privilege. In the next place I never knew ah instance in which any member of parliament, properly before a court of justice, was at liberty to treat with impunity the proceedings of that court, or to say that what was done in respect to himself was done in contempt, or that could authorise him to say that the privileges of parliament were infringed in his person for such conduct.
  Lord Cochrane.—Sir; It was at first my intention, to have moved an address to the Prince Regent, to recall the Judge Registrar and Marshal, to answer for their conduct and proceedings, contrary to the ex-press words of acts of parliament; but on consideration, and in compliance with the suggestion of the first lord of the Admiralty, I have thought it better to move, "That a Committee be appointed to examine into the conduct of the Judge Registrar and Marshal, and their Deputies, of the court of Vice Admiralty at Malta, for the violation of the 37th, 38th, 39th, and 41 St sections of the 45th Geo. 3, c. 72."
  Mr. P Mooreseconded the motion, not from any knowledge of its merits, but thinking, that if the matter of charge was not inquired into, it would reflect upon the House.
  Mr. Stephencould not avoid applauding' the benevolent motive of the hon. gentleman, who had seconded the poor outcast of the noble lord. With respect to the conduct of the learned judge alluded to, he was satisfied it was the opinion of the House that he had done nothing amiss—that the dignity of his office required that he should exert his authority after the direct insult that the noble lord had offered to the court. The charge against the noble lord was for taking down the public document of the court, a charge which he, had not denied, nay indeed, the noble lord had exhibited what he termed a fac simile of the table of fees, and so closely imitated, that the very impression of the wafers—the document itself, and its smoke-dried appearance, seemed to proclaim its originality. The conduct of the noble lord, when required to answer for this contempt, was not merely that he refused to obey the monition, but that he pulled out a pistol and threatened to shoot any man, who at tempted to execute it upon him Chapman, the officer, therefore (and the fact was confirmed by two witnesses), thought it not prudent to execute a warrant at the point of a pistol, and had, not the courage

  1027
  to act. The noble lord had stated that he refused to answer interrogatories, and that he made a protest against the proceedings of the court. It was not regular for the court to receive protests arraigning its proceedings, and upon the inquiry it did not think there was sufficient grounds for discharging the noble lord from his arrest. If, however, he was aggrieved, there was a channel through which he might have had redress, without coming to the House, by appearing before the privy council, and stating his charges against Dr. Sewell, who would, if proved, be removed. But should there not have existed, in the executive government, a disposition to redress the noble lord's grievances, then it would have been open for him to appeal to the House: but to come at the end of the session was not very regular. Dr. Sewell was a person of correct conduct, and unlikely to act with injustice to any individual.
  Lord Cochranereplied, and repeated his former statements.
  Mr. Yorkeagreed with his hon. and learned friend in objecting to the motion on three grounds; first, because the case was one of the most frivolous ones he had ever met with: secondly, because the noble lord, if he had just cause for complaint, should have made it at the Admiralty, and that board would have investigated the complaint; and thirdly, because the complaint, instead of being Made by the noble lord, was, by his own shewing, a complaint against himself. He had this to state to the noble lord, that if he had not been an officer on half-pay, he would have heard from the board of Admiralty in a different Way. With respect to the Marshal exercising the office of Proctor in conjunction, be would recommend an inquiry to be made, as it was contrary to the express provisions of an act of parliament. But with respect to the noble lord's case it Was, he must repeat it, one of the most frivolous cases ever brought before parliament.
  The motion was negatived without a division.

COURT MARTIAL ON LIEUTENANT RICHARDS—GAGGING.
Mr. Broughamrose, and observed, that some time ago he gave notice of a motion for the production of the minutes of evidence taken in the harbour of Barbadoes, before a court martial upon lieutenant Richards, of the Dart sloop of war. It was with very considerable pain that he now felt himself com-
1028
pelled to move, but his duty as a member of parliament would not allow him to pass over circumstances which he was in possession of, relating to the transaction for which lieutenant Richards was tried. In doing so, he brought it forward as a case, for further information. The facts were these, as had been stated to him from persons of respectability, on whose credit he could rely. Two years since the Dart sloop lay in the harbour of Carlisle, in Barbadoes, as a guardship, about fifty or one hundred yards from the shore. There was a seaman on board, who was under confinement, certainly for very bad behaviour, and during that confinement, while the captain was on shore, made a great noise, which disturbed lieutenant Richards, who with some other persons went to the man and inflicted a further, punishment, a punishment, which he with great pain and regret believed existed to a certain extent in the navy, namely, that of gagging, which was done by means of forcing a piece of wood into the mouth of the offender. In this instance, a large piece of iron was the gag made use of, which was fastened with a bandage over his mouth, and tied behind with a knot. This being done, lieutenant Richards went a-shore, leaving the man quiet; and on his return he was indeed perfectly quiet—for he was dead! apparently as if suffocated by the gag; but this he did not mean to assert positively, though his information went to that effect. Lastly, in, the morning the unfortunate deceased was carried out of the ship; no coroner's' inquest was taken on his body, and he was; buried. Lieutenant Richards was then apprehended, but suffered to go at large; and it was a justice due to him to say, that he did hot attempt to escape. He was afterwards tried by a court martial, whether for murder or for breach of discipline he did not know, but he was acquitted and dismissed the service. The hon. and learned gentleman then went on to State that this was not the only case of' oppression and cruelly in the navy: he had several from the most respectable sources, which he could not bring forward from the lateness of the session, but which-he would state, abstaining from mentioning the names of the accused persons., A captain in the navy, about two years since, acted with great severity to his crew, so much so, that to a man they expressed their discontent. One man was flogged once or twice, and this man said that if he

1029
was flogged again, he would not endure it, for he would leap overboard. This being told the captain, he replied, "I will try the gentleman." The next time he was sentenced to be flogged the man actually leaped into the sea. At this time the vessel was under an easy press of sail; murmurs were heard among the crew, of "heave to! heave to! lower the boat! lower the boat!" But the captain said, "No! if the gentleman prefers that ship to my ship, he is welcome to sail in it." no attempt was made to save the man, and he was drowned! In the same ship, with the same captain, two other men were sentenced to be flogged, and they leaped overboard to avoid it; one or both were with difficulty saved. There were other circumstances connected with the conduct of this captain, which would, if his evidence was correct, establish the charges against him. It was a remarkable circumstance that two apparently respectable persons, at the distance of 250 miles from each other, spoke to the precise words of the captain when the man had leaped into the sea, and one offered to make affidavit of the fact. There was another case in which a seaman, named Absalom Foot, chose to keep for his amusement an account of the stoppages of grog, and the captain for this conduct ordered the fingers of the right hand to be fast bound with cord, which was sealed with wax, and impressed with the captain's seal. When this case was mentioned to the hon. and learned gentlemen, he thought it too absurd to be true; bat the testimony of five or six persons of very good character put the matter beyond doubt, especially, when they desired to make affidavits to the truth of the statement. The man received five dozen of lashes and was turned over to another ship. The hon. and learned gentleman concluded with' expressing his thanks to the illustrious Commander in chief, for the very wise, salutary, judicious and generous order issued for suppressing military flogging, and moved, "That there be laid before this House, copy of the Minutes of the court martial held at Carlisle Bay, Barbadoes, on Lieutenant Richards, of his Majesty's guardship Dart."
Mr. Yorkewished the hon. and learned gent, had confined himself to the subject of the motion which he concluded with, and had not introduced irrelevant matter. He felt concerned that he should have thought it necessary to introduce the ano-
1030
nymous cases which he had brought forward, and which could not tend to any good whatever. It could only, by being left over to the next session, produce mischief and inconvenience. The hon. and learned gent. must have known that it was his duty, if he did not chuse to bring the subject forward, to have stated the cases of complaint to the board of admiralty, who would have instituted the necessary inquiries into the truth immediately. If the facts had been true, the officers charged would have been put on their trials. Ha must therefore complain of the hon. and learned gent, for throwing these cases before the public, without the opportunity being afforded of ascertaining the truth or falsehood of them. If true, the officers were responsible in the highest degree for their injustice and cruelty, and would be brought, according to law, to condign punishment. With respect to the case of lieutenant Richards, the right hon. gent, had no objection to the production of the sentence of the Court; but the minutes of the evidence would produce no good. The sentence would contain the substance of the charge, and the judgment of the court. The case must be strongly made out to warrant the production of the minutes, which would be trying the prisoner over again the facts which the hon. and learned gent. had stated, were in many instances well, founded, but he would more particularly state them. As to the charge, of gagging, that he must positively deny to be in practice in the navy, either now or at any previous time, Lieutenant Richards was tried for his life; and it was the opinion of the court who fried him that the man did not die from the gagging, but that the, lieutenant's conduct was so far bad, that be was incapable' of serving his Majesty, and he was accordingly dismissed the service. The man who was punished was a very bad character, riotous and dishonest, and when the ship was lying-in the Bay of Carlisle, got drunk, and was disorderly. The captain directed he should, be put in irons, and went on shore, leaving the ship under the command of lieutenant Richards. Soon after the man became riotous, and began to blaspheme his God and his King, and the service generally. The ship was a small one, and it was obvious, that when a man so conducted himself, it was necessary to pursue rigorous measures to enforce order and obedience, for it was impossible, as in society, on shore, to put a man of-that description

1031
away. The lieutenant accordingly ordered that he should be gagged, which was done, but he still persisted in his blasphemous conduct, and the first gag was taken out and another put in of a larger description, in doing which the officer certainly acted very improperly. Having put in this gag, the officer went a-shore, leaving the man with his hands tied behind him. There was another man near him in confinement, but no sentry over them; the man was extremely intoxicated, and in the course of the afternoon he died. This was not a case in which the coroner could interfere, for the order was to take the man to the hospital. It was impossible, however, for the boat's crew to row on shore, the wind setting in from the shore, and the body was so offensive. Under these circumstances, the body, which had been previously sewn up in a sack, was taken to the harbour and thrown into the sea. Lieutenant Richards was tried under these circumstances, and the court negatived the charge of supposed murder, by acquitting the prisoner of the death of the man. The House, therefore, he trusted would not be inclined to try him again, particularly, as in so doing they would be arraigning the proceedings of the court. The right hon. gent. had, as he before ob served, no objection to procure the sentence on which the hon. and learned gent, might take such measures as he thought proper.
Sir R. Bickertonsaid be had been 37 years in the naval service of the country, 22 years of which he had been in actual service, and he had never on any one occasion seen gagging resorted to.
Lord Walpolestated that the vessel was a mile and a half from the shore at the time the circumstance occurred. A coroner's jury, therefore, could have nothing to do in the matter. The sentence of the court martial proceeded on the narrative of having maturely weighed the whole circumstances of the case, and on that narrative found that there was no malice nor any intention on the part of lieutenant Richards to cause the death of the seaman, and therefore acquitted him of the charge of murder. After that, was the House to be told that no trial for murder had taken place?
Mr. Creeveystated several instances in' which the admiralty had paid great attention to complaints brought before them.
Lord Cochranewas of opinion, that although the discipline of some ships might
1032
be severe, yet that, generally speaking, more humanity could not be shewn than was exhibited in the navy. The naval service would be much better if the prisons of the country were not so frequently emptied into men of war. As to the punishment of gagging, it might sometime be rendered a cruel practice; but when there was a notorious drunken scoundrel aboard, who not only drunk his own grog, but sold his clothes to buy the grog of other men, it would be very hard if the whole ship's company, doing their duty watch and watch, should be kept awake by such a brawler, from the absence of power on the part of the officers, to prevent him from making any disturbance. He bad known some ships will governed without any punishment but that of shame. In one in particular, the delinquent was made ridiculous by being compelled to wear military jack boots and long spurs. On the whole, however, he was convinced that when men of war were on foreign service, it was impossible to manage the men without some other punishment than mere shame.
Sir F. Burdettsaid no reason whatever had been urged for the concealment of the minutes of the court martial, for which his hon. and learned friend had moved. He thought his hon. and learned friend quite justified in declining to mention names, recollecting that those who complained of any abuse in any departments, were certain to tall under the displeasure of ministers. The conduct of the officer in this case appeared to him to be entirely undefended and at common law amounted to murder. The hon. bart. then cited an opinion, as he stated, from Blackstone, that a man shooting at game without a licence, and killing a man through accident, was liable to be tried for murder. It was also laid down in all our law books, that the smallest participation in any felonious act rendered the accused amenable to all the consequences attending the act itself.
The Attorney Generallamented that his hon. and learned friend had not thought proper in the first instance to submit the cases which he had adduced to the consideration of the Admiralty, and in the event of their having been neglected, then to have brought them before Parliament. In the present instance, it appeared that the officer had been tried by a competent tribunal, and although acquitted of murder, convicted of cruelty, and that the severest sentence which the court could inflict for

1033
the offence had been passed upon him. Even On the supposition that the court martial bad been in error, yet this man, having been acquitted of a capital charge, ought not to be capitally questioned again. In his opinion, no grounds had been laid for the production of the minutes of evidence.
General Tarletonregretted that his hon. and learned friend, for whose talents he entertained the highest respect, had brought forward the present subject. The principal part of his hon. and learned friend's statements had been most fully answered. Adverting to the question of military punishments, while he acknowledged that those were the best regiments in which flogging was not resorted to, he was obliged conscientiously to say, what-ever odium might follow the declaration, that in his opinion, it would be impossible wholly to abolish the practice of flogging in the army.
Mr. P. Mooresupported the motion, and trusted that the discussion would have as good an effect on the regulations respecting the discipline of the navy, as the discussion brought forward by an hon. hart, near him had had on the regulations respecting the discipline of the army.
Mr. Crokerwas surprized that the hon. and learned gent, should suppose that any persons who gave information of abuses to the board of Admiralty, would expose themselves to its displeasure. He could assure the hon. and learned gent, that the board of Admiralty was fully disposed to listen to all complaints brought before it, and had within his knowledge thanked several individuals by whom those complaints had been preferred. As to the anonymous cases which bad been mentioned, if the hon. and learned gent, chose to keep the names of his informant and of the persons accused secret, yet if he would only stale the name of the ship from which the man jumped overboard, the Admiralty would institute a minute inquiry into the circumstances of the case. For a long series of yearns no accusation, not even an anonymous one, had been passed over by the Admiralty without investigation. As to the old practice of sending convicts on board men of war, the Admiralty had for several years opposed it with the utmost determination.
Mr. Brougham,in reply, declared that be bad not heard a single argument against the production, of the Minutes of Evidence. There were two parties whom
1034
their production might affect—not the officer, for he agreed entirely with his right hon. and learned friend, that it would be impossible again, to try him—but the court martial and the Admiralty, by whom the trial by court martial was ordered.
Lord Walpolein explanation of his former statement observed, that the trial had been ordered by the admiral on the station, not by the Admiralty.
Mr. Broughamresumed, and contended, that the individual in question ought to have been tried, not by a court martial, but by the Admiralty's jurisdiction. If there was one species of jurisdiction, to the proceedings of which greater publicity ought to be given than to any other, it was that of courts-martial. As to mentioning the names of those from whom he received his information, he should be very cautious on that head. He did not mean to say that the board of Admiralty-would distinctly visit their resentment on such individuals. They would not for instance put them at the bottom of the list. They would not set a black mark against them in the Admiralty books, but they would set a black mark against them in their own minds. They would be biassed to their future prejudice. This he said without reference to any particular set of men, for he should have the same apprehension were his own political friends in office. He cordially closed, however, with the proposition of the right hon. secretary of the Admiralty, to state to him the name of the ship in which the transaction that be had described happened. He would obtain as soon as possible the name of the man, and some approximation at least to the date of the occurrence, for the purpose of communicating the whole to the right hon. gentleman.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobserved, that the hon. and learned gent, must entertain a strange notion of the effects of office, if he conceived that against the name of a person who gave information of a foul murder, gentlemen in office would set a black mark in their minds, and that they would be indisposed from that period to do any thing kind of fair by such an individual, so strongly was the hon. and learned gent impressed with this notion, that he thought even his own friends, were they in power, would be influenced by considerations of' that nature. The observation would be unfortunate for the hon. and learned gent., if at any future time he should himself get into office, as

1035
it might be supposed to proceed from a conviction of what would be his own feelings under similar circumstances. It appeared to him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) that no grounds whatever had been laid for the production of the minutes of evidence. The hon. gent complained of the officer alluded to having been tried by a court martial instead of an Admiralty court. Now, the act of Parliament expressly declared, that any one accused of having committed a murder in the fleet should be tried by a court martial. The hon. and learned gentle man's observations therefore ought to be directed against the law, and not against this case, which was in conformity to the law. He lamented that the hon. and learned gent, should have stated so many anonymous instances of misconduct. How ever delicate the subject, yet by not mentioning the names of the officers accused, the charge was, in fact, brought against the whole service. It would be generally circulated, that but for the apprehension of a black mark in the minds of the Admiralty, many persons would come for ward to sustain these complaints. Al though he was sure that the hon. and learned gent, did not mean it, yet all this would do infinite mischief. Let the hon. and learned gent, place himself in the situation of the gallant and honourable officers on the western station, and then say how he should feel under that general imputation which the publication of charges not specifically made against any particular individual by name, must necessarily occasion. He moved as an Amendment to leave out the word "Minutes," for the purpose of inserting the words "Charge and Sentence."
Mr. Broughamexplained and stated the extreme reluctance with which he had listened to the information that had been given to him, until he became satisfied of its authenticity.
Sir F. Burdett,in support of the opinion of his hon. and learned friend, that persons preferring complaints were liable to the resentment of the higher powers, called to the recollection of the House the case of admiral Montague, who, soon after he had made a complaint to the Admiralty, was put on half-pay.
Mr. R. Warddenied that the one was in consequence of the other; and observed that this was another of those unfounded assertions which, the hon. baronet was in the habit of making in greater number,
1036
though certainly without being aware' of their falsehood, than any man he had; ever heard.
Sir F. Burdettdisclaimed any assertion on the subject; he had merely said that there was a strange coincidence between the complaint and the dismissal.
Lord Cochraneobserved, that, in addition to admiral Montague's being put on half-pay, his son had been denied the privileges of the school at Portsmouth, until the subject was mentioned in the House of Commons.
The Attorney Generaldeclared that this latter circumstance arose out of the misstatement of admiral Montague himself. As soon as the error was discovered, his son's wrong was redressed.
The Amendment was then carried without a division, and the original motion, so amended, was agreed to.

COPY OF THE SENTENCE PASSED UPON LIEUTENANT RICHARDS.
The following is a Copy of the Sentence passed upon Lieutenant Richards
"At a Court Martial, held on board his Majesty's Ship Pompée, on Tuesday the 18th, Wednesday the 19th, and continued on hoard his Majesty Ship Captain on Thursday the 20th July, 1809;—
"Present, William Charles Fahie, esq. Captain of his Majesty's ship' Pompée, and second officer in command of his Majesty's ships and vessels in Carlisle Bay' Barbadoes, president: Captains, James, Athol Wood, Volant Vashon Ballard Christopher John Williams Nesham, and Charles Dilkes: Matthew Anderson, deputy Judge Advocate.
The Court, pursuant to an order from the hon. sir Alexander Cochrane, K. B. rear admiral of the Red, and Commander in Chief of his Majesty's ships and vessels at Barbadoes, the Leeward islands, &. &. dated the 15th day of July 1809, and directed to William Charles Fahie, esq. captain of his Majesty's ship Pompée, and second officer in the command of his Majesty's ships and vessels in Carlisle bay, Barbadoes, having been duly sworn, proceeded to the Trial of lieutenant William Richards, belonging to his Majesty's sloop Dart, agreeable to an order from the hon. sir Alexander Cochrane, K. B. rear admiral of the Red, and commander, chief of his Majesty's ships and vessels at Barbadoes, the Leeward islands, &. &.

1037
&. dated the 15th of July 1809; to investigate and enquire into the whole of the relative circumstances which occurred On the day of' the death of John Robinson, belonging to his Majesty's ship Pompée, then a supernumerary on board his Majesty's sloop Dart, and which happened on or about the 17th of November last, on board his Majesty's said sloop Dart, and to try him, the said lieut. William Richards, for his conduct on the occasion:
"The Court, having heard the evidence in support of the prosecution, as well as what the prisoner, lieutenant William Richards, had to offer in his defence, and the evidence adduced on his behalf; and very maturely and deliberately weighed and considered the same, is of opinion, that there was no malice on the part of the prisoner, lieutenant William Richards, towards the deceased John Robinson, or any intention to cause his death, and doth therefore acquit him lieutenant William Richards, of the death of the deceased John Robinson: But the court is of opinion, that the conduct of the said lieutenant William Richards was negligent in leaving the Dart at the time he was commanding officer, without a commissioned officer, and in not having placed proper and sufficient sentinels over the deceased John Robinson while in irons.
"And the Court is further of opinion, that the conduct of lieutenant William Richards, after his return to the Dart on the night of the 27th of November last, was oppressive and cruel, in making use of so large a gag, and in suffering the deceased John Robinson to remain such a continuance of, time gagged with his hands tied behind his back: And doth therefore adjudge him, lieutenant William Richards to be dismissed from his Majesty's service, and-rendered incapable of ever again serving as an officer in the navy of his Majesty, his heirs and successors.
"The Court has observed with regret and astonishment, that the body of the deceased John Robinson was not only committed to the deep, instead of having been sent on shore for the decision of an inquest and interment, but also that the body was sent from the ship without even a prayer book to read the funeral service.
"And the said, lieutenant William Richards is here by sentenced accordingly. (Signed by the Court) William Charles Fahie, president, J. A. Wood, V. V. Ballard, C J. W. Nesham Chas. Dilkes.
1038
Matthew Anderson, deputy Judge Advocate."