§ Sir T. Turtonsaid, he held in his hands a Petition from a Mr. Luson, formerly Clerk of the Checques in Sheerness Dock- 1148 yard, who, after having served more than thirty years, was removed from his office for what, at most, could only be accounted negligence—and was now literally starving. He had frequently applied to successive Boards of Admiralty to examine his case, without success. At the same time that he brought forward this Petition, he would not follow it up with any motion, but would merely recommend to the Board of Admiralty to take the case under consideration, and afford the poor unfortunate individual, who bore an excellent character, some part of his former salary.
The Petition was then read, setting forth: "That the Petitioner was entered as a clerk in the navy office in February 1777, being then in the 34th year of his age; and in September 1788 he was promoted to the appointment of clerk to the rope yard in his majesty's dock yard at Chatham; in the month of December following he was appointed clerk of the survey of Sheerness dock yard, and succeeded to the appointment of clerk of the cheque in the same yard in October 1791, in which situation he continued till the 22d of October 1802, when he was dismissed by the navy board's warrant, in pursuance of a warrant from the admiralty board; and that the said warrants did not impute to the Petitioner any personal criminality or misconduct, but assigned, as the grounds of his dismissal, certain instances of negligence or remissness resulting from the incompetence of those clerks whom he found in his office, for which their lordships held the Petitioner to be responsible;" and praying for relief.
§ Sir T. Turtonthen moved, that the Petition do lie on the table.
§ The Speakerobserved that the Petition was not subscribed by Mr. Luson, and asked if the hon. bart. was prepared to say that the Petition was of his hand writing, otherwise it could not be received.
§ Sir T. Turtonhaving said the Petition was not of his hand writing, it was withdrawn for the present.—Shortly after, sir Thomas having procured the signature of Mr. Luson, renewed his motion.
§ Mr. Robert Wardsaid, the Board of Admiralty had examined into the case of Mr. Luson, with as much attention as if it had originated with them, and not with a former Board. He would be the first to move for an inquiry if a hearing had been 1149 refused Mr. Luson; but this was not the fact. When lord St. Vincent went through Sheerness dockyard, he found that numberless frauds were practised, and among others, false musters. It was the duty of the clerk of the cheques to have prevented this. Mr. Luson himself acknowledged his fault, and he was punished, as well as many others, with deprivation of place.
§ Sir T. Turtonsaid, he was not answerable for the facts in the petition; but he had seen a letter from the hon. gent. himself stating Mr. Luson's innocence; and he was at a loss to conceive how he had now changed his opinion. With respect to false musters, all that could be said was, that the office, before the examination of lord St. Vincent, was in a state of great confusion; and that Mr. Luson was not equal to all the clerks he had under him, by whom he was imposed on. But surely there were shades of guilt; and this fault of mere inability, ought hardly to have drawn upon a man, after being thirty years in office, such a severe punishment. So high did his character stand in the county of Surrey, that the magistrates would have appointed him to a respectable situation, had that situation not been limited to a certain age.
§ Mr. Crokerdefended the Board of Admiralty.
The Petition was ordered to lie on the table.