Commons Sitting of 3 May 1815

MOTION RESPECTING THE PELHAM AND MONTAGU PACKETS.
Lord Nugentrose, for the purpose of calling the attention of the House to the oppression and injustice shown, and to the artifices employed by the Post-office against captain Perring of the Lady Mary Pelham. They had raised, he said, this case to a degree of importance that would not otherwise belong to it. The papers laid upon the table confirmed the opinion he had formerly entertained, and showed that what at first seemed neglect, was in truth system. His lordship then went into a statement of the facts of the case already before the public, regarding the sailing of the Pelham and Montagu packets in company— their being attacked by an American privateer, the Montagu at first sustaining the brunt of the action; the striking of the colours by the Montagu, the relief afforded by the Pelham, and the subsequent rewards given to captain Watkins of the Montagu, and the crew, for their gallantry. A portion of these rewards his

155]
lordship argued, ought to have been extended to captain Perring, and the crew of the Pelham, instead of which, he had been discontinued, and not even bead-money had been given to his crew. After some animadversions upon the conduct of Mr. Freeling, who, the noble lord contended, had acted with partiality and unfairness, he concluded by moving, "That the Papers relating to the action between the Pelham and Montagu packets, and the Globe American privateer, which were presented to the House by Mr. Winchester upon the 23rd of February last, be referred to a Select Committee."
Mr. Lushingtonfelt it his duty to oppose the motion of the noble lord. He did not charge the captain of the Pelham with cowardice, but with mismanagement; the consequence of which was, that the Montagu was much distressed and nearly taken. He then went into a statement of the facts, by which it appeared that captain Watkins had behaved with the utmost gallantry, and had been promoted to the command of the Montagu, the captain having been killed in the action. He detailed to the House the evidence taken before two Boards of Inquiry upon the subject, which, he contended, showed that captain Watkins was highly deserving of the rewards he had received.
Mr. Prestonbore testimony to the high merits of the individual who now came before the House as a complainant, observing, that captain Perring's object was not to obtain any reward, but to vindicate his character, and secure remuneration for his crew. He said, it appeared by the evidence, and might be proved if the Committee was granted, that the colours of the Montagu were struck and not shot away and that the conduct of the commander in firing on the American after that event was unwarrantable. The mail also, it would be proved, had been thrown overboard by the gunner of the Montagu, in the disorder in which that ship was after her colours were struck, and not by the orders of captain Watkins. It would also appear that the log-book of the Montagu had been falsified, as it was there stated that the action lasted more than an hour, which lasted only ten minutes. The Montagu had, in fact, been re-captured by the Pelham. He should therefore vote for the Committee, as the only means of doing justice to captain Perring.
Mr. Rosethought there was no cause for parliamentary interference in the case
[156
which had been brought before the House. It certainly appeared from the evidence, that there had been a defect of judgment in the late captain Norman, in ordering the Pelham to take her station on the lee bow of the Montagu, so that she could not bring her guns to bear on the enemy. The Montagu, therefore, bore the brunt of the action, 17 men out of her crew, which was only 24, being killed or wounded: 50 out of 80 of the American ship were killed or wounded; while only one man of the Pelham was wounded. The promotion of captain Watkins, who had so gallantly fought the ship, was justified, though it was premature. He believed it was owing to the ignorance of captain Perring, that the Pelham had not before been brought into action. He should oppose the motion.
Mr. R. Gordonopposed the motion, as captain Perring might, if he chose, have been tried before the regular tribunal.
Mr. J. P. Grantsupported the motion.
Lord Nugent,in his reply, described the motives by which he was actuated upon this subject, namely, a desire to place on fair grounds the case of an officer who had been impeached, and in his judgment oppressed, by an office against whose decision there was no appeal but in that House itself. Indeed, he could not conceive where an officer officially slandered as captain Perring had been, could look for redress, if he could not find it in that House.
The motion was negatived without a division.