HC Deb 19 March 1832 vol 11 cc412-3
Colonel Davies

, seeing the right hon. Baronet, the First Lord of the Admiralty, in his place, begged to ask him whether the report that Captain Sartorius had been dismissed from the Navy was true; and, if so, whether he had received any previous intimation of the intentions of the Admiralty, or had been desired to quit the service of Don Pedro before that dismissal took place; also, if such intimation had been given him, whether his dismissal took place in consequence of any demur on his part to comply with it? He also desired to know whether Captain Sartorius would be restored to his rank on quitting the service of Don Pedro?

Sir James Graham

, in reply, begged to inform the House that it was perfectly true that Captain Sartorius had been dismissed from his commission of Post-captain in the Navy, but that the hon. and gallant Member opposite was mistaken in supposing that dismissal to have arisen from any such circumstances connected with the Portuguese expedition as had been alleged by him. Captain Sartorius had applied for leave of absence, but, some suspicion being excited, he was asked for an explanation. This explanation was not received, and, finding him shortly after absent without leave, he had been suspended from his rank; and, until all the circumstances attendant on this breach of discipline were explained to the satisfaction of the Board of Admiralty, he was removed from his Majesty's service.

Colonel Davies

would only state further, that the explanation given by the right hon. Baronet was altogether unsatisfactory to him, and that he should, in consequence, feel it to be his duty to give notice of his intention to move, on Friday next, for a return of all the officers of the army and navy who had been dismissed from his Majesty's service under the provisions of the Act. 59 George 3rd, which was an Act for the better prevention of his Majesty's subjects from taking part with, or enlisting in, the military or naval service of foreign Powers.