CASE OF DR. WILLIAMS. (Hansard, 9 June 1834)

§ Sir Edward Codrington
presented a Petition from Dr. Williams, late a Surgeon in the Navy, complaining of having been dismissed from the Navy on certain allegations against him which were false, and the falsehood of which was since admitted by those who gave the Admiralty the information. He was dismissed, and, after repeated applications to the Admiralty in 1826, for a copy of the charges against him, was told, that they had been proved to the satisfaction of the Admiralty, who therefore struck him off the list. After repeated applications, he got the minutes of his case, and it was referred to the present Admiralty Solicitor, by whom the charge was said to be affirmed. He (Sir Edward Codrington) contended, that the dismissal by the Lords of the Admiralty was unconstitutional and illegal. The case of the petitioner involved a question of great constitutional importance. A man, without being confronted with his accusers had been dismissed from the navy. This unconstitutional power had been exerted by the Admiralty in more cases than one; and he had no hesitation in saying, that it was once in contemplation to have struck him (Sir Edward Codrington) off the list, without affording him the means of publicly defending himself. He asked, why the Admiralty did not do it? It was, because he should have brought the subject before the public through the medium of that House. It was not from a sense of justice that they refrained from making the attempt, to which they were urged by political feeling; but because they dared not to do it. The Admiralty in itself had no power to strike an officer from the list; it could only be done by the sign-manual of the Sovereign. The hon. and gallant Admiral referred to the two cases of Admiral Vernon in 1746, and of Sir Isaac Coffin in 1786, in which it was held by the twelve Judges, that it was illegal for the Board of Admiralty to strike officers off the list, and these two who had been struck off were restored. There was another objection to the exercise of this power. For every three individuals who were struck off the list, the Admiralty 321 possessed the privilege of appointing one. Therefore they had a direct interest in striking off as many as they could. He contended, that such a power was anusurpation of the Royal Prerogative, and ought not to be exercised by any body of men.

§ Mr. Labouchere
said, that if the hon. and gallant Admiral thought the Board of Admiralty should not have the power he had referred to, he ought to bring such an important question forward on its own merits, and not discuss it incidentally on the presentation of a petition. The subject was one of very great importance in a constitutional point of view; and if the hon. and gallant Member should think fit to bring the question under the consideration of the House in a substantive Motion, he should be prepared at any time to meet it. He must, however, decline entering into a discussion of that question on the present occasion. With reference to the case of Mr. Williams, he must say, that it was one which did not call for the interference of the House. The hon. Member entered into an explanation of various transactions in which the individual mentioned had been concerned, with a view of satisfying the House, that Mr. Williams had in his private capacity behaved very ill. The Admiralty, therefore, were perfectly justified in removing him from the service. In such a profession as the army or the navy, he knew of no distinction to be made between the character of an officer and the character of a gentleman, for what was discreditable to the one was equally dishonourable to the other. It would have been a reproach to the Board of Admiralty to suffer so dishonourable a man to remain in his Majesty's service, and they had acted with great propriety in striking him off the list.

§ Major Beauclerk
was unacquainted with the merits of the present case, but he protested against the principle of depriving any officer of his commission, without affording him the opportunity of defending himself by a Court-martial.

§ Sir James Graham
was surprised, that the experience of the hon. and gallant Admiral had not suggested to him the difference which existed between an officer on full pay and one upon half-pay only, with reference to the question under discussion. He could scarcely suppose the hon. and gallant Member to be ignorant that an officer on half-pay could not be tried by a Court-martial. A full investi- 322 gation had taken place by successive Boards of Admiralty into the allegations made against the petitioner; those facts had been fully established to the entire satisfaction of each Board; they had been again and again inquired into, and as often re-established, so completely as to leave no doubt in the minds of those who had made the investigation. It had been proved beyond a doubt, that this individual had been guilty of most dishonourable conduct, and acts had been established against him that were highly derogatory to the character of a gentleman. He confessed that he was unable to make any distinction between the conduct of a man as a gentleman, and that honourable course of conduct which qualified every man to bear the commission of his Majesty. The Crown, therefore, as the guardian of the honour of the navy, had, by means of the Admiralty, upon the full establishment of the dishonour of the petitioner, directed that he should be struck off the list. The hon. and gallant Admiral had insinuated, that this individual, and many others, had been struck off the list, because the Admiralty possessed a direct interest in so doing; and, that for every three who were struck off, they had the privilege of one appointment. He (Sir James Graham) had a great respect for the gallant Admiral, although he had had many conflicts with him in that House; and, as the hon. and gallant Officer filled a highly respectable station in his Majesty's navy, he would put it to his honour to declare, whether he believed the Board of Admiralty could be actuated by such motives; and, if he thought it could not, he would appeal to his superior judgment, to his more generous feeling, whether he considered it consistent with his duty as a distinguished officer, or the courtesy which was ordinarily extended to gentlemen of the same station, to make such an insinuation without the strongest and most substantial reasons? [Sir Edward Codrington: I have alluded to no particular board.] He understood the gallant Officer to say, that the motive was obvious, and such as he had described. The hon. and gallant Admiral, however, was very unhappy in selecting the present case, for the petitioner was a surgeon; and, consequently, formed an exception to the rule to which he had so strongly objected. The gallant Admiral had also stated, that it had been in contemplation to remove him from his 323 Majesty's service. He must express the great respect he entertained for the hon. and gallant Officer; but had he seen anything in the conduct of the gallant Admiral discreditable to the character and conduct of an officer and a gentleman (and this was a supposition he could not entertain, but the gallant Officer had raised the question), he should have thought that he betrayed the trust reposed in him by his Sovereign, if he had not recommended his Majesty to exercise his prerogative, and remove him from the Navy-list. He had not seen anything in the hon. Admiral's character, as an officer or a gentleman, to justify such a recommendation; but if, when he had the honour to preside at the Board of Admiralty, anything had come to his knowledge at all inconsistent or derogatory to the character of a gentleman and an officer, he repeated, that he would not have shrunk from any apprehension of what that House might do, or of unpopularity out of it; but he would have faced the House and the unpopularity, by acting up to what he considered to be his duty to his Sovereign. For the government of the army and navy there must be a head; and that head was the Sovereign. But the Sovereign did not exercise the privilege of striking officers from the list with his own hand; that power had been delegated to the Board of Admiralty. So long as the present form of Government existed, this power must be vested in the Crown, and executed by the Board of Admiralty. The cases which had been quoted by the hon. and gallant Officer had no application to the present case.

The Lord Advocate
thought there was one point which had not been sufficiently enforced by the right hon. Baronet. The hon. and gallant Officer had made a distinction between the power exercised by the Crown, and the power exercised by the Board of Admiralty. The truth was, the Crown could not exercise that power, but by a responsible adviser, who was, in this case, the First Lord of the Admiralty.

§ Sir Edward Codrington
said, he was the last man to say anything derogatory to the authority and dignity of his Sovereign; all that he meant was, to deprecate the assumption of the King's name by any body of men to do that which was unjust. The petitioner and his accusers had never been brought face to face; and, therefore, he had as much right to believe 324 the petitioner, as he had to credit the statements of his accusers. He himself had felt something of the injustice with which the Board of Admiralty acted towards individuals who came under their ban; he had courted inquiry, and desired a Court-martial which had been refused, and continued to be refused, and he had been kept in the back ground because he would not make himself politically subservient to party. He should have an opportunity yet of setting that and other matters to rights, and the Board of Admiralty might depend that he was not to be deterred from doing his duty, either to the public or to himself. The hon. and gallant Member then presented a petition from another medical officer in the navy, complaining, that after spending nearly the whole of his life in his Majesty's service, he was now about to be thrown on the poor-rates, having been refused his pension because he had, in want of other employment, served on board a private trader.