CAPTAIN EDWARDS. (Hansard, 16 August 1836)

§ Sir Edward Codrington
presented a petition from a Mr. Edwards, complaining that a deceased brother of his, a Captain Edwards, had been struck off the half-pay list in consequence of his refusing to pay a debt of 72l.; and praying that copies of the correspondence which took place on the subject might be laid before the House. The petitioner stated that his brother really owed only 12l., and that he offered to pay that; but that the Admiralty, refusing to take his explanation of the matter, had struck him off the half-pay list. The gallant Member said, that he could not vouch for the truth of these statements. One thing was certain—that the accused was not confronted face to face with his accuser, as should have been done. The petitioner complained, and he thought justly, of the interference of the Admiralty in a question relating to a private debt. The petitioner added, that his brother having been deprived of his half-pay, was thrown into gaol, having no means then to pay his debts; and that he died from the effects of a wound which he had received in fighting the battles of his country. The petitioner, in conclusion, prayed that the papers and correspondence in the case should be laid before the House. This was one of those cases, of which there were many, which he felt it his duty to bring under the notice of the House, and which loudly called for investigation.

§ Mr. Hume
highly approved of the course adopted by the gallant Admiral. It was an improper exercise of the prerogative of the Crown to deprive any officer of his commission without trial.

§ Mr. Charles Wood
would not on that occasion go into the general question as to the right of the Admiralty to exercise such a power. His gallant Friend had stated, that it was impossible that a fair investigation could take place without having the accused and the accuser face to face. Now, it did so happen that no case could have been clearer than that of 1254 Mr. Edwards. He had given his word of honour as a gentleman to pay this money; and when called upon to state why he did not do so, he admitted distinctly, in a letter to the Admiralty, that he did not do so. He then offered some circumstances as an excuse; but they were not considered sufficient by the Admiralty. The fullest opportunity was given to him to clear himself. He sent a long explanation to the Admiralty, but it was not considered sufficient; and the Admiralty, in striking him off the half-pay list, stated to him distinctly that he was struck off upon the very grounds that had been admitted by himself.

§ Sir G. Sinclair
said, that if that House was to exercise an appellate jurisdiction in such matters, it would not be able to get through its business, even by sitting from the 1st of January till the 31st of December.

§ Mr. Wakley
said, that one great evil of this system of private investigation was, that the public were deprived of all means of judging whether the decision had been, right or wrong.

§ Sir E. Codrington
said, that the hon. Secretary had made a statement of the facts of the case. Why, then, should he oppose the production of the papers on which that statement was founded? He wished to know whether the hon. Secretary would oppose the production of the papers in the cases of those petitioners whose petitions he (Sir E. Codrington) had lately presented to the House?

§ Mr. C. Wood
would give the gallant Admiral an answer when he brought forward his motion next Session.