money and the rewards of the profession were very principal causes of the exertions made in it. He confessed that they operated on his mind, and that it was the diminution of the prize money by recent regulations, which principally induced him to leave the profession for the last two or three years (hear, hear! from the ministerial benches.) He would never be a robber of his own country, but he saw no reason why we should not be permitted to plunder our enemies. He had presented a Petition the other day, which was refused to be received, from a man (general Sarrazin) whom he considered as a highly meritorious officer; and because ministers did not appear sensible of his value, they refused him the rewards which, as he thought, were due to the plans which he had presented for the good of the country, and the success of the war. He thought that injustice had been done to that gallant officer as well as to captain King, and that parliament ought to have power to take such petitions into their consideration without asking the consent of ministers. Mr. Peter Moore said, that every body had been heard except the Petitioner. He wished that the Petition itself might be read, in order to learn whether it was really an application for a grant of public money, or whether it was not such a Petition as might be entertained without the consent of his Majesty's ministers. Admiral Harvey thought that the whole question in point of order was, whether this was a Petition for money or not; and it appeared to him it could have no other object but money, and that no other relief could have been contemplated by the Petitioner. He allowed with the noble lord that the emoluments of the service must be desirable to every one embarked in it, but still he would never allow that those emoluments were the only stimulus to exertion. Although there were fewer opportunities now than there formerly were of obtaining glory and profit in the naval service, still the sense of duty would always stimulate our officers to proper exertions. If captain King had been unsuccessful in meeting in this instance a serious disappointment to his natural expectations, he hoped some other opportunity might occur, in which his services would meet their proper reward. Mr. Croker thought it necessary to state to the House what the recent alteration of the regulation respecting prize-money was, which appeared to the noble lord (Cochrane) of such importance, as to make him withdraw from the active services of his profession. Formerly the commissioned and petty officers had six-eighths of the prize-money, and the seamen and marines had but two-eighths. Considering the merits of the seamen and marines, and the numbers among which it was to be di vided, it was thought proper to give them somewhat a larger share, and now it was five-eighths which went to the commissioned and petty officers, and three-eighths among the seamen and marines. Lord Cochrane contended, that the proportion to the petty-officers had been decreased rather than increased, and defied the hon. gentleman to prove the contrary. Mr. Bastard thought, that as captain King had done the duty of captain of the Diadem, and had been subjected to all the responsibility of that duty, he ought to have shared for the rank in which he served. Lord Folkestone, in consequence of what had fallen in the course of the discussion, was ready to withdraw his motion, and put it in a shape less objectionable. He hoped, that if the House should coincide with his motion in another shape, the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not withhold his consent to an application for a grant of money. He considered that if the Diadem had been lost, captain King would certainly have been tried for the loss; and as he had done the thing which was required of him, he ought to share in the gain. The Chancellor of the Exchequer requested the noble lord would not consider him as a party to any arrangement of that sort. He had argued before, and should still contend, that unless a very strong case were made out, the House would not feel disposed to take into its consideration matter of this nature. Lord Folkestone, after a few words in explanation, withdrew his motion, and then moved, "That there be laid before this House, Copy of any Memorial or other Paper presented by captain King to his Majesty, to the board of Admiralty or to the Privy Council, respecting the booty captured at Buenos Ayres, and also the report of the law officers of the crown, to whom it was referred to consider of such Memorial." Mr. Yorke said, that as to the subject of this new motion, he thought that the House would not interfere in such cases, except on very strong grounds. At present he should vote against it simply on the ground of the House being taken by surprise, by a motion of this sort being brought on without previous notice. Mr. Whitbread then suggested the adjournment of the debate upon this motion, until after the holidays; he should say till the 8th of April. This suggestion was acquiesced in by the House, and the debate was accordingly adjourned to that day. MOTION FOR PAPERS RESPECTING CAPTAIN TOMLINSON.] Mr. Westerne said, that he rose to move for a variety of papers relative to the prosecution and trial of captain Tomlinson, of the royal navy, and he hoped he had it in his power to disprove any imputations which had been cast on him. He begged to assure the House, that his sole motive in coming forward on this occasion was, to vindicate the character of a brave and gallant officer, and to redress the injuries he had sustained, by the only mode which remained to remove the stigma which had been most unjustly affixed to him. The case of captain Tomlinson had been already in part before the House, on a recent debate, [see vol. 21, p. 960,] and it had been there stated, he thought rather incautiously, by the secretary of the Admiralty (Mr. Croker,) that captain Tomlinson had been acquitted in consequence of a flaw in the indictment. This he denied; for there was not a tittle of evidence on which he could be condemned, nor could it be shewn that he was guilty of the smallest neglect of duty. What was the nature of the accusation? That captain Tomlinson, commander of the Pelter gun-brig, had entered into a conspiracy to defraud government, by making extra charges for the repairs of the vessel which he commanded, and that those extra charges were to be made by a forgery of the blacksmith's account, which amounted to 297. and was to be increased to 981. This conspiracy was alleged to have taken place fifteen years prior to the charge being brought against him; and it happened that this was the only money transaction that captain Tomlinson ever had with the navy board in his life. From the nature of the business, it was quite impossible for a person in captain Tomlinson's situation to account for the authenticity of all the vouchers of the sub-tradesmen, or of the stores which were sent to the ship, and his business was to transmit them ministerially to the navy board. In the present case then, he affirmed, there was no fraud whatever; and he was convinced that the ship-wright was perfectly innocent of any fraud, though that was not material as affecting captain Tomlinson. That officer had pursued the ordinary course on his arrival in port, relative to the repairs of his vessel; he drew a bill on the navy board for the amount, and his pay was debited on the bill until the vouchers were forwarded. The necessary certificates were procured (which the hon. gentleman read), and the bill was ordered to be paid, as the certifi cates were perfectly regular; and it so happened that the officer who succeeded captain Tomlinson, in the Pelter, being re-commissioned (lieut. Walsh), was acquainted with the transaction, and might have been examined. This being the case, it was most extraordinary that, without any ground of charge, the navy board should afterwards obtain a warrant to arrest captain Tomlinson. And here he had to remark, that the evidence which had been procured did not attach, in the slightest degree, to captain Tomlinson; did not even name him, or venture to assert that they suspected him, or had any reason to suspect him; and it was certainly rather a hasty proceeding in Mr. Justice Nares to grant the warrant on such slight grounds, and he could not help supposing that he must have been taken unawares. The hon. gentleman then referred to the affidavits, in which the name of Captain Tomlinson never occurred. However, two Bow-street officers were dispatched in pursuit of him, while he was in the command of the sea fencibles at the mouth of the Scheldt. He surrendered himself, and on coming to town requested an interview with the solicitor of the navy, who refused to meet him until he submitted to the warrant. He asked, was this the treatment due to a gallant and meritorious officer, to refuse him an explanation, on a charge of fifteen years standing, and after dragging him up to town on an accusation of a capital felony? He could not help saying that it savoured something of malice. At last a hearing was granted him. Mr. Graham and Mr. Nares both said, that there was not a tittle of evidence in support of the charge; and when the solicitor of the navy proposed that he should be liberated on bail, these gentlemen said, that there was no pretence for that; and the prosecution would have cution had been commenced against him. On the whole, he trusted the House would grant the papers he should move for, as there was no other resource left to captain Tomlinson by which he could wipe off the stigma injuriously and maliciously thrown upon him. The honourable gentleman then paid the highest compliments to the private and professional character of captain Tomlinson, and concluded by moving, in the first instance, "That there be laid before this House, copies of all letters or informations given to the Navy Board, on which the prosecution was ordered against captain Tomlinson and Mr. Benjamin Tanner." ended here, but a bill of indictment, | founded on exparte evidence, was found against captain Tomlinson and Mr. Tanner, by the grand jury of Middlesex. Here the hon. gentleman recapitulated some of the particulars of the trial, and commented on the speech of the Attorney General (as reported on that occasion, by a person employed by the prosecutors.) The result was the acquittal of captain Tomlinson, after having suffered what he must call a most cruel prosecution. It could not have been hoped that captain Tomlinson would be found guilty, for if there was a shadow of evidence against him the indictment would have been laid in Hampshire or Devonshire, and not in Mr. Croker denied that there was any Middlesex, when it must necessarily have delay or neglect in the Navy Board, fallen to the ground. All the evidence in not having furnished the stores rewhich had been procured, was that of per- quired, consequently that they could not sons actuated by malice or spleen against be accused of malice in the prosecution. the shipwright, Mr. Tanner, and there There had been some years back a sort of was no opportunity of procuring evidence mercantile and ship-building connection to rebut them. On the whole, there ap- between Tomlinson and Tanner, subsepeared a considerable degree of malice quent to which Tanner became a bankrupt. manifested by the solicitor of the navy The assignees made a demand of a debt board, in the mode of conducting the pro- due from the captain to the latter, which secution of captain Tomlinson and Tanner. demand he resisted, stating that he had On the 23d January, 1810, the latter en- no transaction with Tanner so far back treated to be allowed to state his case; as 1795. The assignees brought their but it was pretended, that nothing was action, and it was necessary to prove the known of it, though he saw the witnesses, signature of the captain to a document: a who deposed against him, in the room of blacksmith from Dartmouth was put in Mr. Knight, the solicitor of the navy. He the witnesses box, and was shewn a paper was equally unsuccessful in an application from the Navy Board, as of work done by to sir W. Rule, one of the commissioners him, and he was asked was that his sigof the navy. On the 4th February he nature to the Bill? To which he replied was arrested, and kept in a lock-up house, "No." The counsel expressed his astoafter which he was sent to gaol, where he nishment, and said, "it must be, for it was left nine days before he was confront- was a voucher from the Navy Board." ed with his accusers, who were suffered to The blacksmith replied, The blacksmith replied, "Though it is a go down to Dartmouth when they had voucher from the Navy Board, neverthesigned the affidavits, from whence they re- less, it is not my writing. It is a forgery." turned on the 12th or 13th February. Upon this evidence the prosecution was Whether, however, Tanner had been grounded. So much for the malice. guilty or not, captain Tomlinson was not When Tanner was taken up for his share affected by the evidence, and the prosecu- in the transaction, there were found in his tion must be attributed to malice and cruel desk certain remarkable papers, as of bills oppression. Prior to the prosecution he for work done by order of captain Tomhad held an important command, in con- linson; on one side of the papers was the sequence of a plan submitted to the Admi- real number of days charged, and on the ralty, for fitting out fire-ships on the ex- other fictitious ones, in order to defraud pedition to the Scheldt, in 1809. He had government, so that instead of five or six been furnished with orders for all the ne- days per man, there were charged 14 cessary supplies, but afterwards had occa- days. When the false gains were sum sion to make strong representations of a med up, there appeared a remainder of a deficiency; and he was fully justified in bill in favour of Nicholas Tomlinson for doing so, for his character was at stake. 20 guineas; finding these fraudulent paHe firmly believed that it was in conse-pers, was it malice in the Navy Board to quence of those complaints that the prose- institute enquiry? He proceeded to state Sir Thomas Thompson defended the character of the Navy Board. He attempted to shew that they had been guilty of no neglect of duty in furnishing articles to captain Tomlinson; stated, that they did not know of the subject of the prosecution, till within three days of its being commenced; and contended, that in ordering the prosecution, they had been actuated by no vindictive spirit. He sat in company at the Navy Board with eleven as honourable men as any in this kingdom. various other circumstances of a suspi-portunity of clearing himself in the eyes cious nature, which at the time seemed of the country. After the strong impres fully to justify the proceedings of the Navy sion, too, attempted to be made against his Board in the case of captain Tomlinson. character and honesty, they were bound Lord Henniker condemned the opposi- to see these papers produced. Whatever tion given by the honourable Secretary to had been the practice of the Navy Board, the Admiralty to the motion of the hon. he should think that after a lapse of so gentleman. That motion was for papers, many years, when the subject was, so not to criminate or exculpate, but merely trifling in its amount and accidental in the to enquire into the conduct of govern manner it came before them, it would ment towards an officer who had been en- have been more decorous if, instead of gaged in seventy-two battles. immediately ordering a prosecution, they had sent for capt. Tomlinson; and asked him in the first place to explain what they conceived was irregular or incorrect. Very different, however, was their mode of proceeding; and though he would not say the prosecution was dictated by malice, he would say that there must have been at least a strong leaning against the hon. captain. However strongly the hon. Secretary had put many of the cases, it might be possible that they could receive a satisfactory explanation. Indeed he understood that many of the private memoranda that night first produced, would be explained by the very papers required. The item of 201. for instance, referred to muskets taken in a prize by capt. Tomlinson, and sold to a volunteer corps. He had not the honour of an acquaintance with capt. Tomlinson, but when he knew that he stood high in the opinion of the gentlemen of the neighbourhood, who wished to come forward in his behalf, that he had displayed high valour in fighting the battles of his country; and when he called on the House, merely to afford him the means of re-establishing his high and injured honour, they ought, in his opinion, to lend a willing hand to afford him every means for that purpose. Mr. Brand, from the high character which he had heard of the gentleman who was the subject of the motion, and the observations which had fallen from the Secretary of the Admiralty, wished to make a few observations. The speech of the honourable Secretary was certainly calculated to make an impression on the House, which made it so much the more necessary to accede to the motion. He would not allude to what had been said about malice; but that there was an unfavourable impression on the mind of the Secretary of the Admiralty, against capt. Tomlinson, was very evident, If he himself were to speak on such a subject, where a captain of the British navy had been acquitted by the sentence of a judge, when not a tittle of evidence had been produced, he certainly would, at least, have observed a more decorous mode of speaking of the gallant officer. He would not, with the levity used by the hon. Secretary, have so coupled the names of Tomlinson and Tanner, and Tanner and Tomlinson. He was acquitted, not because the indictment against him was ill laid, nor because Tanner could not be prosecuted, but because there was not the smallest evidence against him; and he must say, that when an honourable captain of the British navy was acquitted, and when, through the medium of an hon. friend of his, called for the production of documents to justify his character, the House was bound to give him such an op(VOL. XXII.) Mr. Croker in explanation said, he had merely stated the facts on which the Navy Board had acted, without arguing from these facts. Mr. W. Smith said, it appeared to him that the manner in which the Navy Board had been defended by the hon. Secretary and the hon. baronet, were as opposite as light and darkness. In defending the Navy Board from malice, the honourable Secretary certainly left an impression on his mind not very favourable, and opposite, perhaps, to what he intended; but what had been said by the hon. baronet, a member of the Navy Board, had been said in a way that certainly did him great credit. He stated matters in a clear way, without colouring, and he thought he had (N) sent no situation, it was very hard surely, that a charge which could not be proved against him, and which he was willing to go into so minutely, should be the means of preventing him from being employed by his country. Mr. Robinson observed, that, as the supporters of the motion had entirely exculpated the Navy Board from all blame, they had taken the ground from under the hon. mover. He justified the Secretary of the Admiralty from the hard measure which had been dealt out to him, and thought it was impossible for him to have taken any other course than he had done to refute the imputations thrown out against the Board he was defending. Mr. Whitbread observed, that the hon. Secretary of the Admiralty had brought forward much new matter without the smallest evidence. But taking all that had been alledged, what was there in it? Because captain Tomlinson was in partnership, and because Tanner had committed forgery, were they entitled to proceed against cap proved not only no neglect of duty in the Navy Board, but that they had shown no malice or dislike in the prosecution. It appeared to him that they had committed no impropriety but one. Considering how long captain Tomlinson had been in the service, they acted in a hasty manner. When he had fought so long the battles of his country-when so great a command was entrusted to him in the Walcheren Expedition-he confessed it did appear hard that, on such slight grounds, the Attorney General should have been instructed to bring a prosecution against him for felony. And this was the whole of the charge against the Navy Board in this transaction. Sufficient ground, in his opinion, had been stated for the production of the papers. It would be said perhaps that his conduct to the Admiralty and Navy Boards had been petulant and violent-[cries of No, from the ministerial bench]-Then if not so, there could be no charge against him. Of captain Tomlinson he knew nothing personally; he knew only that he was acquitted from the pro-tain Tomlinson without any evidence? secution brought against him: he was assured by a gentleman in his parish, for whom he had the highest esteem, that he had observed captain Tomlinson in various relations, both as a private individual and a magistrate, and that such a charge could not be brought forward with the slightest shadow of foundation. What were they to think of such a prosecution, when they were told that it was scouted by the court, who would not even allow evidence to be brought forward against it. It could not be denied, that an allegation of fraud had been made against captain Tomlinson, and it could not be denied that the Secretary of the Admiralty had detailed, what he conceived to be irrefragable evidence, to prove that he had committed that fraud. What, then, was the demand of captain Tomlinson? That as a charge had been brought against him in an open court, where he had no opportunity of bringing forward evidence, and afterwards twice in that House, such papers might be produced as would enable him to go into the whole of the case. Capt. Tomlinson must have lost his memory, and lost his judgment, if he wished for the production of papers which would not produce an effect such as he alleged they would produce. It was very hard such a charge should be allowed to attach to a gentleman who held so high a situation in the navy [No, from the mimisterial bench]. Then if he held at pre Should that justify a prosecution against a captain of the British navy? After they had failed in the warrant, upon the very same evidence they went before a grand jury. This shewed a singular zeal in pro secution. With all deference to the gentlemen who presided at the Navy Board, he could not but think that as a board they had been negligent of their duty.The hon. gentleman then went into several particulars of the case of captain Tomlin son, and argued that there was not the smallest ground to doubt, from any thing that had yet been said or produced, the statement of captain Tomlinson. Was it not necessary, therefore, that the matter should be enquired into? He thought there was something like a persecuting spirit displayed in this business, if not by the Navy Board, at least by those whom they employed. The business was first brought before Mr. Nares, then before Mr. Graham, than whom no man stood higher in the estimation of the public, as an upright and intelligent magistrate, and both Mr. Nares and Mr. Graham thought there were not even grounds for holding captain Tomlinson to bail. Here it was taken on the same evidence to a grand jury; and the Attorney General said, that he ought to be hanged, because he happened to be connected with a fraudulent partner. This was a curious conclusion to jump at. He wondered how so great a |
