HC Deb 14 February 1837 vol 36 cc558-62
Mr. Hardy

, pursuant to notice, begged to call the attention of the House to the case of Mr. John Dillon, from whose petition it appeared, that in the year 1822 he was a coast-guard officer in the county of Cork, in Ireland. While there, he was the means of capturing a smuggling vessel off the port of Kinsale. It was stated that, on the night of the 2d of February, 1822, he discovered a vessel which he believed to be a smuggler, off the coast, and he put off two boats, the one with four oars, the other with six, to ascertain in what circumstances she was. On coming near to where she was, it was found that there were forty or fifty hands on board, and with that force Mr. Dillon found himself unable to contend, at all events, to such an extent as to attempt boarding the vessel; but he kept his boats at a little distance, and he threw in several shots which obliged the commander to put into Kin-sale, where she was seized by the Customhouse officers, condemned, and sold for a sum of 53,000l. Mr. Dillon upon this, put in his claim for salvage, and he was told, that until the decision of an appeal against the condemnation of the vessel, he could not have a decisive answer. In that suit persons were examined who were not of the six-oared boat, in which Mr. Dillon himself was, but of the four-oared one which was in his company. The appeal failed, and when Mr. Dillon again applied, he was told that complaints were lodged of his conduct in the transaction by some of the crew of his boats, yet he was upon the fullest inquiry acquitted. However, he gave up his situation in the coast-guard service, in which he was a chief officer, and being for some time out of employment, he was obliged to undertake the command of a vessel to the West Indies, where he remained till the year 1828, anxiously looking out in the mean time for the Gazette, in order to see how the appeal was decided, as a notice was directed by the Act to be given in the Gazette. No notice, however, appeared, and on his return to this country in 1828, he was told that a charge of cowardice had been preferred against him for not having boarded the vessel. This was founded on the statement of a Custom-house officer in Dublin. He was an ious for an inquiry into this charge, and he offered to withdraw his petition if it could be proved. He at length prevailed on the then Government to grant his request for an investigation, and the matter was referred to the decision of a naval officer, a member of that House, he meant Sir Edward Codrington, who gave it as his opinion, that the conduct of Mr. Dillon was blameless in the transaction; and Lord Althorp had written him a letter, in which the noble Lord had said that the object was to inquire whether there was a want of courage or not, and in his opinion there was no want of courage, and that in this respect Mr. Dillon was free from blame. This was a great satisfaction to a man who, after ten years' exertions, had been unable to obtain inquiry, but had at last succeeded through the justice of Lord Spencer. But when this charge had been disposed of, another objection had been raised, that Mr. Dillon had not made his application for compensation in time; but this was a mistake, for, if reference were made to his letters, written in March and April, 1822, the seizure having taken place only in the February of that year, it would be found that application was made to the Board of Customs in Dublin. And when the Custom-house officer received 11,000l. for merely taking possession of the vessel, it was hard that Mr. Dillon, by whose information the seizure had been made, should be deprived of all share. Application had, from time to time, been made, and the letters containing such applications would be found at the Board of Customs in Dublin, though they had been kept back from, and were not in the Treasury. Mr. Dillon's professional character had been vindicated by the reference to Sir Edward Codrington; but what he now wished was, to be placed in a situation to obtain some remuneration from Government. His motion therefore was "That a Committee should be appointed to inquire into the circumstances of the seizure of the ship Carew, and its condemnation by the Admiralty Court of Ireland in 1822, and as to the disposal of the proceeds."

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

thought that there was no economy more necessary to be practised than an economy of the public time, and he thought that the House would not be disposed to inquire into a case which had occurred in 1822, and which had been submitted to several successive Governments, each of which had carefully considered the different documents, and which had formed its own judgment, each sitting as it were in review over the proceedings of its predecessors. Not only have the Government done this, but Mr. Dillon had shown great activity in bringing his case under the consideration of Members of both sides of the House. It had been in the hands of the hon. Member for Kilkenny, and it was now intrusted to the hon. Member for Bradford; at one time it was thought that Lord Farnham had taken an interest in it, and then it was supported by the hon. and gallant Member whose name had been mentioned by the hon. Member for Bradford. [Mr. O'Connell: It was also intrusted to the Member for Tralee.] As each of these hon. Members had taken up the subject, he had offered them to go to the Treasury, and read the papers, and if they were not satisfied, they might come to that House and he would meet them. Let the House consider what they were called on to do—they were to inquire now, in 1837, into circumstances which took place in 1822, and to show that all the Courts were wrong, and that every Government was wrong also. The hon. Member for Bradford had stated one fallacy, on which this case mainly depended. If his Majesty's Government, as represented by Lord Spencer, had referred all matters both of law and professional character to Sir Edward Codrington, they would undoubtedly be bound by it, but such was not the case. There were two questions in this case—one was, had Mr. Dillon acted in a manner derogatory to his character as an officer and a gentleman? And the other was, was he entitled to receive any proceeds of the ship Carew? And Mr. Dillon had put forward the one or the other of these questions as it best snited his purposes. It was only the first of these questions which had been referred by Lord Spencer to Sir Edward Codrington. Sir Edward had said, that there was no reflection on the character of Mr. Dillon, and that gentleman had received from the Treasury a complete acquittal from the charge; he had also been paid 50l. for his expenses, and had then applied for promotion, but had received as an answer that he had not any great claims for it. He had the authority of Sir Edward Codrington for saying that he did not decide any question of law, and that none such had been referred to him. But there was one other point which would place this question beyond a doubt, and this was, that as far as the papers in the Treasury went, there was no claim for a number of years made by Mr. Dillon for any part of the proceeds, and when inquiry was made of him for his reason for not pressing for it, his answer was, that he had so ill-conducted and ill-disciplined a crew, that knowing if he made a claim they would have a share, he had punished them by not asking for his own share at all. Now this was so opposite to the usual course of human nature, that he could not think that it was genuine. It was for this reason that he acquiesced in the adjudication of the Duke of Wellington, and of Lord Althorp; and even if he had not known of their decision he should have come to the same conclusion. He thought the House might be much better occupied than in granting a Select Committee. Let them, if they pleased, call for all the papers; and if, when they had read them, they were not satisfied, then let the hon. Member for Bradford call for a Committee.

Mr. Hardy

replied, that the House was not in possession of the true facts of the case. The right hon. Gentleman had stated, that successive Governments had refused Mr. Dillon's claims, but he had omitted to state the grounds for such decisions. He called on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to produce all the documents to a Committee, and let that Committee do justice to Mr. Dillon. The Treasury could know nothing of the facts, except from third parties, and a false representation had been made. Application was made soon after the seizure, and the documents in the possession of the Board of Customs, in Dublin, would prove that such was the fact; but these documents had been kept back. On these grounds it was that he called for investigation, to save the honour and life of Mr. Dillon, for life was valueless to a professional man without honour.

The House divided on the motion:— Ayes 16, Noes 42:—Majority 26.

Forward to