HC Deb 02 May 1839 vol 47 cc745-54
Sir Francis Burdett,

in bringing before the House the case of Mr. Dillon, whose petition was presented on the 27th of March last, observed, that if there were any one thing more important than another to the navy, it was, that all deserving officers and men should receive the rewards which they had well earned. Mr. Dillon, the petitioner in the present case, had been nine years a master mariner in the royal navy, and had afterwards served in the coast guard, in a situation which required good seamanship, much courage, and a great deal of judgment, skill, and discretion. It appeared, that he had performed all the duties of this situation with ability, skill, and courage, that he did not omit anything that zeal could prompt, or that courage guided by prudence could achieve. Mr. Dillon having the command of a boat engaged in the coast-guard service at Mill Cove Harbour, in the county of Cork, surprised and chased a smuggler of very superior size, crowded with men, and well armed, drove her from Mill Cove Harbour, where she evidently intended to make a landing, and compelled her, by the closeness of his pursuit, to seek for refuge in the harbour of Kinsale, where she was captured, and ultimately condemned. Immediately after the transaction, Mr. Dillon received a letter from the Treasury, expressing the highest approbation of his conduct, but much litigation ensued before the smuggler was finally condemned. Meanwhile Mr. Dillon entered the merchant service and sailed to the West Indies, where he remained for upwards of four years, and it was not until after his return that he heard of any charge having been made against him, or of any objection being raised to his receiving his due share of the rich prize which he had been the direct and immediate means of throwing into the hands of the tide waiter at Kinsale. He understood that, by an Act of Parliament, it was required that the names of all vessels condemned should be published in the Gazette. Whether from accident or not, he knew not; but that form, in the present instance, was omitted, and the consequence was, that Mr. Dillon was not aware of the condemnation of the vessel till his return. He then found that the sum adjudged to the tide-waiter at Kinsale for the seizure of the vessel amounted to upwards of 11,000l. It was quite clear, that if any body had a title to that sum, it was Mr. Dillon. He accordingly made his claim; and then, for the first time, he heard that there had been a charge made against him of cowardice for not boarding the vessel. He immediately applied to have an inquiry instituted into that charge, because Mr. Dillon conceived (and as he thought, rightly conceived) that there was no other possible ground for refusing to him his share of this large prize. In consequence of this application Lord Althorp directed that the whole of the papers, &c., connected with the affair, should be referred to Sir Edward Codrington; and, after a full examination of all the circumstances of the case, that gallant Officer reported that Mr. Dillon was highly justified in the course he had pursued. After the reference he looked upon his claim as settled, and he wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to that effect, and Mr. Drummond in his reply, dated April 7, 1833, stated that the question would be re-considered. Mr. Dillon, however, objected to any revision, and wrote another letter, expostulating with the Government on the hardships of a revision of what he had understood to be a final adjustment. He then received a letter from Lord Althorp, in which he stated, that he was surprised that the claim had not been long since settled. Unfortunately, Lord Althorp did not remain long in office after that, and for some reason the claim had been never settled, for if the law of the case were clear, and if the facts were as he had stated them, he did not see why it should not be settled. As Mr. Dillon was very tender upon the point, whether he was or was not an excellent seaman, he had written to Admiral Sir George Martin, to Admiral Sir Robert Stopford, and to Admiral Sir P. Durham, and they said, that, relying on the correctness of the statement of his case, they thought that he had exculpated himself from the charge against him. The only suspicion that could rest anywhere was with the Board of Customs, but he had never been called before the board to make his defence, and bow could they show that the claim could be with reason or with decency rejected? The Government, after agreeing that Mr. Dillon's character was irreproachable, had made an offer of a grant of 50l. But how could they reconcile this offer with the refusal of the claim? If Mr. Dillon were culpable, why did they give him 50l.? For, if he were culpable, he ought to have been tried or called to account, and he would have been happy to have been called to account. But why did they give him 50l.?—they acknowledged that he had cleared himself of what stood in the way of his claim, and yet they deprived him of his due reward for his skill and courage on that tempestuous sea. The case had been already taken up by many Members of Parliament, and Mr. Hardy, who was one, wrote to Mr. Dillon, saying, that on representing the case to the Chancellor of the Exchequr, the latter complained that Mr. Dillon had not made his claim immediately, but he went to the West Indies, which prevented his following the claim up at the time, and he could not afford to lose his professional gains into the bargain. If his were a just and good claim, surely this was not a very honourable answer that the claim had not been made for two years. The case seemed to him, though not very extensive, to be very strong. Was Mr. Dillon guilty of the charges brought against him? if he were not, had he not a legal right to the prize money? if not, had he had a trial either one way or another? and if there had been no trial why was his claim disallowed? He firmly believed all the statements which had been made, and he only wished the Chancellor of the Exchequer to allow the case to be brought before a competent tribunal. He would conclude by moving that a select committee be appointed to examine the merits of the petition of Mr. Dillon.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

took the liberty of very humbly asking the attention of the House to the facts of this case, not merely for the justification of the Government, but of the House of Commons itself; not alone on his own behalf, but on the behalf of Lord Spencer and those with whom he had had the honour of being connected, and on behalf, also, of the governments which had preceded the late and the present Government, and whose conduct was equally impugned. If there was the shadow of a claim on the part of this Gentleman, and he would not use a word of disrespect towards him, he was willing to treat him as was assumed by the hon. Baronet, as a deserving officer pressing claims upon the public. He must say, that as these claims had been before the House of Commons on two several occasions if there had been any denial of justice it had been on the part of the House of Commons itself. He stood there, however, to assert that there had been no denial of justice. The hon. Baronet had stated the case in the only way he could from the representations of the individual himself, and it was therefore no imputation on him to say, that he had only the means of forming an ex parte view of the case; and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) must take the liberty of stating to the House that, with reference to the present motion, he had acted as he had done upon all former occasions towards other Members, he had communicated with the hon. Baronet by letter, stating that every one of the papers in this case were at the Treasury, open to the hon. Baronet, and that he might inspect every document. If the hon. Baronet had inspected them he would not then have been placed in the situation of reasoning ex parte; he would have known all the facts and their bearing, and would have had an opportunity of ascertaining whether this gentleman's case were correct or not. He did not complain that the hon. Baronet had not accepted his offer, but as he had not accepted it, he could not complain if he had been made the victim of a delusive statement as to this transaction. The transaction occurred in 1822. The interval which had since elapsed, he would not say, was a bar to the claim; but at least, when an interval of sixteen years had occurred, it cast somewhat of suspicion on the case. For what changes of Government had since occurred? What if a gentleman had had an opportunity for so long a time of apply- ing to the heads of the proper offices, if he could have brought his case before a court of law, if he could have profited by the professional authority under which he was acting, if he could have applied to the Treasury, which had repeatedly changed hands; if he could have applied to the government of Lord Liverpool; to the government of Lord Grey; to the government of the Duke of Wellington; to the government of Sir Robert Peel, and to the government of Lord Melbourne; and if all those governments had expressed an opinion upon the subject? Mr. Dillon had applied to each successive government, and though they did not agree in other matters, they agreed as to the claim of Mr. Dillon, and they had all utterly rejected that claim. Mr. Dillon's own story was this:—In 1822 he was stationed on the southern coast of Ireland: he had a bad crew, in which he had no confidence; and what did he do? On the 15th of February, 1822, "when the wind was blowing very strong, and there was a heavy sea," Mr. Dillon set out with saying, and not having any orders to go to sea in such circumstances, he went to sea notwithstanding; not to interrupt any smugglers, but with the single motive of impressing on the minds of his crew that they were to do their duty. When he was out he met with a certain ship called the Peru. He came up with her, and finding that he had not strength to cope with her, and as was affirmed by the judgment of Sir Edward Codrington, he had a sufficient justification in not boarding a vessel of such superior force. But he said, that though he had not sufficient force to board her, yet that he fired so many shots at her as to compel her to go into Kinsale, where she was taken. And then came down the hon. Baronet with the law of the case, and said, that because Mr. Dillon had fired these shots, that therefore he had driven the ship into Kinsale, that therefore she was taken, and that therefore Mr. Dillon was entitled to the prize-money. But so far from the vessel being compelled to go into Kinsale in consequence of the exertions of Mr. Dillon, she had been out in a gale of wind and had sprung a leak. The master wanted to go to France, but the crew rose against him, and carried the vessel against his wishes into the port of Kinsale; and being in that port, an adjudication took place, and condemnation having been made, the cargo was sold. This occurred in 1822, and though the hon. Baronet spoke of Mr. Dillon's going to the West Indies, and of his absence for four years, so as to have had no opportunity of preferring his claim, yet even if this had been the case, with the number of trading vessels monthly going out to the West Indies, it was scarcely probable that a man having a claim to £.11,000 would rest four years without pressing it. But Mr. Dillon did not, in fact, go out to the West Indies for two years after the seizure; he remained in the public service up to 1824; and would it be believed that during those two years he had never preferred any claim? Would any one say that Mr. Dillon, knowing the condemnation, should have remained so long without making any claim? When, however, Mr. Dillon was driven to give a reason for his long delay, he gave one which would satisfy hon. Gentlemen that there was not the shadow of a foundation for the claim. He would read to the House the reason for the delay from a written paper prepared by Mr. Dillon himself. They had been told by the hon. Baronet, that Mr. Dillon was not aware of the amount of his claim, and that he had been led astray because there had been no advertisement of the condemnation of the vessel. [Sir F. Burdett had never made that statement.]

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

had understood the hon. Baronet to complain that there had been no insertion in any newspaper of the condemnation which the Government was bound in law to insert, and that, therefore, Mr. Dillon was ignorant of the condemnation.

Sir Francis Burdett

did not state anything about Mr. Dillon's not knowing the value of the prize, but he complained that the condemnation had not been gazetted as it ought to have been, and that Mr. Dillon did not know of the condemnation when he went to the West Indies, at-whatever time that was, whether it was two years or more after the seizure. That was Mr. Dillon's complaint.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

But Mr. Dillon had himself assigned these as the facts, that shortly after the condemnation he learnt that the seizing-officer, Mr. Marsden, had been awarded upwards of 11,000l, as his portion of the seizure, and that he (Mr. Dillon) would have made the claim then, but he did not conceive (the word not being evidently inserted by mis- take) the necessity and propriety of withholding for a time the proportion due to his crew, of whom he had received so indifferent a character, the better to ensure discipline and good conduct. So that, when he was called upon to explain the delay, he justified it because he had a bad crew, and that he withheld his own claim, because if he made the claim, it must be distributed among his bad crew as well as himself. The objection which had been raised against the claim was, that it had not been made at the time; and it had been further stated that he had behaved ill. After his claim had been repeatedly refused, he stated the hardship, independently of the question as to the money of the slur upon his character, and he requested an examination, because, till the slur was removed, he could get no employment in the merchant service. After many applications it was agreed, that this portion of the question should be referred to Sir Edward Codrington. But the question of the claim to prize-money was never referred to his gallant Friend. The hon. Baronet, therefore, was the dupe of an exparte statement, into which, if he had ever taken the trouble to look into the Parliamentary Debates, he would have been prevented from falling. After Sir E. Codrington's report as to Mr. Dillon's conduct, Lord Althorp consented that the claim to the prize-money should be reconsidered by the Treasury, and ultimately they offered, and Mr. Dillon took gratefully, the sum of 50l. from the royal bounty, and he gave a receipt, not on account or for expenses, but for a gift of 50l., for which he was extremely grateful at the time he received it. The receipt he held in his hand, [Sir Francis Burdett crossed over the House, and took the receipt.] There was Mr. Dillon's own receipt—let the hon. Baronet and his counsel look at it, and see whether they could reconcile one statement with the other. The question had been decided by the Duke of Wellington's Government, which had expressed an adverse decision. Mr. Dillon repeated his application to that Government, and was at last informed that no further answer would be given, and that the claim could not be further entertained. Mr. Dillon next applied to the Government of Lord Grey, for it was the fate of every new Government, and he gave full notice of the facts to hon. Gentlemen opposite—to be called upon to revise all the acts of the preceding Government—and it would be found that those who were most forward and most eager in pressing their claims were generally those who had the worst possible case. Lord Grey's Government also considered this case, and the Board of Treasury, after repeatedly investigating the claim, came to the same decision as that of the Duke of Wellington. Then came the change of ministry in 1835, and then there came also the appeal from Lord Grey's decision; after the reference to Sir Edward Codrington, and after Mr. Dillon had been freed from the imputation of cowardice, the original minutes of the decision by Sir R. Peel's Government were in the hand-writing of the hon. Baronet the Member for Buckingham, and it was to inform the party that Sir R. Peel had referred his letter of "such a date" to the Board of Treasury, which "had again taken the case into their most attentive consideration, and that there was nothing in his statement to influence my Lords to depart from the decision which had been frequently come to by different boards of treasury." Mr. Dillon next stated to them that he had incurred expenses amounting to 4,450l., and he claimed remuneration from Sir Robert Peel to that extent. On the 5th of March, the following answer was made:—Inform Mr. Dillon that my Lords consider his case finally decided, and request he will abstain from making any further applications to the Board." That was the answer of a Conservative Government; and yet the hon. Gentleman opposite came down to the House to complain of the harshness inflicted by a Whig administration. This, however, was not all; Mr. Dillon again came to Sir R. Peel's Government, and he then applied for the command of a packet, as he had frequently done before; and on the 31st of March, 1835, the Government gave this answer—"Inform Mr. Dillon that his case has been frequently considered, and the decision of the Board has been frequently communicated to him. My Lords do not admit that Mr. Dillon has any claims on the Government, and must decline to interfere in any way with the appointments given to the Board of Admiralty. Inform Mr. Dillon that all future application must be fruitless, and that the Government must decline to make any answer in future." In 1836, Mr. Sharman Crawford presented a petition to this House from Mr. Dillon, praying for an inquiry into his case; and it was then his duty to state facts to the same effect as those which he had now detailed. Mr. Crawford expressed himself entirely satisfied with the explanation which was given, and withdrew his motion, and from that time the Government were rid of Mr. Dillon. Having thus obtained the assistance of Mr. Crawford, and satisfied himself with the uselessness of any application to the Government by means of Members sitting on the ministerial side of the House, he went over to the Conservative ranks, and he booked Mr. Hardy, the late Member for Bradford, as his next victim, the predecessor of the hon. Baronet. That hon. Gentleman made a motion similar to that of the hon. Baronet, but the explanation having been once more afforded to the House, a division took place, when sixteen Gentlemen only supported the proposition, while forty-two were found to vote against it. He prayed the House, therefore, to pursue the same course now, and reject this motion. He thought he had done no more than his duty in giving the explanation which he had afforded, as the Government to which he had the honour to belong were held up to obloquy, as having omitted and refused to pay attention to claims which were professed to be just. If any fault, however, existed on the part of the Government, it was one of a nature exactly opposite to that alleged against them. It was not that they improperly refused to pay attention to such claims as the present; for they were rather disposed to give encouragement to the full extent of their power to those men who deserved well of their country. They could have no object in acting otherwise; and it was, besides, a most pleasant duty to reward merit. In the present case, successive Governments had fully investigated and decided upon the claim of Mr. Dillon, and the opinions so expressed had been confirmed by that of the House of Commons; snd he therefore sincerely hoped that the House would not sanction this renewal of the discussion.

Mr. Litton

considered that a fair case for inquiry had been made out, and he thought that the proposition was the more abundantly confirmed, as the right hon. Gentleman who had last spoken, although he had gone into considerable detail, had not stated that any real inquiry had yet been made. The case, it was true, might have been investigated by a Treasury clerk, or a Treasury commissioner, but he thought that the House would agree with him that no tribunal had been engaged in the investigation, with power or information sufficient to come to a proper conclusion. The right hon. Gentleman admitted the law of the case, and he contended that after the charge of cowardice had been negatived by Admiral Codrington, the claim of Mr. Dillon could not be disallowed. The claim was in effect admitted by Lord Althorp after that in 1833, who, upon being applied to upon the subject, said that he was surprised that Mr. Dillon's claim had not long since been disposed of. He rested strongly upon this letter, for no new fact had been since discovered which at all took away from the justice of the demand made upon the Government.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

explained. He said, that he believed that there was another letter from Lord Althorp upon this subject, which had not been communicated to hon. Gentlemen opposite. On the return of that noble Lord to town, he directed Mr. Drummond to write a letter, in which, after stating the facts, he said that after a full investigation of the case, the noble Lord was of opinion that the money having been distributed, and no claim made until so long a period had been allowed to elapse after the transaction, the Treasury Board could not come to any other determination than that which had been already communicated.

Sir Francis Burdett

as he perceived the sense of the House to be against him, should not give them the trouble to divide.

Motion negatived.