§ MR. SHARMAN CRAWFORD, in moving for copies of papers respecting Mr. John Dillon's claim for prize money out of the proceeds of the smuggler brig Peru, reminded the House that Mr. Dillon, in the execution of his duty as officer of the coast-guard service in Ireland, attacked this brig, which was endeavouring to land her cargo, and forced her out to sea; she was afterwards obliged to put into Kinsale harbour, but, as he alleged, in consequence of his attack, and there she was seized, and condemned and sold. He was at first told, that the reason why he was denied any share in the proceeds was, that there was a charge of cowardice against him; but Lord Althorp referred that question to Sir E. Codrington, who entirely acquitted Mr. Dillon of the charge. It was then stated, that he did not make his claim in time; but the fact was, that he had gone abroad on service before the brig was finally condemned. The hon. Member added, that his object was, not to press the claim hostilely, but to induce the Treasury to reconsider it. He moved for copies of statements of George F. Young, George Pryme, and Feargus O'Connor, Esqs., etc.
§ MR. J. PARKERcould not undertake to furnish copies of all these papers, because some of them were not to be found in the shape asked for, and some were mixed up with other transactions. Some of the originals had been returned to Mr. Dillon, and it would hardly be regular to produce a copy of a copy. No communication from Sir E. Codrington was to be found, though it was clear from a memorandum of Lord Althorp's, that the charge of want of professional vigour was referred to Sir E. Codrington, and that he acquitted Mr. Dillon. But the real question was, whether his conduct had sufficient to do with the capture to entitle him to a share of the prize; that had been very fully considered by the proper authorities, and the decision was against him. Any hon. Member might look into the papers at the Treasury; and there would be no objection to produce 1107 copies of all really official documents remaining in the office. He (Mr. Parker) believed that there had been a proper disposition to do justice to Mr. Dillon.
§ MR. WAKLEYsaid, Mr. Dillon wanted money, not papers. But the fact was, that a private individual had no chance of success against officials, for successive Governments always made it a Cabinet question, and were determined to defeat the claim. Men in office always "followed the bellwether." Why had the charge of cowardice been brought forward, if it were not intended to rely upon it? Would the Government consent to refer the case to a Select Committee? If not, they could not be confident in the justice of their opposition to the claim.
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERobserved, that the present Motion was for the production of papers. The Treasury had no objection to produce such as they had; but the House ought to see those papers before the subject was brought on for discussion in any other shape.
§ MR. F. T. BARINGhad looked into the case with the greatest anxiety to do Mr. Dillon justice; and the Government had not been at all biased against him by the adverse decision previously given.
§ Motion withdrawn.