HC Deb 23 March 1848 vol 97 cc911-8
MR. F. O'CONNOR

rose to move the adoption of an address founded on the statement contained in the petition of John Dillon, presented to the House Dec. 14, 1847, and printed with the Votes on the 9th of February, 1848. The circumstances of the case were these:—An American brig, named the Peru, laden with tobacco, and suspected to be a smuggler, appeared in the course of the year 1822 off New Ross, in the county of Cork. Captain Dillon, who was at that time commander of a coast-guard station in the neighbourhood, put to sea on a stormy night in search of this suspected smuggler. He fell in with her, she endeavoured to escape, he chased her, fired no less than 137 shots at her, 35 of which took effect, and drove her into Kinsale, where she was seized in smooth water by a tide-waiter, who, on her condemnation, became entitled to 11,700l. capture-money, which he received, while Captain Dillon, who was the sole cause of the capture, went unrewarded. He had been deprived of his rights principally in consequence of the report of his superior officer, to whom during the course of the night while he was chasing the Peru, he had made signals, and who had refused him assistance. It was entirely owing to the exertions of Captain Dillon that the brig Peru had been captured; and the ship and her cargo had been sold for 53,252l. Of this sum the tide-waiter, who in smooth water had merely taken possession of her, had received 11,786l., while Captain Dillon—to whose exertions alone the capture had been owing—had not received a single farthing. He had brought forward the case of Captain Dillon in that House in the year 1834, and Mr. Spring Rice, now Lord Mont-eagle, and Lord Althorp, had assured him that the whole case should be referred to Sir Edward Codrington, and that if Sir Edward Codrington decided that Captain Dillon had done his duty as an officer and a man of courage, he should receive the capture-money to which he was entitled. That was the only issue raised. Sir Edward Codrington, after investigating the circumstances of the case, had delivered an award favourable to Captain Dillon; that award was, he believed, at present in the possession of the Lords of the Treasury, but from them Captain Dillon had never been able to get a copy of the award. The case set up by the Government then was, that the Peru was bound to France, and not to the Irish coast. If that were the case, it was a violation of the law of nations on the part of the British Government to seize and sell the property. But he was in a condition now distinctly to negative that plea. Since that defence had been set up. Captain Dillon had been to New York, and be had procured from the custom-house there an official copy of the manifest of the brig Peru for that voyage, which had been sworn to by the captain, and the authenticity of which had been attested by the British Consul; and on the face of that manifest, the attested copy of which he held in his hand, it appeared that the brig Peru was laden with tobacco, to be landed as a smuggling venture somewhere on the coast of Ireland; and his hon. Friend the Member for Cork would bear witness that on the night when the Peru was prevented by Captain Dillon from entering the bay of New Boss, there were upwards of 300 peasants assembled on the coast awaiting her arrival, in order to assist in running her cargo. It had been contended that the Peru put into Kinsale harbour only because she was leaky; but it was in consequence of the shots fired at her by Captain Dillon that she became leaky; and after the evidence he had adduced, and the report of Sir Edward Codrington, he was at a loss to conceive on what plea the Government could refuse to do Captain Dillon the justice which he de- manded for him. In fact the Government had acknowledged his claim, by giving him 150l. Such was his case, and he trusted the House would not pay the less attention to it because Captain Dillon was not himself a Member of the House and enabled to urge his own cause. The hon. Member moved— That on this day fortnight the House shall resolve itself into Committee, to consider the case of Mr. Dillon, with the view of compensation.

MR. PARKER

had only to repeat the statement which he had made when the subject was brought before the House last Session. It was a disagreeable office to refuse such an application, and it would be always more agreeable to the Government to be liberal. The facts occurred in February, 1822, when the Peru appeared hovering off the coast-guard station on the coast of Cork, and two vessels went out after her, but she escaped. She returned, and Captain Dillon, in command of the coast-guard, went out, and no doubt meant to capture her, believing her to be a smuggler. The Peru, however, was much stronger than he was, and Captain Dillon returned re infectâ. Upon the prosecution of the vessel in the Court of Exchequer, it appeared that she intended to have gone to France; but she put into the harbour of Kinsale, and her actual capture was made by another party. The House would infer from the hon. and learned Member's statement, that Captain Dillon had exhibited his claim at the time before the proper authorities. But he put in no claim at the time, nor made any application (so far as was known) until 1829. Why did he delay his claim for seven years? In 1829 his claim was rejected by the Treasury. In 1832 it was brought by the hon. Member before the House, when Lord Althorp did say that Captain Dillon had not conducted himself in a professional manner, and was not entitled to the consideration of Government. The question whether Captain Dillon had conducted himself in a professional manner in not capturing the Peru was referred to Sir Edward Codrington; but it was that point alone, not the whole matter. A letter from the late Mr. Drummond to Captain Dillon, dated June 7, 1833, informed him that Sir E. Codrington had reported, in answer to the reference, that there were circumstances in the case which were suffcient to justify Captain Dillon in not attempting to board the Peru, and that Lord Althorp had determined to submit the case to revision at the close of the Session. The result showed that what had been done by Captain Dillon had nothing to do with what occurred afterwards in the harbour of Kinsale, so as to entitle him to any reward. In a subsequent letter to Captain Dillon, Lord Althorp said, that although the charge of cowardice was no longer a ground of objection to his claim, Sir Edward Codrington's opinion could have no bearing upon the title to reward on other grounds; that the removal of the charge of cowardice got rid of only one objection, the other objections still remaining in full force. Lord Althorp had therefore gone into the question, and came to a conclusion adverse to Captain Dillon, and the reiteration of the claim had met with the same result from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the university of Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn), when they held the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer; and whenever repeated, he was convinced the application would experience the same fate. The capture or the vessel arose solely from her putting into the harbour of Kinsale, and any previous acts of Captain Dillon did not entitle him to any reward. He must put a negative on the Motion.

MR. HUME

said, he had had communications with Lord Althorp upon this subject, and he had come to the conclusion that Captain Dillon could not substantiate his claim. No man could have taken more anxious care to investigate the claim than Lord Althorp had done.

MR. AGLIONBY

had come to the conclusion that Captain Dillon had been exceedingly ill used, and was entitled to prize-money for the capture of this vessel. He had always been of opinion that when the case first came before the Treasury it was met on the ground of cowardice alone. That charge was now disposed of. He believed that, although the vessel was not actually captured by Captain Dillon, it was taken in consequence of his shot, and then his claim to compensation was within the rules of the service. The case was a very hard one.

MR. S. CRAWFORD

said, one point alluded to by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Parker), the delay in making the claim, was explained by Captain Dillon, who stated that he had been informed, when making application, that there was an appeal upon the subject of the capture pending before the Court of Admiralty. He (Mr. Crawford) retained the opinion he before enter- tained, that Captain Dillon had suffered an extreme grievance. He should merely add the expression of his entire conviction that the case of Captain Dillon had been fully made out.

MR. WAKLEY

regretted the remarks that had been made by the hon. Member for Montrose, and contended that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had given no answer to the claim of Captain Dillon. If the Government had resolved to negative the Motion of the hon. Member for Nottingham, he apprehended that nothing which he could say would be likely to alter their resolution; but he trusted they would consider the justice and expediency of referring the question of Mr. Dillon's claim to a Select Committee of that House. He fully believed it would not take a Committee more than three or four days to dispose of the whole matter; and he entertained no doubt whatever that a Select Committee, fairly chosen, would report in favour of Captain Dillon.

MR. POWER

said, that all the facts of the case had been brought under his notice, and he considered that Mr. Dillon had succeeded in making out his case. At the time that he prevented the landing of the cargo, as many as 400 men were ready with carts to remove the goods the moment they were landed.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

denied that Captain Dillon possessed any claim whatever to any portion of the prize-money, or to any reward of any kind. At the same time, if it would afford any satisfaction to Mr. Dillon or his friends, he was quite ready to say, that no imputation of cowardice rested upon his character, nor even any suspicion that he had not done his duty. It was perfectly true that Captain Dillon prevented the landing of the tobacco at the place appointed near Ross Bay; but it was equally certain that the vessel which carried that tobacco, being chased by a revenue cutter, stood out to sea, in consequence of the exertions of Captain Dillon; and the question was, who seized the vessel, and what were the circumstances? She stood out to sea and received serious damage; the crew began to apprehend that she was leaky, and insisted on putting into Kin-sale, and under the guidance of a mutinous part of the crew she was brought into that harbour, where she was boarded by the revenue officers, her cargo being seized and condemned. There was no difference as to the facts. Captain Dillon did not capture the vessel; he merely prevented the discharge of her cargo at a particular place. A policeman might defeat the operations of a pickpocket at one end of the town, and at the other end a different policeman might take him into custody; but the merit of the capture would belong to the latter, and not to the former. To prevent the landing of the cargo was one thing, to seize the vessel was quite another.

MR. O'CONNOR

, in reply, stated, that Captain Dillon had taken the earliest opportunity of putting in his claims, and had not, as had been stated, postponed his application to 1829. He begged to say, that the hon. Member for Montrose was not an infallible authority with him; that hon. Member's excessive sentimentality and kindness always induced him to request hon. Members to withdraw their Motions, so that he might have the opportunity of substituting some other Motion of his own; which, if carried, enabled him to say that the credit of having settled the affair rested solely with himself. Lord Althorp objected to the compensation asked by Mr. Dillon solely on the ground of his alleged want of bravery; and the settlement of that point was delegated by Lord Althorp to Sir Edward Codrington, who reported that, in his opinion, there was no ground whatever for such an imputation upon the character of Mr. Dillon. In Chancery, when a matter of fact was disputed, issue thereon was sent to a court of law to he tried, and by the decision of that court the Court of Chancery was bound. This case was of a perfectly similar character; the decision of Sir E. Codrington ought to have been at once acted upon, and compensation made to Mr. Dillon. The speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had completely substantiated Mr. Dillon's claim. He hoped, then, as Mr. Dillon had beggared himself in his attempts to obtain compensation, the House would agree to this Motion which he (Mr. O'Connor) was thoroughly convinced was based on justice.

House divided:—Ayes 8; Noes 59: Majority 51.

List of the AYES.
Aglionby, H. A. Wakley, T.
Fagan, W. Williams, J.
Henry, A.
Power, Dr. TELLERS.
Sibthorp, Col. O'Connor, F.
Thompson, Col. Crawford, W. S.
List of the NOES.
Acland, Sir T. D. Horsman, E.
Anderson, A. Hotham, Lord
Armstrong, Sir A. Hume, J.
Armstrong, R. B. Jervis, Sir J.
Arundel and Surrey, Earl of Keppel, hon. G. T.
Kershaw, J.
Bellew, R. M. King, hon. P. J. L.
Boyle, hon. Col. Lascelles, hon. E.
Bright, J. Molesworth, Sir W.
Brockman, E. D. Moore, G. H.
Brotherton, J. Nugent, Sir P.
Bunbury, E. H. Parker, J.
Busfeild, W. Pilkington, J.
Chaplin, W. J. Power, N.
Childers, J. W. Pugh, D.
Clay, J. Pusey, P.
Cobden, R. Russell, F. C. H.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E. Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.
Colvile, C. R. Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.
Craig, W. G. Strickland, Sir G.
Davies, D. A. S. Thicknesse, R. A.
Duncuft, J. Thornely, T.
Dundas, Adm. Verney, Sir H.
Fergus, J. Ward, H. G.
Fox, W. J. Wawn, J. T.
Gardner, R. Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.
Grace, O. D. J. Wood, W. P.
Greene, J. Wyld, J.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.
Hawes, B. TELLERS.
Hildyard, R. C. Tufnell, H.
Hindley, C. Hill, Lord M.