The Express.
London, England, 1847-04-16 00:00:00

was decided when the right hoe. baronet was First Load of
the Admiralty, and therefore he defended that deeision.
The right hon. baronet had followed an hon. gentleman
now in office, and it was a matter of course that the ins and
the outs always agreed upon such subjects, although
ho had , hoped in this came the right honourable
baronet, as in other instances, would have acknow-
ledged tnat he had been greatly in error. (Laughter.) Hay.
log gone fully into the facts of the ease, the Ism. member
concluded by saying that the house was bound to
sanction the inquiry, and the government would, in his
opinion, suffer in character if they refused the committee.
Alter a few words from Captain GLADSTONS,
Mr. THORNLEY said the question very much depended
on whether the Court of Admiralty in awarding the salvage
knew that such a charge was to be made by the Board of
Admiralty ; if they had known it probably they would have
given • larger sum.
Sir J. GRAHAM said the parties appealed from the Court
of Admiralty to the Privy Council, and the charge of the
Board of Admiralty was taken into consideration when the
additional sum of 12,0001. was awarded.
Dr. NICHOLL said the demand made by the Admiralty
was unprecedented; they might as well have charged for
sending out ships to the chops of the channel with provisions
for a homeward-bound fleet. When the matter came before
the judicial committee of the privy Council, that court had
only to decide the fit Pala for the underwriters to pay for
the saving of their property, and they determined that
54,0001. was the proper amount of salvage. Although the
judicial committee were well aware that the admiralty had
claimed 13,8001, the effect of their judgment was, that they
had no power to deal with such claim, and all they could do
—without reference to the claimants—was to declare that
54,0001. was as muck as the owners of the property ought to
pay for salvage.
Mr. HUME observed that, although the right hon. hart.
(Sir J. Graham), had stated that all his colleagues at the
board of admiralty concurred with him in the demand made
for stores, wear and tear, and so on, he was authorised to say
that Sir Thai. Hardy was not one of that number. (Hear.)
The statements which had been made must have convinced
the noble lord. He hoped he would be just: he did not
want him to be liberal. (Hear, hear.)
The LORD ADVOCATE said that the hon. member for
Finsbury had by his able and ingenious speech disguised the
real state of the case, the facts of which lay is • notahell.
After the wreck a claim was made by Capt. Dickinson and
others as salvors a claim was made by the admiralty for
expenses; and there was also a third party, the owners or
consignees, who watched their own interests. The cancans,
before the Court of Admiralty, and the result was that
17,0001. was awarded to the salvors, and 13,0001. to the Lords
of the Admiralty. The allowance of 17,0001. was considered
too small by Capt. Dickinson, and the matter was brought
by appeal before the privy council. They affirmed
the decree of the Court of Admiralty, bat awarded
12,0001. in addition to the 17,000/. to Capt. Dickinson. They
affirmed the award of 13,0001. to the Board of Admiralty,
and they came to this decision not in the absence of the
pastier, but with the partite present. They said that the
claim for expenses wee& just one and they allowed it ; though
they gave to Captain Dickinson in consideration of his
merits 12,0001. in addition, or 29,0001. altogether. It was
now proposed to reverse this judgment on the ground that
this claim, the quantum of which was not disputed at the
time, was so absurd and extraordinary that it should never
have bees made. He thought it impossible that the house
should accede to such a proposition, for there would be no
security wherever the crown or the treasury was • party to
• suit, darter a case was solemnly determined it was to be
reviewed and upset on the ground alleged in this instanze.
Capt. BERKELEY said that, the hon. member for Mont-
Kos having stated that Sir T. Hardy did not concur in the
decision which had been come to in this matter, he could
only say that he was not aware of that fact; and if Capt.
Dieliimon had informed the hon. gentleman that ouch was
the case, he must have been mistaken.
H Mr. UME said he had it under Capt. Dickinson's own
hand.

Lord 0. BENTINCK thought that this wu the most
paltry and humoring attempt ever made by any government
to mulct saloon.

Mr. B. B. CABBELL said the house would not be doing
their duty if they did not grant a committee in this case, and
endeavour to do justice to a much-injured and much-
over-looked officer, by giving him that so which he
had a perfect and clear right.
Lord J. RUSSELL did not see anithing in what had been
said by the hon. gentleman who hadjuat sat down, to impugn
the conduct of the Chancellor of the Exehequer. (Hear.)
It wee better that be should have all the circumstances be-
fore him in writing, than to trust to what might pass in •
conversation. He did not think it a fair argument to say
that the ships must have been employed somewhere, and,
therefore, there ought I. be no claim by the Admiralty, be-
cause the Admiralty, unless the request had been made of
them, might have ordered these ships home' or sent other ships
to the station. It was a question for the Admiralty of that
day to decide, whether they were not, in consequence,
obliged to keep up a force which they would not otherwise
do. This matter had been referred to his right hon. friend the
member for Taunton, the right hon. gentleman opposite,
Sir T. Hardy, Capt. Pechell and his hon. and gallant
friend near him. He considered that this was a fair
tribunal to consider such a question; and he certainly
saw no reason to disturb the decision at which they arrived.
What had been said by the right hon. gentleman the mem-
ber for Cardiff, as to the view which the judicial committee
of the privy council took of the matter, was pure imagi.
nation. As was stated by his right hon. friend near him,
the various parties appeared before the Court of Admiralty
and afterwards before the judicial committee,whomight have
disputed the award of 13,0001.. but they did not say that it
ought not to have been granted, or that it was excessive.
There was, therefore, the strong presumption from the
silence of the different parties, that they could not dispute a
tingle item of the sum. But if there was any doubt of the
rice of the claim for 13,0101.—if it was • paltry and
I altering claim to make, he confessed he thought
it ought to go to the merchant& who owned the
money, and not in any way to Captain Dickinson,
who was awarded 29,0001. for his services. (Hear, hear.)
The hon. member for Finsbury seemed to think that every
government, the " ins and outs" as be called them, had
great satisfaction in refusing claims of this kind On the
contrary, he thought the right hon. gentleman opposite (Sir
J. Graham), the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the
present Chancellor, would have great pleasure in saying,
Here is a rum of 10,0001., which we give to a gallant and
ingenious officer who showed [Feat merit"—(hear, hear)—
and it was not any satisfaction in refusing it that prevented
them from giving it, but the strict duty by which they were
bound not to give away the public money entrusted
to them. (Hear, hear.) Let him also tell the
House of C• 11113101111 that this responsibility. weighed
more strictly with one, or two, or three individuals
bound by their duty to look after the public money than it
weighed with • popar assembly. (Hear, hear.) Though
the house had no satisfaction in granting the demands of the
crown for the public service, there seemed to be something
very popular in
.granting it to an individual. He begged of
the house to resist the temptation of indulging in this very
laudable sad praiseworthy feeling, for, depend upon it, if
every case which had been before decided was to be brought
before the house with success, hundreds of other oases,
which might seem at first to be severe, would be brought
before them, and the time of the house would be wasted and
the public money squandered. (Hear, hear.) His hon.
friend the member for Montrose had said" this money is in the
exchequer." It was in the Exchequer in 1834 (laughter);
but he hoped his hon. friend, than whom no one was a more
easy member of that house when an individual came to ask
the public mosey, would, on this occasion, do what he was
sometimes in the habit of telling government to do—re-eon-
sider the question and guard against an expenditure of the
public money (Laughter )
Lord INGESTRE replied, and the house divided.
The numbers were—For the motion.. 32

Against it
VAGRANCY IN IRELAND • • •••

Lord J. RUSSELL obtained leave to bring in a bill for
the punishment of vagrancy in Ireland. The noble lord
said that he would state the provisions of the bill, which
were vary simple, at a future stage.
SUNDAY TRADING IN THE METROPOLIS.
Mr. HINDLEY moved for a select committee to inquire
into the subject of Sunday trading in the metropolis.
Mr. FIUME should divide the house against the motion.
He was as desirous as any one of seeing a deoent and respect-
ful observance of the sabbath, but he did not approve
of toy further limitation en the subject.
Mr. ESCOTT also objected to the motion as narrow and
partial in its tendencies, and unwise in itself.
Sir G. GREY reminded the hon. gsntlemsa that the
hon. member fer Ashton did not seek to inquire into the
general observance of the sabbath, but simply into the ope-
ration of certain laws which 4leclaredulSmitai trading in the
metropolis illegal, but whititi, it was a, did not at all
prevent such trading and it was that' if these laws
were unnecessary, they should hardly remain on the statute
book ; if good and desk, that then they ought to be
made effective. A fosmelcommittee had, indeed, inquired
partially into this isbject,and he was himself not very san-
guine as to the eke* of further legislating upon it, bat still
if the hon. genders:an really thought that benefit might arise
from the proposed inquiry, he had no objection to
grant it.
Col. T. WOOD considered that the observance of the lab.
bath in London had much improved of late years. He saw
no good that could be derived from the proposed committee.
Mr. HAWES said that he had received representations
from all ported the metropolis complaining bitterly of the
injury done to the better-disposed tradesmen, and the con-
duct of those who, in defiance of the law and of the sanctity
of the day, opened their shops on Sundays. In many dis-
tricts there wee regular marketing going on all the Sunday
forenoon ; and it was the object of his hon. friend to inquire
into the nature and extent of this illegal and most improper
traffic, and into the subject of enforcing the laws existing
against it.
Dr. SO W RING opposed the motion. He considered that
morel mores were operating a great moral improvement in
the cher:icier and habits of the population of London.
Mr. WILLIAMS said he understood that the object of
the proposed committee was not the better observance of the
Sabbath, but to make certain regulations among small
tradesmen. He thought that the best thing they could do,
would be to leave tradesmen to manage their own affairs, es
they understood them better than any member of !hothouse.
He thought that the principle on which they were proceed-
ing was entirely erroneous, and therefore should oppose the
committee.
Mr. COWPER thought that the beet thing they could do
. would be to grant a committee, and he trusted that the house
would consent to us nomination.
Mr. WAKLEY wished to know whether there was no
Sshbath breaking anywhere but in the metropolis, and yet
, the motion pointed exclusively to London. ouch piecemeal
I legislation could never be successful. The right lion. the
Secretary of State seem,! also to point to London—perhaps
. the state of things might be Jose es bad in Deronpert. ( A
laugh.) The fact was that no inquiry was necessary; go-