The Sun.
London, England, 1854-07-19 00:00:00

trators, stating that if it had not been for the restric-
tions placed on the arbitrators, be should have awarded
a much larger sum. On these grounds he trusted that
the house would agree to the productton of these papers,
Sir W. MOLESWORTH said he thought this was an
extraordinary motion. The matter had been settled by
arbitration, and the arbitrators awarded Dr. Reid 3,2501.,
which he brought forward in the estimates of last year,
which the house then agreed to, and which had since
been paid. The evidence which was taken in the case
occupied 5,000 folio pages, and if they printed it it
would cost in all probability 1,0001. He was convinced
no one would ever read it ; but if any hon. member were
disposed to read it, and would go to his office, he should
bave an opportunity. With all due respect to the hon.
gentleman who had brought forward this motion, be
must oppose it altogether.
The motion was than negatived without a division.
CASE OF MR. STURGEON.

Mr. BOWYER then moved for a select committee to
inquire into the claims of Mr. Edwardes (as representa-
tive of Mr. William Sturgeon) to the funds allotted by
the French Government at the peace, to compensate for
confiscation of the property of British subjects.
Captain SCOBELL .seconded the motion, believing
that the hon. and learned gentleman had shown reason-
able grounds for inquiry.
Mr. WILSON thought the house should pause before
they appointed this committee. Mr. Sturgeon did not
make his claim in time to come within the treaty of
1815 ; but the Government allowed his claim to go
before the commissioners who acted under the treaty, by
whom it was disallowed. It appeared to the commis-
sioners that the property of Mr. Sturgeon had not been
confiscated ; but destroyed ; and the commissioners
having no funds to meet such a case they dismissed it,
as not coming within the treaty.
After a few words from Mr. BOWT&It and Mr.
MALms,

The house divided, when there appeared—
For the motion 39
Against it
The motion was accordingly negatived.
THE CLAIMS OF CAPTAIN DICKENSON.
Admiral WALCOTT moved for a select committee to
inquire into the claims of Captain Dickenson, R.N., on
behalf of himself, the officers, and crews of her Majesty's
vessels employed on the subject of salvage, &c., con-
nected with the recovery of treasure in the wreck of her
Majesty's ship Thetis, off Cape Frio, on the coast of
Brazil. The gallant admiral entered into a lengthened
explanation of the case, from which it appeared, that
through the exertions of Captain Dickenson and his
crew, treasure to the extent of 150,0001. was recovered
from the Thetis, besides2,oool. worth of her stores, and
for these services they wore awarded 29,0001. as salvage.
The admiralty, however, put in a claim for 13,5221. for
seamen's wages, stores, &c., and the wear and tear of
the Lightning, which Captain Dickenson commanded
while recovering the treasure, and to that extent the
salvage was reduced. Captain Dickenson, however,
contended that the admiralty had no right to make the
reduction and the ordinary tribunals having failed to
render him justice he now as a last resource appealed to
the House of Commons to investigate his case through
the instrumentality of a select committee.
Sir G. TYLER seconded the motion, and observed
that if the inquiry were granted it would be shown that
it was entirely through the extraordinary ability of Cap-
tain Dickenson and the great exertions of his crew that
the treasure of the Thetis was saved. It was, therefore,
unjust to deprive them of any portion of the salvage, and
he trusted the house would have no hesitation in grant-
ing the committee.
Sir J. GRAHAM need not assure the honourable and
gallant admirals who had moved and seconded this mo-
tion that he was fully sensible of the generosity of the
motives which had induced them to bring this subject
under the notice of the house, while, if he thought that
justice demanded the appointment of this committee, he
should be the last person to resist it. But he was bound
to say that he had come to a different conclusion to that
which the two gallant admirals had arrived at. The
subject was by no means new, for he first became ac-
quainted with it 20 years ago, when he had the honour
of being at the Admiralty. There was no dispute about
the facts of the case, which were these : the Thetis hav-
ing a large amount of treasure on board belonging to
British merchants, was lost under circumstances more or '
less accidental, but in the opinion of the Board of Ad-

miralty there had been some neglect on the part of the
commanding officer, and they therefore allowed Captain
Dickenson to employ his ves-el and crew in attempting
to recover the treasure. Contrary to the expectation of
the Board of Admiralty no less than fourteen months were
occupied in that endeavour, and as a natural consequence
a considerable amount of the public money was expended in
stores, and the wages of the seamen of the Lightning.
When, therefore, the salvage was awarded, the Admi-
ralty put in their claim for 13,8001., which was allowed
by the High Court of Admiralty, ut Captain Dicken-
son disputing the claim carried it before the Privy
Council, who confirmed the decision of the court below.
But supposing that had not been so, he should still have,
contended that the salvors were not entitled to a farthing
of this 13,800/. ; the money would rather have been due
to the merchants who had lost their treasure in the I
Thetis ; but be that as it might, he could only repeat
now the same answer that he had given on a former oc-
casion—namely, that the case had been repeatedly con-
sidered by various Boards of Admiralty, and the Trea-
sury, and in every instance they had come to the deci-
sion that the claim of Captain Dickenson could not be
allowed ; because it was founded neither in justice nor
equity ; a decision which had been confirmed alike by
the Court of Admiralty and the Judicial Committee of
the Privy Council.
Sir G. PECHELL considered that notwithstanding
the statement of the right hon. baronet, the case still
required investigation. The bill of the Admiralty con-
tained items of so extortionate a character, that although
twenty years had elapsed, so monstrous a case ought
not to be passed over without notice.
Capt. SCOBELL said that the services of the Light-
ning, her captain, and crew, had been the admiration of
the profession, and the fact that several boards of the
Admiralty had discouraged the claim was of little im-
portance, for one board always supported the decisions
of its predecessors. The gallant admiral did not ask
for money, but for an inquiry whether the claim was
just. As for Captain Dickenson being in Greenwich,
that was of itself a claim, and not a reason why the
motion should be rejected. (Hear.)
Admiral BERKELEY expressed an opinion unfa-
vourable to the claim of Captain Dickenson.
Mr. WILKINSON warned the house against the
practice into which the house had lately fallen of bring-
ing up questions which had already been decided by a
competent division.
Admiral WALCOTT having said a few words in
reply,
The house divided—

Ayes
Noes
(Laughter.) The motion was therefore lost.