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

eea
hod
DO'
Or

r he
nor
b+
ire°
I hi

hey
could
not,
Pr4edentdi for and so were content to make a
di
y Intht
rg,grae• At themselves, infinitely to their
he eleventh hour, and at the
minute -
of that hour, the Admiralty
pcthad brought in a nasty bill for 6,5181. 12s. for the wages
eals
he Men
not. bashestheifreernployed, and an additional charge for
supposing the ship, this horrible brig had
waaoluflr Pposing the men employed she would have been nowhere else, and
not t „ did not eat there, they
ea at Here there was a charge of 1,000/,
when it
Prom was proved in evidence that the stores recovered
the the • Thetis were worth upwards of 2,0001, and yet
ii.4Adm_rioralty declared that this money should be de•
thheadttennthoetfrm the salvers, and to this day that decision
more than been reversed.—(Cheers.) Now, it was evident
WAS a sum of 13,8001. which had been abtained,
shwa any which had been paid to the salvers. He
money much like to know what had become of that
dot It had been aid to somebody. Somebody had
"Itt but where wasp it? They were' told that it had
as,
11 to Placed to the credit of the public; but he should
put h. finger .
"(hid, on the item of the public ledger,
osss.(6hee was very much afraid, he should not
flog .wh ers)—but if he did, that was no rea-
jr th item
this Committee should not be granted.
we could not be found, he said the House would
lion the
in its financial duty to the public if it did not
itAsrn the appointments of the rest. He was told that
co7sfsh., diligent search bad been made, but no such item
iueloe found, and there would be a slur upon the cha-
-2e of the Government if, after what had been stated,
they refused the Committee
theiptai hi n GLADSTONE must bear his testimony to
thehigh services which Captain Dickenson rendered to
GreaTuntry in saving the fated ship in question.
he merit was due to him for the skill and enterprise
had manifested in the affair, for at the time the ship
ran
ear on
shore there were no hopes that any part of her
Lego could ever be saved, and he therefore, after the
paietrentiso:, ryhivcchhad attended the exertions of Captain
much regretted the course the Admi-
had pursued in the matter.
s Mr. THORNELEY remarked that it was unfair the
'?,ollsairalty did not come forward with their claim before
be salvage was awarded, for had the legal tribunals who
beard
the case been aware of the existence of the debt,
most likely a heavier salvage would have been awarded.
Sir tis GRAHAM said, perhaps he might be allowed
to answer the question of the Hon. Gentleman opposite.
t
e spoke from recollection, but it was his strong impres-
sion that the claim was made prior to the adjudication.
,
Mr.
NICHOLSON thought his Right Honourable
rierid who had just sat down had acted most gal-
ttt.ntly in taking the responsibility of this case upon
ft!.3 own shoulders, and all he could blame
the Admiralty for was, that they had delayed
making their claim so long. The legal tribunals had
now no power to act in the case, and he much regretted
that it had again been broueht forward. He did not
think it a fit subject for the Committee of that House to
inquire into; and he thought, rather than grant the ire
quirt'; it would be much better if the Government con-
sented to reconsider the claim of Captain Dickenson.
Mr. HUME thought, after what had passed that
evening, Government could not refuse the inquiry. The
charge made upon Captain Dickenson was most unjust.
It was exorbitant and unfair, and ought never to have
been made. The Right Hon. Baronet opposite said all
his colleagues concurred with him in making the charge,
but he was authorised to state, that Sir Thomas Hardy
always repudiated the claim. Many of the materials
Charged for were never used in saving the ship, while the
!easel for which wear and tear was charged, was on
the service of the country during the time charged for
and named •
in the bill of costs. Enterprise and exertions
of the kind displayed by Captain Dickenson in saving the
ship in question, ought not to go unrewarded, and he
trusted her Majesty's Government would at once accede
to the request of the Noble Lord oppesite.
Mr. RUTHERFORD could not see how the House
could interfere in this case. The matter had already
been decided by the Court of Admiralty, who awarded
11,000/, to the salvers, and 13,0001. to the public. Cap-
tain Dickenson, as one of the salvers, felt that the sum
awarded as salvage was insufficient. and appealed to the
rirY Council, who eventually confirmed the decision of
the Court of Admiralty, and he could not see how the
ease could be again gone into. He thought it would be
attended with great inconvenience, if the solemn decis
:ens of the Courts of law were to be set aside by the
reims of Right Hon. Members. He totally deprecated
present attempt.
n eantaia BERKELEY opposed the appointment of the
sionitnittee.
Lord G. BENTINCK thought that a most imp srtaat
part in the debate had been overlo ked, viz., that Cgs.
bDickenson should have the use of her Majesty's
~14. It was expressly stated on the part of the Acluoi-
VY, that the salvers should have the free use of the
-"IN and the crew; but that the public should not be
V.it to any expense beyond that incurred by their use.
such a system were to be adopted, a charge might be
Inside against the proprietors of the Opera House for the
attendance of the half body of Guards on the occasion of
her Majesty's attendance; and also for any other services
rendered by the military in cases of fire, or such other
e.lnergeney. He should most certainly rote in favoar of
the appointment of the Committee.
Mr. B. CABBELL thought that justice would not be
done to the much injured and overlooked Capt. Dicken-
son, unless some reparation were made to him for the
uries he had sustained by the charges made by the
Ad
It was most essential that officers of high
attainments and great abilities should be favourably re-
commended to the favour of her Majesty, and he thought
that beside the other acts of injestise done to the Gal-
lant Captain, and to the public, he had been most un-
fairly treated by not being so recommended. He wai
sorry to hear an intimation made by some Hon. Member
of the paltry and pettifogging statute of limitations.
When such hints were thrown out, he would ask the
persons who made use of them, what was the last date of
the application made to the Government on the
subject, for it was from that period that the statute
Would alone apply. The Gallant Captain had been
treated most unhandsomely by the Chancellor of the
Exchequer; he had called upon him, for the purpose of
an interview, but was refused it and a request made to
him for a written statement of the circumstances of his
case. He really trusted that ju•tice would be done to
the Gallant Officer by the House, by the appointment
of a Committee to inquire into the subject. This House
Was the last refuge for the unfortunate—(Loud laugh-
ter)—and he hoped the claims of one of them would
bet be overlooked on the present occasion.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL thought that the conduct of
the Chancellor of the Exchequer in requiring a state-
ment in writing of the case was not so deserving of blame
,
7,2 he Hon. Member who had just addressed the Hoose
riled to think; he thought that that was the most pro-
Per—ris course to be adopted by the Chancellor of the Ex-
equer. He did not see any reason for disturbing the
"elation which had been come to by the B:mrd of Ad-
miralty on the subject. It did not appear that the parties
before the Judicial Committee were discontents d with
thttedde:eiltso lo_nofthe Court; at all events no attempt was
made
.dispute the claim of the Admiralty. The
judicial Committee added 12,0001. to the sure of
1. awarded by the Court of Admiralty,
the sum of 13,0001., claimed by the Ad-
miralty, should have been paid to the merchants,
and not to the salvers. The refusal on the part
af the Chancellor to grant sums of money to indi-
`duala did not arise from a feeling of satisfaction in
refusing claims made upon them. The heads of the
various departments were placed in situations of great
. responsibility in dealing with the public money, and felt
the weight of that responsibility considerably more thsn
members of any popular assembly could by possinility
feel. He thought that if the House commenced a sys-
tem of granting sums of money, and revoking the deci-
sions of judicial tribunals, they would be establishing a
dangerous precedent, such as the Hon. Member for Mon-
trose (Mr. Hume) would be the first to complain of ;
and he hoped that Hon. Members would take the ad-
vice which he had so often given the Government, viz.,
to reconsider his decision, and vote against the appoint-
ment of the Committee.

_ Lord INGESTRE said that his object in moving
for the Committee was not for the purpose of making
indiscriminate grants of public money, but merely for
the purpose of compelling restitution of the money due
to a much-injured and gallant officer of the navy.
The House then divided, when the numbers were—
For the committee 32
Against it
Majority
The motion was consequently lost.
VAGRANCY (IRELAND).
Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved for leave to bring in
a Bill for the punishment of vagrancy in Ireland, and
as he intended to take the discussion on the measure at
a future stage he would not trouble the House with any-
observations at present.—Agreed to.
SUNDAY TRADING IN THE METROPOLIS.
Mr. lIINDLEY moved for a Select Committee on Sun-
day trading in the metropolis. In bringing forward this
motion he did not wish to be understood as having any
desire to interfere with innocent and rational enjoyment
on Sunday, but he wished to protect tradesmen from the
unjust competition of those who set at defiance the ob-
servance of that day of rest and plied their calling as
they did on any other day. He therefore called
Upon the House to do just'ce and to put all
traders upon the same footing. The subject was in abler
hands than his ; but the Honourable Member for
Lambeth, and the Honourable Member for Hertford,
who were joined with him, did not like, in eonse•
quence of their connexion with the Government, to
take that prominent part for which they were so much
better qualified than he was. The Committee which sat
upon the subject in 1832 had made certain recommenda-
tions which had been since acted upon, and which he
believed had been attended with the best consequences—
especially that one relative to the closing of taverns from
twelve o'clock on Saturday night to one o'clock on
Sunday. He would not take up the attention of the
Rouse at greater length, but conclude by moving for a
Select Committee to consider the subject.
Mr. lIUME did not know what the Bon. Member
meant by his present motion. Did he mean to say that
men were to be prevented from purchasing meat or from
being shaved on the Sabbath-day, or what did he mean ?
--(Laughter.) He (Mr. Hume) did not think they
Would be able to make women chaste or men virtuous by
legislation. He wished they could do it, but he did not
believe that they would ever be able to effect any good in
that way. He thought that the advocacy of such mea-
sures as the present was a very cheap mode resorted to
by some Members of endeavouring to procure a
reputation for superior morality, but he did not
believe the House would sanction or countenance such
attempts. He would, therefore, oppose the appointment
of the Committee, for he considered good morals could
never be advanced by such means. •
not on the Mr. Mr. B. ESCOTT opposed the motion,
ground of its not being brought in by the Government,
but because he believed such legislation would be most
mischievous. Besides, even if they did pass such a
measure
as that proposed, he believed it would be
found utterly inefficacious. If his Henourable Friend
wlshed to resort to such Wad of legisisti9D,

He thought he should try his hand in putting down the
horse-racing and steeplechasing which were at present
carried on on Sunday. He should also direct his atten-
tion to the Clubs of London, which were resorted to on
that day by great numbers of the higher classes of so•
ciety. The reason why they were not interfered with,
he supposed. was because any such attempts would be
utterly ineffectual if they were tried. As he did not
believe that any good result would follow the present
motion, he would vote against it.
Sir G. GREY said that the Committee was only asked
for in order to inquire how far the present laws were
calculated to answer the end for which they were enacted,
and not to enforce new penalties. If these laws were
inoperative, they perhaps might as well be repealed. He
must confess that he did not believe that the present laws
were framed to answer the end for which they were
proposed.
Colonel Sir T. WOOD said that, having had occasion
to walk over the Tower Hamlets on a Sunday, he was
quite struck with the correct manner in which the day
was observed. He did not think a case was made out
by the Member for Ashton, he had not even presented a
single petition in its favour.
Mr. HAWES said that the object of the Committee
was only to inquire how far the present laws were re-
spected. Many persona suffered severely from the non-
observance of the day by their rivals in business. All
they desired was to be put in- the same position as the
others. His Bill had no other object than to put down
open trading on the Sunday morning.
Dr. BOWRING said that every person regarding
society, in the metropolis, could not but be impressed
with the fact that there was a very ,narked improvement
in the observance of the Sabbath-day. The Hon.
Gentleman asked an. Act of Parliament to effect that
which it was out of the power of any Act to accom-
plish. The laws were sufficiently stringent and let them
be resorted to, if there was may complaint.—(Hear.)
Mr. WILLIAMS said that the present Bill would
only affect the comforts of the poor. Why should not
the principle of the Bill be extended against the
wealthier classes—against the bishops and judges of the
land, who employed their cooks upon a Sunday.—
(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman himself had em-
ployed, no doubt, his servants upon that day as well as
any other.
Mr. COWPER was in favour of the Bill, and he con.
sidered that everything that was said only proved the
necessity of the measure. It was a very hard thing that
a small shopkeeper residing in those parts where Sunday
trading was going on, should not have his Sunday as
much to himself as the more opulent tradesman of Regent-
street. They had, he thought, a perfect right to appeal to
the House for the enforcement of such a law, and there
could be no objection to an inquiry into the best means
of effecting the desirable object of keeping the Sabbath
inviolate.
Mr. WARLEY objected to the method in which the
Bill was proposed to be introduced. It was a sort of
piecemeal Legislation, which would be found wholly in-
efficient. The Bill was tout down Sunday trading in
the metropolis, as if the meptropolis was the only place
in. England where Sunday trading was carried on. It
could not be denied that the practice of trading on a
Sunday was carried on in London and other cities and
towns in England to a most discreditable extent; but the
question was, how was the evil to be dealt with? How
was the inquiry to be made? Had any application been
made to the Commissioners of the Police?—for they
were able to furnish the House with more information
in twenty-four hours than the House could obtain in an
inquiry of a month. He did not see how the evil was
to be got rid of, unless it was by educating the people so
as to induce a greater feeling of self-respect. In his
opinion such a Bill would be quite futile, and he there-
fore hoped that the Hon. Member would not divide the
House upon his Bill.
Mr. MUNTZ said that the only and the best way of
preventing Sunday trading, was to enable the people to
get so good a livelihood in the week that they would
have no occasion to trade upon Sunday. Why was not
the same principle to be carried out with regard to
other persons besides shopkeepers. The Post-office
clerks, in all country places, were compelled to work all
Sunday, while those in London were not. They should
remove this evil as well as the trading on Sunday,
otherwise it would be partial in its operation, and, conse-
quently, of little or no aysil.
Captain PECHELL wished to know what was to be
done with cargoes of fish which arrived in Billingsgate
on Saturday night, if they were not sold on Sunday
morning. Cargoes of lobsters fought and tore each
other; and were they to remain fightieg and destroying
each other all Sunday, because they might not be sold.
After a few words from Mr. CHAPLIN and Colonel
Woon, which did not reach the gallery,
Mr. Alderman COPELA'ND said, that in the Broad-
way of the city of Westminster. he saw shot s of every
class open on Sundays. It was a disgrace.ul sight, and
he thought it was quite time to put a stop to su great
an evil.
Colonel SIBTHORPE said that the tobacco and cigar
shops were open all the Sunday, and he thought that it
was less harm to allow a loaf, or some such neces§ary
to be purchased on Sunday, than to allow the people to
purchase cigars and tobacco for the purpose of wasting
the day in the practice of smoking.
Mr. HINDLEY did not wish to inflict any injury upon
the small class of shopkeepers by this Bill,but he thought
that the Committee of Inquiry ought to enter into proper
details, so as to hear the opinion given by the classes
most likely to be affected. He did not wish to interfere
with or injure any class, but he thought that the practice
of Sunday trading was carried too far at present. A
Committee of Inquiry wou'd be enabled to ascertain hoe
far the principle c,:uld be carried, without pushing it to
a mischievous extent.
Mr. COLLETT thought that if they were to hinder
the small tradesman iroin keeping open his shop on Suit
days,aristo-
cratic e
thvs,
eiTshsuocnh as keeping openthe clubhouses.
The extet tomore
The !louse then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion
Against it
Majority —32
NAVAL ARCI ETC I'URE.

Mr. HUNIE wished to state, that with regard to cer-
tain returns fer which he had given notice of motion, he
would pros ed with part of them at once, and should de-
fer the remainder in order that the Board of Admiralty
might not have to complain that he had taken them by
surprise on so important a question. He should be
anxious to defer the discussion of the whole question un-
til that day fortnight. The portion of them for which
he should move, was for a copy of the instructions from
the Board of Admiralty to the Committee of Naval Con-
struction, appointed to inquire into the state of naval
architecture.; and copies of the several reports which
that Committee have made to the Board of Admiralty
on the state of the ships of her Majesty's fleet. Also,
copies of all orders issued by the Committee of Construc-
tion, or by the Board of Admiralty, in consequence of
the reports of that Committee respecting the alterations
of those ships laid down, or in progress of buileing, or
built, according to the lines or plans of Sir William
Symonds, the surveyor of her Majesty's navy, or any
other constructor.
Mr. WARD said, that when he came down to the
House, he was not prepared for the extent of the lion.
Member's motion. He thought that he should be en-
abled to show him that it was troposible to give copies
of the instruc:ions from the Board of Admiralty, as they
were strictly c.infidential papers. He admitted that the
-Hon. Member had, to a certain extent, made out his
case, and, therefore, he had no objection to the first part
of the return. But, with respect to the last portion, to '
produce the instructions dto the Committee of
Construction, he could not consent to that, as it never
had been the practice to lay such instructions on the
table of the House. The Hon. Member had better delay
that portion of his motion for a fortnight, when the
question would come before the Hou-e in another form.
To-morrow he would lay before the House that portion
of the returns to which he gave his assent.
Mr. WILLIAMS thought the pi...position of the Hon.
Member was very fair, still he could not agree with him
that the instructions to the Committee of Construction
should be held as private and confidential, and withheld
from the House.
Mr. WAWN said he had no objection to producing
the first part of the motion, but he could not consent to
producing the instructions issued to the Committee of
Construction. At a future time he would be prepared to
give good reason for adopting this course.
After a few observations from Mr. WAILLEY and Mr.
IlusiE, the motion was withdrawn.
Lord MORPETH moved to refer the Towns Im-
provement Clauses Bill to a Select Committee, to con-
sist of the following Members :—Viscount lii)rpeth,
Mr. Greene, The Attorney General, Viscount Sandon,
the Lord Advocate, Sir William Heathcote, Sir Wil-
liam Somerville, Mr. Brotharton, Mr. Escott, Mr. Loch,
Mr. Beckett, Dr. Bowring, Mr. Wilson Patten, Mr.
Morgan John O'Connell, and Viscount Ebrington.—
Agreed to.
Captain PECHELL moved for a copy of the Order
in Council of the year 1834, relative to the reduction
of the sea emoluments of the Paymasters and Pursers
of the Royal Navy, which they surrendered for the
purpose of creating a fund for the benefit of those offi-
cers of their class who were on half-pay ; with a return
of the amount annually accruing since the passing of
the said order :—Also, the annual amount caused by
any subsequent reductions in the sea emoluments of the
Paymasters and Pursers, with the date when the same
took effect. Likewise, a return of all sums that have
been applied to the increase of the half-pay, and to the
formation of a retired list of the Paymasters and Pur-
sers since the Order in Council of the year 1834, with
the date when the same took effect.—Agreed to.
VAGRANCY (IRELAND) BILL.
This Bill was introduced and read a first time, and
ordered to be read a second time on 'Tuesday next.
ARMY SERVICE BILL.
On the order of the day for reading this Bill a third

_
time,
Sir HOWARD DOUGLAS r4-)se to oppose it, as her
Majesty's Government had struck out one half of the
Bill. Ile, therefore, would confine himself to that por-
tion whieh remained. Since the Bill had come before
the House, he had received communications from a great
number of officers, and other parties connected with the
service, and they all united in deprecating the Bill, as
likely to operate most injuriously. The principle of un-
limited enlistment was day by day becoming more un •
popular with the military authorities, and one that must
be given up, as it never could be maintained in case
that a war arose between this and any other country.
lie had said that this measure would not attract good
men to the service, nor would it, it such men once
joined, induce them to continue in it. The lion. and
Gallant Gentleman quoted from ono of the public
prints in support of this opinion. The same
organ added—(Several Hon. Members—What orgun ?)
I —Mr. Fox Maule—A single barrelled organ—
(Laughter)—that it would be impossible to induce a re-
spec;able man to re-enlist if he were once freed from the
service. A good pension was the one thing needful.—
(Laughter.) He repeated it, a good pension was tho
only, thing needful to raise the character of the service,
eat b should wish to has. a distinet declaration from