The Sun.
London, England, 1848-03-24 00:00:00

of the House, in defence of its own honour, to sae
and amend the law, and not throw obloquy upon tho
Committees themselves.

Sir W. MOLESWORTII, as a member of the
Harwich Committee, must declare that he did not
think that there was that amount of bribery proved
before the Committee to justify the disfranchisement
of the borough, and he should, therefore, vote for the
issuing of the writ.
After a few words from Captain HARRIS,
Strangers were ordered to withdraw, and the
House divided, when there appeared--
For the issuing of the writ 195
For the amendment 64
Majority against the amendment —l3l
On our admission to the gallery we found
Mr. HUME, on his legs, objecting to the issuing of
the writ.

Mr. WAKLEY said the course pursued was calcu-
lated to bring the House into contempt out of doors.
There was no doubt the Hon. Member who was un•
seated knew what was doing.—(No, no.) Corrupt,on
had been proved, and now the writ was to go to the
same corrupt parties. The House ought to negative the -
motion, and institute a searching inquiry. The public
belief was that the majority of the Members of that
House had obtained their seats by the expenditure of
large sums of money.—(No, no.) But if this writ were
issued, and inquiry were stifled, would not the inference
be that the House was afraid of the truth being known?
Mr. WORTLEY said the Hon. Member had made.*
most unfounded charge against the Members of the
Committee; and on their behalf he begged distinctly to
deny that they knew the sitting Member to have been
privy to the acts of bribery, as alleged by the Hon.
Member.—(Hear, hear.) The evidence showed that
the parties at Harwich had studiously avoided general
corruption; had the contrary been proved, the Commit-
tee must have reported it to the House.
Mr. ELLIOT said the Hon. Member for Finsbury
(Mr. Wakley) had one speech that he made to the
House on all occasions, and he would declare that there
was but one speech that the Hon. Member ever made to
the House.—(Cheers and laughter.) The first time he
had heard the voice of the Hon. Member was in 1837.
He had listened to him for four years, and had always
heard the same speech, until he was almost obliged to
conclude that the Hon. Member had borrowed the speech
from somebody.—(Laughter.) Thus it ran (the old
story over and over again)—" You are all a set of
rogues, and I am the only honest man among you.--
(Cheers and laughter.) The people out of doors know
you very well, and they know that I, the Member for
Finsbury, am the only honest man in the House. I have
been brought up in the principles of honour and virtue.
while you have no pretensions to anything of the kind."
Now, as the Hon. Member for Finsbury was so fond of
telling the Members of that House what people said of
them out of doors, it was but fair to the Hon. Member
to let him know what people said of him.—(Hear, hear.)
He (Mr. Elliot) had heard it said a hundred times, that
all the speeches of the Hon. Member meant one and the
same thing; namely, that there was not an honest man
in the House of Commons except himself, and that he
made all those speeches for the purpose of gratifying the
lowest persons in the borough of Finsbury.—(Laughtzr
and cheers.) He had thought it right at least to tell the
lion. Member what was said of him.
Mr. OSBORNE said it was hard that an Hon. Mem-
ber whose seat perhaps cost less than any other should
thus be attacked. He would answer for it that those who
were styled " the lowest classes in the borough of Fins-
bury," if possessed of the franchise, would not barter it
away, as the constituents of some Hon. Members were
proved to have done.—(Hear, and " Oh.") Looking at
the evidence before the Harwich Committee it was diffi-
cult to believe that Mr. Attwood was not privy to the
expenditure, especially in the case of a person named
Saxley.—(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Osborne) thought the
institutions of the country would be much safer, and the
House a more efficient representation of the people, if a
portion of these who were called the lowest classes weie
admitted to the franchise.—(Hear.)
Mr. ELLIOT said in using the term "lowest classes"
he meant those lowest in moral feeling.
Mr. WAKLEY asked if it was consistent with order
that the Hon. Member who had just sat down should
impute improper motives to him (Mr. Walley)?
The SPEAKER said that he did not understand the
lion. Member to have imputed such motives.

Alter a few words from. Mr. HimlE and Sir DE L.
EVANS,

The House divided, when there appeared—
For issuing the writ .
Against it
Majority
The writ was then ordered.
BORGUGH OF HORSHAM.

An HoN. MEMBER having moved that a writ should
issue for Horsham, for the election of a Member in place
of Mr. Jervis,
Mr. HUME moved, as an amendment, that the writ
should be suspended until
,the evidence was before the
House.

The Earl of MARCH supported the issuing of the
writ.

Lord COURTEN AY, a member of the Committee,
said if a division was pressed he should support the
amendment.

The amendment and motion were then, by leave,
withdrawn.

Mr. HUME moved that the evidence taken before
the Committee should be printed and laid before the
House.—Agreed to.
CASE OF CAPTAIN JOHN DILLON.

Mr. O'CONNOR moved an address to the Crown on
the statement contained in the petition of John Dillon,
presented to the House on the 14th December last. The
case was simply this:—The brig Peru, a smuggling
vessel, laden with tobacco, was forced into the harbour
of New Ross, in 1822, by stress of weather, and Captain
Dillon, who was then stationed there, went out to cap-
ture her, and drove her into the harbour of Kinsale.
There the vessel was taken in smooth water by a person
named Masters. The vessel, with the cargo, was sold
for 53,0001., of which Masters got 11,7001. Now, he
maintained that it was not necessary for Captain Dil-
lon to have pursued the brig into the harbour in order
to entitle him to compensation. The case had been
referred to Sir E. Codungton, and he gave his award
against Captain Dillon, on the ground that the vessel
was bound to France. In consequence of that decision
Capt. Dillon went to New York, and be then ascertained
from the books of the Custom-house officers that the
vessel was bound for Ireland. He maintained that
Captain Dillon's claim was valid in point of law, and it
was no answer to say that the exchequer was empty.
The very fact of the Government laving paid Captain
Dillon 150/. showed that they recognised the justice of
his claim. The case of this gentleman was not perfect
heretofore, because he could not prove that the vessel
was not bound for France. That imperfection was now
supplied, and he wanted to know what reason the Lords
of the Treasury could allege for not making Captain
Dillon compensation. He hoped that the time which
elapsed since the transaction took place would not be
set up as a bar to his claim. The Hon. Gentleman con-
cluded by moving that the House resolve itself into a
Committee this day fortnight for the purpose of moving
an address in the case of Captain Dillon.

Mr. PARKER said that it was the duty of the
Treasury, in deciding upon the claims of individuals,
to take care that they were fully and clearly est‘b•
lished.—(Hear, hear.) He would assume that the
Peru was a smuggling vessel, and that its object was
to land contraband goods on the coast of Ireland.
No doubt Captain Dillon was desirous of capturing
the vessel, and he sailed oat after the Peru ; but that
vessel being stronger than his own, he returned re in•
fecta. Subsequently the Pena put into Kinsale from
stress of weather, and was there seised, and the proceeds
were distributed in the manner usual in such cases.
Captain Dillon never put in any claim at that time. He
did not take any steps in the matter from 1822 to 1829.
After that period his applications were indeed very
numerous, and his efforts were most persevering. When
the question was brought before Lord Althorp, he said
that Captain Dillon was not entitled to compensation.
Subsequently the subject was referred to Sir E.Codring-
ton, but ho only pronounced his judgment with reference
to a professional point, and not as to the justice of his
claim to compensation. There was no imputation on the
character of Captain Dillon for want of bravery, but it
was considered that what he did ifts the affair did ni.t
entitle him to compensation.
Mr. HUME said that he was of opinion that Captain
Dillon had not established his claim to compensation,
He could bear his testimony to the anxious considera-
tion which Lord Althorp gave this subject. He thought
Lord Althorp's decision was a correct one, and he saw
no reason to alter that opinion.
Mr. AGLIONBY said that he gave considerable at-
tention to this subject, and he came to the conclusion
that Captain Dillon had been ill-treated. Compensatikm
was refused him, in the first instance, because it was said
that Captain Dillon had been guilty of cowardice. That
point was referred to competent judges, and they entirely
acquitted Captain Dillon of that charge, and not the least
imputation rested upon the character of that officer.—
(Hear, hear.) Ho thought his case was a very hard one,
but he was afraid he had not much chance of succeeding
in his object.
Mr. S. CRAWFORD was confident in his own mind
that Captain Dillon was entitled to compensation.
Mr. WAKLEY thought no adequate answer hid
been made to the statement of the Member for Not-
tingham.
Dr. POWER briefly supported the claim.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER had
considered the ease with the most anxious regard to
justice, and had come to the unbiassed decision that
Capt. Dillon had no claim whatever for compensation.
At the same time he thought there was no pretence for
any charge upon his professional character. But Capt.
Dillon ha I not captured the Peru; he had driven her
off the coast and prevented her landing her cargo, but
he had nothing in the world to do with her putting into
Kinsale or with the seizure of her cargo when she got
there.

Mr. AGLIONBY asked if it was not true that Capt.
Dillon's vessel gave the Peru chase, and that she went
into Kinsale in consequence of the damage she received
from his fire?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that Captain Dillon might have given the Peru chase,
but that he kept up a fire at her from his boats he ven-
tured to doubt.

Mr. F. O'CONNOR replied. It had been distinctly
proved by the ship's carpenter that Captain Dillon did
keep up a fire at the Peru. Ile left it to the House,
whether a man who had spent his whole substance in au
effort to obtain justice, should now be righted or net.
The House divided—
For the motion
Against it
Majority —sl
GAME-LAWS.

Mr. BRIGHT then rose to move for leave to bring in
a Bill for the repeal of the game-laws. He said he should
make no apology for offering this raotion to the attention