Summary

by John Marshall Royal Naval Biography — Dickinson… (1823)

That the charge stating that the account of the battle given in the Genoa’s log-book, ‘erroneously implies that the Genoa had three Ottoman ships of the line opposed to her on the starboard side, three 60-gun frigates on her larboard side and a-head, and a double-banked frigate astern,’ is frivolous and groundless.
“That the return made by Captain Dickinson, ‘that Captain Bathurst was killed in action, knowing that he did not die until many hours after the battle was over,’ was made without the slightest appearance of any improper motive.
Source: Wikisource

by John Marshall Royal Naval Biography — Dickinson… (1823)

As I understand that the Government do not think the Commanders serving in the Asia and Albion entitled to either of these Russian distinctions, I cannot but regret that Captain Dickinson should have been placed in this respect above those two officers; since I have every reason to approve (as I do most highly) of the conduct of Captain Baynes Captain Campbell, and have no reason to approve of the conduct of the Genoa, from the time of the command of her having devolved on Captain Dickinson.
Source: Wikisource

by John Marshall Royal Naval Biography — Dickinson… (1823)

That ‘the letter presented by Captain Dickinson to Sir Edward Codrington, purporting to come from the crew of the Genoa, and desiring that Vice-Admiral Sir Edward Codrington would appoint him in preference to any other officer to succeed Captain Bathurst, as Captain of the Genoa,’ appears to be a petition which was presented without any improper motive being imputable to Captain Dickinson; but in presenting which he was guilty of an impropriety for which he has already received the reproof of his commander-in-chief.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature