The Sun. — London, England, 1828-02-15 00:00:00

per, by which that kinbassidoi is directed to declare 1,0 the Government of hie'Britannie - Majesty, that in the -tpinion of the Emperor, the measures resorted to on the part of Sir E. Codrington were as just and beneficial as his oOndact was admirable." In a subsequent passage of the letter, Count de Nesselrode says to Count de Heiden, " Should there be no ship for the zoonient adapted to the command of Sir E. Codrington, and he consent to hoist his flag on board- a ship of the line belonging to his Imperial Ma y' Will,place et hies disposal all-those composing our equar 4 Ps Ind assurtehina that the EMperor would consider fittlence on board - one of our Vessels as a distinguished .bOteur conferred on the Russian Navy." Nor, Sir, was His Majesty the Emperor of Russia;with a con aeseenaion which I one7erstood is not usually shown in such a manner, gave directions to . - Count de Nesselrede to in quire of Count de Heiden in what possible way his Majesty could confer a mark of honour and distinction on the son of Sir E. Codrington, who was wounded " or, that glorious day." sir, I cannot help thinking that all these letters and:meesiges'must be considered as affording an undeniable proof of what was the opinion upon this subject of - a per-. savage who is as riemrousa judge in such matters, and as capable of fortnityg a sound opinion respecting them, as any human being tiering. What teas the case with the French Court ? Tleat his Majesty the King of France lost no time, in confere.ng en Sir E. Cedringtor, one of the hiee,hist'dig nitit's his power to bestow.; This 'was followed by anotter circumstance, which lam told by sonic friends of who are acquainted with the etiquette generally bhserved in such cases; is far from being a usual oe ' ceirretice; namely, that when an Officer, deputed by Sir E. Codrington, evoked upon the King of France, to convey oar Gallant Admiral's thanks for the honour which he had received, his Majesty conferred an Order Of a less distin gniehed character on the gentleman who had been so de puted. Sir, why do I mention all these particulars ?, I mention them to show that' if we are backward in expres ' sing our admiration of the gallant conduct of Sir E. Co arineton, we are the sole party of the different parties in terested by whom the slightest approach to any such feeling ie entertained. If we do not by our vote of this night, confer on Sir E. Codringtn t , the honour of our grateful ac: knowledgments for his gallant and Spirited conduct 4t Na.- varire, it will be said that this country alone, of all the countries of Europe, is insensible to the splendour of the achievement. Our ingratitude will be • the marvel and wonder of; the world. 'lt will begin- to be suspected that rA have some particular reascu for oar neglect. it •teill begin to he suspected that we are aware of tome eircurnstaneee connected with the battl e, not known to .others, which induce-us, intereeted as wen-totally must be in every thing which relaters to- the horin erof our coun try, to withhold that approbation and that expression of gratitude, the refusal of which, melee ny other supposi tion, is wholly unaccountable. with respect to the battleitself,•everyenan - who hears pie" is AO well acquainted with all the particulars relating to it, that:l i±h3ll not think it necessary to : trouble the House fly going into any minute eletais on the subject.. lam quite aseare, that on for Mer occasions, wheo any of his Majesty's Ministers have pro posed votes of a similar nature, they have always accom panied the -proposition by_ taking a short view of the eire cametaneesattending. the achiev e m e nt in questi on . B u t I . see around me seeinany individuale, much more . qualified -chart I. can •be to speak oe such tripiee - (and arromig them eeveral• old antlgaliant: Admirals; theniailtes of the highest renown in their-profession, and whose knowledge will ena— ble them to dtugaibe they various events of:-the battleilluch' more satisfactorily than I can pretend_ to do),• that I shall s , onsi , ler it sufficient Merely . to say, that the House must . he rennin.; that, shortly- aftee Site.Flyard Codrington was sent to the Levant, lie:coin:M-red in establishing the armistice LetWren:elle Grille S and the. Turks. SupposingeNery na turally; thet,the ferrirs'of the armistice woulll be kept with gOod faith •on leiith sides, Si,- Edward sent most of the King's ships Mohr his comoiand to Malta torefit. Shortly afterwards, however, he found that the. Pasha who conneanded the Turkish - fleet, did not entertain the notions of the nature of the arniistice that he himself' did. The Paella despatched a squadron to relieve the Terke, Nrho were at that time besieged at Patras by a. Greek force. 'Although Sir Edward Codrington had with but - only a single ship of the line , e frigate and tnie core e-ettee; he immediately sailed in pursuit of the Turkish Ernie demi, and, in the mosenehuhted manner, placed . Mini& be tween time Turks and the shore, in order to prevenftbein keen carrying their object into effect. In pursuance of the same determination, nod . finding that it' was eta the :intention of 'het_ Turks -to adhere to the centlitions of '.the armistice, - it E. Codringtou immediately sent orders to the British ebips- - are Malta- to =complete - their refitting 'wale elf post s -'ble speed. these orders. Were 'Obeyed with . 'an alitea-ity highly, ceeslitablo to all parties; .and the murse: of six - deys, he whole; proceeded to : juin -their Callao .Admiral.l otglit noW, perhaps, Sir, to mention the comparatiee force of the contending parties previous to the battle.. The: Qttornaii 'flea consisted of • three sail of the • line, - four double-banked frigates, seienteet frigates; forty-nine' cdt-: vettez, and eight fireeshipse'. being' in-:all eighty-ene vessels' .uf Ware Weider, fourteen: transyortif 'These-Nebo' are at quairited with time place knowevitt)thoSe'l46 are-not nea),. !observe on ...e.TirainiA the tnap r tita in_ the -bay ef .NeVari I there rite - ti any 'veiy-forniidkle teitieriee.. By. those of Nev Navarin many-dives were titifoitiniately lost in the event.' The Allied Wed Consisted of ten eitikeaf 3 thee_ilde, ten frigates, and si4ecorvettee; e: et2leing AvientV4ixeveasele of veer. The number guise in_the Turkish squadron was • -2,240; mirraier the Onibined refifedrote: 1354 e, _'There were , ttre.erstikiih itr%:attdi title 'Without ee.aggeratioreo therefore; Finitye z fairly say that 'de 'victory .which followed ee - *`•iie'prOtecirbotictis the extent r the force engaged, one of the nrogeeplendid 'urn • record. Let us ,now see:what - Ave -the- loss of e the -C eni bi ne ,/ squadrons':_ Killed. . Wounded. The English lilt french Thi.7.. Russian IA 1:37 175 478 ' It appeias, Sir, that the Asia, forming the van of the fleet, and commanded by the Gallant British Admiral; altiitist with her own broadsides destroyed t wo o f th e h os til e line of-battle ships. And here I beg\leave to Mention, on un doubted testimony, a - fa - ct which' I believe has already ap peared in the public prima, that twice during - the • aeticin the quarter (leek Of the Asia was cleared, with the of Sir Edward Codrington himself, wh o was left upon i t alms...—(Heara hear.)-13ut what in there of wonderful heroic , achievinent which British seamen have not.exhi bited ' Pei haps the House will forgive me if I mention another anecdote, which shows in the clearest point of view the cordial union :that existed among the three flags It will he recollected that a twenty-eight gun frigate, the Talbot, bor e d own , and etigiiga4l for , nearly an hour tno turkialnahips of heavy metal, carrying together sixty-fotir some ;, , and whose fire was consequently very *destructive En the British frigate. It was also to be recollected that Cap tain Hugon of the French frigate, the Amide, seeing the condition of the Talbot, nobly 'placed his ship between her and oneof the Turkish vesseli, which he soon ea* turerl. What I wish to add to these well known facts is this —When Captain Hugon pulled down the T ur ki sh flag, such were the . generosity and delicacy of the Galla9t Frenchman, that he did not hoist the French flag alone, lit !mistral the French and British flags united; thereby int/- m al ting that he bad only terminated the contest which oar brave'conntri'men had begun —(Loud cries of "hear, heat, parts ofahe Hose).o hear !" from all I mention this, Sir, as a proof of the great uni on th at ex i ste d among the reptadrons ; union which was not confined to the action iteslfa- but which 'evinced itself in all the subsequent N . - enrrtnees. sir, I think that what 1 have said on this part of the subject is quite sufficient, for the purpose of showing the character of this brilliant. achievement ; which, indeed, was thus justly described in the general orders 'sealed by Sir Edward ''Codrington on leaving the Bay o f Naval* on the 24th of October Out of a fleet corn ',coed, of 81 &hips of war,' -otll3l , one; frigate and - ift een smaller ves se l & are i n a con di t i on w hich' will ever a ll oi t, them,agaiis to go to sea." 'llepeat, that I am perfectlt 3 " . "' 5°1 ccintending,.. that; considering . the amount -siff force engaged, glens is no naval action in our annals the ra4 suit of which was so coMpletely decisive, and on the mcriti of which iris utt e rl y , impossible that there can be any di4 ference o Pi ni on-s--(llea r , hear. ) I have also a right td aay, that we.hays the best Proof of the merit and value of this action, not only in. the destruction of the fleet to which the Allied Sri latirons 'tuna opposed, hut-aiso to the iiteseut condition of things. since the action thert , has been an almost total ceosation, of warlik e cud hostile proceedings._ Everithing has been. tranqUilliied.• I uuderstood from the latest ,accounts; that,• in these' part s w h ere but recently nothing but piracy and the must flagra n t acts of violence wereaperPetrated, the state of affairs is such, b ot h on land and at sea, as to afford every prospect s er that to , ious o b s t ac l e wilt interpose itself to the 'complete exeCtitilin Of the 'treaty. of London, to the pacification of . the - GrAlls, and to the settlement of those questions by which that Cthintry has. been so long agitated—(Hear, hear.)—A*r all this, 5;4,4 I hope that I shall. not find any person inclined to deny; that the indi v id ua l t o whom to. muc h o f, public benefit is , attributable is not entitled:to public gratitude. It is true; that I heard som e thi ng d ro pp e d th e ot h er ev ening- o f its only having been a " barbarous" force --that Sir Edivardi Codrington had to. contend with. A barbarous force Look at the number of killed and wounded in the coutesti. with. this barbarous force. If these objectors talk of a bar- . ltarous force, what, pray, are the Algerines, for chaetisiia: whom Lord Exmouth received the thanks of both Houses ,f Parliament? If 'they talk of a barbarous force, what, piay, are the Indians ; victories over whom have repeat ...di), been - rewarded with the thanks of both Houses of Par liainent ; although in comparison with the Turks the In :liana are not better than the Picts and Savages who for ,nerdy peopled Britain ? I contend, and with justice, that ,he recent struggle was a great one; but I can mention various cases from which it is evident that the greatness of the struggle has not been usually considered as the criterion by Which to determine the propriety of voting Parlia ,nent.2ry approbation. For example, there was the affair of Copenhagen. The Danish fleet made no resistance. Not a shot was fired by our navy ; yet our Admiral re. ceived the thanks of both Houses of Parliament. There have been many similar cases. Admiral Bertie and Ad miral Stopford were thanked by Parliament merely for their cordial co-operation with the army in India, al. though - the navy was not actually engaged in hostilities. AdMiral Keith was thanked for his assistance in - land ing troops; Admirals de Courcy and Wood for their coo. duet - in the embarkation of the British army at Corunna. Adiniral Fuller received the thanks of Parliament for pre venting the recapture of CorsiCa. As he was a Member of this House; he'was thanked in person ; and being a man whoie modesty was equal to his courage, in expressing his gratitude for the honour which he had received, he quali fied the service whiCh he had performed with the word "advantage." It is true that in the case of Sir George ilvng, in 1718, no Parliamentary thanks were voted ; but sir, I find, upon examining the public records of those' times, that thanks were hardly ever voted to the navy by Parliament. Prom the time of Admiral Blake, in the period of the Commonwealth, to the time of Admiral Os borne, in 1758, there does not appear to have been any vote of thanks to the navy. The thanks of Parliament were confined to Marlborough and to -. the army. I now Wish to apply myself to the observations which fell the other evening froin the Noble Secretary at War on this subject. The Noble Lord said, lie should object to this vote be catiSe there was no precedent of thanks having been voted, when the country over whose forces the victory had keen at -1 ehieved was a neutral State. The instance of Copenhagen ap pears to me to be a complete answer to the Noble Lord's ob 'serration. It is acknowledged by all parties, that at the time of the Copenhagen affair a perfect neutrality ex isted towards this country on .the part of the Danes. The justification of our conduct, which was set up upon that occasion, was not that the Danes were neutral, but that they were too w ea k t o res i s t any attempt b y F rance to avail itself of their naval. means. The best proof that Denmark was considered neutral, appears in the fact, that feWer than three hundred Danish merchants having ap plied to the Crown, Prince to ascertain if their ships would be safe in the ports of this country, were told by him that they would of course be safe, as the neutrality of Denmark .had been acknowledged by Great Britain. If the relations of Turkey with this country justify the refusal to thank . Sir Edward Codrington for the victory of Navarin, the relation of Denmark with this country would - have justified, a refusal to thank our .Commanders for the affair at Copen hagen... But this is not the only instance of this nature. There Is another, as complete. I allude to the attack on Algiers by Lord Exmouth. There are many points of strong resemblance hetWeen the circumstances of the attack on Al giers, and those of the attack on. the Turkish fleet at Navarin. The former was preceded by a league formed among the Christian Sovereigns of Europe, for the purpose of putting down the outrages of the African Powers, and tranquilliz ing the Mediterranean. The late occurrence was also pre ceded by a league to tranquillize the Mediterranean. In fulfilment of the contiitions of the former league, the Bri tish Admiral sailed into the Mediterranean with a united squadron and appeared before Tunis and Tripoli, where he amicably adjusted all matters in dispute. He then procee ded to Algiers. In the first.instance, the Dey seemed dis pty,ed to agree to the propositions made to him. For two or three days, Lord Exmouth was induced to believe that it would be unnecessary to resort to any violent measure. In the intermediate time,. however, came news of the mas i.acre of a number of Christians in the territories of the Dey. Lord Exmouth hesitated no longer ; he entered the harbour of Algiers, and completed the object of his mis sion. • And What said his Majesty's Ministers, and what said the King himself on the subject? On the meeting of Parliament the Session was opened by a Speech from the 'Throne, in which the Prince Regent, acting in the name and on behalf of his Majesty, uttered these remarkable words " The splendid achievement of his Majesty's fleet, in conjunction with a squadron of the King of the Nether lands, under the gallant and able conduct of Admiral Vis count Exmouth, led to the immediate and unconditional liberation of all Christian captives then within the terri tory of Algiers, and to the renunciation by its Government of the practice of .Christian Slavery. lam persuaded that you will be duly sensible of the importance of an arrange merit, SQ interesting to humanity, and reflecting, from the manner in which it has been accomplished, such signal honour on the British Nation." .. ; Theseworda, Sir, with-a very trifling alteration, would riply exactly to !lc victory of .Navarin. And when Lord Castlereagh moved the thanks of the House of Commons to Lord Exinouth for his gallant conduct, he said that " he 'Wag snie the . House would feel a peculiar gratification in seeing the arms of Holland united with' ours for the gene ral liberties of mankind." So in the attack on the Turks of Navarin. Was nut its object the general liberties of mankind ? Was not its purpose that of reading a severe lesson to those who were snowi n g themselves the enemies of those liberties ? In speaking of the attack on Algiers, Lord Castlereagh said—" There never was a military transaction, the character of which, in all its bearings, redounded more to the honour of every individual con cerned in it; for though the enemy might be inferior in scientific excellence, and the knowledge of modern war fare, yet sufficient proof was given during the battle that the' arm of this country was never turned against a foe more capable of opposing an obstinate and fierce resistance." What can be more true than this passage of Lord Castle reagh's speech, . as applied to the foe with whom Sir Ed wifd Codrington had to contend? The motion made by Lord . Castlereagh was seconded by an ingenious young gen tleman of great talent and eloquence, Mr. Law. What has since become of that young gentleman, whether in his maturer years he has realised the promise of his more youthful days, it does not become me to inquire. —(A laugh.)—Mr. Law, in the course of his observations on the occasion to which 'I have alluded, made use of this appro priate phrase—" It was a noble enterprise, brilliantly achieved, in a great cause." Sir, I beg to say that these words of that eloquent young gentleman, Mr. Law, are strictly applicable to the battle of Navarin ;—it was " a noble enterprise, brilliantly achieved, in a great cause." ' Vie 'lumber of men killed in the attack on Al giers was leis than the number killed in the battle of Na varin ; although the number of wounded was greater in the former than in the latter affair. But the question before us is not a question of loss or resistance (although, in both those respects, the battle of Navarin may challenge compa rison with any other conflict of a siAsilar character) ; the question is, whether or not the achievement, reflects ho nour upon those by whom it was performed ; perfectly leaving alone the question as to the policy of the measure? I say that it did reflect the highest honour upon those by whom it was performed ; I say, that after the high testi mony which has been borne to that fact, Parliament can not refuse to express its gratitude, unless something hitherto unknown can be brought forward to justify us in passing over what, I repeat, in the words of that ingenious and eloquent young gentleman, Mr. Law, was " a noble enterprise, brilliantly achieved, in a good cause."-(Hear, hear, hear. )__Sir, I have been endeavouring to discover what can be the objection of those persons who oppose my present proposition ; and I declare, • with time utmost since rity, that I cannot understand or c onj ec tu re wh a t th a t o b s jection can possibly be. Sir Edward Codrington's con, duct deserves either praise or great blame. ' There can be no ruediuni. If I thought the Admiral acted contrary to his instructions, I would propose to censure him; but knowing as I know, and as we all know, that he did not do 60, . I must persevere -in .main taining that he . has most richly earned our. ap plause. 'lt has occurred to me as junk poSsible that some.: Body may say that the House of Comn'ons ought not to thank Sir E. Codrington, because, by so doing, we should exasperate Turkey. It is possible that there may be two or three worthy old gentlemen in this country who ima7 gine that_the Reis Effendi sits every morning sipping his coffee with the Times newspaper in his hand, r e ading the ' debates in the English H ouse of Commons with the most sensitive attention to, their, tenour, His possible that these worthy persons zuly. fancy, ..that of all people who have pursued a mad policy,, the- Turks are the most mad ; that iiltsoulasl 'beati ng th ey received -at t be unaffected by the loss o f th e ir navy, :* a i u n i y h t t h g at overlook they m the but that they would be urged into all the fury of a desperate revenge by a vote of the English House of Com-: spent some time in these 'worthy persons mons. ' Sir, In my younger days I TurkeY; and if the apprehension of be true, then the " march of inteleet" hai made a greater progress in that country than it,,ever did at any period in any other part of the world. (A laugh.) Why, Sir, while I was in habits of intercourse with a number of very . respectable Muisulmans, I never met with ' more than omi man whim had even ever heard of the English House of Comiisens. (A laugh.) That individual, " . a man o f ele voted - rank, had a distinguished English and a distinguished French Officer residing with him ; and from them he every] day obtained information as to what Napoleon Was'about : and as to what was passing at the various Courts of Eu rope. I remember that when this individual asked me if I belonged to the English House of Commons, I was as much astonished as I should have been if he bad asked me some profound mathematical question, and I can assure any one who may be alarmed lest by any vote of ours we may chance to exasperate the Turks, that it would require a great deal of ingenuity to make a Turk un derstand what the word " vote" means ; and that he would be apt to think a great part of the explanation neces sary for that purpose what in this country is commonly called " hoaxing." We need have no fear, therefore, of exasperating the Turks by any vote of the English Par liament. But, sir, I will tell you how we may perhaps have already exasperated them. To me it seems very likely that the Grand Seignor will be greatly exasperated when he finds himself called by the King of England "his ancient ally." What ! the Brother of the Sun and Moon ! the Lord of the Black Sea! th e Vi car o f God upon Earth ! The Master of Millions ! To class him with a mere Lord of Merchants! With the Master of Slaves, who are per mitted to sell scissors, and to buy raisins in the Levant! That is indeed calculated to make the Grand Turk angry. All those, Sir, who know as I know, the way in Which our Ambassador at Turkey is treated, will feel how impossible it is that the Grand Turk can for a moment condescend to consider any Christian Sovereign as his ally or his friend. Any one who has witnessed the painful ceremonial to which I allude, will allow that it is impossible to express a greater assumption of unmeasurable superiority than that which the Turks evince towards our Ambassador at a public audience at Constantinople. The fact is, Sir, that as to any fear of exasperating the Turks by our vote, such fear there can be none. If we wish to carry into effect the Treaty of London, we need not be under any apprehension that the negociation will be broken off by the House of Commons passing a vote of thanks to Sir Edward Codrington. There is only one thing of which we have reason to be afraid ;—not of exasperating the Grand Seignior, but of giving to Prince Metternich and the Austrian Cabinet any reason to hope or expect that we are disposed in the. least to flinch from our determination.—(Hear, hear.) —lf there be the least danger of our negociations being disturbed, that danger will proceed not from a vote of the House of' Commons; but from a courier frcim Vienna.— (Hear, hear, hear.) If, however, the Right Hon. Gentle men opposite and their colleagues concur in opinion that there is only one way of carrying the policy hitherto pur sued by this country into' effect ;' namely, by determined perseverance, I have no doubt that they will be able fully to accomplish the. desirable object in view. Sir, I shall take the liberty of including, in my proposed vote of thanks, the Admirals commanding the French and Russian squadrons.—t Hear, hear, hear.) In doing this I fallow the precedents of former time, when the British Parliament voted their thanks to the Admirals of the Netherlands and of Spain. It is, no doubt, a great and glorious distinction for us, that we are able to confer such honours as are es teemed not only by our fellow subjects, but by the subjects of other countries. This is the great and glorious privi lege of freemen. The' language used by his Grace the Dnke of Wellington upon the occasion of the vote of thanks for his services as Sir Arthur Wellesley, at Copenhagen, was of the most beautiful description ; and, with the leave of the House, I shall quote it :—" Mr. speaker, I consider myself fortunate that I was employed by his Majesty on a service which this House has considered of such importance as to have marked with its approba tion the conduct of those officers and troops who have per formed it. The honour which this House has conferred upon my Hon. Friends and myself is justly considered by 'the Officers of the Navy and Army as the highest which this country can confer; it is the object of the ambition of all who are employed in his Majesty's service, and to ob tain it has, doubtless, been the motive of many of those acts of valour and good conduct which have tended so ezni- neatly to the glory and have advanced the prosperity and advantage of this country." It is impossible, Sir, for- me to add any thing to this eloquent expression on the part of the Noble Dnke. But this is not the only instance in which the Noble Duke has received the Thanks of this House. Most of these Hon. Members must be aware that he his publicly received the Thanks of the House of Commons no less than eleven times.—(Hear, bear.) — "He was thanked for Isis exertions at Vimeira, for his services in Portugal, for ids services at Ci u d a d Ro- drigo, at Vittoria, at Salamanca, at Pampluna, at Ba dajos, at his entrance into France, and, though last not least, for the great services rendered to this country by the battle of Waterloo, and his general services during the war.—(Applause.) Then, Sir, I ask whether it- is possible that the Noble Duke, after having had such wreaths of laurel stuck around his brow, will refuse to grant a single leaf to a gallant officer (cheers), not belonging to his own but to a rival service ? —a service however, where rivalry consisted in a contest to see which could render most essential service to the in- . . terests, and best promote the glory of the country. (Hear, hear, hear.) I will not, I cannot anticipate the rejection of this proposal—when I recollect whom I am addressing —when I see so many distinguished Officers of both scr -vices, and amongst them the gallant representative of the Navy Board—himself an ornament to his profession— when I behold on these benches so many of those Mini sters who framed the Treaty of London, and who sent the Gallant Officer to carry it into effect—whey I see around me the - Representatives of a nation resembling in many glO - distinct ions the free states of antiquity, but guiltless of the vice which disgraced the old Republican communities-=. ,When on every side of me I behold those, who, differing on other points, have always united to honour their brave coun- ymen in arms ; , it is impossible that I should contemplate, . that on this so fair an occasion, we - should afford so shameful an exception to our former generous practice, and that the Commons of England should, for the first time, in the history of our country, seem, indifferent to, and neglect the upholders of, our national glory. If this is to be so, then, indeed, the day of Navarin will he the glory and the shame of England; and history, recording the name of the un datinted seaman, to whom it is due, will make this mourn ful confession:—" His merits were acknowledged by his own Sovereign—foreign Potentates made haste to honour him—rival nations conspired to praise him—but his fellow subjects were unmindful of his prowess, and would con tribute nothing to his fame—domestic jealousies had mastered their better feeling—they gloried in the triumph of a party..--they forgot the interests of Christendom, and the champion of civilization."—(Loud and repeated cheering from both sides of the House. )—The Hon. Member then moved— " That the Thanks of that House be given to Sir Edward Codrington, for his able and gallant conduct in the decisive Action against the Turks, on the 20th of October 1827, in th 6 Bay of .Navarin." Also—" The" Thanks of the House to the Officers, &c. engaged in the Action." Thirdly—" To the Russian and French Admiral,, who so gallantly assisted on the occasion." The first resolution having been seconded by Sir F. BURDETT, was then put from the Chair. Mr. BANKES rose to address the House, but we regret that, from the Hon. Gentleman's position in the Howe, and the . Confusion that prevailed during the early part of hi . s speech, we found it extremely difficult to hear him.— He said that' the House was not in a situation to form a correct opinion of the conduct of Sir Edward Codrington, unless all the papers calculated to elu cidate the history of "the expeditions were laid before it. He entertained a very strong objection to any vote of approbation that would seem to give a sanction to a Treaty which he should ever think was unadvised and, impolitic in the extreme. One of the most unfortu nate results of the battle of Navarin was, that it placed us in a state in which we did not know whether we were at peace or at war. They were called upon by the Hon. Gentleman to persevere--did he mean that we were to carry our Treaty into effect by a protracted war, a war carried oU against an would say, too, an ancient Ally ; for he found, in a treaty between this country and the Porte, in 1675; a recognition of Treaties of Amity of much older existence? In every possible way in which he looked at the recent conduct of this country to the Porte, he found reason to disapprove of its policy. He should like to hear from those wh o were part i es to the in troduction of Russian ships into the Mediterranean an ex planation of the way in which they can be so easily got out of it. To such persons he would take the liberty of ad , dressing one word o f a d mon iti on , an d i t was in the lan gimp of one of its hest poets— 'Who helps a powerful friend fore-arms a foe. Mr. Canning alwaykstrongly reprobated the interference of one country with the internal arrangements of another. With regard to the Turkish affair, if there were any neces sity for that interferenee—which he (Mr. Bankes) strongly denied—how was it that our .own naval force was not suffi cient for the'aceomplishment of the object, with out ca lli ng i n the aid of two naval Powers? He objected much to the interference of England (which led to consequences so dis astrous at Navarin) with a Power so long united to us in amity and friendship. Mr. Secretary HUSKISSON—I have listened with ethisiderableattention to the arguments which the lion. Member who ha4just sat down has addressel to the House; and I confess that I have not heard one word from the Hon. Member Which appears to me to bear upon the question.—(llear, hear.)—The Hon. Member has brought into discussion all the questions with respect to our inter ference with Turkey, and the different steps that have been .taken with a view to the pacification of Greece. NOW,. I cannot 'help thinking that it would have been far more consistent with the regulations of Parliamentary pro ceedings to have adhered to the ,line chalked out by the Hon. Member for Westminster, and confined our discus • sions to the immediate object of the motion. lam sorry that other topics than those have been indiscreetly, i n m y Opinion, brought before us. Sir, when I hear it stated that the object of the Treaty is totally different from the Protocol, I beg leave to say that I utterly deny the propo sition.—(Hear.)--Let us look in the Treaty, and in the Protocol, and it will he found that the object in both do cuments is the same. The Treaty perfects that Which the Protocol professes.to execute. The object of both is the reconciliation of the Porte with the Greeks, and the general pacification of the Levant. The Honourable Member for Dorsetshire talks about violence and outrage, and about the violation of treaties, and the law of nations. I say that the Hon. Gentleman has not read the Treaty of the 6th. July. What does that Treaty say ? That " the contracting Powers will offer to the Ottoman Porte their mediation, with the view of bringing about a reconciliation between it and the Gre . I .is." It cannot be doubted what the object of the treaty is; it was. obviously intended to preserve peace, to effect a reconciliation between Turkey and Greece. My Hon. Friend may quarrel with the means, if he chooses, used in effecting that object. He now asks what are the intentions of Government in the means now employed ? a question which he will excuse me answering. I really will not be tempted to follow my Hon. Friend, to go over the ground of the . various questions to which he has reverted in the course of his address to the House.— It is enough for tne to state that for seven years the peace in the East of Europe had been broken, that the war which raged there was of a sanguinary description, and which, from a state of things, was likely, if not put down by some power—and, if possible, by friendly interpo sition—by its complication and its character, to inter rupt the tranquillity and repose of Europe. For the attainment of this object the great Powers of Europe united. My Hon. Friend speaks of the policy of Mr. Pitt, and talks about the views of those who profess to be his admirers. I confess that lam one of those humble indi- viduals who admire the policy of that great man. My Hon. Friend seems to think that in no case was it the policy of that eminent man to couutenance the interference of one State with another. Not only in the time of Mr. Pitt, but also in that of Mr. Fox, the interest of this coun try has been to interferc--certainly not in the internal con cerns of foreign countries--when the necessity was urgent. In such instances have we interposed, and interposed with effect. I say, Sir, that it is no departure from the Law of Nations to interfere in the manner the great European Poivers have in the p:esent instance. In 1787 there was an interference on the part of this country ; and what was time policy as far as another Power was ,concerned ? The King of Prussia conceived that an insult had been offered to his sister, the wife of the Stadtholder, and our interpo sition was sought. Was not this a subject of interference ? My Honourable Friend thinks the French faction was the reason of our interference. In the best and brightest periods of this country have we interfered between nations —not unsolicited, not gratuitously (I do not mean in the internal regulations), but we have interposed, and tvith effect. I maintain that the interference of the Great Powers of Europe, whose interest it is to preserve invio lable the peace which exists, is justifiable. My Hon. Friend, I am sure, will one day, when he sees all the documents, ad-, mit that the interposition of the European Powers is justifia ble. I unsure he will one day acknowledge that the interrup tion of tranquillity likely to arise out of the circumstanced of the East of Europe, has been prevented, not merely on the present eccasion, but that for many years past the threatening aspect of affairs in that quarter has been mitigated by the judicious mediation of England , and the other European Powers who have co-operated with her for the preservation of the general peace. Ido not agree with the conclusion that in framing the Treaty of London, the parties to it have been guilty of a gross injustice; and I tell the Hon. Gentleman once more, that the object of the Treaty of the 6th of July is precisely the same as that en tertained by the Contracting Parties who signed the Proto, col at St. Petersburgh in 1826. The object, not only of the Treaty and the Protocol, but of the diplomacy of Lord Strangford, during his residence as Ambassador at Constan tinople—in fact, the exertions of the entire six years—went to prevent war between the Greeks and Turks, and by pa cifying a part (the East) of Europe, to preserve the tran quillity of the remainder. Such has been the object of the negociations—first, to compromise the differences existing between Greece and the Ottoman Porte—next, to prevent the possibility ofthese differences one day leading to a general war. No Hon. Member can expect me to state the measures which his Majesty's Ministers may recommend to be adopted for carrying the provisions of the Treaty into exe cution. For my own part, as one of the Government, I ant prepared to state my firm conviction that the present Cabinet will honestly, faithfully, and fully endeavour to execute the Treaty in accordance with the spirit in which it was entered into—and in compliance with the engage ments to which this country has pledged itself in concert with its Allies. Our object will be to put an end to the, contest existing between the belligerents, and to prevent further and more extended hostilities from arising out of the 'present conflict.—(Hear.)—Sir, I feel it impassible not to express my extreme regret at the motion which the Hon. Member for Westminster has thought it necessary to bring forward nn this occasion. The Hon. Member has expressed his opinion that the motion of thanks to the Gal lant Admiral who commanded the allied squadron at Na varin, may not unfitly proceed from his side of the House. He has stated, if I understood him rightly, that there are occasions when the high honour which this House is in the habit of conferring by a vote of thanks to the Commanders of the naval and military forces, who have had the fortune to achieve brilliant victories, may very properly be given on motions made by Members totally unconnect ed with the service of his Majesty's Government, Sir, it' is possible such cases may arise. I am not going to contest or enter into a consideration of the general principle —but I maintain that this is one of the occasions when it, is not expedient to make the experiment. This is exactly one of those cases in which it is not possible that. the Hon. Member (with all the information to which he pretends) can be fully acquainted with all the circum stances connected with the transaction. I can assure the. Hon. Member that he appears to think himself much better informed on the subject than he really is—from the tone he has adopted, one would think he knew more of, the matter than his Majesty's Ministers—hut I can assure the House the contrary is the fact. If I am not much mistaken, the Hon. Member stated, among other things to which his knowledge extended, that he knew that the re port made by Sir John Gore, who had been sent out by Go'vernment to inquire into the conduct of the Gallant Admiral in command of the British naval force in the Me diterranean, had been perfectly satisfactory on all points. Mr. HOBHOUSE—" I did not say upon all points, but upon most." Mr. HUSKISSON.—" I can only say that if the Hon. Member for Westminster has that knowledge, his knowledge far exceeds mine. Ido not mean by this to say, nor do I wish it to be understood, that there is any thing deficient in the explanation of the transaction, which has, been sent home by the Gallant Admiral who commands in the Medi terranean. But Ido say this, that no report has come, to my knowledge, or. as; far as lam informed, to the knowledge of any Member of his Majesty's Government,, conveying any opinion of my Gallant Friend to the effect stated by the Hon. Member for Westminster. The. Him: Member assumes that his case is completely established on the report of the Gallant Officer to whom I before alluded. Now it so happens that the Gallant Officer in question was not called on to make a report, and that be has not, as far as know, made any report. Before I proceed further into this part of my subject, I cannot help noticing the fact that the Hon. Member for Westminster has more than o nce insinuated in his speech, that the great honour which he considers to be due to Sir E. Codringtemn, and the gallant men who served under his command, is refuied to him owing to the changes whicl have recently taken place in the Cabinet, owing to some paltry intrigue which he con ceives to have been going forw ar d, or , to use his own words. owing to the bett e r p ass i ons h av i ng by domestic jealousy." been absorbed • 3lr. lIOIIIIOIISE—I beg pardon, Sir, but I think I had better interrupt the Right Hon. Gentleman, before he proceeds any further. He is labouring. under a gross mis take. I did net utter the sentiment he has just attributed to me. I (lift not speak positively but hypothetically. I said, — If Alimisters act so and so towards Sir E. Codring ton, people, will say so and so of them, and the conclu sions to which future historians will come, will be, that the better passions were absorbed by domestic jealeasiN. Mr. Secr e t ary HTI SKISSON—I am most happy t o hear the explanation. But I deny that there exists, or ever did exist in the Cabinet, since the battle of Navarin, any discord respecting that conflict. 1.17 e never were op posed on the vote of thanks of Parliament—for such a pro position was never thought of for that affair. The thanks of Parliament have never been voted but for a triumph ob tained over an enemy.—(Hear.)—We vote thanks of Par liament only in a state of war, or a triumph over those who arc opposed to us. These are honours of which we are proud for victories achieved over enernies.—(Cheers.)--- Unless there be some precedent for voting thanks in such a case as the battle of Navarin—and I maintain there exists none .they ought to be denied. Thanks for the accomplishment of what ? For an accidental collision, iu which the lives of a great many men were lost, and a great destruction of property followed. The Hon. Gen tleman had dwelt a great deal on the affair at Copenhagen; in 1807, as though that was a case in point. How dif ferent was the policy of the one to the policy of the other. How many Honourable Members were there Who,,doubted the policy of the last war altogether, and yet, when the country was involved in war, they felt it incumbent on them to give their countenance to the Government in defending the country. But what was the affair at Copenhagen ? What were the instructions given to the Admiral and the Commander of the Land Forces? The instructions were distinctly to attack that capital, to use their best .endeavours, to exert themselves to the utmost in, their 'poWer, to use.all their efforts, towards the accomplishment of that object. But they were told to wait eight days before they commenced the attack. What was the fact with respect to the Foreign Power ? Why before one of the eight days had expired, Denmark had declared war.—(Hear, bear.)—We were told to consider this as similar to the Navarin affair. What was done at Copenhagen? The execution of the in etroetions ; the capture of the capital followed. At that time we were in. a state of war with the Power to which those instructions applied. Was this the situation in which we were placed with the Allied Powers at Navarin ? In order to bring about an armistice de facto (in the latter case), if it could not be obtained, the Gallant Admiral sailed into the Bay of Navarin. He did not go into at tack, because he Ilea no orders to attack. He knew his duty too well, but • lie went there for the purpose of en forcing the armistice. In the history of the naval actions of this country, I am willing to admit, that snore skill, more, gallantry, more prowess, was never evinced by offi cers and seamen than on that occasion was evinced— (cheers), and I do not think it a small addition of praise, that in the union of the naval Po.vers, our Gallant Adini ral has conciliated the affections of the foreign officers who were engaged in,the conflict with him ; and the victory could not have been more complete had the whole force been British. (Hear, hear.) After what I have said, I hope I shall not be accused of underrating the prowess of the Gallant Admiral. It was not, however, a battle with a declared enemy, but an accidental conflict. (Hear.) If it were practicable to put the case (in a legal sense) to a foreign Jury, their verdict would be, I am inclined to be lieve (to use a Jew phrase), what is termed a " chance medley." Government had sent out the Gallant Officer to carry into effect a Treaty, and in the accomplishment of that object a conflict ensues. The Hon. Member for Westminster thinks that the battle of Navarin will tend to the tranquillity of the Eastern' part of Europe. He thinks that the issue will be so. It may or may not have that effect. It might have led the Ottoman Porte to con sequences the reverse of what the Hon. Gentleman thinks. The question is, whether it was in the spirit of the Treaty of the 6th of July, the object of which was to carry the reconciliation of the Ottoman Porte with the Greeks with out bloodshed ? IMu not !aiming the Gallant. Admiral ; and before the Navarin affair, he ranked with' the bravest and best officers in the British Navy. (Hear.) Tire Hon. Member for Westminster thinks that the Turkish nation are very ignorant of what is passing iu Europe, and values the information of the Reis Effendi but little. lie speaks of the high dignity of the Sultan—whom he wishes to re present as looking down with disdain on the European Monarchs. As it is some years since the Hon. Gentleman was in Turkey, probably he may not be so accurately in formed as he believes himself to be. I assure him that the lleis,Effendi is very well informed of what passes in Europe. (Hear.) The Hon. Member talks of the Algerine affair, and that it bears a resemblance to the battle of Navarin. Does he riot recollect that Lord Exmouth went to Tunis, Algiers, and other places? And, if I am- not mistaken in my recollection (for I could not anticipate that it would be alluded to, otherwise I should have consulted documents on the subject), his Lordship . returned from Algiers, stating that he had not been able to make that arrangeinent with the Dey as with the other Powers. And what was done on the return of Lord Exmouth? His Lordship was sent back front England with additional ships, and with positive, implicit instructions to compel the Dey, by violence and force,, to comply.—(Hear, hear, hear.) lam not to be deterred,by the appeal to the feelings made by the Hon. Member for Westminster, that if we do not thank Admiral Codrington, this will make a shameful ex ception to*the general course of Parliamentary proceeding. I say that if we do return thanks it wilt be an 'exception, tke first that has ever occurred, to the uniform course of proceeding in Parliament in reference to battles in which this country has .been ; engaged ' and I think I. have demo lished the precedents brought forward, by the , Hon. Gen tleman. This is a casein which the circumstance of the country being in a state of peace or war makes all the dis tinction. It is a bed precedent, when the country is in a state of peace, to endeavour to obtain a triumph, and call forth the spirit and feelings of war. Ido not doubt the discretion and judgment of the Gallant Admiral on this occasion, but I say to the House of Commois, be cautious' how you commit yourselves by a precedent of this sort,. lest in cases wher e yo u are o bli ge d, as you frequently mule be obliged, to commit great discretionary power to.military Commanders such a license should.lead. to a disposition (considerincethe high character. of the Amour conferred,' and the benefits enjoyed by the person receiving it) to' create untoward accidents in order to obtain that honour ; which accidents may, by possibility, lead to consequences which the country may afterwards regret. The Hon. Gentleman seems to have been aware that he was not likely to receive from the sober, judgment of the House any very large measure of support. Aware that no change had taken place in the Councils of his Majesty's Ministers be tween the time when the account reached this country and the hour at which I ant now addressing the House, and that there was no intention on the part of Government to make any proposal to the House, and feeling how much. such a' proposal would be at variance, with all the principles by which Parliament has hitherto been governed, the Hon. Gent. has searched through all the records of.the proceed ings of our House, and of the other Moine, in order to ob tain proof that thanks had been conferred for brilliant acts like that which took place at Navarin. In doing this lie has referred to the signal good fortune of the illustrious warrior who is now at the head of the Councils of this country, and stated that he was eleven times thanked for his brilliant services—an honour unparalleled in the history of the world, certainly in the history of any republican country.. Unquestionably there is no man who does not rejoice that we have bad an opportunity to thank that Gallant Chieftain eleven times ; there is no ®an who does not think that to his services we are indebted for the peace of Europe and the state of security in which that peace rests, and which it will be his anxious care in the Cabinet to preserve undisturbed, as it was iris earnest and successful endeavour in the field to procure by his sword; but when the Honourable Gentleman talks of that Gallant General having - .been thanked eleven times, I will ask the Honourable Gentleman why, in his. researches, he, overlooked one little in cident which I take to be quite conclusive as to the practice of Parliament on this subject, and whether he ever heard of that most decisive and brilliant victory which. my Gallant Friend achieved at Tou louse; one of the greatest feats of war in which he was ever engaged, when he drove Marshal Soult from such an intrenched position, that, in the judg ment of his own officers, the undertaking was despe. rate, and where he had displayed such a degree of valour, and such a combination of judgment and coolness, as had :never before been exhibited ? When the account of this brilliant victory reached England, was any, vote of thanks conferred ? No. A cessitionof arms had in the interim taken place—we were no longer in a state of war with France ; and, ',under -those circumstances, when a Noble Duke in the other Heuse of Parliament,- the 'late Duke of 'Norfolk, asked my Noble Friend then at the bead of his Majesty's Government whether it was not intended to follow up the precedents of the other victoria, by thanking, the Duke of Wellington for, that: greateed-beil liaut achievement, my . Noble Friend at the brad of. the Administration replied by stating, ,that though he f e l t the importance of the victory, and the additional honour ) o — nee lla c v re in at g ed, sta m ted ay propose any vote of thanks.—(Hea i r f . conferred by it upon the British army, yet H as ou in: l t i h a a d t in th fa e c y t then ceased, it was not expedient, and he did not intend to that fact, I will sit down, content with leaving it to the g w o i o li l n s o e t ns c e re a a n te d a sob p e r r ec j e u d d e g n m t judgment which, , th e be attended with all the inconvenience I have stated. At tire same time I am bound to say, that had this conflict taken place with a Power with which we were at war, whatever might have been the character of the Power, bar. barian or otherwise, I should .not have been oee of those who would have been reluetant to propose to Parliament to confer a vote of thanks. Under these circumstances, wishing again to guard myself against being understood to cast any slight on the character of the Gallant Admiral, but feeling, on the contrary, that the character of the Gallant Officer stands as high in this House (as, I trust, it doers in the country) as that of any other member of the profession, that his discretion is riot called in question, and that if there be any thing painful on this, occasion, it, is the pain in which we are placed by what I must consider, the ill-ad vised motion of the Hon. Member. I am. uoder, the neces sity of moving the previous question. , . The SPEAKER having put the,previous,question, Sir J. MACKINTOSH . rose and, spoke as follows Sir, it has been so rarely ~ fortuneof coinciding, with the my lot to be in a situation which I have enjoy e d th e good Hon. Membe r (M r . B an k e s), - that I embrace with plea sure the present opportunity of expressing my conetitTence in much.of what, fell from him on .this subject: L deplore with him the manner in which this question has been treated, in consequence of the state of parties in both Houses of Parliament; and I regret that those who ap pear to approve of the treaty of the 6th of July, are pla ced in a most difficult situatien. A question . has arisen on the subject of that -treaty, with respect to , which I fully agree with the Hon. Member for Westminster, that there can be no medium—no middle course of opinion. That Hon. Member has delivered a speech, admirable in its kind, and which, so far from being ill-advised, or indiscreet appears to me a model of discretion. With respect to the treaty, I repeat, there can be no medium—either it is a lawless outrage and infraction on the law of nations, or it is a roost just, wise, generous, humane, and disinterested compact. Ido 'not intend a to copy the ex am pl e o f th e Hon. Gentleman in entering , into the• question of the po licy of the treaty, as it would be impossible to introduce properly and effectually all the topics, all the vast , 'range of argument, that might be brought to bear iiponit in the discussion of a mere motion for a vote of thanks to a naval officer-4 is far too mighty a question to be disposed:of in such a manner. Conscious as I thus am of the impos sibility of at present doing the subject justice, I did not at first think it was right to touch upon it at all; but after the manner in which that treaty has been reviled in the face of Europe—after the graver reprobation which-has been poured out upon it in places - of great authority, and by some persons of the greatest-Lafter the general rumour that has been spread, sanctioned as it has been by the state ment of the Hon. Gentleman, that some of the most illus trious persons in this country have condemned that treaty as warmly and strongly as the Hon. Gentleman has this evening himself done—l cannot, I say, after all this, refrain from entering a protest on the part of myself, and all those Hon. Gentlemen who think with me, against being supposed to agree-in that opinion, thitathis night ex pressed. That the treaty of the 6th of July was a just as well as a disinterested compact. I am ready. to main tain, at any time, or in any place.—(Hear.)—And, more over, were the question before the House, I should be pre pared to uphold the opinion, in any place and against any antagonist, that that treaty was conformable to the law of nations. The. question is, as has been this evening rightly stated, not whether interference is the rule of, the law of nations, for all admit that non-interference is the rule, but whether—and it is the only question that can possibly occur—the hostilities carried op between the Greeks and Turks, taken in all their bearings., do not. form an exception in the ordinary rules of these laws? If we are able to make out that point, our position that the treaty is not an infraction of the law of nations is proved. Were the question before the House; I should be prepared to maintain that armed mediation to bring about a legitimate object, amicably if possible, is known to the law of nations recognised by the writers most reverenced by all people of Europe—is sanctioned by the opinion'of the best men of the best times in our own country—l should he prepared to maintain, that our intervention in behalf of the Greeks was not Only" au act of humanity towards - them, but of jus tice to the honour of Christendoni.::—(lfear, hear.)—l should be prepared to maintain, in opposition to the Hon. Gentleman, that the Treaty of the ,6th July, and what fol lowed from it,' was in consequence pf the Protocol signed at St. Petersbnrgh—l should belarepared to, maintain that the intervention proposed by the Protocol in, 1826, but thought of and discussed long before 'that periiids: as well as by the treaty of the 6th July, had become a duty— I should be prepared to show, in opposition to the species of slanders which has chiefly been' propa gated from gross ignorance, that, instead of being taken by surprise, the Turks were treated with long sufferance, with exemplary patience, and almost unparalleled for bearance—(Hear, hear, hear)—and it is but justice to Russia, after the manner in which her conduct has been reflected upon, to declare that, in all her dealin g s with the Ott oman P or t e f or t h e l ast seven years, she has offered a remarkable specimen of forbearance.—(Hear, hear.)—l trust that I shall rot be considered as violating the pledge I gave at the openirr , of my speech, not to dis cuss the policy of the tteaty, if I passingly advert to the conduct of Turkey towards the Servian Deputies. If Russia has been at all to blame, it has been for the length of her patience, rather than her too great pitimptitude. At the treaty of Bucharest, the Porte agreed to grant cer tain terms to Servia, `a country inhabited bya million of Christians, which would guarantee hhr the prac I*e of her own religion and laws, altogether free from Turkish interference. In consequenee of the provisiOnsl of this treaty between Russia and Turkey, a body of Servian De pities went to Constantinople, to arrange the terms-on which their privileges should be granted thein.' What then did these honest, these straight-forward, these downright Turks, these new ancient allies of ours do? —(Cheers and , laughter.)—Why; they fodoWed law of nations—they sent ' them all to the Seven Towers.—(Hear, ,hear, bear..)—And they 'did it,. 'too, under one of thos e b a se and false' pretexts' which form to characteristic _a feature of - .their, policy—they did it under the„peetext tf prOteCting the persons of the Depu ties from the .violence. a the populace--(hear, hear)— and in order to let them have the full benefit of that pro teaoOll, they thought it necessary to keep then* there for seven years. —(Laughter.) —It was * thin they treated people who came to them under the faith of' a solemn treaty entered into with Russia., At last, by the Con*en tion of Akerman, Russia obtained their liberation ; but even that was not till a Russian army had made its appear ance on the banks of the Pruth. I agree with the Hon. Member for Dorsetshire (Mr. Bankes) in what he has said respecting the grounds of opposition to this motion, and he has shewn great impartiality, which does him much credit, with respect to the views and interests of parties in this country on a question of nation a l honoul andjustice, Which is, certainly, and he seems . to think so, pre-eminent to all party objects. The gist of his argument was, that the true grounds of opposition to' the motion were of a double nature—l st, That the principle of the tr ea t y was to be taken, beyond hi s i nstruct i ons, or that that the eve o u Admiral gone there r ema i ned another, viz. tha condemned, and that he refused to give th an k s to ' an o ffi cer whose laurels were gained.by unjust viol ence; and 2dly,. if that instructions were, or. of the consequences of his obeying them. This I take to be the substa nce if w h at " t he Ho t :nourable Member meant to Say. If t h e second ground be t rh ground were w o r t e no had sufficient tk evidenc e e ith er o f w h at those taken, the propriety of the Admiral's conduct is made doubt ful. Now, to make the question turn on the propriety of the Admiral's conduct, seems to me somewhat inconsistent with,_ and dangerous to, the soundness of the argument contended for by the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite. To see that the Admiral did not go beyond his instructions is easy, even with the imperfect lights we have upon that , subject. If we may believe the last part of the secret artis Cie ofthe treaty, the Contracting Powers bound themselves to bring about, by mediation, an armistice de facto, and to employ, in case of necessity, proper and strong mea sures for attaining their object-" By that secret article, either Turks or Greeks refusing to join in the views of the High Contracting PartiieS; were to be coerced into acqui escence. Those who drew up that article of the treaty knew well enough that their object was not to be attained by a sprinkling of rosewater over the combatants.—(A laugh.) And, a ccordingly, in the very next sentence to that which : expressed their determination, it was agreed, in case of demur on the part of the Greeks or Turks, that instructions should be sent to the Admirals com manding their squadrons in the Mediterranean, to take measures conformably to the provisions of the Treaty. Now what sort of peg e ciations do Admir a l s carry on ? (Hear, hear, h ear .) Most admirable and effective negociations, for they speak by their great guns; the oply only refer Hon. Gentlemen reams - nen our new ancient allies will Condeicend to listen t t h o e t in he ti.--(Hear,' hear.) I know full well the little inclination the House has to listen to the reading of doctimente--(a y T i rea ts l tY as . t sen tence,Letlaugla)—and I will, therefore, but particularly u t i h ar e l framed •by the Allied Admirals before NaVarin, an d then let them say, whether between with the minute time 'at which that article of the Treaty was written, the time and that minute was drawn tip instruction s must not'have intervened, authorising the Agnairals to tise all means that compare lastpa rs o t f ha t t he ar sec tic r l e e, might be n ece *saes Tor' them to'negociate cedsistion . of hostilities? It :is impo ss i ble , absolutely impoi s ibl es after perusing the two pa p e rs to which I h ave re f erre d ; ' to ima gine that is canbe otherwise.—(Chetts.) Si r Ed war d lievins , Codrington diet), be the course he' t oo k to b e the only, effectual one he could a d opt, to attain the object f the Treaty, was fully authorisedby hi s in structions - to do all he undertook. Th e w h ole of the Right ui,n.Gent leman 's observations, if he will excuse me for say ing were quite inconclusive with , reati e d, s ,, the present The question is not que stion. e Whether we Were ' at war areording to the law of nations-- and•that Would 'be too vast and difficult a question at present to investigate—hut whether an officer who, with extraordinary skill;signal valour, and most splendid suocess--(cheero_exeentes-ert act of coercion, which he is directed, or authorised to di sect, against a foreign power, is not precisely in the same situation with those who command our force. before Copen hagen?. Will the Right Honourable Gentleman, whose mind is so enlightened, and so worthy to looking to prin ciples instead of precedents—(Loud Cheers).—will he the service having been as great , the naval genius say, . . displayed as comprehensive, the 'valour eXhiliiied • beih by officers and men—(Loud cheers)s—as brightlit the one case as the other, that th e same honours ought not to be awarded to the one hero as the other ?..-(Cheering.) I do noCnow propose to discus whether, according to - the doctrines a Or .Jurists,. the affair of Copenhagen took pl ace in a Wiens perfectum er imperfect:oN bat what we cessioul 1