The Sun.
London, England, 1855-07-31 00:00:00

it was hard to say bow long the discussion on these vo
might last. Many gentlemen had given notices of m
tion on going into committee, and one day this wee
would be employed in the discussion of a motio
which had been forced on the Government. Under
these circumstances, he should propose to the house
to follow the course of former sessions, and resolve
that orders of the day should have precedence on Tues-
day. There were one or two notices of importance, but
they were merely for the purpose of affirming resolutions,
and one was for a committee, that could not of course
sit this year. He would submit to the gentleman who
had the charge of these motions whether they could not
be moved after supply, when their discussion would not
affect the duration of the session, whereas it was known
that every day supply lasted beyond a certain period
would proportionately defer the prorogation. For these
reasons he should propose that from to-morrow (this
day) inclusive orders of the day should have precedence
of notices.
Lord J. MANNERS said that he had received a do-
cument, in common, he believed, with many hon. mem-
bers, requesting him to be in his place to-morrow, when
an important motion would be brought on by the hen.
and gallant member for Bath. It now appeared that
some arrangement had been made between the hon. and
gallant gentlemen and the Government, by which supply
was to be substituted.
Mr. HAYTER had intimated to the bon. and gallant
member for Bath, and other hon. members who had no-
tices on the paper for to-morrow, that the motion for
giving orders of the day precedence on Tuesday would
be made.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS urged that hon. members should
allow the committee of supply to be proceeded with at
once, in order that as much progress might be made as
possible. (Hear, hear.)
Colonel DUNNE and Sir F. BARING, who had given
notice of amendments ongoing into supply, consented to
waive them on the understanding that an opportunity
would be afforded for bringing them on at some future
time.

In reply to a question from Mr. OTwAY,
Mr. V. SMITH said if all the estimates should have
been voted by that time he would bring forward the In-
dian Budget on Tuesday (this day) week.
THE DECORATION OF THE BATH FOR
NAVAL SERVICES.
Admiral WALCOTT, who refused to accede lo the
appeal made by Lord Palmerston, moved, pursuant to
notice, as an amendment to the motion for going into
committee of supply, for a committee of a minute by the
Board of Admiralty, of July 2, 1846, relating to the opi-
nion of the board as to the claims of certain officers to
be recommended to the gracious consideration of her
Majesty for the honour of the Bath, who had highly dis-
tinguished themselves in action against pirates." He
observed that he brought forward the case in justice to
a number of brother officers, who with himself, he con-
sidered, bad been most hardly treated. The circum-
stances were these : Certain officers had been recom-
mended by an Admiralty minute to be brought under
the consideration of their Sovereign for the honour of
the Bath, as a reward for distinguished services, but the
benefit of that recommendation had been withheld from
them on the ground that their services had not been ga-
zetted, although it was not at that time the practice to
notice such services in the Gazette. In his own case,
the late King William IV., when Lord High Admiral,
gave his opinion of the value of the service rendered, and
of the hardship of the regulation which prevented those
services being gazetted in the first instance, and after-
wards of such non-gazetting being made the pretext
of refusing to those by whom they had been
performed the honours which they bad earned,
and to which they had been recommended. In 1845,
a brother officer of his performed a service as merito-
rious as that for which he and those who had been en-
gaged with him in the expedition claimed. The impor-
tance of that service was admitted by the Board of Ad-
miralty, and the officers engaged in it were recommended
for the companionship of the Bath ; but it was urged
that the services bad not been gazetted, and that the
number of honours allotted to the navy, viz., 100, was
full. His object was that the minute in which the ser-
vices in question were admitted should be produced, so
that at least the friends of those by whom they had been
performed might have the satisfaction of knowing that
they bad been publicly recognised. In conclnsion, he
expressed the dissatisfaction of the naval profession at the
decisions of the naval lords being overruled by a first
lord, who was a civilian.
Capt. SCOBELL seconded the motion, and in doing
so took occasion to complain of the arrangement by
which, without being consulted, he had been deprived of
the opportunity of bringing forward his motion on the
subject of naval government, which stood first on the
paper for to-morrow. With regard to the motion under
consideration he hoped it would be successful. The
lion. and gallant officer opposite and three others bad
been recommended by his late Majesty while at the head
the Admiralty for the honour of the Bath, and the
The-ctation bad been held out since by the Admiralty.
been use ought to know why that expectationAhad not
tial to t see' In the matter of promotion it was essen-
"le"
yof the service that the utmost fair-
was necessa
ness shoutained ; but if purity of •le
more so was it maintained
more matter of promotion howrinp
muchel
r.lts,,aray
tihnatretghaerodrdtoertohferndeisrtitripbruotmioinseodf
Mr. HAS said
ad distinctly stated to the
hon, and gallant officer, in
ence of the hon. member
before Christmas lie reghad
for Pomfret, that the motion
et been distributed.
ordersive
precedence on Tuesday would be
e that
a t of
evening.the day
Sir G. PECHELL spoke in sup.
of the amend-
ment, and of the claims of the nav:
added that when the hon. and gallant orofession, but.
had been as long in the house as he had, he
v-r opposite
d cease
to be surprised at the manner in which thosexdalinn
wore neglected.
Sir C. WOOD observed that if there was any obj‘et
in the hon. and gallant officer's motion, it was to force
upon the Admiralty, or upon himself as First Lord, to
recommend to her Majesty to grant the honour of the
companionship of the Bath to himself and to certain
other naval officers. Now he submitted that, inasmuch
as the Sovereign was the fountain of all honour, this
was a matter entirely within the province of the Crown.
with which that house had no right to interfere. HiS
noble friend had urged very properly that it would be
unconstitutional for that house to interfere and to dic-
tate to the Government in reference to the promotion of
officers, but hoW much more would the house be ex-
ceeding its constitutional functions if it interfered
with that which was essentially the privilege of the
crown ? He concurred with the honourable and gal-
lant officer behind him (Capt. Scobell) that the grant
of honours should be as pure as possible. (Hear, hear.)
But •did the house think that the interference of mem-
bers of Parliament, either individually or collectively,
could conduce to that purity I His hon. and gallant
friend said that the hon. and gallant admiral, and three
other officers, had been recommended by King William
IV., when Lord High Admiral, for these honours, on
account of certain gallant services. Now the house
would be astonished to find that the services referred to
were performed subsequent to the death of King William
V. King William died in 1837, and the first of these ser-
vices performed—except that of the hon. and gallant ad-
miral—was performed in 1839.
Captain SCOBELL had said that William IV., when
Lord High Admiral, had held out the expectation that
the services of the hon. and gallant admiral would be re-
warded with the honour of the Bath, and that subse-
quent Boards of Admiralty, in confirming that expecta-
tion, included two or three other officers who had per-
"ormed other services of a like character.

Sir C. WOOD proceeded to contend that the house
ought not to interfere to compel him to make the recom-
mendation to the crown. The hon. and gallant admiral
wished him to produce the Admiralty minute to the
house. He did not underrate the importance of the
service of the hon. and gallant admiral for which he
claimed. That service, which undoubtedly exhibited
great gallantry, was, he believed, performed so far back
as the year 1823, and consisted of an attack upon cer-
tain Cuban pirates, twelve of whom were killed, a
large number wounded, and several others taken and

hanged. But the Admiralty at the time did not think
that service deserving of the honour which the hon. and
gallant officer coveted, and it was hardly to be expected
that after so great a lapse of time the decision of the
authorities who were in office when the service was per-
formed, and who were the best judges of the reward
which it deserved, should be reviewed. It was true
that when King William IV. was Lord High Admiral,
ho recommended the hon. and gallant officer to the
Secretary of State for the honour of the Bath, but
the Secretary of State of that day did not think it
right to recommend an increase in the number of
naval officers eligible to the companionship of the
Bath, in order to extend that honour to the hon. and
gallant officer. A subsequent recommendation was made
to another Board of Admiralty in favour of the gallant
otion alluded was made, it
craesceemwmasenodnaetioinn
tywwhen Lord Ellenborough was
admiral, but the Admiralty did not think fit to comply
with that recommendation. The minute to Which the
hwoans.taruned, gbaylltahnetdffiaceirra's,
of fact,
u gl l the
t h e
which the honour of the Bath ought to be given, they
First Lord, butlinf
ought to have made their recommendation to the Secre-
tary of State. tpoint toh
until Sir R. Peel's
was not made
If the Admiralty of that day had really intended it to
have effect they would not have waited until they were
going out of office • But by the statutes of the Order of
the Bath it was impossible that the hon. and gallant
officer could be recommended for the honour for the ser-
vices in question, inasmuch as under those statutes it was
absolutelynecessary that the services should be gazetted.
When theywere performed it was not considered that they
were of that character
which
deserved to be so noticed, and
it was therefore not in his .
power to give the recommen-
dation required. He trusted also that, under the cir-
cumstances, the house would not think it necessary that
the minute should be produced.

Admiral WALCOTT could show that he was recom-
mended by his commander-in-chief for the honour, and
that Lord Melville and the Lords of the Admiralty of
that time thought him deserving of it. The hon. and
gallant gentleman was proceeding with some remarks,
when he was met by cries of " Order" and " Chair."
The SPEAKER said that the hon. member was not,
by the rules of the house, entitled to a reply.
Admiral WALCOTT said he was sorry for it.
(" Hear," and laughter.)
Lord J. MANNERS having made an explanation with
regard to the arrangement for bringing on the motion
for giving orders of the day precedence on Tuesday, pro-
ceeded to urge that Admiral Walcott only sought to
have the minute for which he moved granted, in order
that there might be a record of his having had an ac-
knowledgment of his services, and that they were thought
worthy of the honour of the Bath.
After a few words from Captain ScoBELL,
Sir DE L. EVANS said that he believed that although
according to the statutes of the Order of the Bath an
officer could not receive its honours under a certain rank,.