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

The house resumed at six o'clock, and was
PETITIONS PRESENTED.
NEW BEER , BILL.—By Mr. Cheetharn, from Maid-
stone ; Mr. Hayter, with 374 signatnres•;sLord Ebring-
ton, 458 ; Mr. Pellatt, 748 ; Sir W. Clay, 718 ; Mr.
Williams, 506 ; Sir W. Molesworth, 462 e Mr. Massey,
433 ; Sir J. Shelley, 353 ; and from Mayor, &c., of
Oxford ; Mr. Oliveira, from metropolis ; Lord Goderich,
from Bradford, Yorkshire ; all against Beer Bill of last
session.
MEDICAL PROFESSION BILL.—By Mr. J. L. Ri-
cardo, from North Staffordshire ; in favour of.
SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY.—By
Mr. C. P. Villiers, from Birmingham ; Mr. Kinnaird,
from Mile-end, Commercial-road ; against.
THE MALTING TRADE,. •
Mr. HADFIELD asked the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer whether (in addition to the relief already granted
and proposed to be given in the Stage carriage, &c.,
Duties Bill) it was intended to relieve brewers and others
(as well as their sureties) from the lien of the Crown on
their real estates for duties due and payable, or not due,
but in course of becoming due in the ordinary course of
business, before any actual default of the trader, or any
suspicion of insolvency or embarrassment on his part,
and to rely on the right of the Crown to issue extents
whenever any danger was apprehended, and thus to
enable traders to deal with their property without the
trouble and delay of obtaining consent of the Crown ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was
understood to say that the brewers required no relief,
and that with regard to the realtsters, certain indul-
gences granted to them precluded the possibility of the
change alluded to by the hon. member. •
THE MALLAGHEA AFFAIR.
Lord PALMERSTON laid on the table papers from
Sierra Leone connected with this affair. f
SIR J. MACNEILL'S MISSION TO THE
CRIMEA.
Lord HOTHAM asked the First Lord .of,
the Trea-
sury whether Sir John Macneill and Colonel Tulloch,
sent as commissioners to inquire into ertain matters
connected with the army in the Crimea bad returned to
this country ; whether they had made their report ; and
whether their report, whenever made, would' be laid be-
fore the house ?
Lord PALMERSTON said that the mission alluded
to by the noble lord had been entirely confidential, and
the report of the commissioners of the same nature.
The,coniuntssioners had P?rfpresed their fluty putirely,to
the satisfaction pf Government, and Rfticaeious regu-
lations in the public service had arisearopi their eeport,
but it would not be for the benefit-Of the public servilce
that that report should be published.
THE NATIONAL GALLERY.
Mr. LOCKE inquired if Sir Charles Eastlake had
been appointed to the directorship of the National Gal-
lery, the date of the appointment, and the salary agreed
to be paid to him ?
Mr. J. WILSON said that some months since Sir C.
Eastlake had been nominated by Lord Aberdeen, and the
appointment had been ratified under the present Go-
vernment. To-morrow morning the Treasury minute
would be distributed to members showing the arrange-
ments that had been made for the National Gallery, and
the appointment of Sir C. Eastlake.
PALACE OF WESTMINSTER.
Mr. GREGSON inquired of the Secretary of the Trea-
sury when the plans and estimates, &c., relating to the
New Palace of Westminster (ordered to be printed on
the 21st day of June last) would be delivered into the
hands of the members ?
Mr. J. WILSON—On Monday next.
CORPORAL QUIN.
Mr. F. FRENCH called attention to the case of Cor-
poral Quin, recorded as having distinguished himself in
the battle of the Quarries, of the 25th of June. The late
Lord Raglan had noticed Corporal Quin in his order of
the day, but since the appointment of his lordship's suc-
cessor no further step had been taken in the case. He
(Mr. French) ventured to ask whether it was likely that
any special mark of her Majesty's favour would he ex-
tended to Corporal Quin ?
Lord PALMERSTON said tbatin common with others
he was aware of the distinguished services of Corporal
Quin, but was not in a condition to give the hon. mem-
ber any further information on the subject, the hon.
member having given him notice of his question only
two hours before,
ITALIAN LEGION.
Lord GODERICH said that within the last few days
it had been stated in the papers that it was the inten-
tion of the Government to form an Italian Legion. He
wished to know if the statement was true ?
Mr. PEEL said that at first it was not intended to
enrol Italians, but that now it was intended to accept
them in the foreign legion.
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY BILL.
In answer to Lord G. MANNERS,
Lord PALMERSTON prised to state, on Thure•
day, what were the intentions of Government with re-
spect to the above bill.
THE 88TH REGIMENT,
Mr. MALINS called attention to the case of the two
senior subalterns of the Connaught Rangers, who, in
consequence of not having served the two years required
by the regulations were not eligible for the vacancy
caused in the regiment at the Battle of the Quarries, when
their captain and one lieutenant of that regiment wore
killed. One of the subalterns so eituated was Lieut.
Pearson, who had much distinguished himself, and had
frequently been mentioned in the despatches, and had
awuagsh quite satisfied with the noble
. ) He had merely wished to call
been strongly recommended for promotion by Colonel
Shirley. He begged to ask whether, looking at the
special circumstances of these cases, theie was any in-
tention of relaxing the rule
Lord PALMERSTON put 2
it to the hon. member and
to the house whether it was for the good of the public
service or consistent with the usages of 'Parliament, that
he should be asked what Government meant to do with
regard to military promotion? (Hear, hear.) He did not
mean to say that if an objectionable promotion was made
the house was not competent to take notice of it, but to
ask what-were the intentions of Government beforehand
was, in his opinion, contrary to usage. (Hear.)
lord'sM answer.
r.mAL (
MALINS
attention to the subject.
THE PROROGATION.
Lord PALMERSTON said he wished to call the at-
tention of the house to the state of the business before
it, and to make a proposal founded on this state of
things. (Hear, hear.) There were reasons, to which be
need.not now particularly allude, that made it very de-
sirable that the session should be closed somewhere about
the 14th or 15th August. (Hear.) The house would
understand the ground on which it wasdesirable. (Hear.)
Where were many votes in supply to be disposed of, and

In reply to a question from Mr. OTWAT,
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 to 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, had been most hardly treated. The circum-
stances were these : Certain officers bad 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 had 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 had 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 had been publicly recognised. In conclusion, he
expressied 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
hon. and gallant officer opposite and three others had
been recommended by his late Majesty while at the head
of the Admiralty for the honour of the Bath, and the
expectation had been held out since by the Admiralty.
The house ought to know why that expectationxhad not
been realised. In the matter of promotion it was essen-
tial to the efficiency of the service that the utmost fair-
ness should be maintained ; but if purity of principle
was necessary in the matter of promotion how much
more so was it necessary in regard to the distribution of
honours ? He regretted that the order of merit promised
before Christmas had not yet been distributed.
Mr. HAYTER said he had distinctly stated to the
hon. and gallant officer, in presence of the hon. member
for Pomfret, that the motion to give orders of the day
precedence on Tuesday would be made that evening.
Sir G. PECHELL spoke in support of the amend-
ment, and of the claims of the naval profession, but
added that when the hon. and gallant officer opposite
had been as long in the house as he had, he would cease
to be surprised at the manner in which those claims
were neglected.
Sir C. WOOD observed that if there was any object
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 sP,arliainent, either indresidstally .pr collectively,
'.coultt contluee, to that purity t lion. add gallant
friend said that the hon.- and, gallant admiral, and three
other officers, bad been recommended by King William
IV., when Lord High Admiral, for these honours, on
account of certain gallant services. Now the house
would lie astonished to find that the services referred to.
Were perforMed subsequent to the death of King William
IV. 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 bad said that William IV., when
Lord High Admiral, bad 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-
formed 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,
he recommended the h'on. 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
admiral, but the Admiralty did not think fit to comply
with that recommendation. The minute to which the
hon. and gallant officer's motion alluded was made; it
was true, by the Admiralty when Lord Ellenborough was
First Lord, but if they thought the case was one, in
which the honour of the Bath ought to be given, they
ought to have made their recommendation to the Secre-
tary of State. In point of fact, the recommendation
was not made until Sir R. Peel's Government resigned.
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 hocour for the ser-
vices in question, inasmuch as under thosestatutes it was
absolutely necessary that the services should be gazetted.
When theywere performedit was not considered thatthey
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 &OBELI:,
Sir DE.L. EVANS said that he believed that Bath
Lugh
according to the statutes of the Order of
ootlsre._,.Bast.....usnis,
oficer could not receive its honours und_i_i 9‘.19 !_!`"