The Sun.
London, England, 1834-06-18 00:00:00

PRIVY COUNCIL.

The Judicial Commttee of the Privy Council held
another meeting yesterday morning in ,the Council
Chamber, and resumed the hearing of appeals from
the award of the commissioners for liquidating the
claims of British subjects in France.
FRANCES SAMUEL, WIDOW, U. THE COMMISSIONERS.
The appellant in this case is the widow of a Bri-
tish subject, a dealer in lace, silk and cottons, resident
at Paris, in 1793, when the decree confiscating the
property of British subjects in France was issued.
The King's Advocate, Sir Herbert Jenner, was
heard in support of the award of the Commissioners,
and Dr. Lushington replied on the part of the ap-
pellants.
Sir James Parke gave judgment on the part of
their Lordships, refusing the application for compen-
sation according to the estimated value of the goods
when seized, and not the actual produce of the goods
when sold, about two days after the seizure ; but al-
lowing the claims for other property not included in
the sale of effects, the award of the commissioners
should therefore be reformed in this respect. Also
allowing the value of four, out of six, packets of goods,
according to the inventory made at the time and pro-
duced in evidence, which were seized in another part
of France.

DE WINDT V. THE COMMISSIONERS. '

On opening this case an error was discovered in the
proceedings before the commissioners, and the case
was postponed.

.DE TASTETS V. THE COMMISSIONERS.

This was a claim for compensation for a debt con-
fiscated at Marseilles, and rendered now recoverable by
the decree of 1793.—The appeal was dismissed.

MADAME DA RUSMON T'S LECTURE.—The
comparatively novel spectacle of a lady occupying the
chair of public instruction, and, regardless of the su-
premacy conventionally accorded to the male sex, un-
dertaking to enlighten the world upon things as they
are and things as they ought to be, attracted last even-
ing to the Freemason's Hall a numerous and respect-
able company, of whom at least a third part were of
the fair sex. Many of our readers may possibly be
better acquainted with Madame Darusmont as Miss
Frances Wright, under which name, some fifteen or
twenty years ago, she published a work on America,
which excited considerable attention by the freedom of
its sentiments on politics, morals, and religion. Since
then she has, till within these few years, resided in the
United States, promulgating her doctrines both by the
press and by public lectures, of which mention will be
found hi Mr. Trollope's caustic work. Her principles
appear to be substantially those of Mr. Owen, and she i
aims to impress on her audience the necessity of con-
sidering man as the species rather than the individual,
and thus considered, she holds out to them the pros-
pect of, continued improvement, and eventual perfec-
tion. Ile lecture of last night was merely introduc-
tory, and whatever may be thought of the solidity of
the views it propounded, it cannot be denied the praise
of being ingeniously and elegantly composed, and to
have had all the advantages of an impressive and grace-
ful delivery. Madame Darusmont was heard with
great attention, and with the agreeable interruption of
occasional applause. She appears to be about forty-
five years of age, her figure is about the middle size,
her manner serious and earnest. Among the company
present we observed Miss Martineau, Mr. Owen, &c.

Earl WICKLOW presented a petition from Sud-
bury in favour of the Established Church.
The Bishop of CARLISLE presented similar peti-
tions from parishes in the diocese of Carlisle.
The Bishop of GLOUCESTER presented similar
petitions from Tewkesbury, and parishes in the count},
of Wilts ; also a petition signed by upwards, of 1,000
inhabitants of Stroud, against the Beer Bill.
Lord ROLLE presented petitions from parishes in
Devonshire in favour of the Established Church.

Lord TENTERDEN presented petitions to the
same effect from Melksham.
MESSAGE FROM THE COMMONS.

Mr. DIVETT, Mr. PENLEAZE, and other members
of the House of Commons brought up the ;when
Bridge Bill, the South London Waterworks Improve-
ment Bill, and several other bills.
The- Marquis of CAMDEN presented petitions
from Bath and Wells in favour of the Established Church.

The Duke of WELLINGTON presented similar
petitions from parishes in Wilts.
Lord TE YN HAM, on presenting a petition from
Dundalk, the purport of which ewe could not catch,
said that seeing the noble earl at the head of his Ma-
jesty's government in the house, he would take that
opportunity of saying a few words on what had taken
place yesterday. He was not present, but understood
that in answer to the question of a noble lord, the
noble earl had stated that it was the intention of his
Majesty's ministers to propose the renewal of the
Coercion Bill ; if such was the case, he hoped the
noble earl would adopt some means to do away with
its many severe penalties.
Earl GREY made no observations in answer to the
noble lord.

The Earl of WINCHILSEA presented petitions
from parishes in Kent, in favour of the Established
Church.

The Earl of ABERDEEN presented a petition
from Aberdeen, for the abolition of all taxes. The
noble earl could not concur in the prayer of the pe-
tition.

The Bishop of EXETER presented petitions from
Buckleigh, Langcroft, flackbarn, Ivy-bridge, and se-
veral other places in Devon, all praying for protection
to the Established Church. Also a petition from Ket-
tering, praying that some measures might be taken to
prevent the evils arising from the sale of beer in beer
shops.
RIBAND TRADE.

Viscount STRANGFORD said that he had a
great number of petitions to present, which were so
numerously signed, and described with 90 much
force and truth the sentiments of a large portion
of the community, and altogether involved a
question of such great national importance, that
he could not content himself with merely laying
them upon the table, to be consigned the mo-
ment after to the bag that lay beneath it,
and it was therefore his intention, as soon as they
should have been read, to move that they might be re-
ferred to a committee, with a view to uscertain the
correctness of the allegations they contai led, and to
s4F,'lt!r if some remedy could be administered for the
evili which they described. The petitions came from
the city of Coventry and various places and districts
connected with it, which like Coventry depended alto-
gether upon the riband trade for their support.
They described the lamentable state into which
that trade had fallen, and attributed it to the
overwhelming importation into this country of ribands
of French manufacture, and stated that the only
remedy for those evils consisted in the prohibition of
that importation, and that to that - remedy they
had peculiar and distinct claims, altogether dif-
ferent from those which might be advanced
by other branches of the trade. It was scarcely ne-
cessary to remind their lordships that in 1832 the whole
system of the silk trade was submitted to the considera-
tion of a committee of the House of Commons, and al-
though that committee had drawn up one of the most
able and eloquent reports he had ever seen, nothing
whatever had been done upon it. He had literally
gone through the whole of this report, and he
had not the least hesitation in asserting that
nine-tenths of that report, as far at least as
the riband trade was concerned, spoke as strongly in
favour of prohibition as anything could speak. He
was not stating this in support of any opinion of his
own upon the subject of prohibition, for he had before
his eyes the terrors of that mysterious phantom
the spirit of the age, but he stated it as
a justification of what might perhaps otherwise
appear to their lordships to be somewhat an extra-
vagant demand of the petitioners. ( Hear, hear.)
If there was one branch of the trade which had been
more deeply injured than another, it was that which
produced the fancy gauze, an article in the manufacture
of which there was a very small portion indeed, of ma-
terial, but a very large portion of labour, and he be-
lieved that owing to the extensive importation of that
article, those engaged in that branch of the trade had
been thrown into the greatest distress. ( Hear, hear.)
The French had allowed the exportation of the
raw material upon the payment of a duty of
seven and a half per cent., which in another place had
been spoken of as a great concession. In that opinion
he could not concur, nor could the petitioners, whose
case he was attempting to represent. (Hear, hear.)
That liberty to export the raw material was con-
sidered by some as a great proof of a sincere
good feeling on the part of France towards
this country, because by it they, by their export duty,
gave the manufacturers of this country no advantage,
while they reaped a most substantial one by the con-
cession made by England, in allowing the import of
their manufactured silks. ( Hear.) He was most
sorry that the Government had not shown as much
care for our own artizans as the French had
done in the negotiation. The petitioners also com-
plained loudly of the illegal manner in which a large
quantity of figured silks had been allowed to pass the
customs on the payment of that duty, which by
law attached only to plain. The difference was
very great, and it had made a very material
alteration in the prospects of thousands in this
country. To show the increase of the import of silks,
he would state that, in four months in 1833, the value
was 110,0001., while the weight was 1,9421b5. ; in
four months of 1834, the value was 218,0001., while
the weight had increased to 5,4881b5. ; an increase
that fully entitled the French to think well of
the plan and the men by whom it was recommended.
( Hear, hear.) He, for his own part, could not
wonder that -our artisans should be in distress under
such circumstances. The noble lord then read se-
veral letters from clergymen and magistrates, de-
scribing the extreme sufferings 'tinder which the
riband weavers were labouring : they all dated it
from the abolition of the prohibitory laws. The
noble viscount concluded by presenting petitions
from Coleshill, the inhabitants of Coventry, Nuneaton,
and other places, praying for protection to the silk
trade of this county, which the noble viscount moved
should be referred to a select committee.

The petitions having been received,
Viscount STRANGFORD moved that they be
referred to
_a select committee of their lordships' house.

Lord AUCKLAND opposed the motion, but owing
to the low tone of voice in which his observations were
delivered he was all but perfectly inaudible in the gal-
lery. We understood him to say that he, in common
with the rest of his Majesty's ministers, felt deep regret
at the sufferings of the petitioners, the details of which
he believed were not exaggerated, and that regret was
in no slight degree exaggerated by the conviction that
it was not possible by any legislative interference to
remove the evil of which they complained. The peti-

tioners demanded that an entire change should b
made in the commercial policy of the country ; but is
should be recollected that the Coventry trade
which was that to which the petitioners belonged
was only one branch of the silk trade, and, such
being the case, he put it to the house to say
whether it would not be most unfair to accede v.
the demands of the petitioners by entirely changirg
the commercial policy between Great Britain and
France. But, putting that consideration out of the
question, he was prepared to contend that the distress
of which the petitioners complained was not occasioned
by any defect in the commercial system of the countr
which a change in its policy would remedy. It was
attributable entirely to the existing high price of the
raw material and the state of the money market. The
notie lord charged the rvernment with inclifferencp,
not only to the sufferings of the petitioners, but to the
enforcing the clue execution of the lan-s regarding tin
importation of foreign silk ; but he could asgure their
lordships, that in neither respect was the charge ca-
pable of being substantiated. He had also thrown
blame on the government for not attemptint, to adopt
any of the suggestions thrown out by the tra'de.for the
removal of those causes of complaint which the peti-
tioners urged upon the attention of the house. He
was able, however, to assure the house that every at-
tention had been paid by the Board of Customs to
those suggestions ; that two or three experiments had
been made in consequence of them ; and, in short,
that, as far as the government was concerned, no in-
attention whatever was chargeable. The experiments,
however, had proved that the suggestions were not
likely to effect the object had in view by those who
offered, them, and consequently they had not been
acted upon. The best, course, perhaps, to be adopted
to meet the case of the petitioners would be to revise
the old rate of duties ; but he had seen so much dan-
ger and alarm originate in sudden alteration in the
scale of duties, that he would rather bear the inequa-
lity complained of in the present scale, than hastily
propose a change. For nearly a similar reason, namely,
the excitement likely to be caused in the general trade
by the appointment of a select committee of their
lordships, and the danger of exciting expectations
which it would be impossible to realize, he felt called
upon to oppose the motion -of the noble viscount.

The Linke of WELLINGTON said the noble
baron's statement he looked upon as satisfactory in
many respects, but lie felt bound to say the noble
baron failed in satisfying his
.mind that the protecting
duties might not be increased with advantage to the
British silk-manufacturers. They had heard a great
deal of free trade, in other, countries, but, in his opi-
nion, there was no such thing as free trade at all.
The object of every country in the arrangement of its
commercial system was the very laudable one of pro-
,tecting its peculiar manufactures, and, in his opinion,
it was the duty of Government to watch the progress
of those manufactures, and so to alter the rate of
duties from time to time as to give protection to the
manufacturers. Now he must say he thought foreign
silk-manufacturers did enjoy adva-atages not enjoyed
by those of Great Britain, and he would therefore be
favourable to such an increase of duty on foreign silk
as to give a change to the home market. He believed
that such an increase would be recommended by the
committee now moved for, and on that ground, and be-
cause by granting it the minds of the petitioners
would be satisfied that their case was attended to, he
regretted that the noble lord announced his intention
of opposing it.

Viicouni STRANG FORD felt assured that with
respect to the details and calculations contained in the
noble lord's speech he should have no difficulty in an-
swering them in the committee, if one should be
granted. He could only say that with regard to the
superior machinery employed by the French similar
machinery had been in use at Coventry and elsewhere,
and that it was now at a standstill. There was no use
in recommegLiding machir,4:l unless they furnished em—
ploy-tr.-znt for it. As to th4b proof sa prosperity drawn
from the increased price of the raw material here, he
had to state that its price had increased in France in a
still greater ratio than here ; and yet the French ma-
nufacturers were thriving while ours were in a state
of progressive decay. The only approach to argument
against the appointment of a committee which he had
that night heard was the one drawn from the probable
shortness of the session. The House of Commons,
however, did not appeal. to think that the termination
of the session was so near at hand.' Not four nights
ago they had granted a committee to inquire into the
complaints of the handloom weavers. He only asked
from the House of Lords on behalf of the silk riband
weavers that which the House of Commons had grant-
ed to the handloom weavers. He had always been told
that in this happy country there existed no wrong with-
out a remedy. He thought that the documents which
he had read to the house had proved a case of grievous
wrong.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw for a di-
vision, but none took place, the motion, we understood,
being negatived.
SECONDARY PUNISHMENTS BILL.

At the suggestion of the LORD CH ANC ELL OR,
the second reading of the Secondary Punishments
Bill was postponed until Friday next.

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE BILL.

After a short conversation, in which Lord Wharn-
cliffe, the Marquis of Salisbury, and the Duke of Rich-
mond took part, the Justice of the Peace Bill was, on
the motion of Viscount MELBOURNE, read a second
time, and referred to a select committee.

Lord WYNFORD presented a petition from par-
ties, whose names we were unable to learn, praying
to be heard by counsel against certain parts of the
Warwick Bill.

The Earl of ABINGDON, we believe, presented
a petition from the parish of Aldermaston, praying for
the support of the Established Church.

WARWICK BOROUGH BILL. •
Further evidence was then heard on the Warwick
Borough Bill William Parr, Lucy Good, John
Wright, Thomas Box, and Catherine Philipps were
examined.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that common
sense and common justice to the house and the coun-
try dictated the propriety of bringing the case to a
speedy termination. According as they were going
on it was hard to say whether it would be closed in
1836 or 1837; for they were already approaching 1835.
After so many witnesses had been examined, it could
not be said that their lordships intended to shut out
the case. As he (the Lord Chancellor) could not see
the Counsel until Thursday, he hoped the parties
would in the meantime see what was to be done to
expedite the case. If the other eight witnesses were
to be examined solely on the question of treating,
which was practised, and he feared would be practised,
at most elections (Hear), why then it was time to
check that source of public expense, by preventing
such evidence. He had no wish to shut out proof of
treating. But then he wanted bribery, as necessary
to lay the grounds of a decision.. Treating without
bribery would do no good. He and their lordships
heard the case very patiently and leniently. But if the
Chief Justice were in his (the Lord Chancellor's)
place he would deal with the parties differently. He
wanted proof of bribery.
Sergeant Heath hoped to close his case shortly.
Bribery and treating were so mixed up together that
the proof of one should grow out of the proof of the
other.
The LORD CHANCELLOR asked what did he
mean by shortly ? Was it in 1837 ? The house re-
quired proof of bribery, and of that there was no ap-
pearance as yet. The opposite party were on their
defence, bound to follow the course prescribed to
them, and no blame for delay could be attributable to
them.

The house then adjourned at half-past nine until ten
o'clock to-morrow (this day).

HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 17.

The SPEAKER resumed the chair at twenty minutes
past five.
A message from the Lords announced that their lord-
ships had agreed to the Fish Guard Market Bill, and
the Kendal Tithe Bill, without amendments, and te,
the Perth Harbour Navigation Bill, and other Bills
with amendments, to which they desired the concur-
rence of that house.

---on the motion of Sir H. PARNELL, the Dundee
Gaol Bill was read a third time and passed.
Mr. EVANS moved for copies of any correspond-

Mr. O'CONNELL—If the noble lord will tell 'lrd;
what those documents are, I will move that they he
laid upon the table. ( Hear, Evid a laugh. )
Mr. LITTLETON pledged himself that ~thei..t;
documents which•related to the subject should tF )ai4
before the house at the prover time.
Mr. O'CONNELL said as it was his intention to'
give every opposition to the bill, although he would not
give it a frivolous or vexatious opposition, he wished
to know when it was the intention of the noble lord
to bring it on ? _ _ _

Lora ALTHORP could not say precisely whei?...
Mr. 01C ON NELL said he should shape his motion'
accordingly, as whatever day it was brought on he'
should move that the house be called over, and he
should repeat that call every day durinc, the discussion
of the bill. (Loud cries of' " Hear, hear" from some
of the Irish members.) He wished to know when it
was his Majesty's ministers came to the determination
of renewing the Coercion Bill ?
Lord ALTHORP replied that he could not atfswer
that question, but, under all the circumstances,
Majesty's ministers felt justified in renewing the bill':

Mr. 'O'CONNELL 'said it had been stated in the
newspapers, that government would renew the bill ;
now, he wished to know if any of the ministers would
make a declaration to that house to the reverse.
No answer was returned.
BATTLE OF NAVARIN.
Sir E. CODRINGTON rose to bring forward
his motion for the appointment of a committee to cot.:
sider the propriety of an address to his Majesty to take
into consideration the claims of the officers and seamen
engaged in the battle of Navarin to a gratuity for the
losses they had sustained. The noble and gallant
admiral said that he had frequently brought this
subject to the attention of the Admiralty, as he was
anxious that justice should be done to those men who
looked up to him for protection, and to whom ho
pledged the name of the illustrious person who filled
the office of Lord High-Admiral when the battle of
Navarin was fought, that justice would be done to
them. The hon. and gallant admiral then went into
a statement of the various memorials which he had pre-
sented to the Admiralty and to his Majesty upon this
subject, and regretted that the ill success of those me-
morials should have compelled him to have recourso
to that house. He had been told at the Admiralty that
it was unusual to ask for " head money;" whether it was
compensation, or a royal grant or head money, surely
it was unworthy to quibble about a word. ( Hear,
hear.) He had acted in this matter altogether
under the direction of his Majesty, so that if any
hon. member opposed this motion, he not only
opposed him ( Sir E. Codrington) but also that illus-
trious person under whose commands he ( Sir E.
Codrington) acted. The grant he sought to obtain
had never been refused before, and it was a most invi-
dious and unjust thing to refuse it in this instance.
He would not go into the merits of the battle, but
that battle took place on the ground of previous doings
.in the house. Though it was only plannept by him,
and his• small services, had •Imen kept Ttt the-.back
ground, he thought \bat Commodore Staines,
and the rest of the officerS, ought to have been hand-
somely
rewarded for their services, and at least COM-
pensation ought to have been made for the losses
which were sustained by the officers and the men.
Such remuneration had never been refused on
any former occasion, although it had been contended
that no compensation could be made, except when
war was declared ; but there were numerous in-
stances of history from Admiral Boscowen in
the memorable year of 1655 down to the present time,
of ample remuneration being made in the absence of
any declaration of war. Lord Exmouth was sent out to
negotiate only, and so was he ; there was no difference
in the cases. He had no personal interest in this motion,
and would rather have paid the money out of his own
pocket than suffer his people to be so unjustly treated.
Hear, hear.) The gallant admiral entered into
a detail of the instructions which he had issued to
the officers and men under his command, by which
much bloodshed had been prevented, and this
country had been saved from being plunged into a
war. Under all the circumstances he contended that
the officers and men engaged in that battle were en-
titled to some compensation for the services they had
rendered and the losses they had sustained. He called
upon the house to divest their minds of all political
feeling, because he was satisfied, if something like po-
litical feeling had not existed, that, before this, some
compensation would have been awarded to those gallant
men. The hon. and gallant member concluded, by
moving that the house do resolve itself into a com-
mittee, for the purpose of taking into consideration
the claims of the officers and men engaged in the battle
of Navarin.
Mr. BUCKINGHAM seconded the motion.
Mr. LABOUCHERE regretted that he was com-
pelled by a sense of duty to oppose the motion,
although he believed that the gallant admiral could not •
be more gracefully employed than in advocating the
claims of those brave men who had fought under him.
He thought if any grant was to be made, the present
was the proper mode of proceeding. ( Hear, hear.)
The hon. member said it would be necessary for
him to allude to the circumstances • under which
the engagement at Navarin had taken place, and
proceeded to read the instructions issued to the gallant
admiral on that occasion. It was perfectly claw fiotn
these instructions that the fleet of the allied powers
was to confine itself to the interception of succours,
but there was nothing to warrant any act of hos-
tility towards either of the contending powers.
Previous to that event a large squadron entered the
bay of Navarin, as they had a right to do. With re-
spect to the battle itself, he never heard any person
capable of giving an opinion of such a subject, never
heard any naval officer, deny that a more daring and
brilliant affair was not to be met with in the records of
naval achievement ; never heard ally person refuse his
full praise to the daring conduct of the gallant officer.
( Cheers.) The only way, however, in which be could
.have fulfilled his instructions was by intercepting the
egress of the Turkish fleet from Navarin. In place
of this he entered the port of a friendly power with
his fleet. (The hon. member read an ,extract from
the despatch of Sir E. Codrington
.stating how the
battle originated.) Such were the circumstances of
.
the case. It was brought before the house by Sir J.
Hobhouse, who proposed a motion of thanks to the
gallant admiral. It was resisted by the government,
and upon that occasion Mr. Huskisson said, however
brilliant the affair, and however honourable to the
gallantry of the fleet and of him who commanded, he
could not treat it as a battle' but as a misfortune.
The house must see that to allow a compensation
in such a case would be holding out very dan-
gerous inducements to future times. The hon.
and gallant admiral had quoted several instances in
which head-money and gratuity were allowed, and he
had contended that they were similar to the case of the
battle of Nayarit]. None of them in reality were.
The most import ant of those instances was the battle
of Algiers, yet that action took place under very dif-
ferent circumstances from the affairs at Navarin, as
he thought that he could distinctly point out to the
house. Lord Exmouth had received instructions to
repair to the coast of Barbary, in order to put an end
to piracy and attacks against Christians. His lord-
ship entered into an agreement with the states of
Tripoli and Tunis, but not with Algiers. He then
returned to England, and reported that he had made
such an agreement to put an end to piracy with the
farmer states, but that Algiers would not accede to it.
The government of this county then sem his lordship
with a fleet back to Algiers.wlth three specific instruc.

lions, either of which, If not agreed to by the Dei,'
'would amount to a hostile declaration, and his lordship
Was to act in consequence. Now, no one could say that
these elders were the same as. those given to the hon.
`and gallant officer opposite, and that the case of Na-
'o4,..in was exactly the same as that of Algiers. There
was a hostile attack distinctly decided on in the in-
structions given to Lord Exmouth in case any one of
the three instructions he had received should not be
complied with on the part of the Dey of Algiers. His
lordship was then, if such should turn out to be the
ease, ordered to cause his fleet to enter within the
Mole and force compliance to his orders. With re-
spect to another case cited by the hon. and gallant
admiral, namely, that of Sir George Byng, it was by
no means a case in parallel. Sir G. I3yng had from
his Government express orders to ziestroy the Spanish
fleet, to guard the coast of Sicily, and oppose any at-
tacks made on it by the Spaniards. If the hon. and
gallant admiral had met in open sea the Turkish fleet
sailing from Egypt for the Morea, and then had stop-
ped, and an engagement happened to be the result
of his interference, then would he have acted ac-
cording as the instruction he had received directed.
Sir F. BURDETT said that ifiethe last hon. gen-
tleman who had addressed the house felt great pain ih
opposing the motion, he ( Sir F. Burdett) felt great
pain in seeing that it should be so op Lase If there
was any one case that ever came before that house
founded in justice and sound policy, and connected
with the very best interests of Parliament and the
countrv—if there ever had been such a case, it was
that so:Lil was involved in the question which had been
row brought forward with so much manliness, mo-
desty, and heartfelt feeling towards his brave com-
panions in arms by the hon. and gallant admiral. If ever
the general rule talked of ought to be extended it was
to the circumstances under which the hon. and gallant
admiral acted. The circumstances under which he
acted were most perplexing. What 19C16 he to do ?
If the hon. and gallant admiral had hot acted as he had
done—if he had sailed back from Natarin without
effecting what were the views of the government and
the country—he would have been generally blamed
for having pursued such a line of conduct. The ques-
tion was twofold. The hon. and gallant admiral was
one who had received praise from all quarters and
from every party. He had been highly lauded by a
late Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Croker), who
certainly was one that understood such matters, and
would not bestow praise unless it were merited. At
any rate, if the bon. and gallant admiral had made a
mistake with regard to his instructions, which he ( Sir
F. B.) was prepared to deny, still he was at least en-
titled to obtain praise for the merit he displayed in the
action. But oven though he had acted as he ought
not to hate done, the seamen had nothing to do with
it, and `a,ere by no means implicated in his conduct.
If seamen were to judge for themselves, and always to
consider before going into action whether that action
was justifiable or not, what, he would ask, in that case
would become of the navy of the country ? (Hear,
hear.) But it was said there was no precedent for
such a grant. All he could say was that if there did
not exist one it was high time that one should be made.
He could not very clearly understand what was meant
by head-money and by other technicalities, but he
could fully understand that these gallant seamen bad
been kept out of their property for several years, ever
since 1827. ( Hear.) It appeared to him that the
present case was the strongest that ever had been
brought before Parliament. The gallant admiral was
there to justify his brilliant victory—to justify as
splendid an action as ever was performed by the great
naval heroes of his country.. (A laugh.) Others were
accused of not having done their duty, and were
obliged to go into their defence for not having done
so. But here the case was reversed.
Lord ALT H ORP said that as the hon. and gal-
lant admiral had made a personal appeal to him as to
what he (Lord Althorp) had stated one or two years
after the action had occurred he would now repeat
what he had then said. The question he then asked
was, why the action of Patras was not gazetted ? The
answer that was at the time given him was that there
were doubts as to the brilliancy of that action, and as
to whether shots had been fired. He had since as-
certained that shots were interchanged at that action ;
but even though no shots were fired, still was the ac-
tion a gallant one, since one frigate and two corvettes
opposed themselves to fifty Turkish vessels, some of
whom. were of large size, stopped them on the course
they were pursuing, and obliged them to return to
their own, ports. if an action of that sort was not a
brilliant one he did not know what was. He was now
ready to state it publicly as his opinion that that action
was as brilliant a one as ever was fought. (Hear.)
He would now come to the question as to the conduct
of the hon. and gallant admiral in the engagement of
Navarin. He begged to be understood as not throw-
ing out any insinuations as to the gallantry of that
conduct, but it was different from the hon. and gallant
admiral's instructions. In going into the port of Na-
varin he differed from those instructions ; but once in,
as his hon. friend had just stated, he did the best he
could under the circumstances. When the present
Government came into office, his hon. and gallant
friend' opposite ( Sir E. Codrington) made the same
application that he at present repeated. The present
Government paid attention to the case, but when they
considered that former Governments had been already
applied to. and that they had not thought fit to award
the gratuity demanded, they (the present Government)
did not consider it proper to reverse the decisions of
two former Governments by granting a gratuity which
those preceding Governments had refused. How-
ever, if the present Government had found the case
similar to others in which such claims had been hl-
/owed, they would have thought it proper and just to
reverse the decisions of the Governments that had pre-
ceded them. But it was an action that widely dif-
fered from others—it was an action purely accidental,
and not expected. That was the question they had to
consider, and therefore they did consider that the ac-
tion in question had taken place in a manner quite
unprecedented. Since that was the case they could
not reverse the decision of the Government under
whom the action had taken place.
Sir E. CODRINGTON—The action had taken
place under the Government of whom Mr.
,Canning
was the head, and it had come to no decision.
Lord ALT HORP—Not exactly. Mr. Canning
was dead, and the head of the Government no longer.
Though in truth the head of the Government was no
longer the same, still the hon. and • gallant admiral
was acting under the then Government, which Govern-
' rnent was not acting differently from the instructions
given by that of which Mr. Canning was the head.
So that the matter came to the same thing. His hon.
and gallant friend had complained that the losses of
the seamen had not been attended to. He believed
that his hon. and gallant friend had been informed
that if the claims of those seamen were laid before the
Admiralty they would be attended to ; and he further
believed that any claims of the sort that had been laid
before the Admiralty had been duly attended to. The
action in question had arisen, there was no doubt of
that, from the imprudence of the opposing party, and
it might have arisen from an act of imprudence on the
part of the English fleet. There was therefore an
important question to consider, viz., whether remune-
ration ought to be given when an action arose out of
the imprudence of any party. The case might soon be
reversed, and they might be called upon to recom-
pense British seamen for some splendid action into
which they had been precipitated by their own impru-
dence. His hon. and gallant friend he trusted would
believe him when he said that he looked upon the
question with impartiality, but still he was obliged to
look upon it as a public man. He considered this
•
question in the same . light as his colleagues did, and
he thought that the house would not be justified in
allowing such a grant as the present, particularly when
all the circumstances connected with it were taken
into consideration. Looking to the action itself he
felt bound to say that it was a very brilliant one, and
looking to the circumstances under which the action
took place no blame could be attributed to his hon.
and gallant friend for the way in which he had con-
ducted himself. On the same grounds as those stated
by his hon. friend he regretted that he was forced to
give his opposition to the motion.
Mr. BUCKINGHAM said it was the duty of the
combined fleet to guard and watch the Turko-Egyptian
fleet the moment it entered the port of Navarin. The
moment the first shot was fired by that fleet it amounted
to a declaration of war, so that the technicality on that
point was got over. The seamen were under the orders
of the hon. and gallant admiral, and if there was any
blame it could not rest with them. He considered
that the attachment of sailors to the service would be
strengthened if the motion of the hon. and gallant ad-
miral were agreed to.
Mr. W A RBURT ON could not well understand
the motives of the noble lord for opposing the present
motion. The noble lord seemed to think that a general
rule would be established, and that if this grant were
made it would become a precedent. Why, what was
asked ? The hon. and gallant admiral only asked
that, from the peculiar circumstances attendant on the
present case, head money, or a gratuity, should be