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

granted to the officers mid seamen engaged in the
battle of Navarin. He should like to see the govern-
ment, instead of asserting that the hon. and gallant
admiral's instructions were not properly followed,
pointing out how those instructions ought to have been
followed, and how the Turkish vessels were to be in-
tercepted and prevented from accomplishing their
object. That object every body knew was the spolia-
tion of Greece, arid the hon. and gallant admiral found
that the only way of protecting that country from de-
vastation was by entering the bay of Navarin. The
Turks then fired upon him. What, was he not to fire
again ? ( Hear, and a laugh.) Had any one as yet
pointed out any other course the hon. and gallant ad-
miral could have pursued? Besides, were sailors,
because they fought under wrong instructions, not
to be entitled to the usual recompenses ? Were they
to be punished for the faults of their superiors? The
overnment should have given the hon. and gallant
admiral a cold reception, and have called him before a
courtmartial. If there was any fault anywhere it
rested with him, and the sailors under his command
should not be deprived of the rewards they deserved.
Mr. O'CONNELL believed that the house well
knew that he was not one of those that would vote
away a single farthing of the public money to any per-
sons unless they deserved it. It seemed to him that
in this case the British seamen had nobly done their
duty, and that the only question that remained was for
the government to call the hon. and gallant admiral
before a courtmartial. Hale government did not do
so, that would be an approval of his conduct, and that
conduct was approved by all the world. If there was
no precedent for such a case as this it was high time
to make one. The action in question was a great
victory achieved in behalf of humanity, and why
should there be so much special pleading about it ?
There was no special pleading on the part of the
British fleet in this instance. They went hand in
heart to work—they annihilated the enemy, 'as they
always had done, and as they ever would continue to
do, unless their spirits were damped by the paltry
stinginess of the government and of that house. The
time was come when the House of Commons ought
to tell the government that British seamen deserved,
in this instance, to receive the gratuity they sought
for. For his own part he would ever give his vote
for men who had, as the present seamen had, achieved
a glorious victory in the cause of humanity.
Mr. E. J. STANLEY thought that after the strong
opinions that had been expressed by the house they
ought to agree to the motion. ( Hear, hear.) He
could cite several instances in which actions had taken
place without any previous declaration of war, and in
which the persons engaged in them were considered
entitled to be rewarded. He saw no difference be-
tween this action and those of Algiers and Copenhagen.
Sir J. SEBRIG HT also expressed himself favour-
able to the motion. He would not trouble the house
with stating his views at length, but relate an anecdote
told him by his father. Formerly there were not so
many speakers as there were at present. Only one or
two speakers addressed the house on the question
unless it was extremely patient and willing to hear
them. " You; Sir," said the hon. baronet, addressing
the Speaker, "know that that is not the case at pre-
sent, but that there are numerous speakers on every
subject, and perhaps I am an example on this occasion
of unnecessarily addressing the house. At the time
when the circumstance I am about to relate took place
naval officers were not such eloquent and refined men
as they are at present. An old Admiral got up with
his mouth full of tobacco, and said that on the subject
under consideration he had something to communicate.
As he did not immediately proceed the Speaker and
the whole house Were surprised that he did not pro-
ceed with his narrative. At length the gallant veteran
said, " Mr. Speaker, I am not an orator, but I have
been forty years at sea, and I can tell you, Sir, if you
do not pay those well who serve you well that atlength
you will not be served at all." ( Great laughter, and
cries of " Hear, hear.") He ( Sir J. Sebright)
thought this story very applicable at the present
moment.

Mr. YOUNG thought every credit was due to the
gallant admiral who had so liberally sacrificed his own
interest on the present occasion. He ( Mr. Young)
thought that if they refused to assent to the present
motion they went some way towards establishing a
dangerous principle with respect to British seamen.
It was telling men in the service of the country that
in case of an error of judgment on the part of the
commander the country might not respond to their
claims by the liberality • the house. He thought
acting upon such a pri ple was fraught with the
-highest possible danger It had been truly said by
the hon. member for Brit jort that even if the gallant
admiral had been brought to a courtmartial for the
battle of Navarin it did not lessen the claims of the
seamen. In conclusion, he trusted that by the vote
of the house the gallant admiral would be relieved
from the responsibility which he felt imposed upon him.
Sir R. PRICE urged the noble lord ( Althorp) to
withdraw his opposition to the motion of the gallant
admiral. He ( Sir R. Price) was not surprised that
his noble friend felt some difficulty in acceding to the
motion after it had been opposed by two governments ;
but after the very strong and general opinion expressed
by the members on all sides, nobody would blame the
noble lord for withdrawing his opposition.
Admiral ADAM also requested the noble lord to
withdraw his opposition, and complimented the gal-
lant admiral ( Sir E. Codrington) on the disinterested-
ness he had manifested in abandoning all claim for
himself. It was perfectly clear, after what had taken
place off Patras, that the gallant admiral did not in-
tend to fight a battle when he entered the port of
Navarin, but did so with a view to overawe the Otto-
man fleet.

Mr. HUME doubted the propriety of supporting
the motion. He gave every credit to the gallant ad-
miral for the courage and discretion he had manifested
at Navarin and on former occasions, but he thought
the noble lord was justified, on the grounds he had
stated, in refusing to sanction the motion. If it was
thought that by voting with the noble lord it could be
supposed that anything like a reflection would be cast
on the gallant admiral or the men who fought under
him, he (Mr. Hume) would not do so, but he did not
think that such could be the case. As three-fourths
of the members present were disposed to support the
motion, the noble lord would probably be left in a
minority. He would therefore suggest the propriety
of agreeing to the motion. If the noble lord, how-
ever, felt bound to resist it, he (Mr. Hume) would vote
with him.

Mr. HODGE S supported the motion.
Lord ALTHORP said that he had stated to the
house the grounds on which he had felt it his duty to
oppose the motion ; but as the house, with the single
exception of the hon. member for Middlesex, took a
different view of the subject, and were disposed to
concede the motion, he did not feel called upon to
persist in his opposition ; he should therefore not op-
pose the motion. (Hear.) He opposed it in the first
instance with great reluctance, and he felt fully justi-
fied in acceding to the opinion of the house. Ile
trusted, however, that if the claim was granted, the
name of the gallant admiral would not be omitted
(Hear), who certainly deserved reward both for his
distinguished services and disinterested conduct.
fir E. CODRINGTON could not let the motion
pass without expressing his satisfaction at its success.
He was satisfied that the noble lord had all along op-
posed the motion against his own conviction ; and he
( Sir E. Codrington) was extremely glad the noble
lord had been at length induced to withdraw his oppo-
sition. It would be affectation in him to say that he
was not gratified at the compliments paid him, and
above all at what had fallen from the noble lord. In
conclusion he declared that, under the instructions he
had received, it was impossible for him to pursue any
other course than he did.
The motion was then agreed to, and it was ordered
that the house resolve itself into committee on Monday
se'nnight.
EDUCATION IN SCOTLAND. . .

-
Mr. COLQUHOUN moved for leave to bring in
a bill to regulate and enlarge the provision for paro-
chial schools in Scotland. The hon. member entered
into a long statement with the view of showing the
great deficiency of education in Scotland, and stated
that the main object of his bill was to have 60,000/. a
year granted to pay the salaries of parochial school-
masters.
Mr. EWING seconded the motion.
Mr. HUME admitted the expediency of bringing
in a bill on the subject. It would be better to inquire
and see whether the funds now devoted to education
were expended in the best manner. He saw no reason
why inquiry should not at once be proceeded with.
Mr. S. MACKENZIE also recommended that
inquiry should take place previous to proceeding to
legislation.
Mr. COLQUHOUN had no wish to press the bill
during the present session, but was anxious that it
should be circulated.

Mr. AGLIONBY and Mr. STRICKLAND also recom-
mended inquiry.
Sir D. K. SANDFORD agreed with the hon.
member for Middlesex that the better way would be to