The Sun.
London, England, 1844-04-17 00:00:00

privileges of the Church, he should not vote for the
motion.—(Laughter.) It appeared that the Hon.
Member for Hull was afraid there :might be a crush on
Sundays. Now if any of the gentlemen who had spoken
to-night would stand up in the cathedral on a Sunday
and deliver his oration there, there would be no crush
at all, for the people would be too happy to escape.
Mr. HUME in reply said that he was happy to find
that every one in the House agreed with him in opinion
except the Hon. Member for Oxford, who ought to have
been born 300 years ago, in order to have had an oppor-
tunity of carrying out the opinions which he advocated.
He was gratified by hearing the opinions which had
been expressed by the Right lion. Baronet at the head
of her Majesty's Government, and was glad to find that
he would lend his assistance to the good work. Even
the Hon, Member for Sussex, who had never agreed
with anything since he entered the House, participated
in the general feeling, although he would not vote in
favour of the motion. lie hoped this general expression
of opinion would produce a beneficial effect, and that
next year they would find that their great object was
attained. The Right Hon. Baronet seemed to appre-
hend some technical difficulty in the way of the motion,
and in deference to the Right Hon. Baronet's opinion,
he should withdraw it.
The motion was then withdrwn.
HONOURS TO THE PENINSULAR ARMY.

Sir ANDREW LEITH HAY then rose to move an

address to the Crown, that her Majesty will be graciously
pleased to confer an honorary distinction on the surviv-
ing officers of the Peninsular army. Previous to the
Easter recess he had given notice of a motion to call the
attention of the House and of the Government to the
services of the officers of the Peninsular army, leaving it
to the House and to the Government to determine what
line it would be best for them to adopt; but not finding
that it was the intention of the Government to agree to
his view of the case, he had determined to take a diffe-
rent ground, and to move for an address to her Ma-
jesty, praying her to bestow some honorary dis-
tinction upon the officers of the Peninsular army.
It might be urged that this was not a re-
spectful course to adopt. He did not wish to dictate
to the Government, but considering the circumstances
under which the British army had served in these never-
to-be-forgotten campaigns, he felt it to be his duty as an
humble individual to recal to the recollection of the
House what were their services, and to advocate their
cause before the Government, the House, and the coun-
try, and to leave it to them to determine what were the
rewards which these services merited.—(Hear, hear.)
He might be met with the objection that too great a
length of time had elapsed since the performance of
their services to authorise him in bringing forward such
a motion as the present. He would briefly recal to the
recollection of the House the circumstances attending
these campaigns which they seemed to have forgotten.
It might also be said, that if any person ought to take
up the case, it was that great and illustrious man who
had conducted these campaigns in a manner so credit-
able to himself and so glorious to his country.—
(Cheers.) The Duke of Wellington, however, he be-
lieved had had no opportunity of bringing the matter
forward. He had not taken the place of the Duke of
York in the command of the army until the year 1828,
and he believed it was an invariable rule with the Duke
of Wellington never to ask for any rewards for his offi-
cers or for himself. In all promotions the only part the
Duke of Wellington had taken had been when requested
by the Government to recommend officers for promo-
tion to recommend such officers in accordance with the
desire of the Government. Another thing also should
be remembered that at that time medals and honorary dis-
tinctions were not so general as they had been of late years.
He thought at that time the Duke of Wellington was not
called upon to interfere. At another period, he alluded
to 1840, applications were made to the Noble Duke by
the officers of the Peninsula, but he had at that time
relinquished the office of Commander-in-Chief, and
therefore had no power to interfere. He believed that, as
far as the interference or non• interference of the Duke of
Wellington went, he was justified in the course he had
pursued. But at the present time the circumstances
were different, the Duke of Wellington was now Com-
mander-in-Chief and a member of the Cabinet, and,
therefore, he might now properly interfere. He was sure
of this, that the case of the officers he was about to bring
before the House was most deserving of its atten-
tion.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. and Gallant Member
then went at same length into the details of the services
of the officers of the Peninsular army, and expressed his
surprise that they had not been rewarded as they de-
served. What, he would ask, would have become of the
Duke of Wellington and his forces had it not been for
the Peninsular army ; and yet this being the case there
were many men, whose names he could mention, who
had received no distinction. Among them were Colonels
Cavendish, Chatham, Vandeleur, Townshend, Lovell,
Grant, Scott, and several others; they had received no
medals for their services, while there was not a drum-
boy who had heard the sound of cannons at Waterloo
who had not received distinction.—(Hear, hear.) Why,
his Right Hon. and Gallant Friend opposite (Sir H.
Hardinge) had received no medal for the Peninsular war,
although, he would venture to say, he would consider it
the highest honour he could have.—(Hear, hear.) He
believed that all the greatness of the British army arose
from the Peninsular war. The Hon. and Gallant Mem-
ber then referred to the gallant conduct of several
officers, all of whom had received no distinctions
for the heroic course they had pursued.—(Hear, hear.)
He had endeavoured to recal to the memory of the House
some of the circumstances connected with the Peninsular
war; and he should now state what was his intention
with regard to the motion he had brought forward.
That motion was for an address to the Crown, praying
that her Majesty would be pleased to bestow some dis-
tinction on the surviving officers of the Peninsular army.
In making this motion he did not wish to interfere
with any course her Majesty's Government might think
Proper to take, and if his Right Honourable and
Gallant Friend would state that the Government
would take up the matter and do justice to
these officers, he for one should be too happy
to leave the question in their hands. It would be
stated, perhaps, that the time had gone by—that it was
impossible, even if they wished it, to confer these dis-
tinctions now. But nothing was easier, in reality, to
effect. What he proposed to do was this, that medals
should be granted to every officer now surviving who
was in the Peninsula, and who served in any of the
great actions of that war. He should propose also that,
according to the last paragraph of the order by which
these honours were formerly granted, in the cases of
those officers who had died, the medals should be sent to
their families.—(Hear, hear.) Nothing could be more
simple than this. This was a large field to go over. It
was a large field to examine to get at the records of so
large a number of regiments ; but it was not so difficult
to get at the details of that smaller portion of the British
army engaged in the Peninsula. The cause he was ad-
vocating was that of fifteen regiments of cavalry and
sixty regiments of infantry, which all bore on their
standards the noble distinction of the names of
the battles in which they had served during
that war. There was also another class of men,
who ought not to be excluded from sharing in
these honours. Those were the officers who had served
in the Peninsular war, who were still living, but who had
retired from the service. He did put it to the Right
Hon. and Gallant Gentleman whether he would not
support him in obtaining for these old officers these
honorary distinctions. It might be considered folly at
this time of day to talk about this question, but it was a
fact that there was not an officer who had served in the
Peninsula who did not consider himself degraded when
he saw on others the decorations that had been lately
bestowed. He did not talk of it as a matter of jealousy.
Let the Governor-General of India distribute decorations
to the whole Indian army. In his opinion the more
that were given the better. In all services the more of
these rewards that were given, the more likely that good
services would be performed. Would any one tell him
that any officer of Napoleon, wearing the Cross of the
Legion of Honour on his breast, would ever allow an un-
decorated officer to pass him in the race of glory ?
(Hear, hear.) He believed that spirit of emulation was
one of the great engines of Napoleon's military power.
The enthusiasm of that army could not be described.
He would mention one other fact connected with this
subject. When the Russian army, under General
Suvaroff, took the city of Prague by assault, he'found in
the arsenal a stock of 20,000 musket-balls. These
balls he had struck into medals, with the word
" Prague" inscribed on them, and these were dis-
tributed among his soldiers. When the,Russian army
entered Paris in 1814 many of the veteran soldiers in its
ranks wore and exhibited this markof honour with pride
and exultation. It had often been asked why should the
House of Commons interfere in matters of this kind. It
was said that it was by the Crown alone that honours and
distinctions ought to be bestowed. But this was not the
first time that this question had been discussed in the
House of Commons. He found that after the battle of
Waterloo, on the 29th of June, 1815, Mr. Charles Wynn,
an authority he believed as high as any in that House
on subjects connected with its privileges and rights, and
the proper conduct of its business,—Mr. Wynn, on that
occasion, proposed that medals should be given to all
the survivors of the battle of Waterloo, and of the same
materials both to officers and men. This proposal was
made daring a discussion on the propriety of erecting a
national monument, the proposition of the medals being
a substitute for that plan. With regard, then, to the
form of his motion, he had an authority to which he was
sure the House would listen ; only two hours ago lie
had heard the Prime Minister of the Crown say, " Do
not legislate on resolutions, why not ask for an address
to the Crown." He (Sir A. L. Hay) did ask for an
address to the Crown, and he would ask his Right Hon.
and Gallant Friend, who bore on his breast the blazon
of nine victories, to let his own good feeling guide him
in assisting to carry this motion. He had not brought
it forward with any purpose of making a display
or to secure an opportunity of talking in that House, for
he did not often trespass on their attention. But feeling
strongly for a large portion of as meritorious officers as
ever shed their blood in the service of any country, who
were aggrieved at not having granted to them what they
asked, he had ventured to make this proposition.
As he saw the Right Hon. Baronet, the First Minister
of the Crown, present, he would state in his presence
that invariably since he had been at the head of the Go-
vernment, when he had seen him rise in his place to
move the thanks of that House to officers for their dis-
tinguished services, he had seen him do it in a truly
feeling manner. He had not done it in that cold and
official manner which was often exhibited on such occa-
sions. lie showed that he not only thought of himself
while he spoko of those men—but that he thought of his
country at the same time. He therefore called on her
Majesty's Government in the same manner to consider
not only what the effect of this motion would be on the
officers of the Peninsular army, but the effect it would
produce on tke country at large. The Hon. and Gallant
Gentleman concluded by making the motion of which
he had given notice.
Lord ARTHUR LENNOX said he had been re-
quested to second the motion of his Hon. and Gallant
Friend, and he now rose to do so with great pleasure.
If anything could induce him to suppose that' a vote in

favour of this motion would be in the slightest degree
opposed to the opinion of his Grace the Commander-in-
Chief, he should regret giving his support to it, for in
common with every officer in her Majesty's service, he
felt how important it was to coincide with the Duke of
Wellington in all points connected with the government
of the army.. After the speech of the Hon. and Gallant
Officer, it would be needless for him to trespass at any
length on the patience of the House ; but he should
take that opportunity of assuring the Secretary at War,
that he was perfectly convinced a feeling of the most
intense interest prevailed among all ranks of the army,
on the subject before the House. He did not speak of
those who had the good fortune to be already decorated,
but of those who were not sufficiently high in command
during the Peninsular war, and who were still undeco-
rated. He would mention one circumstance with respect to
the decorations awarded to the troops in India. During the
last campaign Lord Ellenborough granted medals to all
the officers who served in that campaign. He could not
conceive why the officers of the Peninsular war should
be the only ones undecorated. He would mention one
case, that of Major Grant of the 71st regiment, who
had been engaged thirty-three times with the enemy,
had served throughout the whole of the war, and who
had been three times wounded. He thought it was a
hard case that this officer should be presented at the
levee of her Majestyat St. James's undecorated, while one
had been given to Lieutenant Joyce for his services in
the auxiliary force in Spain. Many foreigners could not
distinguish between those who had served their country,
and those who had served in the auxiliary force. He had
great pleasure in seconding the motion.
Sir H. lIARDINGE would assure the House that he

would concur with the general opinion that must exis
as to the able manner in which the Hon. and Gallan

Member had brought forward his motion. The claims
of the officers of the Peninsula had lost nothing by the
manner in which they had been advocated. There
could be no difference between himself and the House as
to the merits of that army, which certainly did perform
services of a character never to be forgotten by the
country. And he must say, at once, that he did not
consider it any proof of insensibility or ingratitude on
the part of the country, that a great number of the officers
should remain undecorated. It must be recollected that
thirty-four or thirty-five years had elapsed since that
period of their exertions, and many of these officers were
then servingin lower stations than could, according to the
regulations of the time, receive the distinctions they
were so much entitled to. Many of the remarks of the
Hon. Gentleman did not go to this essential point. They
did not show that the regulations of that period would
allow those distinctions to be conferred. The motion
raised a very important question, whether the Govern-
ment, forty-four years after an event, could go back to
the acts of its predecessor of a distant day, and endea-
vour to do what the Hon. Gentleman called jus-
tice to the army, by granting rewards for services per-
formed when these officers held an inferior rank. It
must be remembered that many portions of the army
were engaged in other portions of the world besides
the Peninsula. How were those officers who had
served in Egypt to be satisfied ? Why were
they to be excluded ? Certainly, that army had per-
formed very distinguished services, as they were the first
who directly encountered the veteran troops of Napoleon,
the conquerors of Italy. Then let them go to India.
How could they pass over those who served under Lord
Lake, in Peshawur, and under Lord Harris, at Se-
ringapatam? If the motion were conceded, these officers
must be excluded, and this formed the great difficulty of
dealing with the question. It should be remarked that
honours were conferred to a considerable extent among
the officers of the Peninsula. In 1812 medals were dis..

tributed for services in Spain to the number of 1,300,
which were 'given to 776 officers of all ranks. They
were granted according to the regulations of the
army of that day. In 1813 an order was
issued giving a cross and a clasp to such officers as had
a certain number of medals. Sortie having as many as
nine or ten, and the wearing of so many being incon-
venient, a cross was given instead of four medals. The
Order of the Bath was also enlarged, and 300 Knights
Commanders were nominated, making a third class of the
order. These arrangements gave great satisfaction to
the army at the time. The Duke of Wellington was
applied to on this subject in 1840. He was not then
Commander-in-Chief, and could not give any other an-
swer than that he did give. He stated very con-
cisely, as he always did, that he had faithfully
reported the services of the army in the Peninsula, as
well as those of individuals, and any or what rewards
ought to be given was wholly for the Government to
consider; and that it was no part of his duty to inter-
fere with such discussions, above all, when the ques-
tion had been considered and decided twenty-five
or thirty years ago. He thought the time that had
passed made it almost a matter of insurmountable diffi-
culty to confer these honours now, as it would be unjust
to confine the honours conferred by the country to
the Peninsular officers alone. (Hear, hear.) It
was impossible the House could interpose with re-
gard to the officers engaged in the Peninsular war, with-
out going further back to those who fought at Seringa-
patam, Malwa, Gwalior, and in America. There would,
therefore, be great inconvenience in granting the mo-
tion of his Gallant Friend upon this ground. His Gal-
lant Friend proposed that medals should be
granted to those only who fought in the great actions of
the Peninsula, and that, where the officers themselves
were not living, they should be sent to their relatives.
Now he thought, that if the medals were to be confined
to those who fought only in general actions in the Penin-
sula, it would operate very unjustly. One of the most
extraordinary actions of the Peninsular war was the
affair of El Budina, at which Sir Charles Colville com-
manded, and in which a very small number of
infantry and cavalry checked fifteen thousand
French cavalry, with a considerable force of
horse artillery. The force under Sir Charles Colville
distinguished itself in a manner unparalleled throughout
the campaign—(Hear, hear)—and yet he would not be
entitled to a medal by the motion of his Gallant Friend.
Captain Jackson, Aide-de-Camp of Sir Charles Colville,
distinguished himself very much in this affair, and how
unjust it would be to deprive him of the honour of a
medal, because he happened not to be engaged in a
general action. This action of El Budina was a small one,
but the officer who commanded had behaved with the
greatestbravery, but according to the terms of the motion
of his Gallant Friend he would not be entitled to a
medal. This was one great difficulty against granting
the motion. His Gallant Friend stated also that this
honour was rarely obtained by the junior officers of the
army. Yet it was obtained by 180 majors, 87 captains,
and seven lieutenants. One instance occurred in the regi-
ment which he himself commanded at Albuera. That
regiment, the 85th, went into action with 25 officers,
twenty-three of whom were killed. The Major and Cap-
tain were killed, and the Lieutenant who survived got
the medal, and every officer who could be proved to have
commanded in the action obtained it. Whenever an
officer, however young, succeeded to the command he
was entitled to the medal. The principle on which it
was granted was a very intelligible one—it was this, tkat
the officer who had the responsibility of command upon
him was to have the medal. The same principle was
adopted in the navy. Captains of vessels obtained the
medal, but the inferior officers did not. Medals were so
granted for the battle of the Nile and Trafalgar, for
Lord Howe's and Lord St. Vincent's victories, and for
several spirited single actions, as that between the Shan•
non and the Chesapeake. These were not granted
to the bravest men. but to the person highest
in command, thereby reflecting honour on those
whom he commanded. (Hear.) This principle
was observed in the army during the whole six years
of the Peninsular war, and afterwards with regard to
several actions in 1817, which followed after the Penin-
sular war. The principle was adopted in the Nepaulese
war, in the action at Bhurtpore, where the present Lord
Combermere commanded, and in the war in which Lord
Hastings and Sir T. Meslop distinguished themselves.
Till the war of the Peninsula no mdals were granted.
Medals were granted to those who were engaged in the
battle of Waterloo, but they were not in that instance
confined to the officers, but to the whole army.—(Hear,
hear.) He did not mean to say that they ought not to
get it, but if that was so, they must grant it indiscrimi-
nately to all those who were engaged in the Penin-
sular war. He would not now discuss the question
whether it would be right to grant medals indiscri-
minately—he believed that it was never done until
the battle of Waterloo, but he believed the usual practice
was departed from in that instance because that was the
last battle of the war; it was attended with great politi-
cal consequences, and the medals were granted as a spe-
cial mark of the favour of the sovereign of the country;
but certainly the practice of the service had been not to
grant medals in the manner contended for by his Gallant
Friend. If such had been the mode in which this
Honour was conferred would they now, by a vote of
the House, force the Administration to rectify what
might have been an omission on the part of the Govern-
ment of 1813 or 1814, in not granting medals indiscri-
minately to the army in the Peninsula? He had now
come to the last instance in which medals had been
granted, viz., to those who fought in the East Indies.
lion. Gentlemen would recollect that these medals were
granted after a great disaster had befallen their
arms in Caubul. It became of importance to
raise the spirits of the army, and nothing seemed
better for this purpose than to grant medals to Sir It.
Sale and his troops who marched to Jellalabad, and to
General Nott, who marched from Candahar, and to
General Pollock, who advanced upon Caubul. Sir C.
Napier had nobly earned the medal he had obtained by
the battles of Meanee and Hyderabad. His Gallant Friend
would confine the granting of these medals to the of-
ficers of the Peninsular army, or to the relatives
of those who were dead. He did not see how they could
stop there. He thought they must go to the survivors
and relatives of the officers who fought in Egypt, and
even to those who fought at Queen's-town, Lancennes,
Java, and the Mauritius. There would be no end to the
details they would have to enter upon if the motion
were granted. He doubted whether the motion of his
Gallant Friend was pleasing- to the army. He
had received a letter on the subject, expressing
the greatest dissatisfaction at the motion. He stated in
his letter that it would not only be offensive and unjust to
other officers of the army who had served in other parts of
the world with great zeal, but that it would be unjust to
the men, who were exposed to the same danger and the
same hardships with the officers. He asked why
the common soldier should be excluded, see-
inn- that the Waterloo medal had been grant-
ed' indiscriminately, and that the Field-Marshal and
the drum-boy received the same honour. He had re-
ceived this letter from an officer in the army, and he had
also seen in military publications that the motion
was not satisfactory to the army. It had been said
that the Duke of Wellington was indebted to his
men for the ducal coronet which he wore upon his
brow. The Duke of Wellington did not deny it.
Not only did the Duke of Wellington owe a debt of gra-
titude to his men, but the men owed a debt to the Noble
Duke, who, by his great ability as a General, led them
through every difficulty. He thought the proposition
of the Gallant Commodore more just than that of the
Gallant Officer who brought forward the present motion,

The Gallant Commodore would include the men as well
as the officers who took part in great battles, among the
parties to receive decorations; but let them see to what
inconvenience that system, if carried out to its full ex-
tent, would lead. The custom of the service was, that
the relations of an officer who had been killed should get
the medal which would have been awarded to him.
Now, if they were to carry out the Hon. and Gallant
Commodore's plan, they would have to give decorations
to the relations of every soldier who died in the Penin-
sular war. There would be thus not less than 50,000
claimants, at least, for those medals; and if they pro-
ceeded to decorate, as in that case they would be bound
to do, the survivors of the war in Egypt, America, and
India, there would be not less than 250,000 claimants.
Thus, by following out the Gallant Commodore's prin-
ciple, which was the only just one, they would become
involved in a labyrinth of difficulties. In resisting the
present motion the Government did not mean to depre-
ciate the merits of the gallant army of the Peninsula—
an army of which it was said, either by Colonel Napier
in his History or by Colonel Jones, that they never oc-
cupied any position which they did not defend, nor
attacked any position of the enemy which they did not
carry. But it would be almost impossible to explain the
great inconvenience that would result from acceding to
the motion of the Gallant Officer.
Sir C. NAPIER could not agree with the Hon. and
Gallant Gentleman, that because four and thirty years
had elapsed justice ought not to be done to the officers
and men :of the Peninsular war. After the battle of
Waterloo the Government thought fit to give medals to
all the officers and men who were engaged in it. He
thought at the time that the Government ought also to
give medals to all that were present at the great battles
in the Peninsula. The Eight Hon. Gentleman said that in
that case they ought to go back to Egypt and
America. He (Sir C. Napier) thought that they
ought. It was never too late to do a good
action. The Right Hon. Gentleman said that if
medals were to be awarded to the relatives of soldiers
there would be not less than 250,000 claimants. Why,
it would be impossible to find out the widows and rela-
tives of soldiers who had died 30 years ago, and it would
be therefore unnecessary to create any inconvenience in
that respect, but they might do that which could be
easily accomplished, namely, give decorations to the
surviving officers and men of the great military and
naval battles. He thought that there ought to be a
medal to commemorate every great battle, and
that the order of the Bath should be given to
every officer who distinguished himself in battle. They
read in the dispatches of the Duke of Wellington that
when he was raised to the Order of the Garter, he was
directed to give up the Order of the Bath with which he
had been previously decorated, and he wrote to retain it,
as the officers who, for services under him, had been de-
corated with the same order, were desirous to see their
General wearing it as well as themselves, but his request
was not granted, nor did the Noble Duke get back the
decoration of the Bath until that Order was re-modelled
some years afterwards. Those decorations and honours
were of great value ; and it was related of Sir Thomas
Picton, when he was refused a peerage at the close of the
Peninsular war, that he said " if a coronet were placed
upon a fort I would have taken it." With respect to
giving medals to relatives, he (Sir C. Napier) was of
opinion that if an officer was awarded the Order of the
Bath, and that he was killed in battle, his widow should
be allowed to wear it. But they had now let down the
Order of the Bath very much, by giving it for absolute
trifles. If they gave medals to the men and officers who
merited them, the country would be satisfied, and justice
would be done to all parties. He would give his vote in
favour of his Gallant Friend's motion.

Mr. F. FRENCH wished to take that opportunity of
calling the attention of the Government to the case of a
widow of an officer, having four daughters of that officer
by another wife, to maintain, and to whom a pension had
been denied, because her husband had not held his com-
mission for ten years. This gallant man had served
twenty-eight years in the army, chiefly as a private ; for
his good conduct a commission had been presented to
him, but dying before he had held it for ten years, the
only subsistence his widow and children had to look to
had been denied, on the stringent rule laid down by the
Horse Guards, that no pension should be allowed to an
officer of less than ten years standing,
Sir H. HARDINGE said this rule was originally laid
down to prevent too early and improvident marriages
amongst officers. Cases had, however, come officially
before him, in which much injustice was caused by a too
strict adherence to it. The case now mentioned was one
of that class.—(Hear, hear.) So very unjustly did the
rule work in some instances, that the Horse Guards had
altered its course of conduct in respect of them.
Col. SIBTHORP said that, while according all
praise to the offiz.:-.:rs whose services had been brought
before the House, he considered that the motion, if agreed
when
intentionh e
of v downting f
o t o r
thethe
to, would create a great deal of dissatisfaction, and there-
fore he must, though reluctantly, give his opposition to it.
HoCuasPet.heßEdlitdKEsoLEwYithsaitdh,e
motion of the Gallant Officer (Sir A. L. Hay); but after
what he had heard from the Right Hon. Baronet the
Secretary at War, and when he reflected that the great
man now at the head of the British army was equally
anxious for the honour of that army, he felt himself
forced to ask his Hon. and Gallant Friend not to divide
the House upon the subject. If any honour or decora-
tion had been given spontaneously at the time when
gallant service had been performed, he (Capt. Berkeley)
should, had he been lucky enough to be party to such
gallantry, have rejoiced to receive such honour ; but
after this lapse of time he should look upon it as a mere
empty bauble.
Lord C. FITZROY said he quite agreed with the ob-
servations of the Gallant Officer who had last addressed

he House, and trusted the motion would be withdrawn.

Sir G. COCKBURN had had the good fortune to
witness some of the most gallant achievements of the
British army in every quarter of the globe, and be felt
himself called upon to say that to award honours to the
officers of the Peninsular army, and not to those whose
gallantry he had referred to, would be most unjust. He
quite agreed with the Gallant Officer (Sir C. Napier)
that it would have been an excellent principle to have
awarded decorations at the time of good service and
gallant affairs, but as this had not been done,
in his opinion it would be injudicious to com-
mence it now. Had the question been urged
at the end of the war, he (Sir George Cockburn) would
certainly have given his hearty support to it ; but now,
at the end of half a century, since many of the most
gallant affairs had come off, he could not give his sanc-
tion to the principle. The question having lain dormant
so long, he thought it was unwise to agitate it now. He
considered it was encircled with very great difficulty,
and that no substantial advantage could accrue from
agreeing to the motion before the House.
Sir HENRY HkRDINGE explained, as did Sir CHARLES
NAPIER.

Sir A. L. HAY said his object had be&n to do
justice to the officers of the Peninsular army ; but, as
ho felt the House was not disposed to accede to his
motion, he would withdraw it.
The motion was then withdrawn.
STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATES.
Lord EBRINGTON moved for a return, showing
I the dates of the appointments of stipendiary in;.:gis-
trate% from the 2d day of March to the 15thl day of
April, both inclusive, specifying the names of thtfsepial
magistrates, the stations to which they were ;*lfsially
appointed by each warrant, and the cause assigned in
each warrant respectively for the appointment. He felt
great diffidence in intruding on the House, particularly
as the matter was parely of a personal nature. Nothing
but the absence of the Right Hon. Gentleman who made
these charges could have withheld him from repelling
many of them on a former occasion, particularly as
most of them referred altogether to his father.
Ile felt greatly embarrassed, and hoped the
House would extend to him that indulgence which
they generally extended to Members when charges
of a personal nature were preferred against
them. He felt particularly uneasy, lest the character of
his noble relative should remain unvindicated, and never
__regretted more deeply the absence of Lord Morpeth than
on the present occasion. Instead of apologising for the
appointment of stipendiary magistrates, that Noble Lord
would have, in the most unquestionable and satisfactory
manner, justified their appointment. There was no fact
more notorious than that from the days of Arthur Young
to Captain O'Driscoll (who, by-the-bye, still remained
in offiee) the Irish people had little or no confidence in
the unpaid magistracy. It therefore became necessary
to appoint a paid magistracy. (The Noble Lord then
quoted from the speech of Sir James Graham, in which.
the Right Hon. Gentleman stated that for four years pre-
vious to 1840, there were only 59 stipendiary magis-
trates in Ireland, and in this year and 1840, the late
Irish Administration had appointed seven—viz., two in
June, two on the sth of July, two on the 6th of August,
and one on the very day that Lord Melbourne resigned
the seals of office, and long after the Honse had lost the
confidence of the country,—in short, said theßight Hon.
Gentleman, on the last gasp of an expiring Government.
The first fact stated by the Right Hon. Baronet was the
number of magistrates in the years 1838, 1839, 1840,
and 1841. The Right Hon. Baronet put them down at
59 in each year. Now, from returns which he held in
his hand, he (Lord Ebrington) found that in June, 1839,
the number instead of 59 was 56 ; in June, 1840, the
number was 58 instead of 59; and in 1841, instead of
59, the number was 62. It would be seen, therefore, that
this statement of the Right Hon. Baronet was inaccurate.
During the whole time of his (Lord Ebrington's) noble
relative's Government in Ireland, he was continually add-
ing to the number of magistrates. (The Noble Lord then
read from various documents which related to the ap-
pointment of the seven stipendiary magistrates which
had been alluded to by Sir James Graham, from which
it appeared that the appointments had been made after
many memorials had been received by the Lord-Lieu-
tenant of Ireland on the subject.) He felt sure that the
Right Hon. Baronet had been misinformed when he
made these statements : but at the same time he thought
it would have been better if, after the lapse of three
years, the appointments had been suffered to remain in
obscurity. • The Noble Lord then proceeded to refer to
the case of Mr. Alcock. Mr. Alcock was one of
the leading gentlemen in the county of Waterford.
He had been a strong Liberal, but no re-
pealer, and was much respected by all parties. Mr.
Alcock had written to him to request that he would in-
quire why he was the only magistrate who had not been
re-appointed, and he begged to put that question to the
Noble Lord. He hoped that he had vindicated the late
Lord Lieutenant from the charges which had been
brought. The Noble Lord concluded by moving for the
returns.
The question having been put,
Sir J. GRAHAM said that, as a general rule, he
thought it desirable strictly to adhere to the rules of the
House ; but, considering the circumstances of this case, I
he would not call upon the Speaker to enforce them in
this instance. He admitted that he was inaccurate is
his original statement ; and the mistake occurred
in this way. He had to follow the Noble 1
Lord, the Member for the City of London,
who addressed the House for three hour's
in a powerful speech, abounding with various topics,

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, APRIL 17, 18,

which were enforced with his usual ability. In one
part of his speech, the Noble Lord, censuring her Ma-
jesty's Government, said that, as a matter of policy, he
would recommend an addition to the stipendiary magis-
trates, but at all events he thought it was highly im-
politic to diminish that number. He (Sir James
Graham) was sitting near the Noble Lord
the Secretary for Ireland, who handed to him a return
which appeared to him to afford a triumphant answer
to the Noble Lord's statement ; and when he replied
to the Noble Lord he quoted that return. Now, what
was the substance of his statement? It was that the
maximum number of stipendiary magistrates in
Ireland, under Lord Normanby and Lord For •
tescue, was fifty-nine up to the 13th of June.
What was the fact, as admitted by the Noble Lord ?
It was that until the 13th of February, 1841, 59 was the
maximum number. He had stated that between the 13th
of June and the 28th of August, seven new magistrates
were appointed.
Lord EBRINGTON—Seven additional ones.
Sir J. GRAHAM—Seven additional ones. What was
the fact? Between the 13th of February and the 28th
of August there only four new stations appointed, but
there were eleven new magistrates. There having been
only four new stations, it followed that there must have
been seven additional magistrates. He had now said all
that he had thought it necessary to say in explanation of
what had fallen from him in the hurry of debate.
Mr. BARING said that whilst he had been in (Age
he had not been influenced in his appointments by party
considerations. The Right Hon. Gentleman then re-
ferred to various dates in order to show that
he had made appointments of persons adverse
to the Government of which he was a member,
and that he was entirely governed by the consideration
of the fitness of the person appointed. He (Mr. Baring)
did not complain of the Government, in 1833, for the
appointments they had made after their resignations had
been announced ; but he referred to them merely to
show what the rule was. He alluded to them to show
the strictness with which all acts connected with the
pnblic service were performed, and on this account he
was the more more surprised to find the Right Honour-
able Baronet (Sir J. Graham) descending to the clap•
trap which he had done.—(Hear, hear.) It was no
matter whether it was the last hour or the first hour of
official existence that vacancies took place, they must
be filled up as they so became vacant. He did think
it was a ♦ery unworthy thing to keep a charge
back for the space of two years, then to be brought for-
ward in such a shape and in such a spirit; and he should,
therefore, suggest to the Right Hon. Gentleman (Sir J.
Graham) to be more careful for the future before he
ventured to attack even his old friends.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord ELIOT said, that for any inaccuracy which had
occured he alone, and not his Right Hon. Friend (Sir J.
Graham), was to blame. He did not much like the
argumentum ad hominem, and always abstained as care-
fully as possible from personal observations; but he
would venture to say that there had not been a news-
paper in that country, nor a periodical—not even the
great Whig organ the Edinburgh Review—which
had not denounced the late Government upon
this point.—(Hear, hear.) And after all that
had fallen, apparently with such triumph, from his
Right Hon. Friend the late Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer (Mr. Baring), he challenged any one to show
any material inaccuracy in the return. There were
three new stations created, and, in his

lessly so. For when the House recollected that for the
last three years sixty stipendiary magistrates had been
found sufficient, and this during a period when there
had been famine riots in Ireland and poor-law distur-
bances, and all the agitation connected with repeal, he
thought most' certainly that new appointments,
were most uncalled-for and extravagant. With
respect to the return of the appointments of magis-
trates that had been referred to, and which had been
asserted not to exist, he felt no hesitation in saying that
such returns did exist. He maintained that the state-
ments that had been made by his Right Hon. Friend
were substantially correct, that the late Government had
made an addition of seven new magistrates, and that on
the last day of their holding office they appointed one
magistrate.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. LABOUCHERE considered the question now
before the House was, whether the late Lord Lieutenant
of Ireland had prostituted the patronage that he had in
his power. The charge that had been made against Lord
Fortescue had entirely broken down, and he was
astonished at the language that had been employed that
night.—(Hear, hear.) He would put it to the Hon.
Member whether there was anything before the House
to justify the Right Hon. Gentleman in saying that Lord
Fortescue was actuated by unworthy motives in ap-
pointing the magistrates he had done. He was asto-
nished at the observations that had been made with re-
spect to the return, and he felt that nothing but the
high character of Lord Fortescue had shielded him
from the attack that had been directed against him.
With regard to the appointments themselves they had
not heard that any one of the appointments had been
improperly filled up., His Noble Friend had, even at
the distance of two years, been enabled to state the
grounds of each appointment—(Cheers)—and the House
had heard the statement which he had made.—(Cheers.)
Lord Fortescue had received applications from persons
of respectable character, and of all shades of politics,
beseeching the Government to make these appointments;
and if Lord Fortescue had not added to the magistracy,
these applications would have been produced, and he
would have been charged with having failed in his duty,
and with having left the country in an unprotected state.
—Hear, hear.) He congratulated his Noble Friend on

the result of this debate.—(Cheers.) His Noble Friend
had by this debate secured the only object which he
cared about relating to it, which was, to relieve his
Noble Relative from the accusation which had been
brought against him, that he had improperly used his
patronage while he held the office of Lerd Lieutenant of
Ireland.—(Loud cheers.)
Lord STANLEY would not have taken any part in
the discussion had it not been for the speech of the
Right Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. Any
one listening to that speech would have supposed that
his Right Hon. Friend had brought this forward as a
charge against the Government of Ireland. Now, the
fact was, that his Right Hon. Friend was replying, on
the spur of the moment, to a charge which had been
made by the Noble Lord the Member for London, who
said, " You have unduly diminished the stipendiary ma-
gistracy of Ireland, when you ought to have increased
it ;" the answer to which had been, " so far from di-
minishing the number of stipendiary magistrates, we
have now, and have had, throughout our Government, a
number equal to the number which either Lord Nor-
manby or Lord Ebrington ever maintained in Ireland,
except during the last six months' of Lord Ebrington's
administration; and his Right Honourable Friend,
availing himself of a paper that had been put into his
hand by his Noble Friend the Secretary for Ireland,
said, "If you dispute the fact, this paper will show it."
That paper proved that in 1838, 1839, and 1840, the
number of stipendiary magistrates had varied from 57
to 59, at no time had they been higher than 59 or less
than 57; and it was only during the last six months of
Lord Ebrington's administration, that seven additional
magistrates had been added to the stipendiary force in
Ireland,. —and in fact, they had done so. There might
be causes for it or there might not, but while they were
boasting of the increased tranquillity in Ireland un-
doubtedly they had made seven new appointments.
Mr. LABOUCHERE—Not new appointments.
Lord STANLEY—Seven new magistrates.—(Hear,
hear.) But if those three, were new appointments,
those three appointments had been made not only after
the month of June, but after the 28th of July. On that
day Nicholas Kelly had been appointed, vice an old ma-
gistrate appointed to a new station. On the 6th of
August Edward Savage was appointed to Ballyshannon,
a new station; and on the 28th of August Henry Al-
cock was appointed, vice another old magistrate 'ap-
pointed to a new station. He did not say that the Lord'
Lieutenant had not good reason for appointing these
magistrates.

Mr. LABOUCITERE—That is the whole case.

Lord STANLEY—That was not the whole case; the
case must be considered in ccnnection with the whole
course of the debate. While boasting that Ireland was
in a state of extraordinary tranquillity, they had made
seven new appointments, and three new stations. That
had been brought forward by his Right Hon. Friend as
an answer to the charge made by the Noble Lord the
Member for London, and had been mentioned as a proof
that the present dovernment had kept up a force of
stipendiary magistrates equal to that which was kept up
by the late Government.
Mr. VILLIERS STUART felt it his duty to state
that applications had been made from some of the most
respectable inhabitants of the part of the country with
which he was connected, to the Lord Lieutenant for the
appointment of new stipendiary magistrates, as the
number of those at that time appointed:was not suffi-
cient for the due administration of justice.
Lord ELIOT explained. Some magistrates had been
removed from one part of the country to another, and
lately there had been no demand for magistrates to be
permanently appointed.
Mr. WYSE bore testimony to the high character of
Mr. Alcock, who had been put to great inconvenience by
being dismissed.
Mr. MORE O'FERRALL said the only object of his
Noble Friend in bringing forward the motion, was to
rescue Earl Fortescue from an imputation of an improper
exercise of his patronage. If the Right Hon. Baronet
had said that he did not intend any such imputation, the
debate would have terminated with his Noble Friend's
speech. But he had not done so ; on the contrary,
he had justified the imputation, and attempted to
re-assert the truth of the statement. It was this
of which the Noble Lord had reason to complain.
No person could say, who was acquainted with the ad-
ministration of Ireland, when it might be necessary to
to make an appointment of a stipendiary magistrate. As
an instance of this, he would mention that there were
two magistrates in the commission of the peace in Tal-
low, who gave up their commissions because a Whig
Government was in office. A stipendiary magistrate
had of course to be appointed. It might happen that
every appointment was not for the benefit of those who
were in office, but it might be also for those who would
succeed.
Sir R. PEEL said that it was the invariable practice
for a Government to fill up all existing vacancies before
they were formally superseded, and though they had
announced their intention to resign ; . nay, more, there
was nothing unusual in one Government filling up appoint-
ments which had been made by a preceding Government.
He could give an instance in which an appointinert was
made to two peerages, and upon the intentions of the
Government being conclusively proved, *hen the plea-
sure of the Crown was known, althou2ll no formal in-
strument passed, the succeeding GoVernment repected
the appointments; they consequently took -place, and there
was nothing peculiar. in the case-which had been. re-
ferred to. The question arose, I!,s to :new. appointments, .
and not with regard to the filling up of vacancies. The Case
was put upon its right footing by his Noble Friend, the
Member for Lancashire. The Right Hon. Gentleman,
the Member for Kildare, said that if his Right Hon. • -
Friend had only come forward before and adwitted his