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

The Gallant Commodore would include the men its 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 lion. 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, fur 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 aid 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. Ho
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 Right 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 lion. 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
bad been previously decorated, and he wrote. to retain it,
as the officers who, for services under hini, had been de-
corated with the same order; were desirous to see their
General wearing it as well as themselves, blit 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 la: peerage at the eloSe 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 officers whose services had been brought
before the House, he considered that the motion, if agreed
to, would create a great deal of dissatisfaction, arid there-
foreiof
downting f
o t o r
t theh
e
he must, though reluctantly, give his opposition to it.
House he
Be EdßidKEsoLEw
Yith tsaidl;ewihnetenn het o
n camer
motion of the Gallant Officer (Sir A. L. Hay); but'after
what he had heard from the, R lett 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 hondur 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
the 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 he felt
himself called upon to say that to award honours to the
officers of the Peninsular army, and not tolhose 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 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 HExsx HARDING& explained, as did Sir CHARLES
NAPIER.

Sir A. L. HAY said his object had been to do
thejmuosttiicoen,tohethweoouffildcewrsitiolfdraw it.
Peninsular army ; but, as
he felt the House was not disposed to accede to his
The motion was then withdrawn.
STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATES.
Lori EBRINGTON moved for a return, showing
the dates of the appointments Of stipendiary magis-
trates, from the 2d day of March to the 15th day of
April, both inclusive, specifying the names of the several
magistrates, the stations to which they were severally
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.
He 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 thecharacter of
his noble relative should remain unvindicated, and never
regretted more deeply the absence of Lord Morpizth 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 thatfor 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 'fames 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 be 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, lie
thought it desirable strictly to adhere to the rules of the
House ; but, considering the circumstances of this case,
he would not call upon the Speaker to enforce them in
this instance. He admitted that lie_ was inaccurate in
his original statement ; and the mistake occurred
in this way. He had to follow. the Noble
Lord, the Member for the City of, London,
who addressed the House for three hours
41 a powerful speech, abounding with earious topics,