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

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. HARDINGE would assure the House that he
would concur with the general opinion that must exist
as to the able manner in which the Hon. and Gallant
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 serving in 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. Some 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, that
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. hleslop distinguished themselves.
Till the war of the Peninsula no medals 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.
Hon. 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 R.
Sale and his troops who marched 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
thebattles 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-
ing 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 Duko of Wellington was indebted to his
men for the ducal coronet which he woke 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 (Nicer who brought forwardsthe present-motion:

- z Z.

The Gallant Commodore would include the men as wall
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 :or 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 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. Hon. Gentleman said tha-t 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, bear.) 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, and there-
fore he must, though reluctantly, give his opposition to it.
Capt. BERKELEY said, when he came down to the
Hodse he did so with the intention of voting for the
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 a„e•reed 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 to those whose
gallantry he had referred to, would be most unjust. Ho
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 °ive 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 HARDINGE explained, as did Sir CHARLES
NAPIER. _ _

Sir A. L. HAY said his object had been to do
justice to the officers of the Peninsular army ; but, as
he 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
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 hire 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'Driscoli (who, by-the.hye, still remained
in offiee) the Irish people had little or no confidence in
the unpaid magistracy. It therefore became necessary
to appoint a paid magistraFy. (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 House 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 ease of Mr. Alcock. Mr. Alcock was one of
the leading gentlemen in- the enunty of Waterford.
He had been a strong Liberal, but -DO 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. Ile hoped that he had vindicated the late
Lord Lieutenant from the charges which bad 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,
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
Lord, the Member for the City of London,
who addressed the House for three hours
ill a" powetful speech, almuulipg wig various topics,