The Sun.
London, England, 1828-02-15 00:00:00

THANKS TO SIR EDW. CODRINGTON.

Mr. HOBHOLISE—Sir, in presuming to offer myself
to the notice of the House upon this occasion, I am pecu-
liarly well aware that I need all, and indeed more than the
usual, indulgence—that usual indulgence which has, I am
proud to say, and grateful to acknowledge, been fre-
quently shown to me in this House. For, how-
ever often similar votes have been proposed to this House,
—however often the nation has had occasion to express its
gratitude for services performed by land or by sea, by our
brave countrymen in arms, I am peculiarly aware that ex-
cept upon one occasion, when Mr. Sheridan moved a vote
of thanks to the English Volunteers—au occasion,
which, as far as that distinguished person is con-
cerned, is no precedent for an ordinary man like
myself -- I say, Sir, I am most fully aware that
such vote of thanks has invariably proceeded from
his Majesty's Ministers. At the same time, I can-
not help thinking, and it often upon previous occa-
sions has struck me, when thinking upon the subject,
without any immediate interest in it myself, that it would
be preferable, if occasionally those proposals came from
Members of Parliament nut at all connected with the
King's Government ; for surely if those votes have any va-
lue at all they have it because they are supposed to be
the unaffected expression of the national opinion.—
' It is impossible we can conceal from ourselves that
although, in general, propositions of this nature, when
made by Ministers, have found a ready echo in the bo-
soms of all who hear them ; yet it is quite clear
that Ministers come forward sure of standing on an
eminence, and secure of influence, which no Mem-
ber of Parliameiit can command. It also, Sir, ap-
pears to me a misfortune, that we who are opposed to the
King's Ministers, should have cut from under our feet
that most pleasing and proud opposition in which I now
stand, and that we should be perpetually called upon to do
that which`we think, in the discharge of our slaty, we ought
to do, to find fault with what we consider wrong,
without giving occasionally our just tributes of praise to
those gallant persons to whom the country is indebted for
her glory and renown. I cannot help thinking,
that for the sake of the individuals themselves,
whose good fortune it is to be the object of our
praise, it would be better if the usage of the House were
occasionally departed from, because it is quite clear, that
' under the present practice those gallant individuals
who command:our fleets and armies, and arc therefore the
object of national gratitude, must be dependent upon acci-
dents and vicissitudes, to which one of renown ought not
to be subject. If those who do their duty to their coun-
try in the field of battle are to be subject to the charges--
to the tricks—and to the intrigues of Cabinets--if they
are to be subject to the vicissitudes of political fortune, it
is impossible for us to say; that the hero of one day may
not be the offender of the next. When I say this, Sir, let
it not be supposed that I wish, in any degree, to introduce a
discussion which could give rise to patty hostilities upon
the occasion. -Stich. a discussion would be not only most
inopportune upon this occasion, but most unfair to
those Gallant Officers to whom 1 intend to propose
this vote of thanks? I must suppose that it is the inten-
tion—the settled resolution of . his Majesty's Go-
vernment, without speaking'. of the other Members
whom I have now the honour to address, to stand by this
Gallant Officer—that it is the intention of his Majesty's Go-
vernment, as well as of all those whom I have now the ho-
nour to address, not to leave that Gallant Officer without
the usual (and in this case truly merited) national rewards?
Sir, I beg leave to state that in introducing this question,
I shall separate it entirely from the policy which sent that
gallant officer to the Archipelago.- • It is not my inten-
tion to drop a phrase which could include any angry
discussion upon that policy. In the examination of the
subject, and looking to the precedents upon this point,
I find that the line which I intend to take upon this oc-
casion is that which has always been adopted upon
occasions of this sort, with the least possibility
of a chance of bringing under their discussion
the policy which sent our soldiers and our sea-
men into the field of action. The other evening
I took the liberty to mention to the Noble Lord
opposite, that I thonght, with respect to the vote
which I intend to propose, there was a precedent which
completely tallied with my view of the case, and I now
find that precedent to tally with my views in more ways than
one, particularly with respect to the policy which sent
the expedition into the Levant Seas, and the just ac•
tion, which was fought in so grand, so consummate,
and so distinguished a manner. Lord Liverpool in
speaking of the Copenhagen Expedition, used these
words—" If the expedition were as unjust and unnecessary
as I think it just and necessary, or as impolitic and
unwise us I think it politic and wise, still I contend that
this would be no ground of opposition to a vote
of thanks to those who so ably executed their com-
mission.—(Cheers). Such were the words of Lord
Liverpool, and let those gentlemen who look at the experi-
ment with an inclination to find fault with the
performers dram between the' policy and the performance
the same generous and wise distinction, which Lord
Liverpool drew upon that occasion. Mr. Perceval,
a gentleman well acquainted with the forms of the
House, and practised in debate. Speaking of the
saute expedition, used these words :—" I hope this
House will not refuse their thanks to Officers,
because they had to perform a painful and heartbreaking
duty." Lord Castlereagh, a man of not less ingenuity
than either of those of whom I have spoken—
a man who had the honour of speaking to this House
in a manner perfectly intelligible to it, said, " It is due
to the Army to look only to the execution of
the distinct service committed to their charge,
but it was due, not only to the army and the navy,
but, mu point of justice, to those Gentlemen of this
House who differ from his Majesty's Ministers, but are as

anxious as any others to bear as warm testimony to the
meritorious conduct of the army and navy, but who might
find it difficult to do so if the merits of the army and the
Navy were not submitted to their consideration uncoil.-
nected with the policy of Ministers, to draw the line
between the policy of a measure, and the conduct of those
charged with the exectition of it."—(hear, hear, hear.
If such a course, Sir, was adopted towards the army awl
navy for their skill and ability in the execution of the ex
pedition to Copenhagen; if on that occasion all party po-
litics were to be deprecated—the conduct of 3linisters left
out of sight—how much higher grounds were there in the
present instance for following a similar line of conduct to-
wants our brave countrymen for the skill and bravery dis-
played by them at Navarin ? Let, the House bear in mind
how the expedition to Copenhagen was spoken of by some
of the most distinguished Members of Parliament at that
period. Lord Sidmouth designated it "an outrage."
Lord Grenville denounced it as "au indelible disgrace to
this. country." Mr. Windham and Dr. Laurence both
termed it " ala.sting monument of disgrace." Mr. Whit-
bread branded it as " a treacherous and base aggression "
on our parts. Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Tierney, and other dis
tinguished Members of Parliament spoke of it in cor-
responding language of obloquy and condemnation. Yet
all this, Sir, did .net prevent a Vote of Thanks being
passed in this House to.the army and navy engaged in the ex-
ecution of that expedition. " In the House of Lords, no di-
vision teak place on the vote. There was indeed an objec.
tion taken to that vote by Lords Holland and Gm,
and other Noble Lords, the principal ground of which was;
that thanks were notenilY'voted to-the army-it/0i Wire en.
gaged, but also to the navy who had no 'opportunity:of dise
playingtheir skill on that occasion. Indeed IbelieVe that
there was a single shot fired from any °four large 'ship-
dtiring thatetpetlition, and whatever naval 'warfare took
:place was eon fined to g ctri-beiats 'and
.bortib-veiseli. In 11.71 -
'of those objections made on that occasion there, or in an
of thejiroteste entered' info,'there was no_ attempt made tt:'
make, the troeipi engaged in the exvetliiion "responiible foi."
'any thing more than fir the'faittifol performance of the dtit
assigned them. • In the divisloo which took place in di
House, on the vote of thanks, and in the minority on which
division I observe the names of the present Secretary for
Foreign 'Affaira (Lord DtidleV) and my Honourable Col.
league (Sir F. Burdett)—ilieir opposition rested on the
fact of there being no naval action to justify a vote of
thanks to the Navy. This consideration, together
with the overwhelming superiority of our force—the
imbecile resistance made to it, and the whole exploit, in
which, after four days', fighting there were not more than
300 killed, did not, in the estimation of those who op-
posed that vote, constitute an achievement of that character
which entitled troops engaged in it to the express approba-
tion of Parliament. Notwithstanding the difference of opi-
nion which prevailed upon this subject, the expedition was
made the subject of congratulation in the King's Speech ;
yet no such expression of congratulation in the Royal Speech
respecting the achievements of Admiral Codrington,
which, as far as related to the glory of the British
arms, and to the iuterests of civilization and huma-
nity, was far more calculated than the expedition to Co-
penhagen to warrant the expression of national congratu-
lation, and to call forth the expression of national gratitude.
—(Cheers.)—lt is on account of this omission of congra-
tulatory expression in-the Royal Speech, and because no
Member of his Majesty's Government has proposed a suit-
able acknowledgement to our, brave countrymen, that I,
Sir—in Independent Member of Parliament—may, I trust
be excused and justified in calling forth such an acknow-
ledgment of the sense which this House entertains of their
"meritorious conduct. I would remind the House, that die
action of Navarin was in consequence of instructions which
"emanated from the late lamented and illustrious individual
Mr.
,Canning, who, if no unfortunate accident had befallen
the country in his spirit being withdrawn from the Coun-
cils of the nation—if lie had not been removed between
the period of issuing his instructions and the glorious
execution of themwould not have permitted the ser-
vices of those, by whom those instructions were exe-
euted, to pass unacknowledged and. Unrewarded.—
That same Minister (Mr. Canning) was in office when
the Copenhagen expifion was performed—it was planned
(at least it hoe always 'been so understood) by Mr. Can-
ning, who was Secretary" :for Foreign Affairs at the time;
and if he had not continutelin office from its commence-
ment-to-its close, it is not improbable that the vote of
thanks which were passed to Lord Cathcart and Admiral
Gambier would not have been carried in the manner in
which it had been through both Houses of thelegislature.
Thus it was—that if any Minister was to issue instruc-
tions, and to reinain in power until those instructions were
fulfilled' then the Admirals and Officers employed in the
public service received the public thanks of Parliament.
But if, between the issuing of the instructions and the ful-
' filment'of them, the Minister was put out of power—if he
was unfortunately removed by death, then it. was not, it
would seem, deemed necessary-or advisable by those who
succeeded •him- to convey the expression of the public
thanks for the execution of orders emanating froM their
predecessors in power. This rendered- it doubly incum-
bent- on independent 'Members of Parliament to call the
attention- of the House to those services, respecting
which (as in the present instance) his Majesty's Govern-
ment may not be- diiposed to "originate a motion expressive
of the national sentiment. If Votes of Thanks were to
be given -or 'withheld' agreeably to 'any charge which,
through accident or otherwise, may take-place in the Go-
vernesent of the-country, it would reduce the value of them
to a mere plaything, and would, be, in effect, to surrender the
character and the valour of our Army and Navy as victims
to unworthy political squabbles: If Mr. Canning had still
beeurspared—if he remaned to stand by' those who con-
quered at Nivarin; as he stood by those -engaged in the Co-
penhagen Expedition—theirservices would not be permit-.
ted to pass without suitable acknowledgment. But his sun
was set. After it had gone down, wine faint
"reflections
of its light, for a time, were Seen above the horizon, and it
cwas hoped that the spirit which he bad infused into the
councils of his country would continue to animate them ;
yet, tam not without the hope, that-they who have suc-
ceeded him Will carry into complete faithful execution the
Provisions of the Treaty of 'London, by which they, too,
have deClared themselves bound. - Let the House consider,
that the motion to which I now call for their assent, is in
strict conformity with What has already lieen-in part done.
It only, requires of them to follow up the expresaion of rip-
', probation-of the conduct-of out nai,y, which all concurrent
testimonies from different *falters fully show that it
eminently merits. Let us see what took place on the first
arrival in this country of the 'victory at Navarin.—
The intelligence of the victory reached London on the
-10th of November ; and on the 13th a proof was given in
the Gazette of the full approbation of the Admiralty and
Ministers of that day, of the Conduct of Admiral Codring-
ton. There appeared in the Gazette the folloviing :—" The
King has been pleased to nominate and appoint Vice-Ad-
miral.Sir Edward Codrington, Knight Commander
.or the
Most Honourable Military Order of the Bath, to -be a
Knight Grand Cross of the said Most Honourable Order ;
and the King has been also pleased to appoint the 'limier-
mentioned Officers in the Royal Navy to be Companions of
the gild, Most Honourable Military Order of the Bath."
This himOrary- distinctionO was extended to four Captains
and seven Conimanders; This was an Unequivocal testi-
mony of the Royal approbation, and of the Ministers then
in office, of his conduct. After this cordial expression of
the Royal approbation 01 the Officers which had already
been given, what -'hjection could there be now to follow it
up by the Thanks of this House? Is it to the instructions
of Ministers that objections is now taken? If it would not
be contended (as I presume it ' will not), that the officers
fulfilled their instructions faithfully, the only other opposi-
tion that can be taken is to the original instructions, from
which Admiral Codrington did not depart, and according
Fto the tenor of which he strictly acted. It is to
he regretted, that that approbation which our gra'
cious Sovereign express?cl in the first instance was pot /of'
lowed by corresponding sentiments in the Royal SpeoTh at
the beginning of the Session. This would have been,,rn
formable to the testimonies which have poured
tenai
notwithstdin
land from all quarters, and have been really em
be
the gallant conduct of our seamen, ntheue
forgeries and fallacies of the Austrian Obsery an.g. And,
_et
il
es a further reason why that sentiment of Royal approb a_
tion should be preserved, an investigation,iie victory t shou at d
.N be
remembered, bad been instituted since t
t
warm. Sir John Gore had been sent out to inquire into
the
that
gallant ofiee,
circumstances
of the course adopted by Ad-
miral Codriugton. That the report of Sir John Gore con-
tained such a confirmation was borne out
,by the answer
fethiatt tt o o the
b e assumed, confirmed in
every respect the prop was
riety battle. The report of
given to me on a former night; and of which answer the
present motion is the consequence. The Noble Lord .(Pal-
:

• •
- •
metston) replied to a-41roO. fronsAine, t it wan not
intended to publish the ltiscitt broinehttee:tl s country by
Sir John Gore ; and,e, the Noble Leid added, it 'father
reply to my questionantliat it was not the intention:of Go-
vernment to proposeany vote of thanks upon the subject..
The Noble Lord added, no blame was imputable in env quarter
—not certainly to Admiral Codrington. This, t'herefore,
justifies me in the position that he is free from blame.
—But, besides the subsequent investigation 'instituted by
Sir John Gore, and the authority of the Noble Lord, of the
Gallant Admiral's exemption from all blame, I have the
additional fact that he is still retained in the chief com-
mand of the Mediterranean. The Noble Duke at etc head
of the Administration ie an eacelleut judge in what oaring-to
the carrying of military orders into effect; arid sure I ern
that if this Gallant Admiral exceeded his strict order:, the
Noble Duke (Wellington) would not retain him in his pre-
sent cominando--(Hear.)—Beeides the Noble Duke. there
was the Right Hon. Secretary for the Colonial Depart-
ment, and other Members who sat near him, who were
parties
htoett thee issuing of these orders,
Calf tot offie
carry the orders given him into effect. 'The testimony
of the Noble Duke is so strongly corroborative of the
conduct of Admiral Codrington, that the House I arn
laeedrisd,
snore and
than cou ldi d 0-
air
Clare wl7
tration: " Ile (the Duke of Wellington) did tint mein to
ssutartee'dNiviiillhigsrpanlatcleneinit
Parliament,
s indulgence,w
a sHlßeltedlo7ptheeatzhmaitnite.
cast the slightest imputation upon the Gallant AdteairalS
by
whom the battle of Navarin was so gloriously acineend.—
No such thing ; on the contrary, both his Majesty and' his
-Ministers acquitted him of all blame, and felt -that in doing
as lie had done, he had fully and ably discharged his nuty
to his country. Their Lordships should recollect that the
fmt ht'elis:aet toabseo
Gallantc i
Gallant Admiral had been placed in a very delicetn and
difficult situation, associated as he was with two • foeeign
Admirans; but he acquitted himself in a matinee which tiro
credit alike to himself and his country, and which Sonnired
fur him the confidence and esteem of the great Powers esift:l
_whFiceehlisnvge
theate associated
ffi case,in thathi.:,„
_T shouldr e(rafteya.
r;-::nh(
:Hiaderea. tr
in,sB
self
single
effizoe
redvhdicerhohlatetohrayd tthoe,:ltihorcuhar
theiti.lda,niaf
uh„enrwluietetreestrbedyo oaf
stiteg
u.hi
was the testimonyntf the dim Minister of the, Cider
aine4onen. ne,. it eliould be. reeollected, than eselinstonlin e
was no man living who better knownhifte- fareatrenniteirtrefn
go in iutrepiditywith esafety toshis ,coutitreen—ninenee)oee
Than whom no. person coed_ more appropsnannnesoeikurn
ontehe due propontion of coningeseolevalcitren
.whionnnenneironaneler.nriay display, behrenanb-
jected 7to the imputation -of I njur na(-fleer. )
.r..--Te.,the,testiniony. of; the ,ofes-Wellingtrennt let
Jae .edinnhat of the Noble Lord (Dudley); ' the &fere-
tary of.state for, .Foreigh.Affairs, to: whose-delnertrient
the consideration of this subject properly belonged.
Noble Friend (Carnarvoc) states," said the Noble Secre-
tary, " that it is necessary, for the vindication of the -cha-
racter of the Gallant Admiral who commanded at the
battle of Navarin, and of the officers who served Maslen
him. My answer to that is—that it hue not been attacked.;
that Sir Edward Codringtun does not stand in need of
vindication. lie was engaged in a most important en--
vice, and he has the high reward of a meritorious discherga
of his duties; therefore, as far as regards his Sovereign
the Government, he stands in uo need of e indication."—
In addition to the testimonies of the Duke of 'Wellington
and Lord Dudley, I will add that of Lord Clonerick, the
head of the late Administration. What was his teetimony
as to the conduct of Admiral Cudrington ? wane (Adini-
ral Codeington)," said Lord Goderich, " had been niaced
in circumstances of no ordinary difficulty—be had poi
formed his duty like a man. In his (Lord (ins) opinion
he had exercised a sound discretion, and had ably sup-
ported his own character, as well as the lionour'and glory
of his-country." Such wen) the testimonies borne to the
character and conduct of this Gallant Officer by those - who
had official opportunities of forming the best judgment of
it. The Marquess of Lansdowne—than whom there was
not a more upright and noble-iniuded man in the country—
united his opinion to those already cited, in approbation of
Sir Edward Codringtou. "He (Lord Lansdowne) felt it
his duty to declare, that if any blame attached any whets,
most assuredly it was not on the Gallant Officer-who corn-
naended the fleet. When all the documents connected
with this transaction were known,• the House Well:14
!),-: convinced with him, that the Gallant Officer
wisely understood, and fairly exercised hie dieere-
nos under the circumstances in which he was placed:"
Relying on these testimonies, which, corresponding
as they do, to all other testimonies of his conduct
on this memorable occasion, I rest my present Motion,
uncoonected with Government as I amn-acting as art
independent Member of Parliament, without concert with
iny party, I might almost add, unconscious of the support
of troy Member in the House, and throwing myself for
whatever support toy motion may receive on the just prin-
ciples and generous feelings which dwell in the bosoms of
en meembly of English Gentlemen_(Cheera.) It is in
the fnli reliance of these principles and feelings, and in
the absence of all imputation upon the Gallant Ofneer; ei-
ther for rashness, for a departure noun or watt of diem-
lion, of bravery, or of skill, and in the presence of all coo-
current and confirming testimony, which establisher. the
inverse of such an imputation, that I rest my motion fox
congratulation and thanks for au exploit, which was alike
proud for the arms of the country, which by it were preen
-served untarnished, and glorious to humanity, for the sake
of whose interests it was achieved. It iaa source of ro-
sret, that the authentic public documents connected with
this exploit are not made public ; but from such prink
locuments—the common and ordinary sources of ittelli-
gence_as we do possess—there has been (without a single
lifference of opinion) an expression of full and entire cone
iidence in the skill and merits of our Officer. 'I he Ros-
dan and French Admirals, generously waving, any aeon-
deration or claim of precedence, which they might have
put forward, as superiors in rank to Sic E. Codrington,
who oilly held, the rank cif Vice-Arbuirid, placed a ready
sonfideuce in him, andwere led on by him to victory.this generous and cordial junction of the Allied Powers
.in such an occasion, presented an inviting opportudity
,0 his 3lajestv to introduce an expression of favour and of
niendship towards our good Allies, ite gratifying confirrea-
.esal:'
non of the assurance given to us bf the turns of peacenand
unityon uponnd scope wdch
fo
Caerewi th theta.
led to the banishment of all party jealousies, and afforded
,4
e the
indulgence i
theStsxuephresasnioalnlcia:inci:
eunourable pride and just exultation at a conquest whicle
enlike conquests generally, left uo cause to weep, on ae
eounteof . the. great good which that exploit achieved for
the general interests of humanity, • without delivering up
nay part of the civilized community of Europe.,-(Cheer,)
—But no such gratifying congratulation was contained in
the Royal Speech; and this omission is the more deserving
al notice, as the naine of Lord Exmouth, for the bombard-
ment of Algiers, was introduced into the Royal Speech,
ind a congratulatory mention made of it; although I must
~ay, that the service of that Noble Lord did not poesese
stronger claims to the Royal favour, and to the national
natitudc, than the services of Admiral,Codrington.at the
aattle of Naverin, And this it is :that constitutes. one of
he principal features of my cage, that that- notice and that
eimmendation have not been bestowed upon the victory of
.Savarin, which on former, occasions- victories, certainly
rot of superior or equal importance, called forth. Sir; it
ina very nseuliarnand a very felicitous circumstance of tins
:axe, that wefiptl.high and distinguished persons of othe
eountries, place/ in a situation which rendered them excel -
ent judges of Or Edward Cedrington's conduCt on tine
memorable-m:o44mi, concur in expressing their admiration
'if that conduct In terms of the moss unqualified character.
inn not aware whether or not it is & usage on tee pares:of
iningeto write personally to private individuals but :un-
loubtedly, his Majesty ehe Errinernr
o, Russia did noteon-
ider it as derogatory from his dignity to addresnto out
Gallant Admiral a letter, which is so eloquent and feeling
in effusion, that lam sure time House se.ill pardon -me if I
low read it to theme. The
letter, which was written a few
lays after the Emperor received an ant-aunt of On battle,
is as follows

„ l'actvie vt.d.
Europa ought to be doubly
to b memorable battle . of Navarin, and
the bujonaoceuvres which preceded it, evince to the wcrll
wt 00/ the extent of the 3ual of Three .Great. Powers in
oour d a cause, the noble character of whioh isatill morn
ieightened by their own disinterestedness ; but also prove
.rbst can be effected by firmness, though opposed to num-
e•iii.ocantOtifruyi
wig; and what a well-directed valour can accomplish
,gainst blind courage, with whatever force that courage_
'lay be supported. Your name, from this time. brward,
to
,lorglory'url icphte surrounds
.ant mark of the gratitude and esteem which you have in_
pined in Russia. With this view I send to you herewith
~osritynity. praiseEtt roust shouloci ffe b
r but
to youe tanbrthile-
;re Military Order of St. George. The Russian Navy
proud of having obtained your commendation at Navarin;
lid, on my part, I feel the most lively pleasure in thus as-
'ring you of the seutiments of censideration which I eu--
:rtain towards you.
(Signed) ” NICHOLAS."
ir, besides this decisi%e and unequivocal proof of the ap-
robation of the Emperor of Russia, of Admiral Coating-
,ii's conduct, a letter was written a tray or two after by
;ount de Nesselrode to Count de Heiden which goes stilt
irther ; her in that letter Count de Nesselrode informs
omit de Heiden, that his Maje.ty the Emperor of Russia.
As charged him to address to the Prince de Lieven a de?-

per, by which that kinbassidoi is directed to declare
1,0 the Government of hie'Britannie -Majesty, that in the
-tpinion of the Emperor, the measures resorted to on the
part of Sir E. Codrington were as just and beneficial as his
oOndact was admirable." In a subsequent passage of the
letter, Count de Nesselrode says to Count de Heiden, " Should
there be no ship for the zoonient adapted to the command
of Sir E. Codrington, and he consent to hoist his flag on
board- a ship of the line belonging to his Imperial Ma-
y' Will,place et hies disposal all-those composing our
equar4Ps Ind assurtehina that the EMperor would consider
fittlence on board-one of our Vessels as a distinguished
.bOteur conferred on the Russian Navy." Nor, Sir, was
His Majesty the Emperor of Russia;with a con-
aeseenaion which I one7erstood is not usually shown in such
a manner, gave directions to.- Count de Nesselrede to in-
quire of Count de Heiden in what possible way his Majesty
could confer a mark of honour and distinction on the son
of Sir E. Codrington, who was wounded " or, that glorious
day." sir, I cannot help thinking that all these letters
and:meesiges'must be considered as affording an undeniable
proof of what was the opinion upon this subject of-a per-.
savage who is as riemrousa judge in such matters, and as
capable of fortnityg a sound opinion respecting them, as any
human being tiering. What teas the case with the French
Court ? Tleat his Majesty the King of France lost no time,
in confere.ng en Sir E. Cedringtor, one of the hiee,hist'dig-
nitit's his power to bestow.; This 'was followed by
anotter circumstance, which lam told by sonic friends of
who are acquainted with the etiquette generally
bhserved in such cases; is far from being a usual oe-
' ceirretice; namely, that when an Officer, deputed by Sir
E. Codrington, evoked upon the King of France, to convey
oar Gallant Admiral's thanks for the honour which he had
received, his Majesty conferred an Order Of a less distin-
gniehed character on the gentleman who had been so de-
puted. Sir, why do I mention all these particulars ?, I
mention them to show that' if we are backward in expres-
' sing our admiration of the gallant conduct of Sir E. Co-
arineton, we are the sole party of the different parties in-
terested by whom the slightest approach to any such feeling
ie entertained. If we do not by our vote of this night,
confer on Sir E. Codringtnt, the honour of our grateful ac:
knowledgments for his gallant and Spirited conduct 4t Na.-
varire, it will be said that this country alone, of all the
countries of Europe, is insensible to the splendour of the
achievement. Our ingratitude will be • the marvel and
wonder of; the world. 'lt will begin- to be suspected
that rA have some particular reascu for oar neglect.
it
•teill begin to he suspected that we are aware of
tome eircurnstaneee connected with the battle, not known to
.others, which induce-us, intereeted as wen-totally must be
in every thing which relaters to- the horin erof our coun-
try, to withhold that approbation and that expression of
gratitude, the refusal of which, melee ny other supposi-
tion, is wholly unaccountable. with respect to the
battleitself,•everyenan -who hears pie" is AO well acquainted
with all the particulars relating to it, that:l i±h3ll not think
it necessary to:trouble the House fly going into any minute
eletais on the subject.. lam quite aseare, that on for Mer
occasions, wheo any of his Majesty's Ministers have pro
posed votes of a similar nature, they have always accom-
panied the -proposition by_ taking a short view of the eire
cametaneesattending. the achievement in question. But I.
see around me seeinany individuale, much more
.qualified
-chart I. can •be to speak oe such tripiee- (and arromig them
eeveral• old antlgaliant: Admirals; theniailtes of the highest
renown in their-profession, and whose knowledge will ena—
ble them to dtugaibe they various events of:-the battleilluch'
more satisfactorily than I can pretend_ to do),• that I shall
s,onsi,ler it sufficient Merely. to say, that the House must.he
rennin.; that, shortly- aftee Site.Flyard Codrington was sent
to the Levant, lie:coin:M-red in establishing the armistice
LetWren:elle Grille S and the. Turks. SupposingeNery na-
turally; thet,the ferrirs'of the armistice woulll be kept with
gOod faith •on leiith sides, Si,- Edward sent most of the
King's ships Mohr his comoiand to Malta torefit. Shortly
afterwards, however, he found that the. Pasha
who conneanded the Turkish- fleet, did not entertain the
notions of the nature of the arniistice that he himself'
did. The Paella despatched a squadron to relieve the
Terke, Nrho were at that time besieged at Patras by a.
Greek force. 'Although Sir Edward Codrington had with
but -only a single ship of the line, e frigate and tnie core
e-ettee; he immediately sailed in pursuit of the Turkish Ernie-
demi, and, in the mosenehuhted manner, placed. Mini& be-
tween time Turks and the shore, in order to prevenftbein keen
carrying their object into effect. In pursuance of the same
determination, nod .finding that it' was eta the :intention of
'het_ Turks -to adhere to the centlitions of '.the armistice,-
it E. Codringtou immediately sent orders to the British
ebips--are Malta- to =complete-their refitting 'wale elf posts-'ble speed. these orders. Were 'Obeyed with. 'an alitea-ity
highly, ceeslitablo to all parties;
.and the murse: of six
-deys, he whole; proceeded to: juin -their Callao .Admiral.l
otglit noW, perhaps, Sir, to mention the comparatiee
force of the contending parties previous to the battle.. The:
Qttornaii 'flea consisted of • three sail of the • line, -four
double-banked frigates, seienteet frigates; forty-nine' cdt-:
vettez, and eight fireeshipse'. being' in-:all eighty-ene vessels'
.uf Ware Weider, fourteen: transyortif 'These-Nebo' are at-
quairited with time place knowevitt)thoSe'l46 are-not nea),.
!observe on ...e.TirainiA the tnaprtita in_ the -bay ef .NeVari I
there rite-ti any 'veiy-forniidkle teitieriee.. By. those of Nev
Navarin many-dives were titifoitiniately lost in the event.'
The Allied Wed Consisted of ten eitikeaf3thee_ilde, ten
frigates, and si4ecorvettee;e:et2leing AvientV4ixeveasele of
veer. The number guise in_the Turkish squadron was
•
-2,240; mirraier the Onibined refifedrote: 1354 e,
_'There were ,ttre.erstikiih itr%:attdi title 'Without
ee.aggeratioreo therefore; Finityezfairly say that 'de
'victory .which followed ee-*`•iie'prOtecirbotictis the extent r
the force engaged, one of the nrogeeplendid 'urn • record.
Let us
,now see:what-Ave -the- loss of e the -Cenibine,/
squadrons':_

Killed. . Wounded.
The English
lilt french
Thi.7.. Russian IA 1:37

175 478 '
It appeias, Sir, that the Asia, forming the van of the fleet,
and commanded by the Gallant British Admiral; altiitist
with her own broadsides destroyed two of the hostile line-
of-battle ships. And here I beg\leave to Mention, on un-
doubted testimony, a-fa-ct which' I believe has already ap-
peared in the public prima, that twice during - the •aeticin
the quarter (leek Of the Asia was cleared, with the of Sir Edward Codrington himself, who was left upon
it alms...—(Heara hear.)-13ut what in there of wonderful
heroic, achievinent which British seamen have not.exhi-
bited ' Pei haps the House will forgive me if I mention
another anecdote, which shows in the clearest point of view
the cordial union :that existed among the three flags It
will he recollected that a twenty-eight gun frigate, the
Talbot, bore down, and etigiiga4l for ,nearly an hour tno
turkialnahips of heavy metal, carrying together sixty-fotir
some ;,,and whose fire was consequently very *destructive En
the British frigate. It was also to be recollected that Cap-
tain Hugon of the French frigate, the Amide, seeing the
condition of the Talbot, nobly 'placed his ship between
her and oneof the Turkish vesseli, which he soon ea*
turerl. What I wish to add to these well known facts is
this —When Captain Hugon pulled down the Turkish
flag, such were the. generosity and delicacy of the Galla9t
Frenchman, that he did not hoist the French flag alone, lit
!mistral the French and British flags united; thereby int/-
malting that he bad only terminated the contest which oar
brave'conntri'men had begun —(Loud cries of "hear, heat,
parts ofahe Hose).o
hear !" from all I mention this, Sir,
as a proof of the great union that existed among the
reptadrons ; union which was not confined to the action
iteslfa- but which 'evinced itself in all the subsequent N.-
enrrtnees. sir, I think that what 1 have said on this
part of the subject is quite sufficient, for the purpose of
showing the character of this brilliant. achievement ; which,
indeed, was thus justly described in the general orders
'sealed by Sir Edward ''Codrington on leaving the Bay of
Naval*
on the
24th
of October Out of a fleet corn-
',coed, of 81 &hips of war,' -otll3l ,one; frigate and -ifteen
smaller vessel& are in a condition which' will ever alloit,
them,agaiis to go to sea." 'llepeat, that I am perfectlt
3"."'5°1 ccintending,.. that; considering . the amount -siff
force
engaged, glens is no naval action in our annals the ra4
suit of which was so
coMpletely decisive, and on the mcriti
of which iris utterly,
impossible that there can be any di4
ference oPinion-s--(llear, hear. ) I have also a right td
aay, that we.hays the best Proof of the merit and value of
this action, not only in. the destruction of the fleet to which
the Allied Sri latirons 'tuna opposed, hut-aiso to the iiteseut
condition of things. since the action thert, has been an
almost total ceosation, of warlike cud hostile proceedings._
Everithing has been. tranqUilliied.• I uuderstood from the
latest ,accounts; that,• in these' parts where but recently
nothing but piracy and the must flagrant acts of violence
wereaperPetrated, the state of affairs is such, both on land
and at sea, as to afford every prospect ser
that to,ious obstacle
wilt interpose itself to the 'complete exeCtitilin Of the 'treaty.
of London, to the pacification of .the-GrAlls, and to the
settlement of those questions by which that Cthintry has.
been so long agitated—(Hear, hear.)—A*r all this, 5;4,4
I hope that I shall. not find any person inclined to deny;
that the individual to whom to. much of, public benefit is,
attributable is not entitled:to public gratitude. It is true;
that I heard something dropped the other evening- of its
only having been a " barbarous" force --that Sir Edivardi
Codrington had to. contend with. A barbarous force
Look at the number of killed and wounded in the coutesti.
with. this barbarous force. If these objectors talk of a bar-.
ltarous force, what, pray, are the Algerines, for chaetisiia:

whom Lord Exmouth received the thanks of both Houses
,f Parliament? If 'they talk of a barbarous force, what,
piay, are the Indians ; victories over whom have repeat-
...di), been-rewarded with the thanks of both Houses of Par-
liainent ; although in comparison with the Turks the In-
:liana are not better than the Picts and Savages who for-
,nerdy peopled Britain ? I contend, and with justice, that
,he recent struggle was a great one; but I can mention
various cases from which it is evident that the greatness of
the struggle has not been usually considered as the criterion
by Which to determine the propriety of voting Parlia-
,nent.2ry approbation. For example, there was the affair
of Copenhagen. The Danish fleet made no resistance.
Not a shot was fired by our navy ; yet our Admiral re.
ceived the thanks of both Houses of Parliament. There
have been many similar cases. Admiral Bertie and Ad-
miral Stopford were thanked by Parliament merely for
their cordial co-operation with the army in India, al.
though - the navy was not actually engaged in hostilities.
AdMiral Keith was thanked for his assistance in - land-
ing troops; Admirals de Courcy and Wood for their coo.
duet- in the embarkation of the British army at Corunna.
Adiniral Fuller received the thanks of Parliament for pre-
venting the recapture of CorsiCa. As he was a Member
of this House; he'was thanked in person ; and being a man
whoie modesty was equal to his courage, in expressing his
gratitude for the honour which he had received, he quali-
fied the service whiCh he had performed with the word
"advantage." It is true that in the case of Sir George
ilvng, in 1718, no Parliamentary thanks were voted ; but
sir, I find, upon examining the public records of those'
times, that thanks were hardly ever voted to the navy by
Parliament. Prom the time of Admiral Blake, in the
period of the Commonwealth, to the time of Admiral Os-
borne, in 1758, there does not appear to have been any
vote of thanks to the navy. The thanks of Parliament
were confined to Marlborough and to-. the army. I now
Wish to apply myself to the observations which fell the other
evening froin the Noble Secretary at War on this subject.
The Noble Lord said, lie should object to this vote be-
catiSe there was no precedent of thanks having been voted,
when the country over whose forces the victory had keen at-
-1 ehieved was a neutral State. The instance of Copenhagen ap-
pears to me to be a complete answer to the Noble Lord's ob-
'serration. It is acknowledged by all parties, that at the
time of the Copenhagen affair a perfect neutrality ex-
isted towards this country on .the part of the Danes.
The justification of our conduct, which was set up
upon that occasion, was not that the Danes were neutral,
but that they were too weak to resist any attempt by France
to avail itself of their naval. means. The best proof that
Denmark was considered neutral, appears in the fact, that
feWer than three hundred Danish merchants having ap-
plied to the Crown, Prince to ascertain if their ships would
be safe in the ports of this country, were told by him that
they would of course be safe, as the neutrality of Denmark
.had been acknowledged by Great Britain. If the relations
of Turkey with this country justify the refusal to thank
. Sir Edward Codrington for the victory of Navarin, the
relation of Denmark with this country would-have justified,
a refusal to thank our .Commanders for the affair at Copen-
hagen... But this is not the only instance of this nature.
There Is another, as complete. I allude to the attack on
Algiers by Lord Exmouth. There are many points of strong
resemblance hetWeen the circumstances of the attack on Al-
giers, and those of the attack on. the Turkish fleet at Navarin.
The former was preceded by a league formed among the
Christian Sovereigns of Europe, for the purpose of putting
down the outrages of the African Powers, and tranquilliz-
ing the Mediterranean. The late occurrence was also pre-
ceded by a league to tranquillize the Mediterranean. In
fulfilment of the contiitions of the former league, the Bri-
tish Admiral sailed into the Mediterranean with a united

squadron and appeared before Tunis and Tripoli, where he
amicably adjusted all matters in dispute. He then procee-
ded to Algiers. In the first.instance, the Dey seemed dis-
pty,ed to agree to the propositions made to him. For two
or three days, Lord Exmouth was induced to believe that
it would be unnecessary to resort to any violent measure.
In the intermediate time,. however, came news of the mas-
i.acre of a number of Christians in the territories of the
Dey. Lord Exmouth hesitated no longer ; he entered the
harbour of Algiers, and completed the object of his mis-
sion. • And What said his Majesty's Ministers, and what
said the King himself on the subject? On the meeting of
Parliament the Session was opened by a Speech from the
'Throne, in which the Prince Regent, acting in the name
and on behalf of his Majesty, uttered these remarkable
words

" The splendid achievement of his Majesty's fleet, in
conjunction with a squadron of the King of the Nether-
lands, under the gallant and able conduct of Admiral Vis-
count Exmouth, led to the immediate and unconditional
liberation of all Christian captives then within the terri-
tory of Algiers, and to the renunciation by its Government
of the practice of .Christian Slavery. lam persuaded that
you will be duly sensible of the importance of an arrange-
merit, SQ interesting to humanity, and reflecting, from the
manner in which it has been accomplished, such signal
honour on the British Nation."

..;Theseworda, Sir, with-a very trifling alteration, would
riply exactly to !lc victory of .Navarin. And when Lord
Castlereagh moved the thanks of the House of Commons to
Lord Exinouth for his gallant conduct, he said that " he
'Wag snie the. House would feel a peculiar gratification in
seeing the arms of Holland united with' ours for the gene-
ral liberties of mankind." So in the attack on the Turks
of Navarin. Was nut its object the general liberties of
mankind ? Was not its purpose that of reading a severe
lesson to those who were snowing themselves the enemies
of those liberties ? In speaking of the attack on Algiers,
Lord Castlereagh said—" There never was a military
transaction, the character of which, in all its bearings,
redounded more to the honour of every individual con-
cerned in it; for though the enemy might be inferior in
scientific excellence, and the knowledge of modern war-
fare, yet sufficient proof was given during the battle that
the' arm of this country was never turned against a foe
more capable of opposing an obstinate and fierce resistance."
What can be more true than this passage of Lord Castle-
reagh's
speech, . as applied to the foe with whom Sir Ed-
wifd Codrington had to contend? The motion made by
Lord.Castlereagh was seconded by an ingenious young gen-
tleman of great talent and eloquence, Mr. Law. What
has since become of that young gentleman, whether in his
maturer years he has realised the promise of his more
youthful days, it does not become me to inquire.—(A
laugh.)—Mr. Law, in the course of his observations on the
occasion to which 'I have alluded, made use of this appro-
priate phrase—" It was a noble enterprise, brilliantly
achieved, in a great cause." Sir, I beg to say that these
words of that eloquent young gentleman, Mr. Law,
are strictly applicable to the battle of Navarin ;—it
was " a noble enterprise, brilliantly achieved, in a great
cause." ' Vie 'lumber of men killed in the attack on Al-
giers was leis than the number killed in the battle of Na-
varin ; although the number of wounded was greater in the
former than in the latter affair. But the question before
us is not a question of loss or resistance (although, in both
those respects, the battle of Navarin may challenge compa-
rison with any other conflict of a siAsilar character) ; the
question is, whether or not the achievement, reflects ho-
nour upon those by whom it was performed ; perfectly
leaving alone the question as to the policy of the measure?
I say that it did reflect the highest honour upon those by
whom it was performed ; I say, that after the high testi-
mony which has been borne to that fact, Parliament can-
not refuse to express its gratitude, unless something
hitherto unknown can be brought forward to justify us in
passing over what, I repeat, in the words of that ingenious
and eloquent young gentleman, Mr. Law, was " a noble
enterprise, brilliantly achieved, in a good cause."-(Hear,
hear, hear. )__Sir, I have been endeavouring to discover
what can be the objection of those persons who oppose my
present proposition ; and I declare, • with time utmost since-
rity, that I cannot understand or conjecture what that obs
jection can possibly be. Sir Edward Codrington's con,
duct deserves either praise or great blame. ' There can be
no ruediuni. If I thought the Admiral acted contrary to
his instructions, I would propose to censure him; but
knowing as I know, and as we all know, that
he did not do 60, . I must persevere -in .main-
taining that he . has most richly earned our. ap-
plause. 'lt has occurred to me as junk poSsible that some.:
Body may say that the House of Comn'ons ought not to
thank Sir E. Codrington, because, by so doing, we should
exasperate Turkey. It is possible that there may be two
or three worthy old gentlemen in this country who ima7
gine that_the Reis Effendi sits every morning sipping his
coffee with the Times newspaper in his hand, reading the
' debates in the English House of
Commons with the most
sensitive attention to, their, tenour, His possible that these
worthy persons zuly. fancy, ..that of all people who have
pursued a mad policy,, the- Turks are the most mad ; that
iiltsoulasl 'beating they received -at
t be unaffected by the loss of their
navy,
:*aiuni y htth g
at overlook
they m the
but that they would be urged into all the fury of a
desperate revenge by a vote of the English House of Com-:
spent some time in
these 'worthy persons
mons. ' Sir, In my younger days I
TurkeY; and if the apprehension of
be true, then the " march of inteleet" hai made a greater
progress in that country than it,,ever did at any period in
any other part of the world. (A laugh.) Why, Sir,
while I was in habits of intercourse with a number of very.
respectable Muisulmans, I never met with ' more than omi
man whim had even ever heard of the English House of
Comiisens. (A laugh.) That individual, ".a man of ele
voted- rank, had a distinguished English and a distinguished
French Officer residing with him ; and from them he every]
day obtained information as to what Napoleon Was'about :

and as to what was passing at the various Courts of Eu-
rope. I remember that when this individual asked me if
I belonged to the English House of Commons, I was as
much astonished as I should have been if he bad asked me
some profound mathematical question, and I can assure
any one who may be alarmed lest by any vote of ours
we may chance to exasperate the Turks, that it would
require a great deal of ingenuity to make a Turk un-
derstand what the word " vote" means ; and that he
would be apt to think a great part of the explanation neces-
sary for that purpose what in this country is commonly
called " hoaxing." We need have no fear, therefore,
of exasperating the Turks by any vote of the English Par-
liament. But, sir, I will tell you how we may perhaps
have already exasperated them. To me it seems very
likely that the Grand Seignor will be greatly exasperated
when he finds himself called by the King of England "his
ancient ally." What ! the Brother of the Sun and Moon !
the Lord of the Black Sea! the Vicar of God upon Earth !
The Master of Millions ! To class him with a mere Lord
of Merchants! With the Master of Slaves, who are per-
mitted to sell scissors, and to buy raisins in the Levant!
That is indeed calculated to make the Grand Turk angry.
All those, Sir, who know as I know, the way in Which our
Ambassador at Turkey is treated, will feel how impossible
it is that the Grand Turk can for a moment condescend to
consider any Christian Sovereign as his ally or his friend.
Any one who has witnessed the painful ceremonial to which
I allude, will allow that it is impossible to express a greater
assumption of unmeasurable superiority than that which
the Turks evince towards our Ambassador at a public
audience at Constantinople. The fact is, Sir, that as to any
fear of exasperating the Turks by our vote, such fear there
can be none. If we wish to carry into effect the Treaty of
London, we need not be under any apprehension that the
negociation will be broken off by the House of Commons
passing a vote of thanks to Sir Edward Codrington.
There is only one thing of which we have reason to be
afraid ;—not of exasperating the Grand Seignior, but of
giving to Prince Metternich and the Austrian Cabinet
any reason to hope or expect that we are disposed in the.
least to flinch from our determination.—(Hear, hear.)
—lf there be the least danger of our negociations being
disturbed, that danger will proceed not from a vote of the
House of' Commons; but from a courier frcim Vienna.—
(Hear, hear, hear.) If, however, the Right Hon. Gentle-
men opposite and their colleagues concur in opinion that
there is only one way of carrying the policy hitherto pur-
sued by this country into' effect ;' namely, by determined
perseverance, I have no doubt that they will be able fully
to accomplish the. desirable object in view. Sir, I shall
take the liberty of including, in my proposed vote of
thanks, the Admirals commanding the French and Russian
squadrons.—t Hear, hear, hear.) In doing this I fallow
the precedents of former time, when the British Parliament
voted their thanks to the Admirals of the Netherlands and
of Spain. It is, no doubt, a great and glorious distinction
for us, that we are able to confer such honours as are es-
teemed not only by our fellow subjects, but by the subjects
of other countries. This is the great and glorious privi-
lege
of freemen. The' language used by his Grace the
Dnke of Wellington upon the occasion of the vote of thanks
for his services as Sir Arthur Wellesley, at Copenhagen,
was of the most beautiful description ; and, with the leave
of the House, I shall quote it :—" Mr. speaker, I
consider myself fortunate that I was employed by his
Majesty on a service which this House has considered-
of such importance as to have marked with its approba-
tion the conduct of those officers and troops who have per-
formed it. The honour which this House has conferred
upon my Hon. Friends and myself is justly considered by
'the Officers of the Navy and Army as the highest which
this country can confer; it is the object of the ambition of
all who are employed in his Majesty's service, and to ob-
tain it has, doubtless, been the motive of many of those
acts of valour and good conduct which have tended so ezni-

neatly to the glory and have advanced the prosperity and
advantage of this country." It is impossible, Sir, for- me
to add any thing to this eloquent expression on the part
of the Noble Dnke. But this is not the only instance in
which the Noble Duke has received the Thanks of this
House. Most of these Hon. Members must be aware
that he his publicly received the Thanks of the House
of Commons no less than eleven times.—(Hear, bear.)—
"He was thanked for Isis exertions at Vimeira, for his
services in Portugal, for ids services at Ciudad Ro-

drigo, at Vittoria, at Salamanca, at Pampluna, at Ba-
dajos, at his entrance into France, and, though last
not least, for the great services rendered to this
country by the battle of Waterloo, and his general
services during the war.—(Applause.) Then, Sir,
I ask whether it- is possible that the Noble Duke, after
having had such wreaths of laurel stuck around his brow,
will refuse to grant a single leaf to a gallant officer
(cheers), not belonging to his own but to a rival service ?
—a service however, where rivalry consisted in a contest
to see which could render most essential service to the in-

. .
terests, and best promote the glory of the country. (Hear,
hear, hear.) I will not, I cannot anticipate the rejection
of this proposal—when I recollect whom I am addressing
—when I see so many distinguished Officers of both scr-
-vices, and amongst them the gallant representative of the
Navy Board—himself an ornament to his profession—
when I behold on these benches so many of those Mini-
sters who framed the Treaty of London, and who sent the
Gallant Officer to carry it into effect—whey I see around
me the-Representatives of a nation resembling in many glO-
- distinct ions the free states of antiquity, but guiltless of
the vice which disgraced the old Republican communities-=.
,When on every side of me I behold those, who, differing on
other points, have always united to honour their brave coun-

ymen in arms ;,it is impossible that I should contemplate,

.
that on this so fair an occasion, we -should afford so shameful
an exception to our former generous practice, and that the
Commons of England should, for the first time, in the
history of our country, seem, indifferent to, and neglect the
upholders of, our national glory. If this is to be so, then,
indeed, the day of Navarin will he the glory and the shame
of England; and history, recording the name of the un-
datinted seaman, to whom it is due, will make this mourn-
ful confession:—" His merits were acknowledged by his
own Sovereign—foreign Potentates made haste to honour
him—rival nations conspired to praise him—but his fellow
subjects were unmindful of his prowess, and would con-
tribute nothing to his fame—domestic jealousies had
mastered their better feeling—they gloried in the triumph
of a party..--they forgot the interests of Christendom, and
the champion of civilization."—(Loud and repeated cheering
from both sides of the House. )—The Hon. Member then
moved—

" That the Thanks of that House be given to Sir
Edward Codrington, for his able and gallant conduct in the
decisive Action against the Turks, on the 20th of October
1827, in th 6 Bay of .Navarin."

Also—" The" Thanks of the House to the Officers, &c.
engaged in the Action."

Thirdly—" To the Russian and French Admiral,, who
so gallantly assisted on the occasion."
The first resolution having been seconded by Sir F.
BURDETT, was then put from the Chair.

Mr. BANKES rose to address the House, but we regret
that, from the Hon. Gentleman's position in the Howe,
and the. Confusion that prevailed during the early part of
hi.s speech, we found it extremely difficult to hear him.—
He said that' the House was not in a situation to form
a correct opinion of the conduct of Sir Edward
Codrington, unless all the papers calculated to elu-
cidate the history of "the expeditions were laid before it.
He entertained a very strong objection to any vote of
approbation that would seem to give a sanction to a
Treaty which he should ever think was unadvised
and, impolitic in the extreme. One of the most unfortu-
nate results of the battle of Navarin was, that it placed us
in a state in which we did not know whether we were at
peace or at war. They were called upon by the Hon.
Gentleman to persevere--did he mean that we were to carry
our Treaty into effect by a protracted war, a war carried
oU against an would say, too, an ancient Ally ;
for he found, in a treaty between this country and the
Porte, in 1675; a recognition of Treaties of Amity of
much older existence? In every possible way in which
he looked at the recent conduct of this country to the
Porte, he found reason to disapprove of its policy. He
should like to hear from those who were parties to the in-
troduction of Russian ships into the Mediterranean an ex-
planation of the way in which they can be so easily got out
of it. To such persons he would take the liberty of ad-
, dressing one word of admonition, and it was in the lan-
gimp of one of its hest poets—
'Who helps a powerful friend fore-arms a foe.
Mr. Canning alwaykstrongly reprobated the interference
of one country with the internal arrangements of another.
With regard to the Turkish affair, if there were any neces-
sity for that interferenee—which he (Mr. Bankes) strongly
denied—how was it that our .own naval force was not suffi-
cient for the'aceomplishment of the object, without calling in
the aid of two naval Powers? He objected much to the
interference of England (which led to consequences so dis-
astrous at Navarin) with a Power so long united to us in
amity and friendship.
Mr. Secretary HUSKISSON—I have listened with
ethisiderableattention to the arguments which the lion.
Member who ha4just sat down has addressel to the House;
and I confess that I have not heard one word from the
Hon. Member Which appears to me to bear upon the
question.—(llear, hear.)—The Hon. Member has brought
into discussion all the questions with respect to our inter-
ference with Turkey, and the different steps that have
been
.taken with a view to the pacification of Greece.
NOW,. I cannot 'help thinking that it would have been far

more consistent with the regulations of Parliamentary pro-
ceedings to have adhered to the
,line chalked out by the
Hon. Member for Westminster, and confined our discus •
sions to the immediate object of the motion. lam sorry
that other topics than those have been indiscreetly, in my
Opinion, brought before us. Sir, when I hear it stated
that the object of the Treaty is totally different from the
Protocol, I beg leave to say that I utterly deny the propo-
sition.—(Hear.)--Let us look in the Treaty, and in the
Protocol, and it will he found that the object in both do-
cuments is the same. The Treaty perfects that Which the
Protocol professes.to execute. The object of both is the
reconciliation of the Porte with the Greeks, and the
general pacification of the Levant. The Honourable
Member for Dorsetshire talks about violence and outrage,
and about the violation of treaties, and the law of nations.
I say that the Hon. Gentleman has not read the Treaty of
the 6th. July. What does that Treaty say ? That " the
contracting Powers will offer to the Ottoman Porte their
mediation, with the view of bringing about a reconciliation
between it and the Gre .I.is." It cannot be doubted what
the object of the treaty is; it was. obviously intended to
preserve peace, to effect a reconciliation between Turkey
and Greece. My Hon. Friend may quarrel with the means,
if he chooses, used in effecting that object. He now asks
what are the intentions of Government in the means now
employed ? a question which he will excuse me answering.
I really will not be tempted to follow my Hon. Friend, to
go over the ground of the . various questions to which he
has reverted in the course of his address to the House.—
It is enough for tne to state that for seven years the peace
in the East of Europe had been broken, that the war
which raged there was of a sanguinary description, and
which, from a state of things, was likely, if not put down
by some power—and, if possible, by friendly interpo-
sition—by its complication and its character, to inter-
rupt the tranquillity and repose of Europe. For the
attainment of this object the great Powers of Europe
united. My Hon. Friend speaks of the policy of Mr. Pitt,
and talks about the views of those who profess to be his
admirers. I confess that lam one of those humble indi-

viduals who admire the policy of that great man. My
Hon. Friend seems to think that in no case was it the
policy of that eminent man to couutenance the interference
of one State with another. Not only in the time of Mr.
Pitt, but also in that of Mr. Fox, the interest of this coun-
try has been to interferc--certainly not in the internal con-
cerns of foreign countries--when the necessity was urgent.
In such instances have we interposed, and interposed with
effect. I say, Sir, that it is no departure from the Law of
Nations to interfere in the manner the great European
Poivers have in the p:esent instance. In 1787 there was
an interference on the part of this country ; and what was
time policy as far as another Power was ,concerned ? The
King of Prussia conceived that an insult had been offered
to his sister, the wife of the Stadtholder, and our interpo-
sition was sought. Was not this a subject of interference ?
My Honourable Friend thinks the French faction was the
reason of our interference. In the best and brightest
periods of this country have we interfered between nations
—not unsolicited, not gratuitously (I do not mean in the
internal regulations), but we have interposed, and tvith
effect. I maintain that the interference of the Great
Powers of Europe, whose interest it is to preserve invio-
lable the peace which exists, is justifiable. My Hon. Friend,
I am sure, will one day, when he sees all the documents, ad-,
mit that the interposition of the European Powers is justifia-
ble. I unsure he will one day acknowledge that the interrup-
tion of tranquillity likely to arise out of the circumstanced
of the East of Europe, has been prevented, not merely on
the present eccasion, but that for many years past the
threatening aspect of affairs in that quarter has been
mitigated by the judicious mediation of England, and the
other European Powers who have co-operated with her for
the preservation of the general peace. Ido not agree with
the conclusion that in framing the Treaty of London, the
parties to it have been guilty of a gross injustice; and I
tell the Hon. Gentleman once more, that the object of the
Treaty of the 6th of July is precisely the same as that en-
tertained by the Contracting Parties who signed the Proto,
col at St. Petersburgh in 1826. The object, not only of
the Treaty and the Protocol, but of the diplomacy of Lord
Strangford, during his residence as Ambassador at Constan-
tinople—in fact, the exertions of the entire six years—went
to prevent war between the Greeks and Turks, and by pa-
cifying a part (the East) of Europe, to preserve the tran-
quillity of the remainder. Such has been the object of the
negociations—first, to compromise the differences existing
between Greece and the Ottoman Porte—next, to prevent
the possibility ofthese differences one day leading to a general
war. No Hon. Member can expect me to state the measures
which his Majesty's Ministers may recommend to be
adopted for carrying the provisions of the Treaty into exe-
cution. For my own part, as one of the Government, I
ant prepared to state my firm conviction that the present
Cabinet will honestly, faithfully, and fully endeavour
to execute the Treaty in accordance with the spirit in which
it was entered into—and in compliance with the engage-
ments to which this country has pledged itself in concert
with its Allies. Our object will be to put an end to the,
contest existing between the belligerents, and to prevent
further and more extended hostilities from arising out of
the 'present conflict.—(Hear.)—Sir, I feel it impassible
not to express my extreme regret at the motion which the
Hon. Member for Westminster has thought it necessary to
bring forward nn this occasion. The Hon. Member has
expressed his opinion that the motion of thanks to the Gal-
lant Admiral who commanded the allied squadron at Na-
varin, may not unfitly proceed from his side of the House.
He has stated, if I understood him rightly, that there are
occasions when the high honour which this House is in the
habit of conferring by a vote of thanks to the Commanders
of the naval and military forces, who have had the fortune
to achieve brilliant victories, may very properly be
given on motions made by Members totally unconnect-
ed with the service of his Majesty's Government, Sir, it'
is possible such cases may arise. I am not going to
contest or enter into a consideration of the general principle
—but I maintain that this is one of the occasions when
it, is not expedient to make the experiment. This is
exactly one of those cases in which it is not possible that.
the Hon. Member (with all the information to which he
pretends) can be fully acquainted with all the circum-
stances connected with the transaction. I can assure the.
Hon. Member that he appears to think himself much
better informed on the subject than he really is—from the
tone he has adopted, one would think he knew more of,
the matter than his Majesty's Ministers—hut I can assure
the House the contrary is the fact. If I am not much
mistaken, the Hon. Member stated, among other things to
which his knowledge extended, that he knew that the re-
port made by Sir John Gore, who had been sent out by
Go'vernment to inquire into the conduct of the Gallant
Admiral in command of the British naval force in the Me-
diterranean, had been perfectly satisfactory on all points.
Mr. HOBHOUSE—" I did not say upon all points,
but upon most."
Mr. HUSKISSON.—" I can only say that if the Hon.
Member for Westminster has that knowledge, his knowledge
far exceeds mine. Ido not mean by this to say, nor do I
wish it to be understood, that there is any thing deficient
in the explanation of the transaction, which has, been sent
home by the Gallant Admiral who commands in the Medi-
terranean. But Ido say this, that no report has come, to
my knowledge, or. as; far as lam informed, to the knowledge
of any Member of his Majesty's Government,, conveying
any opinion of my Gallant Friend to the effect stated by
the Hon. Member for Westminster. The. Him: Member
assumes that his case is completely established on the report
of the Gallant Officer to whom I before alluded. Now it
so happens that the Gallant Officer in question was not called
on to make a report, and that be has not, as far as know,
made any report. Before I proceed further into this part
of my subject, I cannot help noticing the fact that the
Hon. Member for Westminster has more than once
insinuated in his speech, that the great honour which he
considers to be due to Sir E. Codringtemn, and the gallant
men who served under his command, is refuied to him
owing to the changes whicl have recently taken place in
the Cabinet, owing to some paltry intrigue which he con-
ceives to have been going forward, or, to use his own
words. owing to the better passions having
by domestic jealousy." been absorbed

•
3lr. lIOIIIIOIISE—I beg pardon, Sir, but I think I
had better interrupt the Right Hon. Gentleman, before he
proceeds any further. He is labouring. under a gross mis-
take. I did net utter the sentiment he has just attributed
to me. I (lift not speak positively but hypothetically. I
said,—If Alimisters act so and so towards Sir E. Codring-
ton, people, will say so and so of them, and the conclu-
sions to which future historians will come, will be, that
the better passions were absorbed by domestic jealeasiN.
Mr. Secretary HTISKISSON—I am most happy to
hear the explanation. But I deny that there exists, or
ever did exist in the Cabinet, since the battle of Navarin,
any discord respecting that conflict. 1.17 e never were op-
posed on the vote of thanks of Parliament—for such a pro-
position was never thought of for that affair. The thanks
of Parliament have never been voted but for a triumph ob-
tained over an enemy.—(Hear.)—We vote thanks of Par-
liament only in a state of war, or a triumph over those who
arc opposed to us. These are honours of which we are
proud for victories achieved over enernies.—(Cheers.)---
Unless there be some precedent for voting thanks in such
a case as the battle of Navarin—and I maintain there
exists none .they ought to be denied. Thanks for the
accomplishment of what ? For an accidental collision, iu
which the lives of a great many men were lost, and a
great destruction of property followed. The Hon. Gen-
tleman had dwelt a great deal on the affair at Copenhagen;

in 1807, as though that was a case in point. How dif-
ferent was the policy of the one to the policy of the
other. How many Honourable Members were there
Who,,doubted the policy of the last war altogether, and
yet, when the country was involved in war, they felt it
incumbent on them to give their countenance to the
Government in defending the country. But what was
the affair at Copenhagen ? What were the instructions
given to the Admiral and the Commander of the Land
Forces? The instructions were distinctly to attack
that capital, to use their best
.endeavours, to exert
themselves to the utmost in, their 'poWer, to use.all their
efforts, towards the accomplishment of that object. But
they were told to wait eight days before they commenced
the attack. What was the fact with respect to the Foreign
Power ? Why before one of the eight days had expired,
Denmark had declared war.—(Hear, bear.)—We were
told to consider this as similar to the Navarin affair.
What was done at Copenhagen? The execution of the in-
etroetions ; the capture of the capital followed. At that
time we were in. a state of war with the Power to which
those instructions applied. Was this the situation in which
we were placed with the Allied Powers at Navarin ? In
order to bring about an armistice de facto (in the latter
case), if it could not be obtained, the Gallant Admiral
sailed into the Bay of Navarin. He did not go into at-
tack, because he Ilea no orders to attack. He knew his
duty too well, but • lie went there for the purpose of en-
forcing the armistice. In the history of the naval actions
of this country, I am willing to admit, that snore skill,
more, gallantry, more prowess, was never evinced by offi-
cers and seamen than on that occasion was evinced—
(cheers), and I do not think it a small addition of praise,
that in the union of the naval Po.vers, our Gallant Adini-
ral has conciliated the affections of the foreign officers who
were engaged in,the conflict with him ; and the victory
could not have been more complete had the whole force
been British. (Hear, hear.) After what I have said, I
hope I shall not be accused of underrating the prowess of
the Gallant Admiral. It was not, however, a battle with
a declared enemy, but an accidental conflict. (Hear.) If
it were practicable to put the case (in a legal sense) to a
foreign Jury, their verdict would be, I am inclined to be-
lieve (to use a Jew phrase), what is termed a " chance
medley." Government had sent out the Gallant Officer
to carry into effect a Treaty, and in the accomplishment
of that object a conflict ensues. The Hon. Member for
Westminster thinks that the battle of Navarin will tend
to the tranquillity of the Eastern' part of Europe. He
thinks that the issue will be so. It may or may not have
that effect. It might have led the Ottoman Porte to con-
sequences the reverse of what the Hon. Gentleman thinks.
The question is, whether it was in the spirit of the Treaty
of the 6th of July, the object of which was to carry the
reconciliation of the Ottoman Porte with the Greeks with-
out bloodshed ? IMu not !aiming the Gallant. Admiral ;
and before the Navarin affair, he ranked with' the bravest
and best officers in the British Navy. (Hear.) Tire Hon.
Member for Westminster thinks that the Turkish nation
are very ignorant of what is passing iu Europe, and values
the information of the Reis Effendi but little. lie speaks
of the high dignity of the Sultan—whom he wishes to re-
present as looking down with disdain on the European
Monarchs. As it is some years since the Hon. Gentleman
was in Turkey, probably he may not be so accurately in-
formed as he believes himself to be. I assure him that the
lleis,Effendi is very well informed of what passes in Europe.
(Hear.) The Hon. Member talks of the Algerine affair,
and that it bears a resemblance to the battle of Navarin.
Does he riot recollect that Lord Exmouth went to Tunis,
Algiers, and other places? And, if I am- not mistaken in
my recollection (for I could not anticipate that it would be
alluded to, otherwise I should have consulted documents on
the subject), his Lordship . returned from Algiers, stating
that he had not been able to make that arrangeinent with
the Dey as with the other Powers. And what was done
on the return of Lord Exmouth? His Lordship was
sent back front England with additional ships, and
with positive, implicit instructions to compel the Dey,
by violence and force,, to comply.—(Hear, hear, hear.)
lam not to be deterred,by the appeal to the feelings made
by the Hon. Member for Westminster, that if we do not
thank Admiral Codrington, this will make a shameful ex-
ception to*the general course of Parliamentary proceeding.
I say that if we do return thanks it wilt be an 'exception,
tke first that has ever occurred, to the uniform course of
proceeding in Parliament in reference to battles in which
this country has
.been; engaged ' and I think I. have demo-
lished the precedents brought forward, by the, Hon. Gen-
tleman. This is a casein which the circumstance of the
country being in a state of peace or war makes all the dis-
tinction. It is a bed precedent, when the country is in a
state of peace, to endeavour to obtain a triumph, and call
forth the spirit and feelings of war. Ido not doubt the
discretion and judgment of the Gallant Admiral on this
occasion, but I say to the House of Commois, be cautious'
how you commit yourselves by a precedent of this sort,.
lest in cases where you are obliged, as you frequently mule
be obliged, to commit great discretionary power to.military
Commanders such a license should.lead. to a disposition
(considerincethe high character. of the Amour conferred,'
and the benefits enjoyed by the person receiving it) to'
create untoward accidents in order to obtain that honour ;
which accidents may, by possibility, lead to consequences
which the country may afterwards regret. The Hon.
Gentleman seems to have been aware that he was not likely
to receive from the sober, judgment of the House any very
large measure of support. Aware that no change had
taken place in the Councils of his Majesty's Ministers be-
tween the time when the account reached this country and
the hour at which I ant now addressing the House, and that
there was no intention on the part of Government to make
any proposal to the House, and feeling how much. such a'
proposal would be at variance, with all the principles by
which Parliament has hitherto been governed, the Hon.
Gent. has searched through all the records of.the proceed-
ings of our House, and of the other Moine, in order to ob-
tain proof that thanks had been conferred for brilliant acts
like that which took place at Navarin. In doing this lie
has referred to the signal good fortune of the illustrious
warrior who is now at the head of the Councils of this
country, and stated that he was eleven times thanked for
his brilliant services—an honour unparalleled in the history
of the world, certainly in the history of any republican
country.. Unquestionably there is no man who does
not rejoice that we have bad an opportunity to-
thank that Gallant Chieftain eleven times ; there is no
®an who does not think that to his services we are
indebted for the peace of Europe and the state of security
in which that peace rests, and which it will be his anxious
care in the Cabinet to preserve undisturbed, as it was iris
earnest and successful endeavour in the field to procure
by his sword; but when the Honourable Gentleman
talks of that Gallant General having -.been thanked
eleven times, I will ask the Honourable Gentleman
why, in his. researches, he, overlooked one little in-
cident which I take to be quite conclusive as to the
practice of Parliament on this subject, and whether
he ever heard of that most decisive and brilliant
victory which. my Gallant Friend achieved at Tou-
louse; one of the greatest feats of war in which he
was ever engaged, when he drove Marshal Soult
from such an intrenched position, that, in the judg-
ment of his own officers, the undertaking was despe.
rate, and where he had displayed such a degree of valour,
and such a combination of judgment and coolness,
as had :never before been exhibited ? When the account
of this brilliant victory reached England, was any, vote of
thanks conferred ? No. A cessitionof arms had in the
interim taken place—we were no longer in a state of war
with France ; and, ',under -those circumstances, when a
Noble Duke in the other Heuse of Parliament,- the 'late
Duke of 'Norfolk, asked my Noble Friend then at the bead
of his Majesty's Government whether it was not intended
to follow up the precedents of the other victoria, by
thanking, the Duke of Wellington for, that: greateed-beil-
liaut achievement, my
.Noble Friend at the brad of. the
Administration replied by stating, ,that though he felt
the importance of the victory, and the additional honour
)o—neellacvreinatged,stamteday
propose any vote of thanks.—(Heairf.
conferred by it upon the British army, yetHasouin: ltihaadtinthfaecyt
then ceased, it was not expedient, and he did not intend to
that fact, I will sit down, content with leaving it to the
gwoiolilnsoetns
cereaanted
asobperrecjeuddegnmt judgment
which,
,th e
be attended with all the inconvenience I have stated. At
tire same time I am bound to say, that had this conflict
taken place with a Power with which we were at war,
whatever might have been the character of the Power, bar.
barian or otherwise, I should .not have been oee of those
who would have been reluetant to propose to Parliament to
confer a vote of thanks. Under these circumstances,
wishing again to guard myself against being understood to
cast any slight on the character of the Gallant Admiral, but
feeling, on the contrary, that the character of the Gallant
Officer stands as high in this House (as, I trust, it doers in
the country) as that of any other member of the profession,
that his discretion is riot called in question, and that if there
be any thing painful on this, occasion, it, is the pain in
which we are placed by what I must consider, the ill-ad-
vised motion of the Hon. Member. I am. uoder, the neces-
sity of moving the previous question. , .
The SPEAKER having put the,previous,question,
Sir J. MACKINTOSH . rose and, spoke as follows
Sir, it has been so rarely
~
fortuneof coinciding, with the
my lot to be in a situation which
I have enjoyed the good
Hon. Member (Mr. Bankes), - that I embrace with plea-
sure the present opportunity
of expressing my conetitTence
in much.of what, fell from him on .this subject: L deplore
with him the manner in which this question has been

treated, in consequence of the state of parties in both
Houses of Parliament; and I regret that those who ap-
pear to approve of the treaty of the 6th of July, are pla-
ced in a most difficult situatien. A question . has arisen
on the subject of that-treaty, with respect to, which I fully
agree with the Hon. Member for Westminster, that there
can be no medium—no middle course of opinion. That
Hon. Member has delivered a speech, admirable in its
kind, and which, so far from being ill-advised, or indiscreet
appears to me a model of discretion. With respect to the
treaty, I repeat, there can be no medium—either it is a
lawless outrage and infraction on the law of nations, or it
is a roost just, wise, generous, humane, and disinterested
compact. Ido 'not intenda to copy the example of the
Hon. Gentleman in entering, into the• question of the po-
licy of the treaty, as it would be impossible to introduce
properly and effectually all the topics, all the vast ,'range of
argument, that might be brought to bear iiponit in the
discussion of a mere motion for a vote of thanks to a naval
officer-4 is far too mighty a question to be disposed:of
in such a manner. Conscious as I thus am of the impos-
sibility of at present doing the subject justice, I did not at
first think it was right to touch upon it at all; but after
the manner in which that treaty has been reviled in the
face of Europe—after the graver reprobation which-has
been poured out upon it in places-of great authority, and
by some persons of the greatest-Lafter the general rumour
that has been spread, sanctioned as it has been by the state-
ment of the Hon. Gentleman, that some of the most illus-
trious persons in this country have condemned that treaty
as warmly and strongly as the Hon. Gentleman has this
evening himself done—l cannot, I say, after all this,
refrain from entering a protest on the part of myself, and
all those Hon. Gentlemen who think with me, against
being supposed to agree-in that opinion, thitathis night ex-
pressed. That the treaty of the 6th of July was a just as
well as a disinterested compact. I am ready. to main-
tain, at any time, or in any place.—(Hear.)—And, more-
over, were the question before the House, I should be pre-
pared to uphold the opinion, in any place and against any
antagonist, that that treaty was conformable to the law
of nations. The. question is, as has been this evening
rightly stated, not whether interference is the rule of, the
law of nations, for all admit that non-interference is the
rule, but whether—and it is the only question that can
possibly occur—the hostilities carried op between the
Greeks and Turks, taken in all their bearings., do not. form
an exception in the ordinary rules of these laws? If we
are able to make out that point, our position that the treaty
is not an infraction of the law of nations is proved. Were
the question before the House; I should be prepared to
maintain that armed mediation to bring about a legitimate
object, amicably if possible, is known to the law of nations
recognised by the writers most reverenced by all people
of Europe—is sanctioned by the opinion'of the best men of
the best times in our own country—l should he prepared
to maintain, that our intervention in behalf of the Greeks
was not Only" au act of humanity towards- them, but of jus-
tice to the honour of Christendoni.::—(lfear, hear.)—l
should be prepared to maintain, in opposition to the Hon.
Gentleman, that the Treaty of the ,6th July, and what fol-
lowed from it,' was in consequence pf the Protocol signed at
St. Petersbnrgh—l should belarepared to, maintain that
the intervention proposed by the Protocol in, 1826, but
thought of and discussed long before 'that periiids: as
well as by the treaty of the 6th July, had become a duty—
I should be prepared to show, in opposition to the
species of slanders which has chiefly been' propa-
gated from gross ignorance, that, instead of being taken
by surprise, the Turks were treated with long sufferance,
with exemplary patience, and almost unparalleled for-
bearance—(Hear, hear, hear)—and it is but justice to
Russia, after the manner in which her conduct has
been reflected upon, to declare that, in all her dealings
with the Ottoman Porte for the last seven years, she has
offered a remarkable specimen of forbearance.—(Hear,
hear.)—l trust that I shall rot be considered as violating
the pledge I gave at the openirr, of my speech, not to dis-
cuss the policy of the tteaty, if I passingly advert to the
conduct of Turkey towards the Servian Deputies. If
Russia has been at all to blame, it has been for the length
of her patience, rather than her too great pitimptitude.
At the treaty of Bucharest, the Porte agreed to grant cer-
tain terms to Servia, `a country inhabited bya million of
Christians, which would guarantee hhr the prac I*e of
her own religion and laws, altogether free from Turkish
interference. In consequenee of the provisiOnsl of this
treaty between Russia and Turkey, a body of Servian De-
pities went to Constantinople, to arrange the terms-on
which their privileges should be granted thein.' What
then did these honest, these straight-forward, these
downright Turks, these new ancient allies of ours do?
—(Cheers and , laughter.)—Why; they fodoWed
law of nations—they sent ' them all to the Seven
Towers.—(Hear,
,hear, bear..)—And they 'did it,. 'too,
under one of those base and false' pretexts' which form
to characteristic _a feature of -.their, policy—they did it
under the„peetext tf prOteCting the persons of the Depu-
ties from the .violence. a the populace--(hear, hear)—
and in order to let them have the full benefit of that pro-
teaoOll, they thought it necessary to keep then* there for
seven years.—(Laughter.)—It was *thin they treated
people who came to them under the faith of' a solemn
treaty entered into with Russia., At last, by the Con*en-
tion of Akerman, Russia obtained their liberation ; but
even that was not till a Russian army had made its appear-
ance on the banks of the Pruth. I agree with the Hon.
Member for Dorsetshire (Mr. Bankes) in what he has said
respecting the grounds of opposition to this motion, and he
has shewn great impartiality, which does him much credit,
with respect to the views and interests of parties in this
country on a question of national honoul
andjustice, Which
is, certainly, and he seems. to think so, pre-eminent to all
party objects. The gist of his argument was, that the true
grounds of opposition to' the motion were of a double
nature—l st, That the principle of the treaty was to be
taken,
beyond his instructions, or
that that the
eve o u
Admiral gone there remained another, viz.
tha
condemned, and that he refused to give thanks to' an officer
whose laurels were gained.by unjust violence; and 2dly,. if
that
instructions were, or. of the consequences of his obeying
them. This I take to be the substance if what "the Ho-
t
:nourable Member meant to Say. If the second ground be
t rh
ground were
worte no
had
sufficienttk evidence either of what those
taken, the propriety of the Admiral's conduct is made doubt-
ful. Now, to make the question turn on the propriety of the
Admiral's conduct, seems to me somewhat inconsistent
with,_ and dangerous to, the soundness of the argument
contended for by the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite. To
see that the Admiral did not go beyond his instructions is
easy, even with the imperfect lights we have upon that ,
subject. If we may believe the last part of the secret artis
Cie ofthe treaty, the Contracting Powers bound themselves
to bring about, by mediation, an armistice de facto, and
to employ, in case of necessity, proper and strong mea-
sures for attaining their object-" By that secret article,
either Turks or Greeks refusing to join in the views of the
High Contracting PartiieS; were to be coerced into acqui-
escence. Those who drew up that article of the treaty
knew well enough that their object was not to be attained
by a sprinkling of rosewater over the combatants.—(A
laugh.) And, accordingly, in the very next sentence to
that which: expressed their determination, it was agreed,
in case of demur on the part of the Greeks or Turks,
that instructions should be sent to the Admirals com-
manding their squadrons in the Mediterranean, to take
measures conformably to the provisions of the Treaty.
Now what sort of pegeciations do Admirals carry
on ? (Hear, hear, hear.) Most admirable and effective
negociations, for they speak by their great guns; the oply
only refer Hon. Gentlemen
reams-nen our new ancient allies will Condeicend to listen
tthoetinhe
ti.--(Hear,' hear.) I know full well the little inclination
the House has to listen to the reading of doctimente--(a
yTireats ltYas.t sen-
tence,Letlaugla)—and I will, therefore,
but particularly
utiharel
framed •by the Allied Admirals
before NaVarin, and then let them say, whether between
with the minute
time 'at which that article of the Treaty was written,
the time
and that minute was drawn tip instructions must not'have
intervened, authorising the Agnairals to tise all means that
compare lastpa rs
otfhatthearsecticrlee,
might be n ece
*saes Tor' them to'negociate cedsistion.of
hostilities? It :is impossible, absolutely impoisibles after
perusing the two papers to which I have referred;'to ima-
gine that is canbe otherwise.—(Chetts.) Sir Edward
lievins,
Codrington diet), be the course he' took to be the
only, effectual one he could adopt, to attain
the object
f the Treaty, was fully authorisedby his in-
structions
- to do all he undertook. The whole of the Right
ui,n.Gent
leman 's observations, if he will excuse me for say-
ing were quite inconclusive with, reatied,s,, the present
The question is not
question. e Whether we Were '
at war
areording to the law of nations--and•that Would 'be too
vast and difficult a question at present to investigate—hut
whether an officer who, with extraordinary skill;signal
valour, and most splendid suocess--(cheero_exeentes-ert
act of coercion, which he is directed, or authorised to di-
sect, against a foreign power, is not precisely in the same
situation with those who command our force. before Copen-
hagen?. Will the Right Honourable Gentleman, whose
mind is so enlightened, and so worthy to looking to prin-
ciples instead of precedents—(Loud Cheers).—will he
the service having been
as great, the naval genius
say, . .
displayed as comprehensive, the 'valour eXhiliiied • beih
by officers and men—(Loud cheers)s—as brightlit the one
case as the other, that the same honours ought not to
be awarded to the one hero as the other ?..-(Cheering.)
I do noCnow propose to discus whether, according to-the
doctrines a Or .Jurists,. the affair of Copenhagen took
place in a Wiens perfectum er imperfect:oN bat what we

cessioul

tructions is
upon that
secret arti •
themselves
facto, and
rong tnea-
Tet article,
iews of the
into acqui-
the treaty
be attained
tants.—(A
sentence to
vas agreed,
or Turks,

iirala corn:
in, to take
he Treaty.
rals carry
id effective
s, the only
nd to listen
inclination
mente-01
Gentlemen
eaty. Let
s last een-
I Admirals
er between

as written,
it not have
means that
eesition of
Bible, after
I; to ima-
ir Edward
to be the
to attain
by his in-
the Right
ne for say-
he present
re at war
Id be too
gate—but
Lill; signal
xecutes an
sal to di-
, the same
re Copen-
in, whose

to prin-
-will he

ral genius
ited both
n the one
.ht hot • to
"heeling.)
ing ta•the
igen took
what wo

slid 'ea; plainly this —We claimed the surrender of the
whole navy of an independent power, on the ground that
it was in hands too weak to retain it, and that it might be
seized by our enemies, and turned against us. This course
was never justified until this night, on the ground that the
King of Denmark had declared war against us, but on the
principle that it was necessary to our safety to take pos-
session of a naval force that might be turned against us.
At the time, there was no difference of opinion on the prin-
ciple on which we acted, every body admitted its justice,
for there was no doubt that a nation might do any thing
to secure the safety of its own existence ; but the question
was, whether the evidence of the necessity was sufficiently
clear. The question was perfectly independent of the
petty technicality of the declaration of war, and I am sur-
prised to hear a Minister of England make it turn upon
that point. It was looking at the subject in that confined
point of view, which caused us to be upbraided for the ac-
tion by all Europe ; but it is a point of view in which it
has never vet been seriously looked at in this house be-
fore te-night. Hear. )_But what does the form of de-
claration amount to after all? In ancient times heralds
went from the Prince about to mete war, and declared it
before the face of his enemy, but now it was done by a pro-
cession from Charing-cross to Temple-bar, and by the inti-
mation of it through Ambassadors. This vain ceremony of
the procession was not gone through, and the Right Hon.
Gentleman talks of it as if it were really a matter of mis-
fortune. But it was of no consequence, for hostile acts
were carried on agaisiet. Denmark without it, and upon the
same principle hostile acts were committed against the
Turki•le fleet, those acts having been rendered necessary to
attain the object of the Treaty of London, of which the
Porte was fully aware. The Hon. Member for Dorsetshire
has asked how the Trea.y was to be carried into effect—
whether it. was to be by war ? Ile might as well have asked
whether it was to be carried into effect at all.—(A laugh.)
It is said that it was to be carried into effect by amicable
means—and so it was, if possible—but the brutal war, as
Sir Edward Codrington in his honest indignation called it,
tarried on by the Turks, and persisted in by them in spite
of the representations of the Admirals, rendered the action
squally just, gallant, and honourable. The Right Hon. Gent.
opposite has bronght forward the case of Toulouse, hut
it was easy to perceive that it was not without great labour
that a gentleman of his acute mind could bring himself to
cite it really as a case in point. The great distinction be-
tween the battle of Toulouse and that of Navarin is,
that when the former was fought, the object of the war
was attained. But I will appeal from the Right lion.
Gentleman's words to his understanding—( Hear,hear)—and
ask him whether, if in this case he assumed it as justifiable
to employ force, or to direct acts leading to the employ-
ment of force, in order to obtain this armistice there is any
resemblance in the mode of obtaining it to the action of
Toulouse, for which there existed no motive whatever?—
That action was fought, from one or both Commanders
—I will not now discuss the question as to which, if either
of them knew it—being; ignorant that actual hostilities
had ceased between the two nations, and that we were
at peace with Louis the Eighteenth. 1 an surprised at a
case of this nature being brought and compared with ano-
ther so different from it in the essential particular of the
necessity for fighting. A vote of thanks would have been
as unjust for the action of Toulouse as it will be just for
that of Navarin.—(Cheers.)—This is the first time, since
the practice of thanking naval officers has been adopted in
this House for naval victories, that a vete of thanks for '
one has been proposed and refused. It is the first time,
also, I have seen a British :Minister appear in his place in
Parliament, deploring a naval victory.—(Cheers.)—lt is
the first time the House of Commons has been asked to
think it even a doubtful point, whether an officer should
be thanked for obtaining a naval victors', and for a victory,
too, which I will venture to prophecy, will be as memor-
able as any ever gained by the British arins.—(Hear.)—
Ministers have by their language, and are now about by
their acts, to give the world reason to believe, what the
Hon. Member for Dorsetshire has affirmed, that their opi-
nion was as hostile to the treaty they now pledge them-
selves to execute, as the Hon. Member's for Diersetshire
actually is. The conflict of doubts between the engage-
ments of a treaty and the principles of justice, is one of
the hardest and most cruel to which the mind of a consci-
entious man can be exposed ; and I can imagine that in
that moral conflict, a man may, by cruel necessity, be
obliged to prefer the more clearly expressed terms of the
engagement to following what his heart acknowledges to
be the path of justice. I can only grieve, if the Right
Hon. Gentleman is exposed to this cruel conflict, if he has
to decide between carrying into execution what he must
consder an unjust compact to commit robbery, to do that
which is not just or lawful—(Hear)—for that is the light
in which it must be viewed by him, (the municipal laws
of no nation allowing interference of this nature in private
affairs). If, I say, he bas to decide between this and the
cause of humanity, I grieve for him.—[This, as well as
we mould collect, from the noise that for a moment pre-
vailed in the gallery, was the tenor of Sir James's observe-
tions.]—l admit, that a man, by ch-cuinstances, may he
obliged to decide in that way ; but there never was till now
a statesman who volunteered to proclaim to the world, as
the Right Hon. Gentleman will do if he resists this motion,
that he doubts the justice of a treaty, to the execution of
which he has pledged himself.—(Hear, hear.)—l do not
call upon the House to pronounce judgment on the Treaty
of the 6th of July, for I am ready to acknowledge, that
evidence is wanting with respect to it, but there is none
wanting, with respect to the conduct of Sir Edward
Codrington, and I call upon the House not to refuse him a
vote of thanks. If that vote of thanks be refused, it will
be condemning the Treaty unheard. (Cheers.) Whilst
to pass the vote of thanks, will not be to approve the
Treaty, as they are given for a mere military service well
performed, without carrying with them any expression of
political opinion. (Cheers.) Besides, thanks in this case
are the rule, and the withholding them will be the excep-
tion, the solitary exception. (Hear, hear.) I say this
confidently, for no attempt has been made to show an in-
stance in which thanks were withheld from an officer
gaining a signal victory. It is this departure from the
ordinary course, if it does take place, which conveys the
judgment of the House upon the Treaty. (Hear.) If it
would not actually undermine the Treaty, it affords Europe
an opportunity of doubting whether we are not ashamed of
our treaty—afraid of the sound of our own victory—and
Unwilling, to do that which is the natural and inevitable
consequence of every step we have taken. I will not,
Sir, speak of the learning that may or may not be pos•
sessed by the Reis Effendi, as I have not the honour of be-
ing acquainted with him or any of his colleagues (a laugh);
but I should imagine, let him be as ignorant as he may,
that if there is any thing in the government of this country
he, as aTurk, is better able to understand than another,
it is the power exercised by the King. His Majesty's
acts he can comprehend much better than those of a
popular assembly, (Hear, hear.) Ple must have seen that
hiaMajesty signed the treaty ; he must have heard, that
upon him depended declarations of war and proclamations
of peace ; he knows that his Majesty has given marks of
his approbation to Admiral Codrington and the officers
under him who fought at Navarin ; all these must be plain
propositions to the Reis Effendi. That Minister knowing
all this, which the Right Hon. Gentleman must think it
so importaat he should not know, what has he to say for
having advised the bestowal of, these hoours?—(Hear,
bear.) How will the Right lion. Gentleman justify his
conduct as one of his majesty,s ad
vis
When he advised these honours to behe:to?w bestowed alleethrse)oh-
jections he has this evening urged agetiraet the granting the
vote of thanks, applied then with as great forcedaogainst the
bestowal of those honours.--(Hear, n) I (Hear, hear,)
per-
ceive the least distinction between the two occasion.not si;
Edward C.odrington's elevation in the order of knighthood
to which he belonged was a reward for his valour and con-
duct, independent of any political merit attached to the
action. It is upon that same consideration the House is
called upon to-night to pass a vote of thanks. When the
King was bestowing those honours, did any of his advisers
address his sNlajesty, and say, "the scrupulous conscience
of the British nation will never permit us to bestow any
InaTk of honour upon an officer who has fought a gallant
action for us, till it has been proved by Jurists
that it was in what is technically called war ; it
'is true it is fought in the service of his country; that
he asserted the honour of Christendom, and increased the
renown, if possible, of this country, its principal state •
Yeee," it was not done in war, I beseech your Majesty
Oat to east Upon him a look of approbation ?" Was any
thing of that kind said to his Majestsr7
have serreel, among
other ' or
d for re-
signation, did an
ivourd
impossiblehis office,
for him to continue in the performance
principles of justice
,nbesoto,
wueeed,n
artithenocourse. pursued,
if so great a departure from the
were attempted ? But such could not
for the honours were
yesterredsignations took place. Na-', no
longer ago than
hie satiefactibn on an an- his Majesty bestowed a mark of
fought at Navarro..._ ;lacer of distinguished merit that
iestyls Ministers were (gear, hear.
)—Yee,
whilst his Ma-
arguments.we have this
the ingenious and scholaa-
bestowing the honour of knighthood night heard, his Majesty was
,e4Cliiiering;)—But it is ighthood on Captain Fellowes.
vicars the thanks of the the House
crown of an officer's reward
to
se of Commons, the thanks
of the Reptesentatives of all
,his countrymen.—(Cheers.)--
There might be. something in the made h
motion, if ire had taken this cours opposition to.f tv;
had Seed without a signal from our
Boarder without a
guide,
first
J ar acid warder of military Sovereign, t
vrit..—(Hear, hear, hear.,

—Why should we nut follow that example—why not
obey that signal? Why cannot we do an act of jus-
tice ? For fear forsooth, of offending Turkish Ministers.
___(Cheers.)—It has been said, that it might impede the
progress of negociations still pending. Was such a doctrine
ever before heard of? What precedent can we establish more
dangerous than that of withholding honour from a public
servant for fear of offending an enemy? What is that
enemy. The Jurists of Constantinople.—(Laughter.)--
It is hard upon us that the Burgesses of England, assem-
bled in Parliament, cannot bestow thanks upon a servant
that has pleased them, without consulting an Ottoman
Minister. The establishment of so mean, so pitiful, a pre-
cedent is a dreadful sacrifice to negociations, he they of
what kind they may. Let us see in what light other
countries look upon that of which we are so much ashamed.
His Majesty the King of France did not view it thus, for
in spite of the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite, he gave
it-the legitimate term of battle—he called the battle of
Navarin an unexpected but glorious battle—a battle which
had forwarded the objects of the Treaty. Nothing about
an " untoward event," or a " collision to be deplored,"
Sell from his lips. It was stated by the King of France to
have promoted the pacification of the East of Europe. We,
by our conduct to-night, seem to deny it, to doubt the
justice of the Treaty, and to impugn the coriduct of the
Commanding Admiral. But France does not stand
alone, and all who are acquainted with this subject must
have heard of the rescript the Emperor of Russia addressed
to the kinglish Admiral, on receiving the news of the battle.
He did not wait for the consent of the Muftis of Constan-
tinople, hut, in conferring the honours he did on Sir
Edward Codrington, told hint that the victory had done the
highest honour to the civilized world. And it had so, for
the treaty was founded on civilized morality, and the battle
was gained by civilized skill. Let the !louse reflect upon
what it is about to do. The peace of Europe depends, per-
haps,
upon its conduct. I am, God knows, one of the last
to wish for war, or to advocate measures that may texs to
provoke it ; but in toy opinion peace depends upon our
neither flinching nor flattering—(Hear, bear)—upon doing
nothing that has the appearance of nibbling at the victory in
order to skulk out of the Treaty.—(Loud cheers.)—The
peace of Europe depends upon our Ministers showing no fear,
upon their not looking upon the Treaty as a hard
burden imposed upon them by improvident predecessors—
hut, as a sacred obligation, they are not only bound
but willing to perform, not upon their putting the
question, as to whether it shall be peace or war, for
that is not the question ; for the question is, whether
the treaty cannot he executed pacifically ; and it that ques-
tion is answered in the negative, let them proceed to execute
it according to the provisions of the treaty. I repeat, I
deprecate the occurrence as much as any man can do, for
I am acquainted with its evils; but, as far as my informa-
tion enables me to judge, the only thing that will encou-
rage resistance on the part of Turkey, excite dissatisfac-
tion among the Allied Powers, and, by the discord which
would thence arise, spread a general war throughout
Europe, is the manifestation of weakness or timidity on
our part—such as would be exhibited in refusing to give
the Officer who carried the Treaty into effect the thanks
which are due to him. It must be evident to all who re-
flect for an instant on the subject, that the Treaty of the
6th July is at present the key-stone of the tranquillity of
Europe ; let it be touched, and war and desolation will be
the consequence. There is little to be apprehended from
the resistance of Turkey, but much from yielding to her._
(Hear.) Sir, 1 assert that not only the persons who are
parties to the Treaty of London, are pledged to the sincere
and effectual execution of its articles, but Austria and
Prussia also are pledged to the enforcement of it, by their
own declarations, in the face of Europe, as deeply as any
of the immediate Contracting Powers. For what other
conclusion can I draw from the note of Baron Ottenfels,
published in March last ? And did not Austria give the
Porte warning of the measures that would be adopted
against her by the Contracting Powers, in order to com-
pel her to pacific proceedings? That warning was pub-
lished in November—and the nature of that connnunica-
tion proves, that Austria is as much bound to the enforce-
ment of the Treaty of London as any of the three Powers
that signed it—and this occurrence took place, he it re-
membered, before the Egyptian fleet had reached Greece,
and at the time when Turkey was withdrawing her armies.
And now, -Heaven. grant that no re-action may arise from
any late circumstances, and that any senseless stupidity ut-
tered in this House, on this or any former night, may not
stimulate the Ottoman Porte to renew measures of obstinate
resentment—that it may not induce her to rush blindly
on her own destruction—an event which must be the con-
sequence of her renewal of that barbarous war of exter-
mination—that war described by the gallant Admiral to
have been waged against women and children, and the
track of which, Captain Hamilton says in his letter, may
be traced by the clouds of smoke, and fire of burning vil-
lages, and the solitude and wretchedness of devastated fields
and ruined habitations. However, Sir, though my con-
viction of the justice of the motion has not been at all
shaken by the arguments that fell from the Hon. Member,
I feel no partic4r wish that it may be pressed to a divi-
sion, if I could he assured by his Majesty's Ministers that
it is their attention to carry into of the articles of the
treaty warmly, boldly, and fearlessly—and not merely ob-
serve the letter of it coldly, reluctantly, and ineffecenally.
However, as the motion belongs to my Hon. Friend, I
shall leave it to his own disposal. I have no particular
fears as to the result of the motion but on account of the
effect it may produce on that gallant Officer's feelings, not-
withstending that the discussion has drawn down, from all
sides, the most honourable testimonials of his skilful acrd
gallant conduct.---(Cheering.)
Mr. Secretary PEEL—Sir, differing as I do from the
Hon. Member on the principle of his motion; differing as
I do front him in my impression of the propriety of meeting
it by the qualified measure proposed by my Hon. Friend, I
must at the same time confess, that I entirely agree with
the Hon. Gentleman on the recommendation that the
House should discuss a..d dispose of it in a manner the most
temperate, and with views the most remote from any thing
like the feelings or opinions of party politics ; and I candidly
avow my desire to abstain from every sentiment calculated
to stand in the way of the discussion of the proceeding ad-
vised by the Hon. Member who has just sat down. Sir, I
agree with the Hon. Member, also, in the justice of not
considering the question in relation to the policy or im-
policy, the expediency or inexpediency, of the negociations
from which the transaction may be said remotely to have
arisen, and on the propriety of discussing it only on ab-
stract principles. And for my Hon. Friend, the Member
for Dorsetahire, I am sure he will not think that I fail in
my wonted respect for his judgment, if I shall decline his
recommendation to debate the question in reference to the
policy of the Protocol of November, 1826. But as my si-
lence on the subject may give rise to erroneous impressions
as to the opinion I entertain of the Treaty of London,! have no
hesitation in declaring, as Minister of the Crown, that I am
ready, cordially and effectually, to follow up the enforce-
ment of the articles of that treaty. Sir, in the stipulations
of that treaty his Majesty has declared his solemn intention
to adhere to the observance of its articles, and his reso-
lution to carry the three objects of it into full and com-
plete effect, whether looking at the termination of hostili-
ties in Greece, the adjustment of amicable relations between
the contending parties, or the preservation of the peace
and tranquillity of Europe, as set forth in his Majesty's
speech of 1815. These stipulations I think just, wise, and
expedient, and the intentions of the Government to carry
them into effect, cordial, honest, and sincere. —(Loud
cheering.)—On this ground I am prepared to meet the
Hon. Member for Knaresborough, and I trust, that after
this declaration, the Hon. Member will abandon his doubts
of the sincerity of our intention to effect the complete ex-
ecution of the treaty. Now for the arguments of the Hon.
Member, and first, that deduced from his assumed fact that
the present is the first instance in which the thanks of Par-
liament shall have been denied to a naval commander after
the achievement of a brilliant victory ; but what is the fact,
Sir ; not that this is the first instance in which thanks
have been denied, but that this is the first instance in which
thanks have been proposed, under the circumstances o f the
case._(che_ers.)—And here, Sir, let me be allowed to say,
that I agree with Hon. Gentlemen hi their glowing
eulogiee,
of tie skill and valour of the Gallant Admiral
who commanded our fleet on that occasion, and that I do
no- ground my opposition to the motion through any doubt
ofthe Gallant Admiral's professional qualities, but be-
cause
I consider it against all Parliamentary usage to vote
the thank of Parliament to a naval commander in the cir-
cumstances of the present case. Sir, in proving the cor-
rectnees of this, my opinion, I shall follow the Hon. Mem-
ber through every one of his arguments—l shall not leave
one particle of his reasoning untouched or unrefuted.
And first, for the Hon. Member's assertion, that there has
been no instance in which a previous declaration of war
was considered necessary to the passing a Parliamentary
vote of thanks for a naval victory ; though on that point
the Hon. Member touched on the case of Admiral Hyng,
as a solitary exception, that could not be considered to
affect his proposition. Bnt, Sir, though the Hon. -Mem-
ber but touched on the case of Admiral Byng's victory, he
has not, he cannot, escape from its effect on hie argument.
For what says the Hon. Member ? Why, that Admiral
Byng's case was a rare one, and that it was not usual to
pass votes
of thanks for naval victories in that time, be-
cause, forsooth, of their unfrequency. Now, could this
unfrequency of naval victories be a reason with 'Parlia-
ment for not-voting thanks to the commanders ;' or
would it not rather be a reason why they should ex-
press the gratitude of Parliament for successes that must-1

have been moat deserving of thanks in ptoportion to their
'infrequency?—(Cheers and laughter.)— But, Sir, the
armament was not at that time unused to vote their
thanks for services performed by our forees--on the con-
trary, they were habituated Mille land victories of Marlbo-
rough and his armies, and took pleasure and pride in ex-
pressing their gratitude for their glorious .achievements;
and doubtless they would have been equally glad to avail
ihernselves of Admiral Pyng's case, to express their thanks
tin. a naval victory. But the Hon. Member is incorrect in
his history, as well as inconclusive in his reasoning. The
first occasion on which thanks were voted for a naval vic-
tory was in 1692. The next was to Sir George Rooks,
and the naval achievement that followed ; next was Admi-
ral Byng's over Spain, in 1718 ; now what were the cir-
eurnstances of that cuss—we were then acting under the
stipulations of the Treaty of Utrecht, which hound us to
effect the pacification of Sicily, and to bring about an armi-
etice between the contending parties, Austria and Spain.
We were at the time at peace with Spain, yet we fitted out
a naval armament, and sent it out to the coast of Spain.
Admiral Byng apprised the Spanish Minister, Cardinal Al-
beroni, of his intention to interfere with the King of Spain's
attack on Sicily, and informed him of his instructions
to bring about an armistice, even though he should be
obliged to resort to measures of hostile violence. And what
said the Spanish Ministers to this ?—Do ; you may obey
the instructions of your Court, but we will not intermit
hostilities against Sicily. Admiral Byng did accordingly
obey his instructions, and gained a signal victory over the
fleet of Spain. Now, Admiral Byng's conduct was entirely
accordant with his instructions, and so high was the sense
of public approbation of his acts, that George the First
wrote him a letter of thanks, and with his own hand, and
the Emperor of Austria sent him a letter, expressing his
warm approbation of the Admiral's conduct; yet, after all
these honours, lie never received the thanks of Parliament.
No : though there was not wanting an attempt on the first
night of the Session to condemn the measure, on the usual
motion for the Address, and that, Sir, not by the Lords—
not by the high Tories—(cheers)—brit by that gentleman
called Mr. Robert Walpole, and Sir Joseph Jekyl, and
other Constitutional Members of the Whig party. (Lord
cheering.) And Admiral Byng was not thanked by Par-
liament for that naval victory ; and for this reason, because
the nation was not at war with Spain. This, therefore, is
a case in point, and one from which the Hen. Member
cannot, with all his ingenuity, extricate himself; but
then, exclaims the Honourable Member, if we do not vote
our thanks to Admiral Codrington for his victory, we
shall seem to want admiration fur the gallant Admiral's
skill and bravery. What, and was it because we felt no ad-
miration for his skill and gallantry displayed by the Duke
of Wellington in the battle of Waterloo that we omitted
to vote to him the thanks of Parliament ? No ; but for the
same reason that influenced Parliament in the case of Ad-
miral Byng, namely, that we were not at war with France
on the 18th June, 1815 ; and here I must remark that we,
on that occasion, stood to France in the same relation that
we now stand towards the Ottoman Court. But, asks the
Hon. Member, if the conduct of the Gallant Admiral 1,,e
deserving of the approbation of the Crown, why is he not
entitled also to the thanks of Parliament? Now, Sir, for
this also I have a precedent in the proceedings that fol-
lowed the affair of Toulouse : in that case the Commander
and the army did not receive the thanks of Parliament,
though they were honoured by the Royal approbation, and
rewarded by a medal bearing the word " Toulouse."—
(Cheers.)—But the affair of Copenhagen—that precedent
(cries the Hon. Gentleman)—that, at least, is entirely
mine. Now, Sir, I take leave to remind him, that in the
case of Copenhagen there existed the fact, the non-exist-
ence of which prevented the presentation of a vote of
thanks in the case of the Toulouse affair ; for in the former
case (of Copenhagen), war had been formally declared
against us by Denmark before the engagement occurred,
and we were still at war with Denmark at the time the
vote of thanks was proposed to the forces engaged in
that victory. Now, at the time that the action was
fought at Navarin we were at peace with Turkey,
and at this moment that the thanks of Parliament
are proposed for that victory we are still at peace with Tur-
key ; now this alone creates an important difference between
the two cases of Copenhagen and Navarin.—(Cheers.)—
But, Sir, there is another point of difference between them
—this, the object of the battle of Copenhagen was definite,
namely, the seizure of the Danish fleet, while the object of
the battle of Navarin was not definite, and was not the de-
struction of the Turkish fleet. And to this let me add
another essential difference, which is, that after the victory
of Copenhagen, we seized and brought to this, country
every Danish vessel that remained after the battle, while,
after the battle of Navarin, not a Turkish vessel was seized
by the Allied squadron, and not one of the three Admirals
commanding the squadron had acted in the affair on any
specific orders from their Courts. In that, sir, there is not
one circumstance in the two cases alike.—(Cheering.)
And here I must observe, that whatever feelings din suf-
ferings of the Greeks may excite in the breasts of some
Hon. Members, or whatever hopes other Hon. Members
may entertain for the probable downfall of the Ottoman
Power in Europe, these sentiments ought to have no place
amid our considerations on the present subject. The only
matter for our present consideration is, the policy of voting
our thanks to the Commander and Officers engaged in the
battle of Navarin, and we have no right to mix up our
sympathy for the suffering Greeks, or our hopes of the
downfall of Turkey, with the consideration of that question.
—(Cheers.) Again, Sir, an Hon. Member has hinted,
indeed intimated broadly, that certain late changes of. the
Government have a tendency to cause the rent of the Gal-
len t Admiral in command of our fleet in the lonian
Seas, as if any domestic jealousies could have the effect of
turning that Gallant Officer out of his ably-filled office, to
deprive him of his well won honours.—(Loud cheering.)
—Sir, that Hon. Member (Sir J. Mackintosh) ought to be
the last, the very last—to entertain such an idea—for it so
happens that the only Member of the last Government who
has a seat in this House, I mean the late Master of the Mint
(Mr. Tierney), is returned by the same borough as the
Hon. Member (Knaresborough) ; and, he may reasonably
suppose, entertains the same political opinions with the
Hon. Member.--(Lond laughing.)—And if that Right
Hon. Gentleman considered that the late changes in the
Government were likely to create any change in the con-
duct of Ministers towards that Gallant Admiral, surely we
should have seen the Right Hon. Gent. sitting by the side
of his eloquent colleague, and cheering him in the delivery
of his vehement oration—(Laughter)—and as the Right
Hon. Gent. is absent, surely we may take it as an indica-
tion that he, at least, does not concur in the opinion of his
Hon. Colleague for Knaresborough.—(Cheers.)—No, Sir,
the change of persons in his Majesty's Councils has
produced no alteration of the conduct of the Govern-
ment towards the Gallant Admiral. But in reference
to the Honourable Mover's proposition, I have found in
the despatches of Sir Edward Codrington, the copy of a
note transmitted by the three Admirals to the Commander
of the Turkish forces, two days before the battle of
Navarin—in it they state that, of three courses of
conduct open to them, they are determined to choose the
last, as most advantageous to the Porte itself—namely,
that of taking such an imposing position in the bay of
Navarin as would enable them to propose with effect, con-
ditions beneficial to the Ottoman Court. Now, such an
intention could not have proceeded from a wish to destroy
the Turkish and Egyptian fleets ; but rather from a desire
of inducing the Turkish Commander to that beneficial ar.
rangement, by the imposing presence of the combined fleets.
But the result of taking that position was otherwise than
had been expected—it was not foreseen by the Admiral,: of
the Allied squadron—nor by their respective Governments
—nor by the Commanders of the Turkish and Egyptian
fleets; and if it was so unexpected, so unhoped, surely
we may mix with our admiration of the gallant conduct of
the victors, sincere regret for such a melancholy result—
(cbeering)—and, accordingly, in the King', Speech, he
called the affair an " untoward event." But the Hon.
Member will tell the House that the King of Frame in his
speech expressed his approbation of it. Sir, in the
speech of the King of France also, it is called an unfore-
seen occurrence; nay, and what is more conclusive in my
favour, it has been called by the Gallant Admiral himself
who presided over the victory, what, why a most dis-
astrous extremity.—(Cheers.)—Again, Sir, when in that
gallant Officer's despatches we read that the Commander
of the Egyptian fleet declared he would not fire at all,
and when we afterwards learn, that subsequently lie was
drawn into it by incidents beyond his control, surely, we
may
safely conclude that the character given to the
event by the Gallant Officer (Admiral C.), is a correct
oue, particularly when it wae remembered that the result
was not contemplated by either party. But still more, Sir,
theo c dayr r
en after
e, c
the nature of the message: sent by the Admirals of the com-
bined
Admiral's own ad-
mission,tbhine ei:ngrealgueamdreonnst, tsohtol,:ves,Tbuyrktihht
t time Commander,
that England- was, a % Gallantheof
thecu
not only at peace with Turkey, but on terms of good un-
derstanding. The import of that measure was, that as the
Allied Squadrons had .not entered the Bay of Navarin with
hostile intentions, so they would not destroy the remaining
yea sole of the fleet, providing the Commander acknowledged
that they bad commenced an unjust aggression against the
Arlied Squadrons—in this case, the Allied Admirals would
immediately and willingly renew the friendly understanding
that had existed between the fleets up to the moment of the
battle.. Mr. Wyndham, in objection to that vote, lays
down m rinciple, which, if not applicable in all its parts to
the case now before us, atleast is in its general bearings ;
and those, Wing just, we are entitled to apply it hese, with-

out intending to cast any reflection whatever on the Gallant
Officer or his brave companions. In speaking of the expe-
dition to Copenhagen, Mr. Wyndham says—" It was on. .
pleasant to object to a motion of this kind, because the
party principally interested was brought before the House
by no fault of its own. It was unpleasant to object to what
was asked in their name, though not by them. It was un-
pleasant also,because there was en idea that where praise was
withheld, there was intention to cast blame." Mr. Wyndham
proceeds—" It was certainly right to keep the merits of
the army and navy distinct from the merits or demerits of
Ministers : and to separate the consideration of the orders
from that of the execution. But it was not usual to sepa-
rate, and keep distinct the nature and character of the ser-
vice. The nature of the service was always one of the
indispensable rules by which public gratitude was mea-
sured. In all military annals there were instances of great
personal merit in the minutest actions, as in operations on
the largest scale; in single ships, in Tuggers and schooners,
in packets even ; as there was lately a brilliant example,
shove ail, in actions of boats." Mr. Wyndham went on—
It was not in this state of mind, nor for successes of this
description, that a nation indulged in public rejoicings, or
poured forth its acknowledgements to those by whom those
successes had been obtained, however meritorious indivi-
dually their conduct might have been. National thanks
implied national rejoicing ; and national rejoicing did not
belong to the present occasion: It was on this principle
that he heard with pain and disgust the firing of the Park
and Tower guns on the (lay when the news arrived. It was a
call for exultation on the occasion where sorrow for the ne-
cessity of using force was in the mouths of his Majesty's
Ministers, and in the hearts of the British people." I
quite sure that such would be the language of Mr. Wynd-
ham in the present case ; that be would decide .according
to his own strong natural feeling, and impost those principles
laid down in the extracts from his speeches which I have
read—speeches, the House will recollect, of a man who was
not insensible to the claims upon national gratitude for such
victories—a man who, even in the case of an officer (Capt.
Peliew), for the capture of a single frigate, thought the
expression of our thanks ought not to be withheld. On
that occasion Mr. Wyndham said, " You are not to mea-
sure your thanks by the extent of the service rendered,
but by the nature of that service." That having been the
principle which, in the case of a single frigate, governed
the House, how much more strongly ought it to be applied
in one of so much greater magnitude as that now under
our consideration? upon these grounds it was that I made
up my mind respecting this transaction—feeling that no
imputation of blame respecting Sir E. Codrington ought
to be deduced horn the circumstance that his Majesty's
Government declares it cannot acquiesce in the motion
of the Hon. Member ; and considering that this is a
case in which it is not desirable to extend the principle
which has hitherto guided Parliament ; for were we to
concur in the motion of the Hon. Member, it would lee a
departure front established custom.—(Hear.) I think
that signal valour, or splendid proof of professional ability
and skill, ought to entitle a man to the thanks of his coun-
try ; and in this instance I ant far from denying the merits
of the Gallant Officer. God knows my opposition to this
motion is not upon private grounds—God knows that it
has nut its origin in any indifference to, or any doubts of,
the deserts of Sir Edward Codrington ; for if it had been
in confimrmity with the practice of the House, 1 would
have joined most heartily in any tribute to his deserts.—
(Hear, hear.) On the other hand, I must claim from
the Right Honourable Gentleman (Sir Janice Mackiatosh)
the admission of this principle also—that to thank the
Gallant Officer, in the way proposed by the motion
of the Honourable Member, would, with respect to the
Ottoman Court, furnish ground for believing that the Battle
of Navarin was a very deliberate act. The /lon. Gentle-
man quarrels with the words "ancient Ally" in the
King's Speech, and he seems to think that some peculiar
favour was intended to lee shewn to the Turks, at the ex-
pense of the Russians. The Hon. Gentleman had said,
it was net certain that the Turks would sympathize with
us in professions of amity; that he was not sore that the
Turkish Government would not disclaim the application
of those expressions, "ancient Ally." But if we were to
look to some of their expressions respecting us in the time
of Queen Elizabeth, we should find that they admitted us
to terms of amity, and that they acknowledged the value
of our connection in all the luxuriant language of Eastern
compliment. After the restoration of Charles 11., it is
true, that in one of their state Papers they declared—(but
at that period every body knew that the geographical
knowledge of the Ottoman Court was not of the highest
order)— in that document, however, they said, as a reason
for not doing something with respect to England, that
" they had always looked upon England as a dependency
of France."—(A laugh.) To deny that Turkey was our
ancient Ally would be, I think, too much for the Hon.
Gentleman. For 300 years we have been at peace with
Turkey, interchanging acts of friendship and treaties of
amity with her. The year 1589 was that in which our
relations with Turkey commenced, and they continued un-
interrupted up to the present time, except during a short pe-
riod, in each of the years 1799 and 1806. The Honour-
able Gentleman says, the Turks would repudiate an alliance
and hurl back the term " ancient Ally ;" but that is no
new phrase—for in the Treaty of Amiens (that treaty of so
much importance) the Ottoman Porte is characterised as
" the Ally of England."—(Hear, hear, hear.)—lu the
treaty of 1799, so far from Turkey refusing to recognise
us in that character—so far from refusing to acknow-
ledge the good understanding that had prevailed between
us—so far from repudiating our alliance, that treaty
concludes with these words—" The uninterrupted good
understanding which has always existed between the Court
of London and the Sublime Porte, and the common in-
terests involved in the war in which they were engaged, in-
duced the parties to renew and to cement the terms of their
ancient friendship."—(Hear, bear.)—ln the former (the
King's speech) we call Turkey our " ancient ally;" in the
latter (the treaty of 1799), we describe her as " our an-
cient friend." It appears to me, therefore, that it is mere
cavilling to say that we intend to exercise undue influence,
because we call that power stow " our ancient ally," which
we always called " our ancient friend." (Hear.) What
said Mr. Canning? What were the terms in which he
spoke of the relations of this country with the Ottoman
Government ?—(and these were terms not used for the
purpose of conciliating the Turks, for they were used in a
communication with the opposite party.) In his letter to
the Greek Government, dated Dec. 1, 1824, in his an-
swer to an application for an interference made on their
part by M. Rodio, Mr. Canning says—" Connected as
England is with the Perte by long established obligations,
and by ancient treaties, which the Porte has never violated,
surely it is not to be expected that England would engage in
a war against that Power." This being the language used
in speaking of the Turkish Court, would it be supposed—
ought it to be objected, therefore, that because we used the
words " ancient ally" in the King's Speech, that they
were introduced with any lurking desire to cast a reflec-
tion upon or leave out of view the obligations we were
under to the Gallant Officer (Sir Edward Codrington),
and time force under Isis command.—(Hear, hear.)—ln
the observations I have felt it my duty to make, I t: ust
have not suffered myself to be led away by the heat
that sometimes occurs in debate, and permitted my-
self to sitter one word or one syllable of Sir Edward
Codrington (or his gallant companions), calculated by
any possibility to deprive him of the value of his bril-
liant conduct. It must not be inferred from the oppo-
sition I give to the motion before this House, that I have
any desire to deprive th!ose distinguished persons of the
recompence of their valour—that because we are not pre.
pared to depart from that principle to which the faith of
the country stands pledged, that we are not as willing as
the most ardent supporter sf the motion, to do justice to
the gallant officer who is the object of it.—(Hear.)-1
trust, therefore, that, in accordance with the suggestion
of his Right Hon. Friend, the Hon. Gentleman will do that
which is manifestly the wisest, namely, to take that course
which, under all the circumstances, would be most satis-
factory to the gallant officer—most consonant with the
feelings of the House--and most consistent with the good
faiths and the reputation of the country.—(The Uight Hon.
Gentleman sat down amid loud cheering.)
Sir FRANCIS BURDETT—I hove heard, with un-
mixed satisfaction, the declaration of the sentiments of the
Right Hon. Gentleman who has just sat down ; and I have
no doubt that my Hon. Friend, prompted as he was origi-
nally by all those feelings which the transaction under con-
sideration is calculated to produce in the breast of every
Englishman—all that sympathy for the gallant object of
his motion, which his (Sir Edward Codrington's) conduct
so naturally produced—that feeling that every thing he
sought to effect has been achieved—be will be satisfied
with the candid declarations of the Right Honourable
Gentleman ; and with the same candour with which
the Right Honourable Gentleman avowed. his senti-
ments, come at once to that conclusion which, it ap-
pears, worth" satisfy the House.—(Hear, hear, hear.)—
I am quite convinced that those gallant men, whose cha-
racters are at stake—who had persevered in fulfilling
that which they deemed their duty to their country
and to humanity, will be satisfied with the admis-
sion, that their conduct was not only blameless, under
whatever circumstances it shall be viewed, but that the •
whole affair was conceived with a wisdom, and performed
in a manner, which has obtained for them the admiration
and the gratitude of every man who feels for the character
of the country. But when we consider the very difficult
and perilous situation in which Sir Edward Codrington -
was placed—the heavy responsibility that rested on his

shoulders—not only the valour but the discretion that
marked his conduct—it is imposaible nut to agree that no
Naval or Military Commander ever performed his duty
under circumstances of greater difficulty, and at the satne
time displayed more of the characteristics of a truly great
man. Not only did his victory redound to the honour
of England ; but it may have achieved other objects
of incalculable value. Iday it not be the means of found-
ing a lasting friendly connexion between Powers never be-
fore so brought together—a reciprocity of feeling, and of
interest, between Great Britain, France, and Russia.—
(Hear.) It is due, therefore,to Sir E. Codrington to express
our admiration, not only of the valour displayed by that
Gallant Officer himself, but of those Admirals who, placed
by their Sovereigns under his guidance (the first time that
'he Admirals of those Powers were ever brought toge-
!her), vied with each other, not only in deeds of glory,
kit in deeds of generosity. All the glory of their brilliant
exploit was of less value than the creation of that glorious
emulation which produced envy, not that envy which
rows pale at the sight of the glory of another, but that
,pecies of envy which stimulated them to emulate the glory
of our own Admiral, who, in executing those orders,
onununicated to them by him, felt themselves enabled to
display before the wtold union of talent and bravery
never before witnested.--(Hear, hear.) Although I agree
most entirely with most of what fell from the Right
/ion. Gent. there are a few passages in his specech in which
I cannot concur. I must admire, however, the great can-
dour with which the Right lion. Gentleman admitted the
purity of the motives which influenced my lion. Friend
in
bringing forward this motiou, and also the full justice done
by his Majesty's Ministers to the energy, the ability, and
the bravery of the Gallant Officer and his distinguished
companions. I shall not, therefore, —detsin the House
longer than to express again my satisfaction that thisjus-
tice has been done to our naval Commander, without stop-
ping to dwell upon the admirable state of preparation in
which his ships were found before the action, and all the
bravery and skill that directed it. When all parties concur
in one strain of congratulation, it would be worse than
useless. I have, therefore, merely risen to express my Own
sense of the transcendant merits of our Gallant Com-
mander, and my admiration of the candour and manliness
of the Right lion. the Secretary for the Home Department.
—(Hear, hear, hear.)
Mr. HOBHOUSE—After the declaration of the Right
lion. Gentleman, I do not feel myself called upon to
trouble the House at length. I ant happy to find that in
the opinion of the House I have been guilty of no indiscre-
tion in bringing forward a motion, which has elicited such an
unmixed expression of praise and admiration of the Gallant
Admiral. The admission, by the Right Hon. Gentleman
that he would have assented to my motion had the action
taken place with the vessels of a Power with which we
were at war, would, of itself, have rendered it unnecessary
for Inc to have persevered in my motion; but when the
Right Hon. Gentleman declares that the character of Sir
Edward Codrington stands as high as that of any Officer
in our service, thus enabling me attain the great object I
Lad in view, I should feel that 1 abused the indulgence of
the House were I to occupy its attention for another mo-
ment. After that declaration of the Right lion. Gentle-
man, I cannot accede to the suggestion of my Right Hon.
Friend, and shall therefore, with the leave of the House,
withdraw Iry motion.—(Hear, hear, hear.)

The motion was then withdrawn.
SALMON FISHERIES.

Mr. WOOLRYCHE WHITMORE then moved
and obtained leave to bring in Bill for the better regula-
tion of the Salmon Fisheries, which was read a first time,
and ordered to be read a second time on Monday next.
Mr. G. R. DAWSON brought up tilt, report of the
Transfer of Aids Bill. The amendments were agreed to,
and the Bill ordered to be read a third time to-morrow.

The report of the Exchequer Bills (1;,000,0001.) Bill
was also brought up ; the amendments were agreed to, and
the Bill ordered to be read a third time to-morrow.

The House adjourned at a Quarter to Eleven o'Clock.

This day was published, price 25.,

APLAIN STATEMENT of sonic Parti-
culars of the FINANCIAL SITUATION of the
UNITED KINGDOM, with brief Remarks on the Inuti-
lity of the Sinking Fund in the present State of the Re-
venue ; with an Appendix, showing the Amount of the
Revenue and Expenditure in 1825, 18et3, and 1827.
Published by J. Ridgway, 169,

zn- 1,0
ks,
.11114

LONDON,
FRIDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 1,),

Our readers will perceive that Mr. HosimusE brought
forward last night his motion for a vote of thanks to Sir E.
CODRINCTON• Mr. IlurActssow and Mr. PEEL Opposed
the motion on the ground of its being unprecedented—and
adverted to the parallel cases of the Battle of Toulouse,
and of Admiral BYNO'S victory over the Spaniards, where•
thanks had not been voted by Parliament. All the speeches
are well deserving of perusal, and the liberality of Mr.
PEtr.'s drew forth the approbation of Sir F. BURDETI.
Want of space prevents our enlarging further at present.

The French Papers of Tuesday, and the Gazette di
Fiance of Wednesday, contain little of importance or in-
terest to English readers, being chiefly filled with their
own debates, an 1 translations of ours. According to
letters from Vienna, a levy of 45,000 men is going to be
made to complete the army.
Fgrrwn FUNDS.—Five per Cents. 104 f. 455. ; psi
Cents. 70f. '7oc. Bank Stock, 1,920 f. ; Naples Stock,
77f. ; Royal Spanish Loan, 72f. Vic. ; :elaytian Loan, 630 f.
Exchange on London—one month, 25f. 15c. ; three
months, 25f. sc.

The St. Petersburglt Journal of the 20th ult. contains
a long article praising the Russian Administration in tht.
Province of Erivan, which is in consequence undergoing
great improvement, while the inhabitants continue to enjoy
comfort and tranquillity.

The Nurembury Correspondent contains the following,
which may be intereEtiug to commercial reader,

FRANKFOILT, TEE. 4.

Contrary to all expectation business has become very
brisk here, especially in English manufactures ; and in Silks,
of the finest in particular, large quantities go to Bavaria and
Wurtemburg. Sugars have risen a little, but Coffee con-
tinues to fall.

I:XCMANGE ON LONDON.
Am STE FEB. 12.-11. 97%.—Tw0 months. 11.:r1?:

Halifax Papers of the 19th, and New Brunswick tt
the nth ult., have beets received at the North and South
American Coffee-house.—The Fredericktown Royal Ga.
zelle contains a Proclamation, by which the meeting of
the General Assembly is further prorogued to the 14th of
February, for the following reason, which will be read
with deep concerts :—" It is with extreme regret we learn
that on Friday last his Excellency the Lieut.-Governer
(Sir HowAan Doutaas), whilst walking in his garden,
happening to step on a piece of ice, sudienly fell, by whirl.
his Excellency's face wa► severely cut in one or two places,
and his right wrist and one of his ancles dislocated. This
misfortune, its his weak state, must evidently tend to cheel
in some degree his Excellency's recovery from his former
illness, but it is hoped not very materially ; he is now in t.
fair way of recovery."