The Sun.
London, England, 1829-09-24 00:00:00

sion of tl:e Court-martial:at Portsmouth,
which there has not appeared, in some news,
paper or other, some remarks intended to woune
the feelings and tarnish the fame of Sir Edware
Codrington. great (lea/ of mystery still hangs
over the origin and precise motive of the pro-
ceedings, which excited more interest, and called
forth more public discussion, than any Naval
Court-martial since that of Admiral Keppel.
We believe an- investigation of this- nature, in-
stituted upon charges brought forward so long
after the event, is without example in the his-
tory of the service. As it has been without pre-
cedent, so we hope it will be without imitation.
Charges which affect the character and honour
of naval and military Officers ought not to be
kept suspended over . their heads until the me-
mory of facts is so impaired that witnesses speak
rather from vague recollection than positive cer-
tainty. Sir Edward Codrington, however, dis-
claimed, from the commencement of the pro-
ceedings, that he watt the prosecutor. We need
not now .go into the subject, already so
much discussed, of the distinction between
specific charges made for the purpose of
obtaining a Court-martial, and the confiden-
tial communications which superior officers in the
Navy, as well as the Army, are said to make to
the governing powers relative to the conduct of
those under their command. It has been much
objected to Sir Edward Codrington, that, after
being so hag silent respecting the alleged mis-
conduct of Captain Dickenson, he should ever
have thought proper to make the inculpatory
statements which he (lid ; but we can imagine a
case where a Commanding Officer, not fully ap-
proving of the conduct of' an inferior, might be
induced to overlook it—might be of opinion
that, under all the circumstances, the interests of
the service (lid not require him to call for a
Court-martial ; and yet he might, with great pro-
priety, decline to give a certificate to entitle such
inferior officer to an honourable distinction--

especially where other officers, whose con-
duct he held in higher estimation, were passed
over unnoticed. -In not making the charges he
was merely passive ; but, in granting such a
certificate, he would be the active instrument of
doing that, which, in his own opinion, was a de-
ception on those who had the distribution of ho-
nours at their disposal. If pressed for his reasons,
it does appear to us rather harsh to force him
into the invidious position of a prosecutor, and
ro insist upon his reasons being considered as
formal charges which he must go before a Court-
martial to substantiate. If the case which we
have supposed should in principle resemble the
one in question, we can have no hesitation in
saying that the blame of this tardy and unpopu-
lar trial should rest with those who forced it on
at so late a period, by converting what was a mere
refusal to sanction the bestowing of an additional
honour upon Capt. Dickenson into a demand for
his punishment. The two propositions are quite
distinct, though it would appear they are consi-
dered identical in the logic ofthe Admiralty. That
the Court-martial patiently investigated this painful
subject, and justly decided between the country
and the accused, there can be no doubt. As to

. _
the fact of Captain Bathurst being returned
among the killed before the time of his actual
death, and the other fact of the communication

.ailed a " round robin" being presented by the
accused to his Commanding Officer, the Court
did not allow those to interfere with the conclu-
sion which they came to of an honourable ac-
quittal, because they negatived the existence of
any improper motive in the former instance ;
and, as to the " round robin," they defined it
to be only a " petition." It would, indeed,
have been a precedent of dangerous consequence
and capable of being, under a bad Administra-
tion, available to purposes of the worst oppres-
sion, if a trial, instituted at such a distance of
time from the transaction out of which the
charges arose, had proved successful. We ob-
serve, however, that some of the newspapers
which express a feeling of :triumph at the ac-
quittal of Captain Dickenson manifestly dim*
that they care little for the fame or fortunes of
that Gallant Officer, except so far as the issue
of the trial can be made a subject of reproach
and indignity to Sir Edward Codrington. We
do not profess to know any thing that has passed
" behind the scenes" at the Admiralty, with re-
spect to this extraordinary "drama," but we do
know, from what transpired on the trial, that
(he gallant Vice-Admiral is anything but a fa-
vourite with a certain functionary, who wields
the " trident" of naval command with, perhaps,
more authority than the " authentic Neptune."
Of Sir Edward Codrington we know nothing, ex-
cept that, that in the day of battle, he main-
tained the honour of the British flag with the
true spirit of a British seaman. The policy
which led to the fighting the battle was quite
another thing ; but We- always understood that
naval and military commanders were only to con-
sider how they could best execute their orders,
and not inquire into the reason of them. That
was the maxim of the heroic Blake, who, though
he did not approve of the usurpation of Crom-
well, obeyed the Protector's orders, inciting the
brave men he commanded by the memorable
words—" Into whatever hands the Government
may fall, it is still our duty to fight for our
country." It appears now pretty clear that the
Ministry who sanctioned the orders which led
to the destruction of the Turkish fleet had beets
betrayed into that act of impolitic energy by the
insidious counsels of Russia. To make Sir Ed-
ward Codrington answerable for the weakness
and mistakes of the Government would be to
place an officer in his situation in a cruel di-
lemma indeed. It is not so, much for the sake of

,he individual, as for the service in general,
,hat we protest against such a principle. If the