The Sun.
London, England, 1842-08-10 00:00:00

-ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.

Sir R. PEEL gave notice that to-morrow it was his
intention to move that the House at its rising adjourn to
Friday next, the 12th inst.
Mr. HUME wished to know when the Parliament
would be prorogued

sir li. PEEL--I hope on Friday next.
G REEK LOAN.

Mr. MARK PHILIPPS wished to know if the Go-
vernment had received any official announcement from
the Greek Government on the subject of the loan con-
tracted for that Government, and the payment of the in-
terest on which had been guaranteed by the British
Government. It was generally reported that the Greek
Government had stated its inability to meet the dividend
which would become due in September next, and he
wished to know from the Chancellor of the ExcheqUer, if
he had received any official communication on the sub-
ject.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, no
official announcement had been made to him on the
_subject. • _

FORG!,!.D EXCHEQUEIZ
Mr. C. BULLER wished to ask the Chancellor of the
Exchequer what course the Government intended to
take with respect to the different classes of owners
of Exchequer bills, whose cases had been stated in the
Report of the Commissioners appointed to investigate
the subject. •
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said,
that since the Hon. Gentleman had last asked him the
queition, he had devoted the few hours which
he had been enabled to spare from his duties in
that House, and from his official duties, to a
cursory perusal of that Report, and of the
evidence upon which it was founded. The result of that
cursory perusal had been to produce upon his rnind a
general impression—in fact he felt that on the consi-
deration of the circumstances stated in that Report, that
undoubtedly these existed an equitable claim on the
part of some of the holders of these Exchequer bills,
on the consideration of the Government—(Hear, hear)—
and it would be the duty of the responsible advisers of
the Crown, to submit to the House such measures as
they might think necessary, to afford relief to such per-
sons as might be entitled to their consideration. Their
were other parties to whose cases further con-
sideration must be given, and it was evident
that there was a considerable difference between the
several cases which had been investigated by the Com-
missioners. Ile felt that the Government was not at the
preSent moment in a situation to give the House a defi-
nite idea of the coursa which it might be re-
quisite to pursue. He was the • only Member
of the Government who had read the Report
It had only been in the hands of that House to-day, and
he doubted, in fact he felt assured, that no Member of
that House had considered 'the subject with a sufficient
degree of attention to be enabled to form a cor-
rect judgment. The question was of consider-
able importance, and could not be decided without
the House being fully masters of the Report and the
evidence. Although he should have been glad if the Re-
port had been presented in time for the House to have
made a final settlement of the question this session ;
yet considering the present state cf public business,
considering the situation in which they then stood,
the Committee of Supply having closed, he
had to regret that during the present session
it Was impossible the House could take that
Report into its consideration, with the prospect of any
beneficial result to the parties concerned, or with justice
to the public interest. He begged leave, however, to
say that he did not mean to pass any blame on the
Commissioners, who had conducted their inquiry with
the utmost diligence, and investigated the transaction
in the way best calculated to throw light upon
it. It was not his intention, in any arrangement that
might be made, to stand upon arty technical point, in
order to avoid giving the subject a fair consideration;
but, on the other hand, the Government would require
' that every claim should be strictly investigated.
Mr. C. BULLER said that the answer of the Right
Hon. Gentleman was certainly explicit ; but at the same
time it would be very unsatisfactory to those whose
forturKs depended on the course the Government
might take upon the subject. He did not know
on whom the blame of the delay which had occurred
should be cast. But he knew that the sufferers were
deeply interested in the matter, and he should therefore
give notice that he would avail himself of any oppor-
tunity which might arise in the course of the evening of
laying the question before the House.
CASE OF MR. JOHNSTONE.
Mr. HUME wished to bring under the notice of the
Right Hon. Baronet, the Secretary of State for the
Home Department, the case of a gentleman of the
name of Johnston, who, according to public report,
after having been lately tried for an assault and
sentenced to three months' imprisonment, had, to the
surprise of every one acquainted with the circumstances,
been found at liberty a very short time afterwards.
The Right Honourable Gentleman must be aware that
considerable anxiety existed in the public mind to
receive an explanation from the Government upon the
subject. He (Mr. Hume) hoped . the Right Honourable
Gentleman would be ready -to give that explana-
tion, as it was very important that it should not be
thought that justice was not equally administered to the
rich and to the poor.

Sir J. GRAHAM said that ha was much obliged to
the lion. Member for Montrose. both for the courtesy of
his having given notice of his intention to put the ques-
tion, and also for his having asked it ; because he did
think that the question was one very worthy of being
answered, and the explanation he was about to give was,
he felt, duo to the impartial administration of justice.
The case had first been brought under his notice by the
Under-Secretary of State, Mr. Phillips, after a commu-
nication had been made to him by Mr. Sergeant Adams,
the Judge who had tried the case. Upon first seeing
the report of the case, considering the condition in life
of the prisoner, his education, his superior station, and
all the circumstances attending his position, he had felt
very great hesitation indeed with respect to the propriety
of entertaining any proposal to mitigate the severity of .
his sentence, and he therefore referred back the case to
Mr. Sergeant Adams for his opinion. lie thought the
best course he could take was to read to the House the
statement of Mr. Sergeant Adams, which induced him
to commute the sentence. He should state that the alle-
gation was, that this gentleman had made an assault
in his chambers upon a female, with criminal
That was the indictment upon which he was tried,
and the verdict of the jury found him guilty of the
assault. Seine circumstances came to the knowledge of
Mr. Sergeant Adams shortly after the trial, which led
him to doubt the propriety of the sentence which he had
bp% e
fullyn , a n and
ial,;esloo
steo
ddoubtandwhether
ettie bl r
eC
Court.mst circumstances e s had
This
was the letter addressed to him by Mr. Sergeant
.Adams,
and upon which he had thought it consistent with his
duty to remit the sentence after the party had been
con-
fined seven days, on the payment of 30/. The following
is a copy of the letter, as nearly as.
we could catch it, the
H
Right on. Baronet being nearly inaudible the gal-
Sh—ln reference to your communication with
respect to Mr. Johnstone, Lbeg to int,rm you that I
have conferred with the Police Magistrate., and examined
the person referred to in Mr. Johnston! s letter at the
close of the examination ; by which it appears that
she does not confirm in seine important particulars the
statement made. It does not appear that the prosecu-
trix at any time charged Mr. Johnstone with an attempt
to violate her person. There can be no doubt that the
prosecutrix from the
.first complained that an assault
had been committed upon her, but the witness did not
to take indecent liberties,tbheecaugsreeaatfdtilsileikkenohNevledhagd
think that she meant thereby to accuse him of an attempt
d
ahil)itrei
tseeisinl
sarderddai tnhateaobedl et
upon
psetioe)
cophseieurt,:uat
quarrelrt
i; It appeared eexo-f
ris gih
ntgiiss. s
,e,rmy distinctly tdrisnutcr y that
g-prieie
y
sr-
sion, as the taets then stood, was, that he had used the
woman extremely ill—that he had taken grossly indecent
liberties with her, and that he had brought forward
his wife unjustly to assail her character, and falsify her
testimony. Ido not hesitate to say, from my conference
with Mr. Walley, and the evidence now before me, such
impression was erroneous, that there is not any reason
to believe that the defendant intended to take any inde-

cent liberties with the prosecutrix. We must take the
case, I think, as follows :—That Mr. Johnstone is an
•irritable frequenttyliarah—with servants; and hav-
ing taken a strong dislike to the prosecutrix, and finding
her in his chamber later than he expected, he angrily
and sharply struck her on the back, and desired her to
leave the, room ; that she refused to do so, and he then
seized her by her arm and entered into a most unseemly
altercation with her, she resisting. Had I known all
thevircumstances, I should not, undoubtedly, have im-
prisoned him for three calendar months I think I
should not have imprisoned him at all, but inflicted upon
him a serious fine—such a fine as a gentleman of
large fortune should be called upon to pay under the
circumstances. The sentence, however, having been passed
I do not think the justice of the case would be met by an
immediate discharge, unless accompanied by some fine."
Under all the circumstances, considering that he had
been imprisoned for a week, and that the punishment
was itself severe for a common assault, he had thought
it right to remit the remainder of the sentence on the
payment of 301.

PUBLIC MONUMENTS.

The House then resolved itself into Committee, for the
purpose of taking into consideration the propriety of
addressing her Majesty on the subject of erecting testi-
monials to the memory of Sir Sidney Smith, Lord De
Saumarez, and Lord Exmouth, upon which
Sir R. PEEL rose and said that he had moved that
the House should resolve itself into Committee, in
order that he might, in conformity with the
notice he bad given sonic days ago, move that the House
should present an address to her Majesty, praying that
her Majesty would be pleased to give directions for the
erection of three monuments to three distinguished naval
officers of this country now no more, Lord Exmouth,
Lorl De Saumarez. and Sir Sidney Smith. The only
embarrassment he (Sir R. Peel ) felt in the performance
of that duty was, that of waking the selection, and in
discriminating the many claims which, on review of the
naval services of this country, were presented. It was
impossible to review the devotion to the public service.
and the gallant exertions made for the vindication of the
honour of. the, country by the officers employed in the
naval sersice, without feeling the greatest admiration of.
those services, and the deepest feeling of gratitude to-
wards tiles() who gave them.—(Cheers.) If it were
thought that it was a reflection upon those whom it was
not proposed to honour by a similar record of public
gratitude, 'he should feel the utmost pain. It was, how-
ever, always necessary, in cases of this kind, to make
selections and discriminations from contemporaneous
merit of a permanent claim on public gratitude. Duties
of this kind were painful, but still they ought not to
permit such considerations to prevent them paying that,
debt of gratitude. , When he considered the special claims '
of the three officers whose names had been mentioned,
Sir Sidney Smith, Lord De Sauinarez' and Lord Ex-
mouth, he (Sir R. Peel) thought he should be able to
show to the House that they ought to grant to these offi-
cers the distinction then proposed to confer upon them.
The effect of this public acknowledgment of gratitude it
was impossible not to foresee. He (Sir R. Peel) could
not witness without feelings of satisfaction the enthu-
siasm of the Gallant Commander (Sir C. Napier), himself
a great ornament to the naval profession, when he (Sir
R. Peel) first mentioned this subject the other night,
when the Members on that (the Opposition) side of the
House intimated an objection, or a doubt, at least, of
the policy of this step. By the generous enthusiasm
displayed in behalf of these officers on a former occa-
sion, it was impossible not to feel what would be the effect
upon the exertions of the officers in the navy. This was
the best defence of nations.—(Cheers.) Two of
the officers whose names he had mentioned—
he would mention as connected with exploits of our
own times. It was impossible to recal the recollection of
the deeds at Acre, and the capture of Algiers, without at
once feeling it to be almost unnecessary to s ay a single
word in honour of those by whom those services were
performed. In the case of Sir Sidney Smith, although
the force employed was inconsiderable, yet he (Sir R.
Peel) doubted whether or no more important events in
history could ever result.—(Cheers.) With a force at
his command, he (Sir It. Peel) believed of two ships of
the line, and with those ships defending the toe n of
. ,
Acre, occupying tnat town at a time when he had not a
single gun mounted. Sir Sidney Smith conducted that
seige in a manner which enabled him to laugh as all the
efforts of the greatest commander of that time, command-
ing an army of 17,000 men. The best course he thought
to take was, to refer to the opinions of contemporary
men with the Lord
and distinguished officer. In
the year 1779 Lord Spencer moved the thanks of the
House of Lords to Sir Sydney Smith, then a captain in
his Majesty's service. The language he used on that oc-
casion was—" He did not think that there was any oc-
casion to impress on their Lordships a higher sense than
they already entertained of the brilliancy, utility, and
distinction of an achievement in which a general of great
celebrity, after an attack on Acre, which lasted sixty
days, was repulsed by the gallantry and heroism of a
British officer with few troops under his command." In
the House of Commons Lord Melville, then Mr. Dundas,
and Secretary of State, used the following language,
which was not couched according to the usual forms, but
evidently proceeded from the heart. He said that " Sir
Sydney Smith had surprised the whole nation by
the brilliancy of the action, is which, after a
contest which lasted sixty 'days, an intrepid . com-
mander, at the head of a large army, was repulsed.
His conduct was so surprising that he hardly knew how
to act, as he had scarcely recovered from the effects which
the action had upon him." Shortly afterwards his Ma-
jesty sent a messenger to the House of Commons re-
commending Sir S. Smith to a pension' of I,OOOL, he
being then only a captain in the naval service, and a
commander of only two line of battle ships. His Ma-
jesty stated, " That he was desirous of conferring
signal mark of his favour 'upon Sir S. Smith, a captain
in the navaiservice, in consequence of the imminent
services and' brilliant conduct he displayed during the
whole period in which he was intrusted with
the defence of Acre. He therefore recommended that a
pension of 1,000/. should be bestowed upon him for the
term of his natural life." Forty years had passed since
that time. He (Sir Rs Peel) did not regret the interval,
because it would be an encouragement to others; because,
however protracted for a time, it would prove to others
that the gratitude of their country would not remain
dormant, and would show them that the time would ar-
rive when their services would be rewarded.—(Cheers.)
He would proceed from the claims of Sir Sidney Smith
to the services which, in point of time, had been next
performed—the services of Lord De Saumarez. Those
services were perhaps less familiar to the public mind
than those performed by Lord Exmouth or Sir Sidney
Smith, but still they were services which ought to be
held in the highest estimation, and that they had
not been sufficiently rewarded, constituted a suffi-
cient reason why, they should now pay that
respect which his services demanded.—(Hear, hear,) The
House would recollect, those at least who were acquainted
with the naval annals of the country, that, he believed it
was in July, 1801—(Hear.)—Lord De Satimarez at-
tempted to cut out three sail of the line, belonging to
enemies, under the batteries of Algesiras. In the at-
tempt he failed, and lost one sail of the line. He had six
sail of the line, with which he attempted to cut out three
of the enemy's ships, protected, as he had stated ; and
having been defeated, he returned discomfited,
but not disheartened. (Hear, hear.) Within
six days he repaired his shattered fleet, and with
six sail of-the-line, attacked ten of the French and two
Spanish sail-of-the line ; blew up three three•deckers
battle,Ships in the course of the action. That
was the second engagement, and in it he triumphed.—
(Cheers.) Public thanks were given to Lord De San-
marez for that action, and the greatest naval commander
which this or any other country ever produced—he
meant Lord Nelion—spoke of his conduct in terms of
the highest praise.—Hear, hear.) The thanks of the
House of Lords, were proposed by Lord St. Vin-
cent, he was followed by Lord Nelson—who bore
his conclusive, testimony of the merits of Lord De
Saumarez. Speaking of these • two battles, he said, in
seconding the motion, that a greater action than that of
Sir James Saumarez never had. been performed. The
Admiral had undertaken .an enterprise which none but
the most Gallant ()Meer and the bravest seaman could
have accepted. He had failed by the falling off of the
wind, but had the wind not fallen he would have cap-
red the French. Being thus obliged to retreat, he re-
u rned after his recent 3isgster, and attacked and con-
(juered their superior forces. He didnot think this ac-
tmu had ever been surpassed. These were Lord. Nelson's
observations ton.that occasion. Lord de Saurearesi itt
his answer, ae noielfdied,.viith the utmost gratitude, the
vote of thanks whieli had been conveyed to him by the
Chancellor : a. p,hermid on four former occasions he had
been honoure4_W4 ~he thinks of their Lordships when
commanding un:::s4attle ships in four different general
actions ; in
,action, in, St. Vincent's ac-
tion, in Bridyort's 8,4* and Duncan's.—(Hear,'
hear.) On friti;differient. oqeasioils, then, he had- re-
ceived the tha:nlis,..af . for gallant cot:duet- in
five great actiori's."'lf'stfig„viewesl the whole naval ea-
"reer of that gallant offieer, they would find it animated
by the same zeal fur the service and the same devotion
for his country which had inspired others to their gallant
conduct at St. Jean d'Acre.—(Hear, hear.) In speaking
of Lord Exmouth, he (Sir R. Peel) would refer to the
testimony borne by a naval officer who stood highly dis-
tinguished in the naval annals of this country, the pre-
sent LordDundonald, then Lord Cochrane. He referred
to the testimony borne by Lord Cochrane when speak-
ing of the seige of Algiers. That Gallant Admiral said
that no ono was better acquainted than himself with the
power possessed by batteries, and he would say that the
conduct of Lord Exmouth 'and the fleet was deserving of
every praise ; the action was performed in the way in
which British fleets alone knew how to serve ; he never
knew anything, which could surpass the manner in which
he laid his ships along the Algerine shore. When Lord
Exmouth fought the battle of Algiers, lie had been forty
years in the naval service. In 1776 lie commanded a
large vessel in a gallant action in Lake Champlain. In
1816 he performed that action at Algiers, and he had
thus devoted' the long space of forty years in
the service -.of his country. There was upon re-
cord a letter from the First Lord of the Admiralty
to Lord Exmouth, then a midshipman, stating that the
accounts reported to him of the signal valour and good
conduct he had displayed during the action on the Anse-
rioan Lakes, were of such a nature, that he might be
,sure the first opportunity of rewarding him should not
be neglected. He gained his lieutenantcy by his own
gallant exertions. He (Sir R. Peel) wished the House
to survey the whole course of Lord Exmouth's conduct
for those forty years ; to reflect on the gallantry he had
constantly 'displayed not only in action, not only in the
destruction, but in the salvation of human life--(Hear,
hear)—to look at the whole character and energy of his
conduct.—(Hear, hear.) Her Majesty's late Govern-
ment had been inquiring into the claims of naval officers,
and they had confined their Report to these three parti-
cular offioers. He (Sir H. Peel) had entered into the
grounds for their selection, and he thought that the dis-
crimination exercised by the late Government was a wise
one ; and becanse Ms own judgment approved of their
decision it wag that he brought this motion. He did

not think it necessary to call upon the House
to make any__extensive grant of money for these monu-
ments. The great value of such monuments consisted
not in the elaborate workmanship, not in the expense to
which the public might be put in erecting splendid works
of art, but in that they were tributes of respect and grati-
tude for long and gallant services in the cause of their
country.—(Hear, hear.) And, however small the sum
which they might cost the public, the effect would still
be the same, to stimulate others to similar exertions.—
(Hear.) He trusted at the same time that works of this
kind might be made subservient, by proper care in the
selection of artists, to the great object of encouraging
the arts in this country.—(Hear.) But he contended
that it was not necessary to erect an expensive monu-
ment ; on the contrary, if it was their desire thus to ex-
press their gratitude to those whose services had ren-
dered them deserving, the more moderate the sum they
voted, the more reconciled the public would be
to the distribution of rewards of this kind, and
the more extensive would be the opportunity
of making similar acknowledgement to others.—(Hear.)
He therefore trusted that the House would not hesitate
to give a cheerful, he might say an enthusiastic, acqui-
escence--(Cheers)—in this motion, from the fear that
any considerable expense would be necessary.—(Cheers.)
He thought he need say nothing more to recommend this
motion to the House.—(Cheers.) The Hon. Member
for Limbeth had given notice, he would not say of an
amendment, but of an addition—(Hear, hear)—to his
motion. The Hon. Member for Laitibeth had proposed
inviting the House to take into consideration the claims
to similar honours of those great men who had conferred
benefits on humanity by their discoveries and exertions
in the fiald of science.--(Cheers.) He hoped the Hon.
Gentleman would not press his amendment. The
subject was one deserving of a separate considera-
tion.—(Cheers.) It ought to stand alone.—(Cheers.)
It would be diminishing the honour due to these great
men, to wham it was intended by the Hon. Member to
pay honour, if the motion were to stand merely as an
appendage to a motion intended to pay honour to these
naval heroes. The Hon. Gentleman had proposed to
call upon the House to erect monuments to eminent
scientific men ; perhaps the Honourable Gentleman-
might have exercised some principle of selection. He
had proposed the erection of three monuments, the
numbers were similar. He was not prepared to say
that the Honourable Gentleman was not right. He
would not say that the country had not too much neg-
lected to pay those honours which were due to scientific
and literary merit, but the subject was of sufficientimport-
ance to stand alone.—(Cheers.) It should be brought for-
ward on its own intrinsic merits.—(Loud cheers.) With
regard to the propriety of the country making similar ac-
knowledgments to men of literary and scientific
merits to those with which they honoured
men who had performed great naval and military
achievements, he would give them no opinion.
Much might be said on the subject of the indifference of
the State to the merits of civilians—not of those em-
ployed in political life, but of those who devoted them-
selves to the paths of science and literature—but those
claims should be discussed on their own intrinsic merits,
" Quique sui memores alios fecere merendo,"
should stand perhaps on the same foundation with those
who had performed great military achievements. That
was a question worthy a grave and separate discussion.
—(Cheers) He hoped the Hon. Gentleman would with-
draw his motion, and would take another opportunity of
bringing the subject forward, when it could be discussed
on its own intrinsic merits.—(theers.) He thought that
an acknowledgement of public gratitude would be more
striking if it stood upon that_ ground than if it were the
result of a motion brought forward by way of a set-off
to a similar resolution.—(Hear, hear.) He wished to
say nothing adverse to the principle of the mo-
tion of the Right Honourable Gentleman--nothing
which could prevent him from bringing forward
a motion to the same effect upon some future occasion.
Be (Sir R. Peel) should not directly pledge himself to
take that subject into his own hands ; but if the Hon.
Gentleman should find that her Majesty's Government
were not prepared to deal with it, he might himself
bring it under the notice of the House in the course of
the next sessidn. He begged to remind the House that
the subject of the claims which he had brought forward had
been under the consideration of Parliament upon former
oocasions. He did not say one word which could show
a desire to undervalue the high services of Herschel,
Davy, or Watt. With respect to the last of those dis-
tinguished men, the spontaneous burst of public gratitude
had already anticipated the motion of the Hon. Gentle-
man, and monuments had been raised to his memory
more splendid than any which that House could decree.
But the selection of the names of persons distinguished
for civil services was a subject for consideration ; and if
they determined on erecting monuments to those who
deserved them, they should take care that they ex-
cluded none who were entitled to the honour.
He trusted the Hon. Gentleman would voluntarily with •
draw his motion for the present, and would not prevent
a unanimous acquiescence in the motion which he (Sir
R. Peel) had submitted for their adoption. Without
wishing to disparage the services of others, he hoped he
might be permitted to say that there were distinguished
claims on the part of the three great men he had men-
tioned for the honour which he sought to confer on their
memory. By assenting to his motion the House would
not, he felt assured, incur the reproach of a want of gra-
titude for the services of other distinguished characters.
Mr. HAWES said he could assure the House and the
Right Hon. Gentleman that it never entered into his mind

to disparage the services of the distinguished men whose
memories the Right Hon. Gentleman proposed to honour.
But' he felt that while we had time after time erected
gorgeous monuments to the memory of our military and
naval heroes, we had nearly altogether overlooked those
great men whose,services were not perhaps so striking
—were more unobtrfisive—but perhaps not less import-
ant in their consequences to the country and to mankind.
He thought they had too long overlooked the services of
those who had distinguished themselves in a civil
capacity. He had endeavoured to select three contem-
poraries of the great men mentioned in the resolution of
the Right Hon. Baronet, who had been distinguished for '
great original discoveries, conferring on their country
not only scientific glory but great practical benefits. He
contended that in associating the names of Herschel,
Watt, and Davy with those of military and naval
commanders, be had only raised the latter into a
higher class out of the class of mere warriors.
The Right Hon. Gentleman, however, had said enough
to make him (Mr. Hawes) pause in pressing his motion
on that occasion. His only regret was that the Right
Hon. Baronet had not distinctly stated a determination
to take into his consideration and that of the Govern-
ment during the recess, the propriety of erecting monu-
ments to men distinguished for civil services, and of
selecting the names to be so honoured. He was sure
the subject could not be in better hands than that of the
Right Hon. Baronet. In looking back at the list of
names to whose memory public monuments had baen
erected, he (Mr. Hawes) was surprised to find how
small was the number among them of those distinguished
for civil and scientific services. Out of 132,0001. the entire
sum devoted to the erection of public monuments to the
memory of illustrious characters, he found that only
14,0001, were applied to commemorate civil services.
Again, out of forty public monuments only four could
be said to have been erected for such services ; the first
of these being that erected to Lord Chatham ; the se-
cond to William Pitt ; the third that erected to Spencer
Percival ; and the fourth that erected to Captain Cook,
who had been so honoured entirely on account of his
scientific discoveries. He would not detain the House
any longer. He would leave the whole subject entirely
in the hands of the Right Hon. Gentleman, and he re-
peated his conviction that no one was more competent to
deal with it.

Sir R. H. INGLIS said that the Right Hon. Baronet,
the First Lord of the Treasury, in endeavouring to
honour the illustrious dead, had done an honour to
himself ; and he hoped his proposal would meet
with the cordial assent of that House. It appeared to
him, however, that it would be advisable not to pledge
the House that St. Paul's should be selected as the place
where the monuments were to be raised, but that that
question should be left open for future consideration. It
was well-known that West Minster Abbey was not
crowded with monuments, and that a very large number
had already been erected in St. Paul's. He (Sir R. I.)
would throw out a suggestion that monuments to those
whose memory Parliament wished to honour, should
hereafter have their monuments in Westminster Hall, or
that a sort of campo &tut° should be formed in its iinme-
diatesicinityforthepurpose. It was the wish of Ur. Barry
and others that such a course should be adopted. With
regard to the delay which had taken place before Par-
liament had determined on erecting monuments to Lord 1
Exmouth, Lord De Saumarez, and Sir Sidney Smith, he '
confessed that for his part, he did not regret it. That
delay had only enabled the public more fully to appre.
ciate the services which those eminent men had rendered.'
to their country.
Sir R. PEEL said, he- did not see that any advantage
would be cterived from fettering the motion with the mtg.;
gestion of the Right Hon. Baronet.
On the question being put,
Sir G. COCKBURN said, he was sure that the navy
would feel extremely grateful to the House for this reward
of the services of three of the most distinguished officers
engaged in the last war. He would not attempt to add
anything to the eloquent and beautiful speech of the Hon.
Baronet at the head of the Government, but the House
should bear in mind that it was owing greatly to the
personal ability and valour of Sir Sydney Smith that
Acre was saved from the hands of the French. The de-
fence was more striking, because conducted chiefly by a
small body of British sailors ; it had secured fOr the
allant Officer in question a character in the navy which
he would never lose. Then, again, he thought the House
could not have made a better selection than that of Lord
Ex►nouth. lie fought the first brilliant action in the last
war—an action fought between two equal frigates, and in
which Lord Exmouth was successful. lie need not re-
mind the House how the first victory would tend to
lead others to attempt to imitate his deeds. Equally con-
spicuous was he fir his successful attack upon the batte-
ries of Algiers. His gallant exploit at the breakwater at
Plymouth was too well known to need any remark from
him. Similar satisfaction would be felt for the selection
of the third monument, that to Sir James Saumarez,
Ile was sure that it would tend to excite others to noble
deeds, when the country required them, if they saw that
their merits were thus remembered by their country.
(clear, hear.) It would have the best possible effect.
And he begged to return his best thanks to the House
for the unanimity which prevailed with respect to this
motion.—(Cheers.)
Mr. HUME said that he should be sorry to oppose
a motion like the present.—(Hear, hear.) In 18:38 he
moved for a return of the public monuments. He did so
because he thought that the object for which they had
been raised was forgotten. He moved for that return to
show who those were whom the country had honoured,
as the object for which they were erected was for-
gotten. He thought those monuments should be placed
where the public could have access to them ; and his
opinion was that there ought to be some public building
erected such as that which was bat to commemorate

the battle of Waterloo in which the monuments of those
who had rendered great services to their country might
be appropriately placed. He agreed, however, with the
Hon. Member for Lambeth, that those monuments should
not be confined to those who had performed great
military actions.—(Hear, hear.) He was of opinion
that those who had been illustrious for their
civil services, and their discoveries in science should
also be publicly honoured.—(Hear, hear.) When he
looked to such persons as Milton, Locke, Adam Smith,
than whom in his opinion no person was more
deserving of a public memorial—(Hear, hear)—to Watt
and to Dr. Reid, individuals who had reflected such
honour and contributed so much to the prosperity of the
country, he could not help thinking that monuments
should be erected to their memories.—(Hear, hear.) But
he was not so niggardly as to oppose the present motion
because monuments were not also erected to
those individuals. He thought, however, that
all the monuments to naval officers should
be taken out of Westminster and St. Paul's and placed
in Greenwich, which would be a more appropriate situa-
tion for them ; but that was beside the present question.
If they were not, he was at all events sure that the people
should have access to them, and that every individual
should have liberty to see them.—(" Hear, hear," from
Sir R. Peel.) Those places ought to be open every day,
that the people might be acquainted with those who
formed a portion of the history of the country.—(Hear,
hear.) As he was upon this subject, he could not but
express his satisfaction at the liberal conduct in this re-
spect which had been displayed by the Archbishop -of
York.—(Cheers.) He thought that so far from the
length of time which had elapsed between the deaths of
these distinguished individuals, and the proposal fOr the
erection of these monuments, being to be lamented, it
was an example that. ought to be followed. In France it
was a rule that no national monument could be proposed
to be erected to the memory of a great man until he
should have been dead ten years ; and it certainly was
more honourable to the character of the individual to have
this compliment paid to him after that period had elapsed.
If that rule had been observed in this country there were
Some of those to whom monuments had been erected who
would never have bad that honour conferred on their me-
mory. lie hoped that the erection of these monuments,
which he trusted would be unanimously voted by the
House—(Cheers)—would be made available to the en-
couragement of the arts in this country:—(Cheers.) He
hoped that all artists would be invited to engage in ho-
nourable competition for their erection.--(Cheers.) He
trusted that this opportunity of encouraging the arts
would not be neglected, for England had certainly given
less encouragement to the arts than any other nation in
the world.