Star.
London, England, 1828-02-15 00:00:00

courage resistant* in the Turks—that acting apart front the Allied
Powers might he the means of causing a general war—and that
nothing could be worse policy than the denial or the qualification of
the victory of Navarine--(Hear). The Treaty Of the 6th July he
regurded as the key-stone of Buropt—and no part of it could be
altered. much less undene,without enaangesing calamities Whet* et-
tent could not be measured. There was nothing to fear from Turkey
—and much from yielding to her. Our policy undoubtedly bad been
to keep her from falling to pteces—but still there should he no
yielding. Whatever the secret purposes of Austria or of Russia
might be, they were flaw pledged to the Treaty of the 6th July
for the note of Baron Ottenfeb was a remarkable proof that Austria
not only paitielpated in the views of the Aided Powers, hut posi-
tively stated to the Turkish Government what would be the result ,
if she did not accede to the terms of that Treaty. At that time too,
be it remembered, that the Turks were withdrawing front Greece,
and he now hoped that nothing could be done here or elsewhere
which would re-animate the obstinacy of the Turks, and ultimately
produce such a dreadful extermination as had before taken place-The
bounty of nature, the works of nun, the helpless child, and tottering
old age *ere alike sacrificed to vengeance; he trusted no such dis-
gusting scene would be again exhibited to the eyes of the astonished
world—(Hear.) He thought the motion of his Honourable Friend
was highly proper—even if it had no other good effect than calling
out the opinions of the present (impel meet, and urging them cor-
dially and honestly to Wow up the principles of the Treaty. He
must leave it to the lion- Mover of the present question to deal
with it as he thought proper—it was altogether in his hands; but
looking to the feelings of the Gallant Admiral, now at a distance,
and necessarily not having heard of his honourable and splendid
acquittal both in Parliament and the country—tanking, he
said, to all the peculiarities of the case, he put it to his I lonouiable
Friend whether it would not he better to withdraw his motion,
than that the previous question should be carried—(llear, hear)?—
le felt some hesitation in pleasing this matter farther. As far as
words could go, the intentions of the Government were declared
to he in strict unison with the principles of the Treaty. They
treated the conduct of the gisllant Admiral as worthy of the highest
possible commendation for skill, for valour, and discretion ; and,
under these circumstance's, be submitted whether the course he had
suggested would not-he best pursued as most coincident with the
feelings of the gallant Admiral, and the great sense of his merits
which was entertained by the Government of the country? (Hear.)

Mr. Secretary PEEL said,. that differing entirely as
he did with the lion. Mover and the Right Honourable
Gentleman who had just spoken, as to the principle of
the motion, or the qualified negativewhich might result
from it ; he yet concurred in the recommendation given
by the Right Hon. Gentleman to dispose of the question
in the manner suggested, as it could not be acceded to.
As far es he himself was concerned, he would cautiously
avoid the use of any expression which might prevent so
proper and so desirable a course. If he were called
upon to argue this question upon wider grounds than had
yet been taken, he was fully prepared to do so; and as
it was argried this evening, he felt disposed steadily to
apply himself to those points which had been urged by
the Hon. Gentleman at the other side of the House.
If he felt bound to resist the motion, it was not that it
meant any thing like injustice to the services and merits
of Admiral Codrington, for he (Mr. Peel) held him in
the highest personal esteem. Neither would he enter into
the policy of the Treaty or the Protocol ; but as, his
silence might, be liable to misconstruction, he was now
prepared to say,dhat he fully concurred in the necessity
of honesty executing the Treaty of the 6t!) of July.—
But in adhering to that Treaty—in obser t ing that good
faith which we had pledged—there were three great
objects to be looked to—the termination of the contest
cermanence of the basis on which it was to be
done—and the maint nonce and repose of Europe as it
was settled by the Treaty of 1815. The whole a•guments
of the Hon. Mover and the 'tight lion. Gentleman (Sir
Mackintobli rested upon the circumstance, that this
was the first instance its which a Vote of Thanks was
ever denied, for Nival or Military splendid services.
Mt that proposition he tit ally denied : on the con-
trary, he would say, that if thii motion were now
carted, it would be the very first time at which, un-
der its peculiar circumstances, it had been carried. Here
be begged leave to disclaim tie slightest intention of
throwing blame or censure on Admiral Codrington ;
he was as ready as any other individual to express his
admiration of the courage which he exhibited, and as
willingly did he join in the pvai.es bestowed upon his
skill. And If he felt it his dniy to oppose the motion,
1t was lam: tier drub ing his stall nor his valour, hut be-
cause it was contrary to Pad, +mental y usage and prin.
Cline under such particular circumstances. It was said,
ib it ever since the period when Path ament voted thanks
foe great naval or military actions, they could not find
a single instance in which the formal declaration of
War was considered of any use, or the thanks of Parlia-
ment had been withheld. Bic it eas n it a little strange
that the Honourable Gentleman, in citing so many
historical precedents, had not touched main that re-
ertarkab:e pri cedent of 1718, with the exception that
Ire said, it was not ucual at that period for Parlia-
ment to return thanks for naval victories. They
were, he said, then infrequent; but the very cit•
cumdance of their infrequency would, in his (Mr. P.'s)
view of the case, have given the readier occasion to
such a vote. It should be remembered that the Duke
of Marlborough then obtained the thanks of Parliament
for his great military victories; and why not c inter the
same honour upon those who achieved great victories
at sea? The principle was the same. In 1692, Admiral
Russell received the thanks of Parliament—(Hear).
in 1702, the Duke of Ormonde and Sir George Rnoke
received thanks for their victories by land and sea; and
next in succession was Admiral Byng, who also received
- thanks for his victory over the Spanish fleet. At that
period we were following up the articles of the Treaty
of Utrecht—we interfered with Spain in her designs
upon Sicily, and the analogy between that case and the
present was in other circumstances as particularly
close as it was remarkable. Admiral Byng was sent
out to watch the fleet—he had instructions to tie-
gociate—he proposed an armistice, and misted
that if its terms were not complied with, he must
have recourse to force. The terms, however. were
refused—he immediately attacked them, and gained
a signal victory. This conduct was in strict accos Janet
.with his instructions; and King George 1. wrote him
with his own hand a letter of thanks, the Emperor of
*Austria also conferred upon him splendid marks of
honour; bet was he ever thanked by Parliament ?
(Hear, hear.) No, he never was. Was any such vote op-
posed by Tories—he repeated the question, was it op-
posed by Tories? No, but by such men as Walpole, as
Jenkins, and as Cowper—(Hear. hear.) But why wets
:the thanks of Parliament refused? Because there bad
been no previous declaration of war against Spain. In
the present case, there was no previous declaration of
war against Turkey—on the contrary, up to the day of
battle we were at peace acid amity with Tui key—we
were so still—and so far he (Mr. Peel) tbcught lie had
destroyed the position—that the present was the single
case in which the thanks of Parliament were refused—
(Hear). There were other instances in which they were
refused ; for example, in use remarkable case, the bat-
•tle of Toulouse. But was it because any one doubted
the great military skill and valour by which it was
obtailei.? Certainly not: but it was refused, merely
because we were not then at war with France. It is
however said, that the present was a special case, and
should be treated differently from others; but be by no
means thought so. Iu the case of Toulouse the Crown
interfered, though the Parliament did not—(Cries of
hear, •hear). The King interfered, and expressed his
thanks, by directing a medal to be presented to those who
survived the battle, bearing on it the word Toulouse"