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

e
of his conduct, did not com
bre6r
noticed in
Betbesides the testimony titideltidarreadd oyhim 'ludic**.
Woe; of Sir E. Codringtoors ante to the marked
approbation of that Hopse, bisidesthe testimony of their
Gracious Sovereign and that of' the late Ministes, he
had also the testimony. of the Minicar, noW in office.—
It was a very well known tact that a Gallant Admiral had
been sent out to the Mediterranean for the purpose of in-
vestigating Sir E. Codrington's conduct —for tbepur pose
of learning whether there was any truth whatever in the
assertions, or as they turned out to be, the forgeries, of
the Austrian 06sircer, and what, he would ask, was the
result of the inquiry? ll* had taken occasion a few even-
ings since to ask the Noble Viscount, the Secretary at
War, whether it was the intention of his Majesty's Go-
vernment to give publicity to Sir John Gores report ;
and in the reply of that Noble Lord, even in that, he
found sufficient ground to justify the Resolutions with
which be intended to conclude. That Noble Lord said,
that there was no intention to publish the report ; for
as no charge had been brought forward against the
Gallant Admiral, Sir Edward Codrington, he could
stand in no need of exculpation. Now the conclusion
to which he (Mr. Hobhouse) came upon teceiving that
answer, and indeed the only conclusion be could arrive
at was, that the report made by Sir John Go.e was a
total and perfect exculpation of Sir E. Cods ington. But
besides that he had a still further reason for concluding
that the conduct of the Gallant Admiral had met With
the approval of his Majesty's pie•ent Ministers. It was
this—he was _still continued in his command. Sir
Edward Codrington was still OUT Naval Commander
in Chief in• the Mediterranean,' and, he should like to
know whether his Majessea ;Ministers would retain an
Officer in that. high. responsible, and at the piesent_
time, most delicate station, if they supposed that he had
been guilty of the slightest indiscretion, or swerved'
one iota from his instructions—(Year, hear). The Right.,
Honourable Gentleman the Secretary, for the Colonies'
was a party to the instructions, and he must be .perfectly
well aware that if they had not been fulfilled, it would;
be impossible for hiniselfr and for those Right' Hon.
lad Hon.Gentlenten around him to maintain their si-
Mations, if they permitted Sir E. Codrington to con-
• tipue to held the higb and impoiunt post he did,if he had
not done his duty. It he (Mr. Hobbouse) could sup-
pose that the Gallant ' Admiral were censurable, he
would be among the'firet to vote for his recall. But he
bad still other proofs in steppe:at .of his conviction that
Sir E. Codrington had nobly done his duty. And on a•,
great occasion lite that, ptihaps he might be allowed;
• without being -cnoiideted -tO•depatt from the rules of
al.! House and pepper rielecaty,-toaliude particularly to
the language which some of 'hit. Majesty's Ministers,
had-used in another place, He might be allowed to
mention the nanaes-of those Ministers, especially as heel
shoula.citiote theft sentiments and their flames only in
support of the reputation of a Gallant Officer whom
the; contintsed-to employ in
,'a • highly important com-
mand. The Prime Minister, the Duke of Weilingtou, had,
said," A Noble Lord had saidolid they mean to make any
charge against the Admiral? He answered, certainly not.
He meant to make none; heb ad no right to make a charge
. , •
againstahe AdMiral., Thete was no right in any one to
charge the Admiral with any censure for his conduct;
he did his duty so his Sovereign and his country." And
his Grace bad then said, that the gallant Admiral being
continued in his command was a clear proof that his con-
duct had been correct, -and that he stood in no need of
exculpatioh; but besides that„ the Doke of Willitigtrin
Isid.further said that which
.would. in itself bit sufficient
for him (Mr. Hobhouse). to footed his vote open. The:
passage he alluded to *as this—" Theta:tot Admiral
was placed in a situation of no ordinary delicacy, and
had so conducted himself ai to acquire the confidence
of all. He (the Duke of Wellington) would be unfit
for the situation which his Sovereign had been graciously
pleased to place hint in, if he insinuated the slightest
degraie:stif,..ceniatre against the gallant ' Admiral."-io,
Aker having said so much, he was alinost ashamed
of producing any further testimOny, in favour of the
conduct of the gallant Admiral. Was there a man itt
the cottony who was better-able to judge of how far
valisut could be carried with 'propriety than was the'
Duke of Wellington ?—(Hear.hear4WaX there a mats.
in the country oho was a better judge as to whom
prais4ought or ought not to be bestowed for the exer-
cise pt gallantry than was the Duke of Wellington?
'There was ncinno(Hear). He then came to the testi-
mon/ of a Noble.. Marquis thin whom there *as not a'
more upright or honourable-man existing—he meant
the Marquis of Lansslown—and what was the language
,or alit Noble Lord ? Wby he saido-m But whether that
were .the case or not" (alluding • to the principles on
whieb .tlut. ;treaty was. formed) "no blame Whatever
could ettachto Admiral Codriiigton. If blame attached
to any quarte‘it was to that from whence the instruc-
tions to him rcte: issued.' Honour and praise were
due to Admiral Codiington, andif blame were to fall
any. where, it must be on those who sent . him his
instructions He (Lord Lansdows) by no Means con•
sidered that the introduction of -the word " untoward'
was meant to convey any disapprobation on the con-
duct of the Gallant Commander at &night, wbo had
exercised a fantod discretion in very critical circum-,
stances, and who was entitled to the warm approbation
of the Government and the country." No eulogy could
be more ample, no praise could ,-beano, e disinterested.
It proceeded from a Minister who Wes a 'party to the
instructions, who was responsible for their consequences,
arid after that was it to be supposed, was it to be Ima-
gined, thet any would be found ready to carp at the
'reputation and the services of the gallant A cimiral-?
Why, if those who drew up the instructions spoke thus
'of the 'service;, of Sir-E. Codrington, 'and those who
Could produce the instructions, but who joined also in
the.praise, what mannernf ground could there be for
the Howe denying itself the gratification of doing that
justicewhich, both upon precedent and strand reasoning.
he m4the, so fairly demand ?—(Hear.) Bur, to proceed
to stillituther, and, if possible,. even more conclusive
testimony. What said Earl Dudley, who had fortu-
nately, Or otherwise, heart' member of both Ministries?
,WhisahnOtahle Lord said, " The production of papers
was incasing. for the vindication of the.gallairt Officer,
..kdmiral- Codringtotr. That gallant . Officer needed
'no eittelitittroo,, Sic E. Codrington had received-high
.hottoiftsAM4 lii) Sovareign—he had been continued in
has isoporsotoomenaad, and be therefore repeated that
he poededoolindicaiion ; and, if his conduct bad been
criticised brothers, it was rather too hard that his Ma-
j'estlX-GOir.efarme.nt, thould be called upod to Vindicate
Itiatiljalteoptodtiotion of document tibia ioold not
be prodomd without great public inconvetaiecce." Such
was the testimony Of the Secretary of Sate fOrforeign,
Affairs—the tessituony, of a Nobleman who, from the
situation be 41led,otust be conill)tipii mil* Oncoliatly
fitted to edge as to the:manumit' which the Gallant
Admiral had discharged his duties. But, there was yet
another piece of testimony to'Which he must advert—k.,
vijiii the testiostir.te or. the,Nuble-Loid vsbo *as lately
at the heaCofJusaalajestes CouncilS .Lnedsgoderieb i
had said, 'ilk ailse begged levet* center- in mrhik
hadjaWtedier his gable--Mend (the Onki Of We('
lington) al to the merits of the distinguished lafficer;