HC Deb 26 March 1833 vol 16 cc1118-37
Sir Robert Peel

hoped that an opportunity might be conceded to him of saying a few words to explain the language respecting the proceedings connected with the affair at Navarino, which had been complained of by the gallant Admiral opposite. The House, he took for granted, would bear in mind, that for the last three years he had been without any notification from the gallant Admiral that he had any the most remote intention of bringing the subject under the consideration of Parliament. It had been, however, brought before the House; and he felt it due, not only to the House, but to the gallant Admiral and to himself, to explain how the matter really stood; he likewise felt it was due to all parties that he should postpone making that explanation until he should have had an opportunity of rendering it satisfactory by consulting all the means of information within his reach. Had he made any accusation against the gallant Admiral under the influence of error, or if, in full possession of the facts, he had stated them to the House in a spirit of hostility or unfairness towards the gallant Admiral, no lapse of time should have prevented him from doing tardy justice to a party aggrieved; but in the same proportion as he should have been anxious to repair a wrong, so should he be equally anxious and prompt to defend and vindicate his own conduct when he felt it, as he did feel it on the present occasion, to be unassailable. The gallant Admiral had told them, that he purposely postponed giving his explanation on the subject of Navarino until he should be enabled to do so in the presence of a Reformed Parliament.

Sir Edward Codrington

begged to remind the right hon. Baronet, that he had written to Lord Melville, the then first Lord of the Admiralty, the moment he saw a report of the right hon. Baronet's speech, contradicting the right hon. Baronet's statement, with the understanding that Lord Melville would communicate his contradiction to the right hon. Baronet, his colleague. He thought that the most delicate way. After that he mentioned the circumstance to Mr. William Peel.

Sir Robert Peel

What time was that?

Sir Edward Codrington

I do not now exactly remember the exact time. My impression is, that it is not three years ago; but I cannot speak positively.

Sir Robert Peel

appealed to the House, whether the impression conveyed by the gallant Officer's statement last night was not, that he had communicated with Mr. William Peel on the subject recently. At least, most certainly, that was his own impression. Well, the gallant Officer had at last brought forward his charge—confident of justice and redress from that Reformed Parliament. He could tell the gallant Officer that he did not appeal to that Reformed Parliament with more confidence than he did. He had not solicited the attendance of a single friend; if any of his friends chanced to be present, it was merely accidental. He cared not that the tribunal was a Reformed Parliament, for he knew that he was addressing an assembly of English Gentlemen who, as such, would be incapable of permitting themselves to be for a moment influenced by party or political feelings in judging of a question of a personal nature. No reformer in that House could have a more implicit reliance on its honour and equity. The question then was, not what might have appeared in some foreign newspaper, as the report of his sentiments respecting the gallant Officer's conduct, but whether he, in the exercise of his duty as a Minister of the Crown, did make a statement in his place in Parliament inconsistent with fact, and bearing hardly upon the gallant Officer's professional conduct. This was the question between them, and in discussing it he would dismiss all petty cavils respecting mere verbal expressions. The statement alluded to by the gallant Officer, was made by him on the 3rd April, 1828, very nearly five years ago. It was on the face of it not very easy for him to remember the precise words uttered by him on that occasion; and he had no other means of refreshing his recollection, except the contemporary publications of the proceedings in Parliament, He had that morning carefully examined those publications—indeed had taken more pains to ascertain what he was alleged to have said, than on any other occasion within his remembrance. Among the publications which he had consulted, he had referred to two morning papers of character and influence, and whose politics were, moreover, uniformly opposed to his own—he meant The Times and the Morning Chronicle. He particularly referred to these two journals, as well on account of their being opposed to him in politics, as that their reports could not possibly have been revised or corrected by him. He would refer also to the report published in Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, which was essentially the same as The Times report, and he would quote it the rather because, besides its agreement with The Times and Morning Chronicle report, from having the advantage of more time for revision and collation with other reports, it was the received and authentic record of the proceedings in Parliament. Well, then, the question was, did The Times and Morning Chronicle faithfully report his sentiments on the occasion alluded to? He would not shelter himself behind any verbal inaccuracies that might be discovered in those reports, but would at once avow that he was surprised at the extraordinary accuracy and ability with which they must have reported what fell from him. He would abide by these reports; they were honest and able; he would be responsible for every word which they represented him to have spoken. He would vindicate them under any circumstances and at any place. The gallant Officer had referred to another publication. He would not answer for that; if it differed from those reports, the accuracy of which he admitted, it was incorrect. The point simply was, whether he (Sir R. Peel) was or was not a correct interpreter of the sentiments of his Majesty's Government. Two other parties were more immediately concerned, the Earl of Dudley and Mr. Huskisson; from both of whom he had occasionally differed in politics, but for both of whom he had ever entertained great respect, and both were then no more. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Palmerston), who had an intimate acquaintance with what was passing at the time, would be enabled to bear testimony to the accuracy or to the error of his statements. At an early period of the Session the question was raised by the hon. member for Westminster (Sir J. Hob-house), whether the gallant Admiral was entitled to the thanks of Parliament for the battle fought by him at Navarino; and he (Sir R. Peel) was, in the discharge of his duty, obliged to oppose the Motion. But he appealed to the House whether he opposed it in a temper that indicated any indisposition on his part to do justice to the gallant Admiral? He stated on that occasion, 'that his Majesty's Government were as willing as those who might be inclined to support the Motion of the hon. Gentleman, to do justice to the gallantry of all who were engaged in the late affair; and, therefore, he was not without a hope, that the hon. Mover, instead of pressing the question to a division, would adopt the suggestion of his right hon. and learned friend, and take that course which would, under all the circumstances of the case, be most satisfactory to the feelings of the gallant Officer, most agreeable to the consistency of Parliament, and, as he believed, to the wishes of the country at large.'* He placed his opposition to the Motion on such grounds, that the right hon. Baronet, the member for Westminster, declared that he felt no difficulty in withdrawing it; and he appealed to the testimony of his political opponents, in the perfect confidence that it would confirm his statement, that, in opposing the Motion, he manifested no temper, nor tone, which could warrant the belief that he was actuated by any hostile or illiberal feeling towards the gallant Admiral. But on the 3rd of April, 1828, a question was put to him by Sir Robert Wilson, his answer to which was the more immediate cause of the observations which the gallant Admiral last night applied to him. About that time a report, * Hansard (new series) xviii. p. 420. which created a great feeling of indignation, reached this country, that the wreck of the Turco-Egyptian fleet had arrived at Alexandria, having on board a considerable number of Greek slaves, who were taken to the markets of the place and sold. He did not know the exact period when the rumour reached this country, but the first question relating to the affair was asked on the 24th of March, and that question was repeated by his gallant friend Sir Robert Wilson, on the 3rd of April, 1828. On referring to the report of what took place on that occasion (and he again declared that for that report he was in no way responsible, it having been made without reference to him, though he felt himself bound, in justice to his own character, and to those now no more, to abide by its substance), he found that the answer given by him to the question of his gallant friend was as follows:—'Mr. Secretary Peel said, he had already stated, that in 1825, and consequently long before the protocol was signed by the Duke of Wellington, at St. Petersburgh, and long before the treaty of the 6th of July, his Majesty's Ministers had received indistinct intelligence, that the commander of the Egyptian forces intended to take away the inhabitants of the Morea to serve in Egypt; and before the treaty of the 6th of July was entered into, a distinct and formal intimation was given to Ibrahim Pacha that his Majesty would never agree to such an exercise of the rights of war, or allow the inhabitants of the Morea to be converted into slaves by force.'* This must be a most correct report, because it was in exact correspondence with the facts of the case; and considering all the circumstances under which the debates in that House were reported, he was bound in justice to bear testimony to the general fairness and impartiality of those whose business it was to report the proceedings of Parliament, and he could not avoid expressing his astonishment that it was possible to make a report so correct in substance as the one he had just read. In consequence of the intimation that part of the population of the More a was to be transported to Egypt, orders were sent out from this country, in consequence of which, an officer, who was an honour to his profession, and whose loss his country, as well as his immediate connexions, * Hansard (new series) xviii. p. 1438. must deeply deplore—he meant Captain Sir Frederick Spencer—was despatched to Ibrahim Pacha, with instructions to notify to him, that if he intended to carry on the war on such principles, England would interfere with a naval force to prevent acts so inconsistent with the usages of nations, and with common humanity. He (Sir Robert Peel) then went on to state—'that instructions had been given to the British Admiral before the battle took place, and these instructions were consequently still in force, by which the British fleet was directed to prevent any movement whatever of the Egyptian force, with this exception only, that if an attempt were made to remove the Egyptian army from the Morea, every facility should be afforded for the execution of such an attempt; but it was perfectly understood that the Egyptian forces only were to be removed, and that any attempt at removing any portion of the population of the Morea was to be resisted.'* Now let the House remark the proof he could give of the extraordinary correctness of this report. He had referred to the instructions given by Lord Dudley, on the 15th of October, 1827, before he (Sir R. Peel) was in office, and as the battle of Navarino took place on October 20th, the instructions must have been drawn up six weeks before the news of the battle reached this country. They ran thus:—'The commander of the British fleet will concert with the commanders of the Allied Powers the most effectual mode of preventing any movements by sea on the part of the Turkish or Egyptian forces.' By the same opportunity, pursuant to the protocol of the 15th of October, 1827, under which these instructions were also sent out, this instruction was sent to the commanders of the naval forces of the Three Powers in the Mediterranean;— The admiral, to whom the task of watching the port of Navarino shall be allotted, by mutual agreement betwixt himself and his colleagues, should be instructed to hold out, in concert with him, every inducement to the Pacha of Egypt, and to his son, to withdraw the Egyptian ships and land forces altogether from Greece, and to assure them that every facility and protection will be given for their safe return to Alexandria; but he is, on no account, to enter into any stipulation for allowing the ships to return to Alexandria without the troops. * Hansard (new series) xviii. p. 1439. Secret instruction. Annexed C. to the protocol 15th October. It is thought expedient, not only that the regular commerce of neutrals; that is, such as is not carried on in order to aid the belligerents, should proceed uninterrupted, but that interruption should be confined to neutrals sailing under the convoy of Turkish ships of war. Such were the instructions given by Lord Dudley, at least a month before the account of the battle of Navarino reached this country. Now, was not the report of his speech, as far as he had read it, in exact conformity with the facts which occurred, and the instructions which were actually given? He had gone on in his speech to say: 'On the 28th of December, a fleet, consisting of forty-five sail, arrived at Alexandria. This fleet was the remnant of that which had been engaged in the action at Navarino. These vessels had on board the disabled seamen and soldiers, and also some women and children, but what the number of them was he could not tell.'* The gallant Admiral stated last night, that he (Sir R. Peel) had given countenance to the charge brought against the vigilance of the British fleet, by declaring that 16,000 or 18,000 slaves" had been allowed to be taken from the Morea. Now, how stood the facts? Sir Robert Wilson said, 'that official advice had been received—that he had heard even 7,000 persons—but certainly several thousand persons, men, women, and children, had been forcibly taken from the Morea, put on board the Egyptian fleet, and landed at Alexandria, where they had been publicly sold as slaves.'† If he (Sir Robert Peel) had been actuated by any hostile spirit towards the gallant Admiral, he certainly should not have been anxious to diminish the number of the slaves who were stated to have been thus carried away. But what were his observations on this point? He was reported to have said: the number of the persons taken away he could not tell, but that he had seen an account, which rested on tolerable authority, and that account stated that the number did not exceed 600.'‡ The fact was, that the accounts of the number of the Greeks carried away by the Turco Egyptian fleet varied from 5,000 to 600; but, he, so far from wishing to countenance * Hansard (new series) xviii. p. 1439. †Ibid. p. 1438. ‡Ibid. 1439. any exaggerations, mentioned the very lowest account which he had heard. Did the gallant Admiral remember the interview he had with the Pacha of Egypt, on August 6th, 1828, and the report which he made in consequence of that interview? [Sir Edward Codrington: Very well.] He had brought with him the memorandum of that Conference, and would read it to the House. It ran thus— Memorandum of a Conference held at Alexandria, on the 6th of August, 1828, between Sir Edward Codrington and the Pacha of Egypt. The Admiral said, that the only circumstance that might remove any objections on the part of his Government, would be an engagement by his Highness to do everything in his power towards obtaining the liberty of as many Greek slaves as possible—that his Highness was aware how loud the cry had been both in England and France on this subject, and more particularly by the deportation which took place subsequently to the battle of Navarino. His Highness stated positively that not one slave had been made subsequent to that battle—that 1,900 Greeks were brought over; 1,200 Candiotes—greatest part wives of officers and soldiers. The Admiral observed, that the not having prevented the return of those ships containing slaves, was a great cause of complaint against him, so that he must do everything which he could to procure their release. Surely, the gallant Admiral would, after that, find it impossible to maintain that he countenanced the impression that thousands of slaves were received at Alexandria. He had read nearly the whole of his speech as it was found in Hansard, except the concluding paragraph, which was this: 'The subject was one to which Ministers had given their best attention. Immediately upon the arrival of the intelligence in this country, instructions had been sent out to the British Admiral, and in a very short time he had very little doubt of being able to enter into full explanations without any prejudice to the public service.'* That was the whole of the speech which he delivered on the occasion he had alluded to, and he defied any person to discover in it anything indicating an illiberal spirit towards the gallant Admiral. The gallant Officer said, that despatches were not sent to him immediately after the arrival in this country of the reports of the transportation of the Greek population to Egypt. ["Hear," from Sir Edward Codrington.] But * Hansard (new series) xviii p. 1439. of what importance was it whether they were sent immediately or not? He had then stated in his place that he was not able to give specific information; but admitting that he did use the word "immediately," let the House see what period of lime elapsed before instructions on this point were conveyed to the gallant Admiral. It must be recollected by the House that no instructions could be sent to the gallant Admiral which were not addressed to the three commanders of the combined fleet; and before that could be done, it was necessary to hold a conference and prepare a protocol. Not having the documents at present in his possession, he did not know whether the Egyptian fleet sailed from Navarino on the 27th December, or whether that was the day on which it arrived at Alexandria, but he found that a conference was held on the 12th of March, doubtless immediately upon the receipt of the intimation of the landing of a portion of the Greek population at Alexandria. At that conference instructions were sent to the Admirals commanding the combined squadron in the Levant, expressly referring to the accounts received from Alexandria, in these words:—'In consequence of information received from Alexandria, that a great number of Greek captives, among whom are many women and children, have been lately sent from the Morea to be sold as slaves in the market of Alexandria, you will hasten to announce to Ibrahim Pacha, that you have positive orders to prevent the renewal of such outrages; and in case you should find any of their captives on board the vessels that you shall have occasion to visit, you will take the necessary steps to restore them to liberty, and to send them with safety to some point of Greece not occupied by their enemies.' Those instructions were agreed to at a Conference held March 12th. Knowing the nature of these instructions, was he not warranted in saying, on the question being asked on the 24th of the same month, that immediately on the receipt of the news that the Greek population was being carried away to Egypt, instructions were sent out to prevent a repetition of the act? He had quoted the whole of the speech made by him on the 3rd of April; but in answer to Sir Francis Burdett, who 'expressed a wish that proper steps would be taken to restore those unhappy people who had been carried away into slavery to the home from which they had been so atrociously removed,'* and to Sir J. Mackintosh, who said 'that he could not doubt that the inquiry in which the Government was engaged referred to the most convenient measures for restoring the unhappy victims to their country,'† he (Sir Robert Peel) stated, that 'he was not aware that it was possible entirely to go that length. Undoubtedly, if the instructions of Government had been strictly complied with, the transportation of those persons would have been prevented.'‡ In that observation he alluded to the orders issued before the battle of Navarino, requiring the Greek ports to be blockaded, and that the Egyptian ships should not be allowed to leave the ports of the Morea unless they carried with them the Egyptian army. He appealed to the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) whether the construction which he put on these orders was not the same as had been put on them by Mr. Huskisson and other members of the Government? If those orders had been complied with, no Greek captives could have been carried away: but did he go out of his way to impute blame to the gallant Admiral? No man could read the report of his speech without acknowledging that, whilst he was desirous of vindicating the conduct of Government, he was also anxious to do the gallant Admiral strict justice. He went on to state, that 'no blame was to be attached to the conduct of our fleet, the physical powers and means of which had been cramped by the battle of Navarino; but the orders, if it had been possible to execute them fully, were to prevent any movement of the hostile fleet, unless one which should be sanctioned by the English Admiral, and of which the object should be to transport the Egyptian forces employed in the Morea back to their own country.'§ That was the whole of the statement which he had made, and thus, while vindicating the Government from blame, he also said, that he cast no censure on the gallant Admiral for not carrying into effect his instruction, because he knew the physical powers of the fleet were cramped by the battle of Navarino. The gallant Admiral last night complained that he (Sir Robert Peel) had stated that despatches were sent out to him immediately * Hansard (new series) xviii. 1439. † Ibid. 1440. ‡ Ibid. 1441. § Ibid. 1441. or within forty-eight hours after the arrival of the intelligence of the transportation of the Greek population to Egypt. In none of the reports to which he had alluded did he find any mention of that circumstance. In Hansard's Debates he was reputed to have said 'As the intelligence at present stood, the extent of the spoliation that had been committed was uncertain. Unfortunately, those slaves had been landed in Egypt, and sold in the public market. If the ships which contained them had been taken at sea, there could have been no difficulty about their disposal, but now they were probably divided, and the property of private individuals. At present he would go no further than to repeat, that within forty-eight hours after the arrival of the news, the most active inquiry had been entered upon by Government as to all the facts connected with the case. Sufficient information had not yet been received but the investigation was going on.'* The gallant Admiral had stated that he read in Galignani's paper, that he (Sir Robert Peel) stated, that within forty-eight hours after the receipt of the intelligence a despatch was sent out to him.

Sir Edward Codrington

observed that he saw the statement in the Mirror of Parliament.

Sir Robert Peel

Certainly wherever the gallant Admiral saw the statement, it was not in any of the reports to which he had referred, and by which as they were in exact conformity with what he had said, he was ready to abide. Of this he was certain, that within three days at most after the arrival of the news in England, a despatch on the subject was sent, not to the gallant Admiral opposite, but to Mr. Barker, the British resident at Constantinople. That despatch required immediate inquiry into all the facts, and the utmost efforts to procure the release and restoration of the captives. These things he knew to be facts, and he could not doubt them. When he was asked what steps had been taken for the redemption of the Greek captives, of course he replied by referring to the communications made to Mr. Barker, by whom the steps were to be taken. What was the impression made upon the House by his statement? Did the House think that he had not acted fairly towards the gallant * Hansard (new series) xviii. 1441. Admiral? He found in the Chronicle report that the debate concluded with the following observation of Sir Joseph Yorke:—"Sir Joseph Yorke bore testimony to the disabled state of our vessels after the battle of Navarino, and was happy to hear that, whatever might have been the causes which led to the removal of the Greek captives from the Morea, no blame or negligence whatever was imputable to our officers engaged in the gallant action, of Navarino." That was said by a man who felt the deepest interest in the professional fame of every officer in the navy; and if he (Sir Robert Peel) had done injustice to any officer employed in that expedition. Sir Joseph Yorke would have been the first to condemn him for doing so. He might make other observations on this subject, but he had mentioned all that was material. The reports which he had quoted were those of The Times, the Chronicle, and Hansard's Debates; all of which were most correct in substance, and in none of which did the expressions attributed to him by the gallant Admiral appear. He had stated the authority upon which he had made those statements, and the nature of the construction put upon the instructions by one member of that Government which sent them out; he had appealed to the recollection of those present as to the tone and temper in which those statements were made, and he now asked that House, whether the charge brought against him by the gallant Admiral was founded in fact, or had been made in a manner consistent with courtesy? He was sure the gallant Admiral would, upon consideration, confess that he (Sir Robert Peel) had shown every disposition to do him justice. The question was, whether he had put a correct construction on the instructions of Government. If any Motion was made for the production of the official documents he would be most ready to second it; and he asserted, that the letters written by the Admiralty, by Lord Dudley, and by Mr. Huskisson, would be found in precise conformity with his present statements. He was grateful to the House for the attention with which they had listened to him. If he had been conscious that he had ever made any observations which were unfair to the gallant Admiral, the lapse of time should not have prevented him from doing the gallant Admiral justice now. For the speeches which might have been attributed to him in foreign newspapers he was not responsible, but he was quite prepared to stand by the reports to which he had already alluded. There might be slight variations in those reports, but that did not impeach their general accuracy. An expression might not be heard, or might be misconstrued, and yet the general bearing of the report might be substantially accurate and correct. For instance, he had seen it stated in the papers of this morning, that the gallant Admiral had said, that he had made a communication on this subject to Lord Melbourne. Now, the gallant Admiral had done no such thing, nor did he state that he had. He said, that he had made a communication to Lord Melville. He again repeated, that the reports of the words attributed to him in 1828, in the papers to which he had before referred, were correct; and they proved that he had made no statement that was inconsistent with facts, that was inconsistent with impartiality, or with justice to the gallant Admiral.

Sir Edward Codrington

said, that he felt totally unequal to make himself, by mere eloquence, be supported by any party in that House. Fortunately for him, the question turned upon simple facts; and if what the right hon. Baronet had just stated had been stated last night, this present discussion would not have occurred. If the right hon. Baronet had, at any former time, been kind enough to say as much in answer to his application for redress, as he had said I that evening, the House would never have heard any complaint from him. Situated as he was when the speeches alluded to were made—filling a station in which, if he acted contrary to orders, the deepest sensation would have been excited throughout this country and throughout Europe—he then and now thought it necessary to have the matter completely cleared up. He had never mentioned such a number as 16,000 Greek slaves—this was only the number supposed by Sir Robert Wilson; nor had he ever said, that the report in Galignani's paper was to be relied on. The reason he alluded to the report of that paper was, that it was the first that reached him—as it is the first that circulates on the Continent containing English reports; and, having seen it first, he thought it of the greatest importance to contradict the report in it, "that he had disobeyed his orders, and that full power was given him to prevent the transmission to Egypt of Greek slaves." When he first saw the report in Galignani, thinking it important that he should not be supposed to have had the power to prevent the transportation of Greek slaves to Egypt, and not to have exercised it, he wrote to the Admiralty, saying, that if it was intended that he should prevent the transportation of Greek slaves, he ought to receive orders to that effect, and that he should have great pleasure in carrying them into effect. Now, he never had received such orders during all the time that he was in the Mediterranean, though he had written expressly for them. Whilst there he had contrived to arrange a treaty with Mohammed Ali, which Colonel Cradock, after using all the influence of this Government, had not been able to effect. During the negotiation of that treaty he had used all the address in his power to get the Pacha to give up the slaves whom he had carried from Greece. He had even agreed that the Egyptians should remain in possession of the forts of the Morea, when their army evacuated that country, knowing, that it would be safer for us to leave them in the hands of the Turks than in those of the Greeks. He had, however, strenuously resisted giving up to them the fort of Navarino. "Then," said the Pacha, "there is an end of all the matter." He (Sir Edward Codrington) then said to the Pacha: "There is one thing which will justify me in the eyes of the people of England for leaving you in possession of the fort of Navarino." "What is that?" said the Pacha, with great anxiety." Give me up all the Greek slaves which you have brought into Egypt." "The thing shall be done," said the Pacha; "I'll give you up every one of them directly." Having got possession of these Greek slaves, he went to the British Consul and said to him: "Hire a vessel to transport these slaves to Greece, for I take it for granted that you have authority to do so from the Government at home." The House would be surprised at hearing the answer which he received from the Consul. The Consul said: "I have not authority from the British Government to spend a single farthing in the restoration of these Greek slaves to their country." He could not express the astonishment which overwhelmed him on receiving this intelligence. As soon as he recovered from it, he said to the Consul, "Hire a ship for them at all events, and if the Government does not pay you for it, I will." He would not continue to attribute to the right hon. Baronet words which he had once denied. He would not tie any man down to words, even if he had uttered them, when he asserted that he did not intend to utter them; but when he saw observations attributed to the right hon. Gentleman which were derogatory to his (Sir Edward Codrington's) character, he felt it his duty to notice them. It was a duty he owed to his own character to notice them, considering the situation which be then filled; for he had to retain the esteem and respect of the two squadrons, which were combined with his own; he had to keep up a moral influence over the Greeks, and he had also to exercise a moral power over the Turks—that power which at last enabled him to make with them a treaty, which all the influence of Government, previously exercised, had failed in persuading them to make. It was under this feeling that he wrote his letter of the 4th of April. He begged to state distinctly, that he had no orders to prevent the transportation of Greek slaves from the Morea to Egypt; on the contrary, he was bound by his orders to encourage the passage of ships from the Morea to Egypt, but to prevent their passage from Egypt to the Morea. If he had met at sea the Egyptian fleet steering for Egypt, he should have conveyed and assisted them to Alexandria; for such conduct would have been consistent with his orders. If he had insisted upon examining into the contents of their vessels, he should have brought about that very collision which he was so anxious to avoid. The gallant Admiral read a letter which he had written to Mr. Croker when he first saw the observations in Galignani, commenting on them, and explaining the transaction referred to; but in that letter Mr. Huskisson's name was mentioned, and not that of Sir Robert Peel. The gallant Admiral also complained that he had never received any answer to this letter. He likewise entered into a statement of the manner in which Lord Goderich had rectified in the House of Lords the erroneous impressions which had gone abroad respecting the orders which he had received on taking the command in the Mediterranean. He begged to inform the House, that in the interval between Sir Harry Neale's receiving his orders, and his (Sir Edward Codrington's) succeeding to that officer's command, not less than 20,000 Greek slaves were openly sold in the Asiatic markets. If orders had been issued to prevent the transportation of the Greeks as slaves from their country, why had this taken place? And why, having taken place, was it not inquired into? He was quite sure that no transportation of Greek slaves had taken place whilst the British fleet was under his command. He must also inform the House, that upon getting no answer to his letter from Mr. Croker, he had, upon his return to England, made a point of going to Lord Melville, then First Lord of the Admiralty, and of complaining of the unjust imputations which the Government had cast upon him. Lord Melville had referred to a copy of the Parliamentary Debates which were in the Admiralty. What debates they were he could not say, but in those debates he saw expressions attributed to the right hon. Baronet which he thought that he had a right to complain of. He said so to Lord Melville, and desired Lord Melville to mention the subject to the right hon. Gentleman.

Sir Robert Peel

Lord Melville never spoke to me on the subject.

Sir Edward Codrington

had not said that Lord Melville had spoken to the right hon. Gentleman; he only thought it strange that Lord Melville had not. Some time afterwards he met Mr. William Peel, and told him, that he (Sir Edward Codrington) thought, that his brother (Sir Robert Peel) had made statements in Parliament injurious to his character, and requested him to get that injurious statement set right. Still, however, nothing was done. If he had been wanting in courtesy to the right hon. Baronet yesterday in bringing this question so unexpectedly forward, he was unintentionally so, and tendered his apology for it to the House. He was desirous to preserve courtesy to all men; and if the right hon. Baronet would, as a favour, accept from him the copy of a little work which he had published on this matter, and which contained no remarks, but only public documents, he would see, from the nature of Lord Dudley's letter, which he read, that he had not, in any degree, transgressed his orders. The right hon. Baronet might think him too sore upon this point; but he trusted that the right hon. Baronet would consider the treatment which he had met with. He had been superseded from his command without a Court-martial, when the mere fact of being superseded was a severe reflection upon him. He knew that a change in the politics of the country had occasioned him to be superseded. That he could understand; but he could not understand why he should have been represented as not acting in obedience to his orders. He would fearlessly assert, that neither in spirit nor in letter had he ever disobeyed any orders which he had received as an officer. So far was he from bearing any ill-will to the right hon. Baronet, that he would conclude as he began, by declaring, that if the right hon. Baronet had at any previous time said what he had that night said, he should have been perfectly satisfied.

Sir Robert Peel

said, that as the hon. and gallant Admiral had now stated he had not had any intention of making any personal remarks upon him, he was bound to say, that nothing was further from his intention than to have said anything that was painful to the feelings of the hon. Admiral, At the same time, he must observe in his own justification, that the hon. Admiral had made use of very strong expressions, which, together with the unexpected call made on him last night for an explanation, had made him reply, perhaps, rather warmly. It appeared that there was a difference between them as to the instructions that had been sent out to the hon. Admiral, which was the only point at issue. He should now only add, that if, two days ago, the hon. Admiral had placed in his hands the book now referred to, and had asked him whether he had made a statement with any intention of casting blame upon him, the gallant Admiral surely could not doubt that he should have at once denied any intention of giving pain to the hon. Admiral. Whatever he had said was the result of the hasty attack that had been made upon him. The hon. Admiral had asked him to read a certain pamphlet; in return, he wished to be allowed to intreat the hon. Admiral to read that which, as far as it could be so, was an authentic account of what he had stated on the occasion in question. He should only add now, that he had not any recollection whatever of Lord Melville having made any communication to him on this subject.

Viscount Palmerston

was unwilling to prolong unnecessarily a conversation which had ended in a manner so satisfactory to the House; but haying been appealed to by the right hon. Baronet, and having had the honour of being in the Cabinet at the time when the news arrived of the transportation of the Greeks as slaves to Egypt, he felt it to be due to his right hon. friend to say a few words upon this subject. He must confirm the assertion of his right hon. friend, that what he had said as the representative of the Government about a transaction which did not properly fall within his department was strictly in conformity with the unanimous opinion of the members of the Government. He thought that the explanation of his right hon. friend must have satisfied the gallant Officer that nothing which his right hon. friend had said was intended to impute blame to the gallant Admiral. He was bound to say, that when the news arrived of the transportation of 5,000 persons, according to some accounts, and of 600 according to others, as slaves from Greece, it produced a painful sensation upon every member of the Government, and especially upon himself. No time was lost in entering into an investigation of the subject. He had not looked at the documents recently, but he should have thought that the despatch sent off to Mr. Barker had been sent off even earlier than his right hon. friend had stated. Feeling anxious to know the result of that inquiry, he had, at the close of the Session, when he ceased to be a member of the Cabinet, sent a note to his right hon. friend to inform him that he should, the next day, put to him in his place in Parliament certain questions respecting it, and the consequence of that note was, that his right hon. friend communicated to him the report made by Mr. Barker. He must also corroborate his right hon. friend's statement on another point. It was true, as the right hon. Baronet had said, that a misconstruction seemed to exist as to the instructions sent to the gallant Officer, for the then Government had thought that a sound interpretation of the instructions would authorize the gallant Admiral in intercepting these slaves, if the state of his fleet had enabled him so to do. It seemed that the hon. Admiral read his instructions differently. He would not say which opinion was the correct one; he would neither affirm nor deny on that subject; but he was ready to confirm the statement of the right hon. Baronet, that, in whatever was then said, no blame was meant to be cast upon the hon. and gallant Admiral, though the impression of the Government certainly was, that if his fleet was in a state to keep the sea, he was authorised to intercept the transportation of these slaves. The instructions had been drawn out by Lord Dudley, in concert with the representatives of the other two powers. He repeated that no blame had been intended to be cast upon the hon. Admiral, and the inquiry was only instituted with a view to ascertain the real facts of the case.

Sir Edward Codrington

said, that if what had been attributed to the right hon. Baronet, or what he had said, were ten times as strong, the moment he heard him deny that he had any intention to east any blame on him he was perfectly satisfied.

Sir Robert Peel

said, that he would abide by the reports to which he had referred. The hon. and gallant Officer had not pointed out to him the observations of which he complained in the Mirror of Parliament.

Sir Edward Codrington

said, he would hand the report to him.