He would not continue to attribute | 20,000 Greek slaves were openly sold in will." 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 he 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 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 | appealed to by the right hon. Baronet, 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 having been 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 bon. 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 cast 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. and from what sources derived. Bills. Read a second time:-On the Motion of Sir JAMES Petitions presented. By Mr. MURRAY, from Leith and Edinburgh, to substitute Simple Assertions for Oaths in all Cases where hitherto an Oath has been required by GRAHAM, Marine Mutiny; Trial of Offences (Ireland). Law; and from the same, for allowing Sugar to be Im ported, to be refined for Exportation. By Mr. OLIPHANT, from Perth, for Establishing District Courts in Scotland; and from Perth, Kilmore, and Urquhart, against the pre sent System of Church Patronage in Scotland.-By Mr. CLAY, from Poplar, in favour of the Factories Regulation Bill. By Sir RICHARD SIMEON, from Carisbrooke and Brading; by Mr. TENNYSON, from Lambeth; by Mr. RICHARD OSWALD, Mr. GEORGE EVANS, and Mr. DANIEL GASKELL, from a Number of Places,-against the Disturbances (Ireland) Bill.-By Mr. CHARLES CAVENDISH, from Rye; by Mr. MURRAY, from South Shields; by Mr. RICHARD OSWALD, Mr. CHILDERS, Lord MORPETH, Mr. BRIGSTRICK, Mr. PENDARVES, and Mr. INGHAM, from a great Number of Places,-against Slavery. By Mr. STEWART MACKENZIE, Mr. W. BROUGHAM, Mr. R. OSWALD, Mr. WILBRAHAM, Colonel PERCEVAL, Lord MORPETH, Dr. LUSHINGTON, Mr. BRIGSTRICK, Sir EDWARD KNATCHBULL, Sir RICHARD VYVYAN, Lord ROBERT MANNERS, Mr. OLIPHANT, Mr. JAMES BROUGHAM, and Mr. CHARLES GRANT, also from a great Number of Places,-for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.-By Mr. HODGES, from Harwich; Mr. JAMES BROUGHAM, from Kendall; and Mr. PETER, from Saltash, --for granting to the Inhabitants of Corporate Towns the Privilege of Electing their own Magistrates and Municipal Officers.-By Mr. HODGES, from Cranbrook; by Dr. LUSHINGTON, from St. Paul's, Shadwell, and St. George's, Middlesex; and by Mr. WILLIAM BROUGHAM, from Christ Church, Surrey,-for a Repeal of the Assessed Taxes. By Mr. RICHARD OSWALD, from Cumnock, for an Entire Separation between Church and State, and for a Repeal of the Corn Laws; from Irvine, for a Board of Trade, and for Relief; and from the Keith Agricultural Political Union, for the Abolition of all Sinecure Offices in Church and State. By Mr. G. W. WOOD, from Blatchingworth and Calderbroo,k for the Abolition of Tithes, and the Repeal of the Corn Laws; and from the same Place, for the Repeal of the Taxes on Malt, Hops, and Soap, and for a Repeal of the Septennial Act, and Vote by Ballot, and for a Removal of all Grievances to which Protestant Dissenters are subject; and from Toxteth, Ashton-under-Lyne, Staley Bridge, and Dukenfield, for a Removal of all Disabilities to which the Jews are liable.-By Colonel BAILIE, from Elphin and other Places, against the Church of Ireland Bill.-By Mr. LAMBERT, from five Places in Ireland, against Tithes.-By Mr. LAMBERT, and Mr. MORGAN O'CONNELL, from Tacumshane, and the Barony of Gallen, for Vote by Ballot; and from several Places,-for a Repeal of the Union with Ireland.-By Sir RICHARD VYVYAN, from the Clergy of the Deanery of Bristol, and from Penzance, against the Irish Church Bill; and from Veryan, Cornwall, against Tithes, and the most Oppressive of the Taxes. By Lord MORPETH, from Stansfield, for a Repeal of the Septennial Act, and for Vote by Ballot; and from the same Place, for a Repeal of the Taxes on Knowledge. -By Sir RICHARD VYVYAN, from Bristol, for a Repeal of the Duty on Soap.-By Sir EDWARD KNATCHBULL, from the Western Division of the County of Kent, against the Sale of Beer Act,-By Mr. SPRING RICE, from Kilkenny, for Speedily passing the Disturbances (Ireland) Bill. METROPOLITAN POLICE.] Mr. William Brougham presented a Petition from Christ Church, Surrey, against the New Police Act. He said, that he was sorry that his hon. friend, the Under Secretary for the Home Department, was prevented from taking his place that morning in consequence of illness. He had been requested by that hon. Gentleman to defer presenting the last petition; but as, according to the present arrangements of the House, he did not know when he should have another opportunity, he had declined acceding to the request. The petitioners complained that the New Police Act repealed the Act of George 3rd, which gave them power to appoint their own watch; them. However, so long as they conducted themselves in the manner they had hitherto done, they ought to receive the support of the public. Petition laid on the Table. PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS.] Mr. George Wood wished to call the attention of the House to the state of the list on which hon. Members put down their names to be called on to present petitions. He had put down his name on that list at the commencement of the present Session, and it was not until this day that it had come to his turn to present his petitions; and that must be his excuse to his constituents for not having performed his duty earlier. On looking over the list, the other day, he found many hundred names down, so that he stood but very little chance of having another opportunity for some time to come; but what he most complained of was, that some hon. Members' names occurred more than once in that list; nay, more, one hon. Mem and that the force which was now established was not so effective as the old one, while the cost was nearly doubled; the parish having been watched under the old system at the cost of 1,1007., while they were now obliged to pay the Commissioners of Police 2,1007. He agreed with the petitioners so far as to say, that the persons who paid the money had a right to be satisfied that they were called on for no more than their due proportion of the burthen which the new establishment had entailed on the districts in which it had been brought into practice. In last Session, an hon. Member proposed that the subject generally should be referred to a Select Committee. If such a Motion were now brought forward by any hon. Member, he would most willingly give it his support. Such an inquiry, in his opinion, would be attended with many benefits, for at the present time, the new police in some districts was in such bad odour with the inhabitants, that the men scarcely dared appear on any public occasion. One instance he could state on his own know-ber's name occurred no less than eight ledge. At the last election he was obliged to pay 1301. for Special Constables, and that in a district which was supposed to be effectively watched by the new police; and the High Bailiff of Southwark gave as his reason for having such a force, that he had received notice, that if the new police were allowed to appear during the election, the peace of the borough would be very much endangered. Such were the complaints made by his constituents, and such had been the practical working of the system as felt by himself. Mr. Wilks had had many applications made to him on the subject of the new police, both in the last Session and the present. He was one who much opposed the introduction of such a force; but the Bill having been passed, he was willing that the system should have a full and fair trial. Nearly all the information that could be got by a Select Committee was already before the House by the papers that were laid on the Table every year. If, in those papers, a statement was made of the pay to the several grades of the men employed, and the expense incurred for clothing, the House would have every information before them they could wish on the subject. The only fault that he could find with the police was, that on many occasions, when they were most wanted, there was a difficulty in finding times. Now, he apprehended that such a course was dealing most unfairly by other hon. Members and their constituents; and he trusted that the House would adopt some mode of putting a stop to it. The Speaker was sure that the House would feel itself under an obligation to the hon. Member for having called attention to the subject. He, however, considered that it arose from some oversight on the part of hon. Members, without once considering what course justice required to be pursued. The names of hon. Members might appear more than once on the list, without incorrectness; but that one name should be repeated eight times was manifestly an abuse of the plan which had been proposed. Mr. Cobbett thought the plan now in operation most objectionable. He had not been called upon by the Speaker for nearly a fortnight, and the consequence was, that his petitions had accumulated to the number of fifty-six. He had attended day after day, in hopes of being able to present his petitions, but was always disappointed. He considered that the best plan to adopt would be to have an alphabetical list made out, and call upon hon. Members in that order; that would put an end entirely to all confusion. Mr. Spring Rice considered that the plan proposed by the hon. member for Oldham was liable to this objection-that hon. I suspected the measure had originated, Members, whose names might begin with A meeting on Thursday last was regularly A, B, or C, might occupy the time of the House to the total exclusion of those whose names unfortunately began with X, Y or Z. CHARACTER OF PETITIONERS WAKEFIELD.] Mr. Daniel Gaskell presented a Petition from the Inhabitants of the town and neighbourhood of Wakefield, against the Irish Disturbances Bill. As he had opposed the first and second reading of this Bill, he cordially concurred with the prayer of the petition. called by the constable, and signed by the writer's friend, Mr. Waterton, of Walton Hall, who filled the chair at the Meeting, which was attended by the writer himself. The petition was then agreed to and numerously signed; and though some of the signers of the counter petition or protest, as it had been called, were present, not one of them opened his mouth against any of the resolutions that were passed unanimously at that meeting; so that these protesters actu not the courage to divide the meeting, or even to say a word against any of the Resolutions. The name signed to the letter was that of " Joseph Wood." Lord Morpeth said, it was always irk-ally were present at the meeting, but had some to reflect upon petitions, as it usually led only to recrimination. With respect to the petition just presented, he had no objection to make to it-it had been agreed to at a public meeting duly convened and regularly held; but a protest against it had been put into his hand -it was not a petition, and, therefore, he could not lay it on the Table. The protest was signed by many persons of the first respectability, and many of them of great mercantile character in the borough of Wakefield, and they had requested him to make all the use of it in his power. By this protest they stated, that so far from concurring with the petitioners, in their opinion, unless the outrages which had been committed in Ireland were suppressed by the passing of this or some efficient Bill, the Ministry would be guilty of a dereliction of duty, and all the consequences of a weak and inefficient Government would be entailed on the United Kingdom. CASE OF CAPTAIN ROBINSON.] Dr. Lushington had a petition to present, to which it was his duty particularly to call the attention of the House, from a gentleman named Robert Robinson, late a captain in his Majesty's service, and who, after serving twenty-five years in various parts of the world was afterwards sent out, in 1825, being then a captain on the half-pay of the 17th Light Dragoons, to command a corps of out-pensioners in New South Wales. The petition complained of the treatment which that gentleman had met with from General Darling, Governor of New South Wales, during his residence there, and more especially of the illegal proceedings of a Court-martial by which he was tried and convicted. He had been Mr. Cobbett would read a letter from a requested to present the petition to a gentleman at Wakefield, relating to the former Parliament; but such was the press whole of the circumstances respecting the of business arising from the discussions on petition and the protest, which would the Reform Bill, that, from the period show the character of the petitioners, and it had come into his hands, in consethe character of those who opposed it.quence of the lamented death of his late His hon. Colleague, to whom the letter was addressed, was obliged to attend a Committee to day, and therefore was unable himself to be present; but he (Mr. Cobbett) had been deputed to state this letter to the House. The letter asserted that the writer had just been informed, that one of the Protesters had disapproved of the petition, and that he feared the resignation of Earl Grey more than any other calamity. The protest, he had been told, had been hawked about by two petty attorneys, who were friends of Lord Morpeth, to prop up whose votes he right hon. friend Sir James Mackintosh, he had had no opportunity of bringing it forward till now, so particularly as he wished. It was difficult to state the contents of that petition without imputing very serious blame to General Darling, the Governor of that colony, and the persons who composed the Court-martial. At the same time, he must say, that he always held he was not bound to support the prayer of any petition he presented, unless he had some cause for believing that the matters therein-stated were grounded in truth. He had applied |