The Press.
London, England, 1853-07-02 00:00:00

THE PRESS.

back their alert patrons in the services
they require. Power, influence, and the
keys of the local and imperial treasuries must
be put in the hands of the priesthood; and,
setting aside the Conservative and even
Liberal Protestants of Ireland, the priests
must be the exclusive middlemen of the
country, for less than this will not content
them, nor is less their due from their bonds-
men of the Coalition.

ADMIRAL I'ARKER AND CAPTAIN

MILNE.

Mr. KEATINO has announced his intention of
moving that " during the administration of
" the late Board of Admiralty the patronage of
" dockyard promotions and the influence of the
" Admiralty were used and exercised for poli
" tical purposes, &c." Now, with regard to
these aforesaid promotions, we can only deplore
that tho bulky Blue Book which contains the
charge and the defence will never be ex-
amined. The public have read the worse than
garbled accounts in a certain newspaper—
they have read the ea-parte report—but they
will never read the voluminous evidence itself;
and none calculate on this more than do the
conductors of this prosecution. Our business,
however, previous to the debate, is rather
with Admiral HYDE PARKER and with Captain
MILNE than with any one else. They have
given evidence against their brother officers
and former colleagues. Let us deal with the
Captain first. He declared he knew nothing
about dockyard appointments—not he—it was
not in his department; and as for the Board
minute of the 26th of April, upon which the
whole question turns (q. 632), " Until he read
" it, when laid upon the table of the House, he
" certainly did not put that interpretation
" upon it which he is obliged to do, now that
" it is confirmatory of the order of the 19th of
" April." Innocent Captain MILNE! iti was a
new Board—no member of it except yourself
had ever been in office before ; yet you at-
tend the Board with your cars shut, you
receive the Board minute-books with your
eyes closed, and then, when there is likely
to be a fight, you raise the glorious cry of
" Sauve qui pent !" and take to your heels in
declaring that it was not in your department.
But what would you have said if, in the Gold-
ner meats case, Sir FRANCIS BARING had said
that those stinkpots were in your department
—not in his ; how, if he had thrown you over-
board, as the crew threw your carrion over-
board, and as you tried to throw your colleagues
overboard ? Sir FRANCIS did not do It—Sir
FRANCIS would not, could not, do it—but, then,
poor fellow, he is only a civilian.
What shall WO say of Admiral PARKER? He
has lent his sanction to the new system of
confidential letter-reading ; though, to do him
justice, with some reluctance. No one can read
questions 441. 2,3, without a feeling of pity
for him ; but his old-fashioned scruples were
trampled on by the company he kept, and so now
it appears, by his own statements, that while
he never brought the subject before the Board,
while (question 4071 "he did not think it his
duty to speak to Mr. STAFFORD," he Was all the
time in communication with some of the super-
intendents, and writing violent letters about
" disgust," and " its being too bad," to a sub-
ordinate officer. Admiral PARKER, once super-
intendent of Portsmouth dockyard, first naval
lord, encouraged by the Duke of NORTHPMBER-
-I.IIND to bring the matter before the Board,
never opened his lips there—permitted with
silent tongue and folded arms the service, as
he declared, to be made subservient to party
purposes—accepted promotion and a ship for
that meritorious veteran, his son—remained
in office under another first lord—and then
was not ashamed to come forward and say that
he held a most responsible situation in the
naval service, received its pay. and dispensed
its patronage, while he connived at a system
he believed to be vicious, and thereby set an
example which it would be fatal to follow.

SATURDAY,

How many of the blue jackets would have done
anything like this? Would Jack mislead and
betray his messmates ? No ! not if Admiral
PARKER flogged him. Epaulettes are glittering
things, but they lose their lustre when their
wearer tries to fling his responsibility on
others' shoulders ; and none of those who
have used Admiral PARKER for their own pin•-
poses care to defend him now.
Besides, even this Government may not be
eternal ; the Radicals may have a turn next;
another hauldown promotion for Captain
PARKER perhaps—Admiral PARKER again re-
maining; and then let Mr. OSBORNE look out
for treacherous squalls; there may be a furious
correspondence going on against him now, to
be all printed and published in July, '54.

JULY 2, 1853.

ilistory of English

,
.

A civil

engineer of high standing writes thus of a
public department to the chairman of a par-
liamentary committee
The grossest jobbery prevails. Difficulties are thrown
in the way of improvement. Otie systent of construction,
and that undoubtedly of a most erroneous and even perni•
cious chimicter, is insisted on, and must be extended over
the whole kingdom. Able professional men arc wrongfully
injured, both in reputation and pocket. for the gain of no•
vernment insiwctors; confidence in the integrity of public
men is utterly destryed. Provincial towns arc deprived
of the advantages of self.govennuent, and the hitherto
supposed supremacy of Parliament is alit:011liel-

The report of Dr. ARNOTT and Mr. PAuE on
the Croydon epidemic bears out what Mr.
HAWIKLEY here says of the failure of the
system of the General Board, i.e., of Mr.
CHADWICK, who, by that peculiar idiosyncrasy
which no doubt endears him to Lord JOHN
Russ Eu., believes himself capable of under
taking special functions without spe►•i►►l apti-
tudes or ►lualifications. All this would be of
secondary conse►luence were it not that a
public position and the public purse are
pressed into the service of this one-sided and
unpractical empiricism.

We have reason to believe that had the late
Cabinet continued in office the General Board
would long ere this have ceased to exist—at least
in its present form. Yet why does it exist now,
disorganised and deserted by public opinion,
with its policy thus authoritatively condemned,
and its pretensions, nevertheless, in no way
abridged? And why is it likely to exist to the
close of the next session, with a power of deal-
ing with the local rates to a vast amount, and
the power of incurring unlimited obloquy and
confusion ? In the name even of the sanitary
reforms which, in its present form, it impedes,
we are shortly entitled to an answer to this
question,—and the answer in this instance is
primarily, if not officially, due from Lord
JOHN RUSSELL.