The Sun.
London, England, 1864-07-21 00:00:00

Time, however, that is the sure test of mel :it, and
the unerring judge of the efficacy or fail, ire of a
cherished scheme, has pronounced agains t a great
part of the much vaunted concoction of Mt. COI3DEN.
Excellent as was the original object of the design,
and admirable the proposal to increas s the trade
and commerce of the various nations, there were
grievous errors in the arrangements of several por-
tions of the Treaty. Had the framers of it been
more eager to make the workings of the measure
convenient to all, rather than to tempt foreigners,
who were unwilling to become disciples of the new
regime, the result would have been much better.
It would. have been truer wisdom and sounder policy
thus to endeavour to make English prosperity the
ruling spirit and the chief object of the design,

than to sacrifice native interests at every turn, and
to treat the just complaints of our manufacturers
with a supreme contempt, utter indifference, and
total neglect. This is one of the worst failings
among the new school of politicians that they are
so short-sighted, and run away with one idea.
They get wrapt up in the notion of the spread of
free trade, and the utter extinction of protective
doctrines, and if they are told that native industry
will suffer, they do not exactly say that it will not
matter if it does, but their acts imply that they
think so. Mr. MAGUIRE performed his task with
considerable tact, and earnestly denounced the
course pursued by the Government in their per-
sistent slighting of born© interests. The whole
scheme of the foreign export duty on rags was one
of the greatest blunders and one of the most unfair
concessions that were ever made. It was denounced
1 at the time, and succeeding experience has not les-
sened the grounds for the reproach. On the con-
trary, it has been seen how unfairly the system has
worked. It was in an un.English and anti-
national spirit that the framers of the plan of the
great Commercial Treaty first devised the arrange•
ments relative to the paper trade, and the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer has been greatly to blame
for so readily acquiescing in the proposal which
made British interests but secondary, and altogether
subservient to the welfare and the profit of the
foreigner. Our manufacturers have been sacrificed
to the meanness of the French and the greediness
of the Belgian trader, and it is a scandal to any
Minister that he should stand forth as the betrayer
of the interests of his countrymen. It is a disgrace
also to the Legislature who sanctions such a
course, and future statesmen and succeeding Par•
'laments will have hard work before them to
remedy some of the serious evils that have been
brought upon the country by the mischievous doc-
trines of the so-called disciples of progress. Looking
at the point in a practical view, there is no shadow
of foundation for the theory that the foreigner
must be tempted to agree to the doctrines of Free
Trade, and that, therefore, it is our duty to make
the sacrifice. It is never desirable to
give people wrong impressions, and it is
very certain that it will be much more
difficult to put things back on an equitable footing
than to have insisted from the outset that all
should be conducted upon straightforward prin.
ciples. It is very easy for Mr GLADSTONE, now
that he thinks himself safe, to admit that the new
measure has pressed hardly upon some branches of
the trade. He did not say so at first, and he would
not allow a hint to be whispered to that effect with-
out meeting it with vehement contradiction and
indignant remonstrance. A more disastrous and
degrading style of policy than that which our
present Ministers are enunciating it would be im-
possible to conceive. We are always at the mercy
of foreigners, bound to bend to their caprices, and
expected to merge our interests in the general de-
sire to promote their objects, totally and altogether
1 irrespective of the interests and independence of
ourselves and our country. The idea of making
repeated representations to foreign Governments
is an indignity, and does not gain avy end. The
mischief lay in ever allowing such terms to be made
at the outset ; and the House of Commons was very
wrong in not insisting upon some alteration in the
workings of the law relating to the paper trade.
For this they are responsible to the country, and
the injuries inflicted on an important branch of
trade will not be among the lightest charges
brought against them on the day of reckoning that
will speedily arrive, unwelcome though it be.

The debate on Tuesday night, on the motion of
Sir F. SMITH, for the appointment of a commission
to report upon the system of construction of armour-

plated vessels, was of considerable importance, and
during the discussion some curious revelations were
made. Sir F. SMITH, in an able address, called
attention to the disparity of the armaments in pro-
portion to the tonnage of many of our steam frigates
as compared with others. He showed that there
were hardly two steam ships in the 11.7a1 Navy
built upon the same principle, with the same arma-

ment or speed; and he maintained that there MU3'

be something radically wrong in a system
which, though always being changed and expe-

rimented upon, could never give satisfaction.
Lord C. PAGET, in his endeavour to defend the
conduct of the Admiralty, made about as lame a
defence as a bad case is capable of eliciting, In
answer to certain remarks of Sir F. SMITH on the
defects of the Research, and the notorious failure
of her internal arrangements, he tried to explain
away such trifling oversights as the impossibility
of working the guns except under the most favours
able circumstances, and to vindicate the appoint-
ment of Mr. REED, as Chief Constructor of the
Navy, mainly on the ground that he had designed
two vessels of 1,000 tons, capable of carrying
complete armour•plating, and drawing but
a moderate depth of water. Lord C. PAGET
seems to say that on the strength of these
designs Mr. REED received his high appoint•
ment, and with what result ? It is true that the
Research and Enterprise have to a certain extent
realised the expectations of their designer; they
are of small tonnage, and draw about 15 feet of
water, bat they possess two drawbacks which must
be admitted to be rather serious in men•ofdwar—

they can neither sail nor fight. Admiral FRE
MANTLE, in his report to the Lords Commissioners
of the Admiralty, has stated that—" The space in
the battery is so confined that the men have not
room to work the guns with that facility that is
required. The battery is 33 feet in length by 32
feet in breadth inside; within this apace are four
heaNy guns, upwards of 80 men, funnel, wheel,
hatchway for supplying powder and shell. There
is a difficulty in traversing the guns from the broad
side to the b'w and quarter ports. When the
broadside guns were fired with extreme train, fore..
most ones to the left, after ones to the right, the cap•
g qualifications, while the
tains of them could not stand. to direct and fire_tham.
that can be obtained is l
sbteroffi
sgphetei
dn
Sgoremateuscthallfloora
ess
than 10 knots an hour. Lord C. PAGET candidly
explained that he would not prophecy that these
ships would be found faultless, because in all experi-
ments such as they were improvements in mutters
of detail must always be possible. He also wia.aed
the House and the to public
• remember that the
mere building of a man of war did not represent
half of what was necessary to make her efficient ;
for equipment, armament, stowage, rigging, magrA-
iineg, and other points, the judgment and sapvtin.
teadenee of a practio4 milor were required. This