The Sun.
London, England, 1852-01-24 00:00:00

roLEores real friends. The Princess MATHILDE

DEMIDOEF, the Marchioness of DOIIGLAS, and

i all his relatives besought him in most earnest
terms to abite.in from the perpetration of this
groes crime end grosser blunder ; M. Dr. MORNY,
whose devotion on the "d of December ought not to
have been forgotten by the PRESIDENT, resigned
rather thin hove his named mixed up with
such a disgraceful proceeding, and M. POULD,
whose presence in the Cabinet has always been con-
sidered a guarantee that public faith would be kept
inviolate, accompanied him in his retirement. Treating
with contempt the entreaties of his relatives
and the remonstrances of his judicious friends,
LOUIS NAPOLEON has chosen to listen to the
interested suggestions of other parties, and has com-
mitted an act of barefaced plunder, the Church
(which appears to be in France the re-
gular TREY SoLoMoss of all appropriators)
sharing in the proceeds, au?, we suppose,
giving her absolution as the consideration.
We have never been supporters of the Orleans fa-
mily, or of the Orleans politics. When Louis PHI-
LIPPE was in the height of his power he had no more
determintd opponent than ourselves ; we rejoiced,
and we do rejoice at his ignominious expul-
sion from France, in 1848, and we would
do nothing that should in the least tend to
the restoration of the French crown to any member
of his family. Yet, we cannot forget that whilst the
Emperor NAPOLEON, in violation of the law of
na-
tions, seized the Due D'ENGHEIN on neutral territory,
and shot him at midnight in a ditch at Vincennes,
LOUIS PHILIPPE, having twice caught the nephew
of the murderer of his cousin, flagrante delicto
having twice acquired an absolute right over the
life of Louis NAPOLEON, twice spared that life to
one who now uses it to despoil and ruin the
family of the man who spared him. The
effect of this decree upon the relations of the
PRESIDENT of the French Republic with
those European Powers whose support he has
for years past so assiduously courted, cannot but be
most injurious. Neither Queen CHRISTINA nor the
Duke of MONTPENSIER can look with a very favourable
eye upon the spoliator of the Orleans family;
nor can the KING of the BELGIANS be expected to
take any very lively interest in the maintenance of
the existing state of things in France ; as to King
BOMBA, the pet of the Holy Alliance, application has,
it is said, already been made to him for the pay-
ment of arrears due to the Murat family—
an application that will probably be enforced, not-
withstanding the protests of the Red EMPEROR. As
to the legal quibble that the property of Louis PHI-
LIPPE became national property on his acceptance of
the crown, it is beneath contempt. Had Louis
PHILIPPE succeeded to the crown, the case might,
perhaps, have admitted of argument, but he
accepted the crown, and before accepting it made a
disposition of his private property, in the same man-
ner as a man in contemplation of marriage makes a
settlement of his property before the celebration of
his nuptuals ; and the settlement is as legal, as in-
violable, and as sacred in the one case as in the other.

Sir JOHN OMMANNEY has at length, even at the
eleventh hour, come forward to deny the accuracy of
the statements respecting his conduct when the loss
of the Amazon became known in the district of which
he was the naval commander. After a protracted
silence he has seen the necessity of offering some ex-
planation
e n w
oni the
subject. He finds
g not overlook a palpablethaatpaEthny-
shm
and carelessness in any matter of hu-
manity and that the voice of public opinion
can no longer be slighted or despised. We cannot,
however, congratulate the Port Admiral on his de-
fence. He has unquestionably succeeded in showing
that others have merited censure—that the demands
for assistance were not as strenuouslyree uirmgpedreayseithheiye
might have been, or as his dignity required ; but we
cannot see that he has in any degree
own position. It may be his opinion that a
public officer is not to take the initiative
in any instance, that his sole duty is to throw impe-
diments and difficulties in the way of any proposition
that may be brought under his notice. For this he
has undoubtedly a precedent, and the Lords Commis-
sioners can scarcely blame one of their officers for
so closely following their own example. We must,
however, be permitted to examine the contents of his
letter (one of the most extraordinary documents that
ever emanated from a British Admiral), and consider
the nature of the defence thereby set up.
The Admiral first assails the veracity of Messrs.
Fox, Sons, and Company. He speaks in good round
terms of the reply of Captain CuarrELL, being
founded on " a falsehood asserted by Mr. Fox ;" and
in order to sustain that assertion, he forwards two
letters from Messrs. Fox and Company, the effect o f
which is that the applications were made to the Ad-
miral's secretary and not to himself personally•
These gentlemen admit that when one of their firm
" called at the Admiral's office, lie did not see
Sir JOUN OMMANNEY himself." No, the Gallant
Commander would not make himself so cheap es to
be visible to every person who chose to solicit
an interview. But they distinctly and po-
sitively assert that Mr. SEPTIMUS FOX, junior,
went to the office on the Bth instant, that he saw
Mr. KENT, the Admiral's private secretary, who, in
answer to his application, informed him " that
no steamer had been sent out to seek
for the Amazon's' crew, as the Ad-
miral considered it useless ;" and they also
declare that " they considered that answer to be the
same as if they had it from the mouth of the Admiral
himself." We think that the public generally will
agree in that opinion. The blustering denial of
the Port-Admiral that "Messrs. Fox had ever
seen him" or that he had refused to send assistance,
appears then to be a quibble more worthy of an Old
Bailey advocate than of an officer of high
rank in the royal navy. There is, it
may be observed, no denial that Mr.
KENT had stated that " the Admiral con-

sidered it useless to send out a vessel," or that he was
duly authorised to return such an answer, without
even going through the form of consulting his
superior officer. Qui facit per alium facit per se, is
an ancient and time-honoured apophthegm, and we
cannot see how Sir JOHN OMMANNEY can improve
his position by trying to shift the blame from his
own shoulders to that of his subordinates.

The Gallant Admiral is Equally unfortunate in
his second plea. He seems to think that if no di-
rect application was made, he should re-
main perfectly careless and indifferent. In

his letter to the Secretary of the Company, he says,
"as the Admiral serving here, AND THE ONLY
PERSON CAPABLE OF AFFORDING ASSISTANCE, I
appeal to you whether some person should
not have come to me to have afforded me information,
and to have solicited assistance, had it been required."
This sentence appears to afford the only reasonable
solution to the problem. We do not suppose
that Sir JOHN OMMANNEY was actuated by any in-
human or malevolent feeling in neglecting to send
out a steamer on the earliest opportunity ; but
his dignity was offended ! He should have
been enabled to cross examine the survivors, to have
exercised his own judgment, but, above all, the
humble application should have been prefaced
with " bated breath and deep humility."
The Gallant Admiral seems to have taken a lesson
from the Oxonian who, while seeing a fellow-
student drowning in the Isis, regretted "that he
had not had the honour of being intro-
duced to the gentleman, in order that he

esra, vti
hn gi n
kha itsb
alti,fen.'o'
msiirgjhtonhsavoemtjmakAelcusstyh,einliibikeretymanonf
matter how
n
howufrgbeenrt th2eho
jcEcsaTsirk,asi sub, even though
should be though the lives
of many
iant
asdtakraen,cela, en cnol
euslad
the
eo t be e xp
most
tfnremc taelde
ttioluteatk n t
ee
had
dy
been
places And
his
sm
observed.
cre-
dence to the statements that have been made,
but we regret to say that the Admiral's own letter
We confess that we do not give any
Lhe assertion of the Rev.n no means
regardedl ight
than
him.any
in
w Ait
B uEt T improvedoN,
61)1,3;
to receive kindness and courtesy, but found none. '
The question has now assumed an aspect that
e
must command the Legislative attention, and,
he
lb
positionviiena'.
temtobraidp lubyynfhfoavr:auti odrfobrhieee expected
ere the first week of the session, has elapsed
interrogatory
the will be stringently' exhibited— '
it Is Sir JOHN OMUANNEY still Port-Admiral at
Plymouth r 1.