The Sun.
London, England, 1864-02-24 00:00:00

4...
which Lord DERBY defined so happily as
an union of meddling with muddling) in
the carrying out of their incoherent and eccen-
tric scheme of diplomacy. Not satisfied, however,
with meddling and muddling—not satisfied with
writing a great deal and doing nothing—the
Government in its Foreign Policy appears to be
bent beyond all things upon securing itself from
anything like adverse commentary by declining to
publish despatches, or by withholding them from
the knowledge of Parliament as long as they
might prove upon trial to be in some way
practicable—leaving the chance of some happy re-
sult in regard to every one of their many dilemmas,
to work itself out somehow through the mere
chapter of accidents. From the tone adopted by
Ministers, however, and by some of those important
subordinates of theirs, who are thrust into the van in
these discussion—it would appear that the Cabinet
not only requires the House of Commons to wait
patiently for any papers that in the fullness of time
the Government may, upon deliberate con-
sideration, make up its mind at last grudg-
ingly to vouchsafe them, but that it requires some-
thing still more ! Beyond that—the Cabinet seems
arrogantly to go so far in what Mr. DISRAELI
bluntly calls its " scurvy" treatment of the
House in regard to papers relating now
to America, now to Poland, now to Den-
mark, that it actually manifests a com-
plaisant expectation that the House should meekly
wait their (the Ministers') good will and pleasure
is these matters of vital and most momentous im-
portance, that the House should actually wait,
like the cattle in a storm as described by
the Poet of the Seasons, that is to say--" in
dumb expectancy!' Parliament has been won-
derfully patient hitherto in conceding time to
a vaccillating and a self-contradictory Ad-
ministration.: The House of. Commons especially
has evinced an extraordinary amount of patience in
reference to the long-withheld papers referring to
the Danish War—whatever may be thought to the
contrary by a fretful Chancellor of the Exchequer, a
petulant Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, or an
irritated Attorney-General. The reiterated inter-
ruptions of the debate last evening by Sir ROLM-
DELL PALMER were not easily to be paralleled for
frequency upon reference to the back volumes of
"Hansard,' Not satisfied with havinelis own "say"
himself, quite uninterruptedly, he seemed unable
altogether to allow the enjoyment of the same privi-
lege by his opponents. Point blank contradictions,
vexatious carpings at a phrase, teasing explanations
of a parenthetical character were squandered about
him yesterday during the debate in the House of
Commons, with a petulant intolerance of
opinions in any way adverse to his own, quite un-
befitting the First Law Officer of the Crown, from
whom, in truth, in regard to all these kinds of vexed
questions, one would rather look for the evidence of
an undisturbed equanimity. Everything considered,
in regard to the debate of last night—while the
immediate result of it, we repeat, was naturally in
the highest degree delightful to our bewildered
Government, the ultimate effect produced upon the
public mind by the arguments (oddly terminating
in that division) cannot, we would also repeat, but
be in the highest degree salutary.

A brief debate took place in the Commons on
Alonday evening, which was well worthy of public
attention, and which, had it not followed so closely
on the animated discussion respecting the non-pro-
duction of the Danish papers, would probably have
attracted more notice at the time. It coecerned
the construction of the now Admiralty docks about
to be made at the head of the Marsa, at Malta,
against the distinct advice of the best informed and
most competent authorities. Captain TALBOT, who
brought forward a motion on this subject, was
anxious before the Navy Estimates came on that
the House should have an opportunity of at least
hearing the facts of the case, although, from a
matter of form, he was on Monday evening pre-
vented from pressing his motion to a division. The
dock proposed, he said, wculd neither answer the
purposes of the naval service nor of the commercial
shipping of the island. The disadvantages of the
scheme are very great, and affect every part of it.
Ia the first place, the spot selected is
nearly two miles from the dockyard, and diffi-
cult of aCCRSEI. Admiral Sir WILLIAM MARTIN
and Vice-Admiral CODRINGTON, who are both fami-
liar with the place and the requirements of the
Navy, are most strongly opposed to it. Sir lirn-
lrees MARTIN has been Commander-in-Chief in the
Mediterranean for the last three years, and is fully
able to judge the case fairly and impartially. So
strong aro the gallant officer's opinions on this
matter, that he has suggested that Admiral COD-
RINGTON should be allowed to come home for the
express purpose of pointing out the grave errors of
the Admiralty scheme, and the immense advantages
of that plan which must at once commend itself to
the approval of anyone who knows the island—i. a.,
the Bele:Olen of the French Creek. This Creek,
which the Admiralty themselves are forced to admit
is vastly superior to the proposed site, has a fine
natural basin, which will with ease receive the
largest ships. The Government has gone to great
expense to get this Creek, which is only about 800
yards from the dockyard, and which possesses every
recommendation for the proposed undertaking, and
then with the ingenious perversity and wronghead-
edness so often perceptible in our naval arrange-
ments, they go nearly two miles off to construct a
dock in a place which has not one single qualifica-
tion for it. It is not surprising that the opinions
of the whole naval service are decidedly opposed to
such a preposterous scheme, more especially when
we remember the importance of the new dock. We
have only two small docks in the Mediterranean
that are capable of receiving ships draw-
ing twenty-two feet of water, and these
it is plain would not accommodate our large line-of-
battle ships when loaded. So long ago as 1861
Admiral CODRINGTON drew the attention of the
Admiralty to this subject, pointing out the incon-
veniencies which might result from the delay
entailed by having to send home British vessels
that needed repair while foreign vessels can have
theirs and be at sea again in a few days. It is
absurd that we should have no dock capable of
receiving a first-class vessel without guns, stores,
and even machinery being removed. It is true that
Lord C. PAGET maintains that the Royal Oak and
the Resistance could both go into the present Dock-
yard Creek, but this may turn out to be another of
the noble lord's " mistakes." The opinions of
engineers sent out by the Admiralty are worth
t
as much as those of first-rate advocates
specially retained on one side. They are certainly
not to be set against men like Admiral CODRING-
TON and Admiral MARTIN, who have the require-
ments
.of the Service in view, and being on the
spot can surely decide upon the natural capacities
of the sites proposed. As Sir JOHN ' PAXINGTON
very truly said, it is not an engineer's question
but an Admiralty question, concerning the conve-
nience of the British fleet. It scams that in 1360
the Admiralty entered into an arrangement with
the Maltese authorities by which they acquired a
large creek in the vicinity of the dockyard, agree-
ing to deepen the Mersa tor the use of ;he col-timer
cial shipping. Part of this arrangement was that
what was called the north- west basin should be