The Sun.
London, England, 1864-04-30 00:00:00

THERMOMETER.

This day at Two o'clock 5l

Barometer-30.15.
Wind—W.; moderate breeze, and cloudy.

fief WATER. AT LONDON BRIDGE.
Isis DAY.—Morning, Bh. 15m.—Afternoon, :Bh. 56m.
fo-monaow.-Morning, 9h. 36m.—Aftemoon, 10h. 15m.

Cit 7
it ‘14401;.4 Mt SUM
44.15-St° °.ss4?'

LONDON, SATURDAY, APRIL 30, 1864.

Another Government defeat—a little one it is
true, but still a defeat—in the House of Commons
last evening! Another adjournment of the Con-
ference—though not one sine die, still an indefinite
adjournment—according to the Home Secretary, in
answer, last night, to the inquiries of the right
lon. gentleman the Leader of the Opposition !
Certainly the present is, as yet, the most
dawdling, confused, incoherent session we have
Thad to endure even during the present Parlia-
ment. It opened, this session, with no policy,
or, at any rate with no explainable policy on
the part of the Administration. It opened with
no papers in regard to tire question of the hour,
the most imminent of all European questions,
that, namely, relating to the Dano-German diffi-
4uitY. In the Royal Speech inaugurating the
Session, there was not even the faintest promise
of the 4espatchee, relating to that momentous sub-
ject, being laid before the two Houses—though the
Speech of the Royal Commissioners did make men-
tion of the forthcoming papers in regard to our
new mignoderstandings with the Japanese. When
asked—Why the Royal Speech was thus dumb about
the Dano-Gerelaudifheulty the Prime Minister,
in answer to M. bisttatu, upon the very first
night of the Session, actually gave, as a reason,
that Ministers had refrained from mentioning it
for fear of making the Speech too long ! Mention
therefore was made, in the Royal Speech, of
the forthcoming papers in regard to the Japanese
difficulty, but not of aly Papers forthcoming
in regard to the D ino-Germso difficulty—the
former being, of the two, Co vastly more impor
tent ! When pressed to give a promise of the latter
Papers, however—after the Royal Speech—it why,
of course, you are going to have them, was the
reply, " and plenty of them, to boot,"•—and
certainly wish you joy of the treat of reading
them !" was the jocose taunt of the veteran First
Lord of the Treasury. Well, there can be no
doubt about it that any one really desirous of
having the joy of reading these despatches had to
wait long enough before he could manage to begin

his enjoyment. Ministers had to be worried into
the fulfilment of their extorted promise in regard
to the publication of them. And, even
then, the papers only began to drop in, in-
stalment by instalment, in driblets. The meaning
of all which, of course, was perfectly obvious. Like
Mr. and Mrs. 3licawnEß, Government was waiting
for something to turn up ! If only discussion could
be delayed—there was no knowing what might not
turn up ! Out of the mere Chapter of Accidents
there might actually come forth the most delightful
of extrications. And so—for that simple reason—
matters were delayed as long as possible. It
looked badly no doubt ; but what mattered
mere appearances ? The simple fact of delay
was everything. As to the charge directed against
Ministers in regard to the particular Continental
Difficulty referred to, the galling, and doubly gall-
ing, because obviously accurate, charge of their
caving no definite, or at any rate no explainable po-
licy in the emergency—it was sufficient to retaliate
upon this taunt from the Opposition,—" No Policy ?
Well, for the matter of that, what might be
your own Policy ?" In other words—" You ask
the Policy of the Government ? -What
may be the Po:icy of the Opposition ?'' Certainly
a very novel and a very cool rejoinder from any Ad
ministration I—when, at a juncture of more than
usual difficulty, they are asked (naturally enough)
to explain themselves—to explain, that is, their in-
tentions ! Ordinarily, we take it, the discovery of
a policy is the duty not of an Opposition, but of an
Administration ! What is a Government formed for
but to arrange and carry out a definitive policy ?
Besides—it is simply preposterous, to conceal in the
most careful manner all that has been doing in
regard to a complicated series of diplomatic diffi-
culties, and then before a single despatch explaining
what has been done, or is doing, is published,
to say to the very people who are thus
carefully kept in the dark in regard to those
difficulties—What would you suggest to enable
us to get out of them ! The retort, here, is,
really and truly, one of the very feeblest
imaginable. The function of an Opposition
is to.criticise the policy—not to suggest the policy—

of a Government. Ridiculous, however, though the
cause, thus adopted, has been in itself throughout
—it must, nevertheless,be allowed to have been in its
results, or, at least, in the attainment of its object,
hitherto eminently successful. It has secured all
that it was intended to secure--meaning a delay ;
delay upon delay; postponement after postponement.
Desp..tches have been yielded up grudgingly, bit by
bit, to the importunatedemanders of them. February
was easily enough run out, just the fag end of it,—
then March—and now even April. And by the
time some explanation must otherwise have proved
all but inevitable, the Conference which has just
barely begun its sittings here in London yields a
better excuse than any delayedßiue-book could have
done, for the putting off indefinitely of the evil day
of open discussion in the House of Commons, face to
face with an irritated and formidable Opposition.
In some shape or ancther, the evil day for this
open discussion must come at last—nolens volens,
her Majesty's Ministers—whether (that is to say)
yielded up by or extorted from:the Government.

It is much to be regretted that Mr. PEACOCKE'S
resolution was negatived, but still it is some com-
pensation to reflect that the subject was so well
discussed, and the opportunity afforded to many
speakers of setting forth the fects of the case and
exhibiting the conduct of the Government in its
true colours. It is indeed an astonishing thing
that, happen what may, the present Cabinet never
will own that they are in the wrong. They must
pretend to be immaculate, and whether nations or
iodi viduals decide against their tactics and condemn
their course it is all alike to them. In the present
case the obstinacy and infatuation of the Ministers
is rendered more remarkable by the fact that they
have themselves virtually ignored their first deci-
sion. The second communication seemed to cancel
the first, and yet they will not allow the said in •
structions to be revoked. Such infatuation is quite
unworthy of men in a high position, and the suc-
cess which they met with will not improve their
characters nor save their reputation hereafter from
scorn and reproach. It is trying to outwit fate to
go on in this shuffling style, and to be so timorous
lest anything be done officially or put on record
which may displease the Americans. They are
defeating their own ends, because nothing can be
more likely to exasperate that particular people
than to have their affairs thus continually brought
forward and discussed in both Houses of the
Legislature, and to bear the most unflatter-
ing and unfavourable construction put upon their
motives, their acts, and their remarks. How much
better it would be to look the matter boldly in the
face, and to decide at once what is to
be done, and wherefore should a decision should be
arrived at. Mr. PEACOCKE made a very lucid
speech, and exposed the fallacies of the course pur-
sued by the Government through the whole of the
transactions. He very properly censured their
unworthy mode of dealing with it at the conclusion.
The responsibility could not rest with the Governor
of the Cape, it must remain with the authorities at
home. This was a very true and correct way of
looking at the question, and those who wade
through the details of this complicated affair, will
coincide with the remarks of Mr. PEACOCKE—that
is to say, if they set out on the inquiry with neu-
tralised minds, and are freo from prejudice and
partiality. It is not often, indeed, that a Govern-
ment have made such a confusion of a matter as
they have done in this celebrated affair of the
Tuscaloosa. It is too late for the Solicitor General
to come to the rescue, and say that this was an
" isolated" case, because instructions would be sent
to our colonies which would prevent the recur-
rence of such questions. This will be quite ims
possible while the present policy reigns supreme,
and it is always easy for the Government to revoke
or rescind previous orders, and pretend that a dif-
ferent aspect has been assumed by such and such an
occurrence, and that, therefore, different rules must
be observed. The very futile arguments of the
speakers on the Treasury benches were speedily
demolished by the forcible speech of Sir HUGH
CAIRNS. He soon showed on what a fragile tenure
they hung, and what absurd reasons were given for
the exhibition of all the clop-trap and hubbub that
took place. In the first place, one of the strongest
points put forward by the Attorney General ard
the Solicitor General was, that there was doubt as
to the character of the vessel, whether she was not
really a " prize" being passed off as a vessel of war.
To this specious plea the following conclusive state-
ment was made by Sir HUGH CAIRNS, that the
American Consul, who, of all others, was most likely
to make the worst of the case, distinctly declared
in his report that the Tuscaloosa was "an armed

vessel." Further on, he says that she " was fitted

out with arms to prey upon the commerce of the

United States." A case must be bad, indeed,
when its advocates employ such shallow devices
to illustrate their meaning, and have recourse to ex-

pedients of so questionable a nature as those that
were strenuously set forth by the law officers of the
Crown. Sir HUGH CAIRNS also demonstrated the
falsity of the reports with respect to the " low mis-
sion" of the ship, and thus adroitly summed up the
inconsistent conduct 9f the Authoriti:e with respect

to the vessel now under dispute :—" When they did
not know whether she had a commission they let
her alone, but the moment she produced her com-
mission they seized her." This seems very like the
conduct of the wolf towards the lamb in the fable,
and it was acting on preconceived notions and
according to foregone conclusions, quite unmoved
and uninfluenced by the real nature of the evidence
before them, or the character of the events that
transpired. It is only to be wondered at that more
confusion has not arisen from such unfair conduct
and the exercise of such biassed views. On another
'point Sir HUGH CAIRNS briefly touched, name:y,
the unbecoming manner in which the vessel was
returned at last, without one word of apology or
one promise of restitution for the losses sustained by
delay. It was just as well for the Ministers that
there was no occasion to answer this part of the
attack of their formidable opponent, for they would
have found it very difficult to do so. Conduct more
wanting in good taste and proper feeling was never
displayed by the agents of a mighty power and the
representatives of a foremost nation. It is really
disgraceful to reflect upon, and, as Sir H. CAIRNS
aptly described it, " You act so with a people with
whom you think you can deal in that way with
safety, but would you have acted so with the United
States ?" The most unscrupulous partisan would
have been very much puzzled to give a plausible
reply to this downright accusation. It is no real
service to render to the Ministers to afford them
opportunities of dealing more strainedly with
foreign powers, and of bestowing carte blanche
upon them to work out their own extraordinary
ends to the States that they honour with their
friendship, and the ccuntries that have the mis•
fortune to be under the ban of their displeasure. It
will be strange if we do not hear more some day of
the mischievous course of policy which the Foreign
Office and the Colonial Office have thought fit to
adopt. It has neither wit nor wisdom to recom-
mend it, it does not represent the dignity of our own
country, and it works unjustly concerning other
nations.

The debate on Mr. LINDSAY'S motion respecting
the construction of Harbours of Refuge, although
practically resulting in the triumph of the Governs
ment, can hardly fail to have confirmed the general
impression on the subject. There are few persons
who are at all familiar with the perils of our
storm-beaten and rock-bound coasts, who will not
readily admit that sufficient protection and shelter
is not afforded to the vast marine traffic that is con-
tinually going on past our shores. Whether from
misplaced economy, from local jealousies, from
ignorance, from indifference, or that fatal supine
ness which rules supreme in every official depart-
ment, precautions are neglected, and dangers left
unheeded, notwithstanding the vast interests at
stake in the welfare of our shipping interests by no
means confined to one class of the community.
Rocks, easily removable, by means of modern
science, are left to cumber busy ocean highways,
while harbours of refuge on our exposed and dan-
gerous coasts are still few and far between. Of
course many of the marine casualties are owing to
the chips being ill-found and ill-manned, or still
worse, to what Sir Joliet PAKINGTON very properly
styled " the fatal ambition of making rapid
voyages ;" an ambition which too often produces
a disregard of risk and an indifference to danger
that are nothing less than recklessness. But,
although such imprudence is but too common, it
affords no excuse for neglecting those precautions
which might, even in those cases where disaster
might have been avoided, save the crew and pes-
sengers from the consequences of the rashness of
their commander. As usual, in the course of the
discussion on Mr. LINDSAY'S motion, very con-
tradictory views were put forward. The hon.
member for Sunderland himself, in submitting
his motion to the House, set forward very
plainly and sensibly the arguments in its
favour. He reminded his hearers that two
Committees of the House itself, as well as a Royal
Commission, had recommended the construction of
harbours of refuge, and that that recommendation
had been confirmed by a resolution of the House.
Under such circumstances it appears certainly
strange that nothing should have been done, and
that even Mr. LINDSAY'S motion, temperate and
general as were its terms, should have been re-
jected by a majority of 58. This decision was, too,
arrived at after hearing evidence that substantiated
every argument brought forward by Mr. LINDSAY.
The Parliamentary Committees and the Royal Com-
mission had all inquired most carefully into the
matter, and they had come to a unanimous conclu-
sion. The latter tribunal had numbered among its
members some who were especially qualified to
judge—among them being Admiral WASHINGTON,
late Hydrographer to the Admiralty ; Captain
VEITCH, formerly of the Board of Trade ; and Mr.
COODE, an engineer who has devoted much time to
the construction of breakwaters. In opposition to
their opinion, however, is placed a mysterious docu-
ment, emanating from a gentleman at the Board of
Trade, who declines to endorse it with his name.
The Government may be naturally not unwilling
to accept his view of the matter, but the public will
be less complaisant, and will ask fcr further and
more authentic evidence than a nameless report like
this. We are glad to find Sir J. PAKINGTON epeaking
sostrongly in favour of the motion, which, as he justly
observed, has been supported by a combination
of opinion which no Government should disregard.
It is worthy of notice that Mr. LINDSAY'S motion
did not in any way fetter the movements of the
Government, or bind them to follow any specific
course. It merely called upon them to carry out
the repeated recommendations in favour of these
harbours, leaving them perfectly free as to all de-
tails, so that we regard the opposition of the Go-
vernment, not only as directed against any parti-
cular Barbour or special amount of expenditure, but

as against the principle itself. Mr. GIBBON, who
endeavoured to prove some discrepancy in the
various reports, and asserted that it was the object
of Government to encourage self reliance instead of

'avouring particular interests by grants of public

money, also denied that the construction of har-
bours of refuge would decrease the amount of lossks

at sea by any considerable amount. The right hon.
gentleman would do well to remember, however,
that such losses are not easily traced to their real

causes. As Mr. CAVE remarked, "The number of

ships absolutely stranded on an inhospitable coast

,s no measure of those which are lost because the

coast is harbourless, or which might have bee❑

saved had a port been under their lee. Mary a

vessel is wrecked on tho Shetlands for want of

harbours in Yorkshire. The actual loss may take

place hundreds of miles from the cause of it:' He

supported this view by an extrict from the wriftegs
of Mr. STEVENSON, the architect of the 8.11 Rock
Lighthouse, who cited the case of some 70 vessels,
who, keeping at sea fur fear of the Bell Rock,

before the erection of the ligtihonse, were most of
them wrecked on the eat'cern shores of Scotland.

The expense of the csnstruction is, of course,
real difficulty in the matter, Mr. GIBso:, declaring
that it would take 14,000,000, to do all that

was required, and Mr. LINDSAY asking for
less than a quar's"..lr of a million. Sir

STAFFORD NORTTLICOTE proposed to settle the mat-
ter by ohamitng q toll on shipping in order to de-