The Sun.
London, England, 1839-03-12 00:00:00

the Admiralty, were neither fairly stated nor capa-
ble of substantiation. As we have protested from
the commencement against making the condition
of our Navy a party question—a weapon in
the hands of faction to be wielded for factious pur-
poses—we have no intention whatever to trouble
ourselves about the cavils of Whigs and Tories on
this score. The real question to be solved by Mi-
nisters is, not whether the Navy of England is ac-
tually as powerful now as it was at any previous
period, but whether it is so relatively to the
growing Navies of other countries ? In the way of
ships, men, and materiel, do we bear the same rela-
tion to the combined naval srength of France,
Russia, and the United States, that our greatest
Statesmen have prescribed as essential to the main-
tenance of the true interests of this country ? A
naval force, more than adequate to the wants of
the country in 1834, might fall far short of the
complement required in 1839 ; and to this extent
the argument made use of by the Right Hon.
Baronet holds good. To assume an extreme case,
by way of illustration, the merest tyro must admit
that were the fleets of France, Russia, and the
United States all destroyed, a single British gun-
boat in commission would be relatively a greater
naval force than the twenty-one sail of the line now
forming the proud boast of the Board of Admiralty
and its brace of applause-compelling Secretaries.
But the great fallacy on all sides, is an overlook-
ing of the fact that seamen, like muskets or pieces
of ordnance, are not to be manufactured at
a moment's notice. To make a good seaman is a
long and difficult undertaking; ar d, as seamen are
the very staple of our power—the keystone of the
arch of our greatness, it is of the last importance
that we should at all times abound in them. Other
nations may be great on land—England can refover
be truly powerful but at sea. The grand error,
therefore, of recent Governments has been the ne-
glect of our seamen. They looked to the materiel,
when they should have looked to the men—to
the supply of spars and sails, instead of the
more valuable and more necessary supply of able
and well-affected sailors.

THEATRE ROYAL, COVENAARDEN.
THIS EVENING, MAR 2,
Will performed the New Plan In 'Acts, called,
RICHELIEU, Oft THE CONSPIRACY,
Written by Sir E. tytten Bulwer, Bart.
Thu Characters by
Mr. Elton, Mr. Ditlkear, Mr. Macready, Mr. Warde, Mr. An-
dersen, Mr. Vini.-.lg, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Phelps, Mr. G. Ben-
nett, Mr. Halve, Miss E. Phillips, Mr. Tilbury, Mr. Yar-
nold, Mr, W. H. Payne, Mr. C. J. Smith, Mr. Bonder,
lir. Paulo, Mr. Gough, Mr. Thorne, Mr. Brady, Mr. Bur-
,t, Mr. Smith, Mr. Kirke, Mr. Hollingsworth, Mr. Wal-
o, Mr. Ayliffe, Mr. Andrews, Mr. T. Matthews, Miss
n FAueit, Miss Charles, Mesdames Heed, Corder, Lee,
Ifathews, Mew, and Morgan.

But though Sir ROBERT Pn.m.'s defence of the
. administration of the Navy by the Government of
• which he was the head, was more plausible than
correct or statesmanlike, his attacks upon the pre-
• sent Board of Admiralty were directed with tact,
judgment, and effect. He demonstrated, in the
clearest manner, that the Government had been
culpably remiss in sending a squadron to Mexico ;
although we do not agree in the opinion that even
for such a purpose it would have been advisable
to diminish by a single ship, our fleet in the
Mediterranean. We ought under no circum-
' stances to diminish a force requisite to keep in
check the aggressive policy of Russia in a
quarter where she can most easily—and assuredly
would, had she an opportunity—inflict a mortal
wound upon the independence of the Porte. Mr.
LABOUCHERE's explanation of the intentions of
Lord AucKLANDas chief of the Admiralty,and Mr.
CHARLEs WOon's vindication of the statements
contained in his former speech on the question, added
but little to the general interest of the debate. As
regarded essentials, both the Honourable Gentle-
men left the question where they found it, except
that Mr. Wool) communicated to the House the
satisfactory intelligence that three new ships would
be launched this Spring, and that there was no
lack of activity in the Dock-yards. Captain
PECHELL denounced the system of manning the
Navy, while supporting in general terms the
Naval administration of the present Government.
The Hon. and Gallant Officer was pleased to ridi-
cule the idea of a Russia❑ invasion—a proof of the
wonders we may expect, no less from his prowess
than his sagacity, should the country ever happen
to require his services in a field more responsible
than the floor of the House of Commons. Captain
GORDON condemned the recent practice of leaving
our own shores unprotected. When a naval force
was required to be sent to Lisbon during the
Government of Mr. CANNING, it was the
boast of that Statesman that. in one
week he was able to send a fleet to the Tagus,
whereas now it was doubtful whether in so long a
period a single man-of-war could be got in readi.:
ness for active service. The experience of the last
six months proves that if the Hon. and Gallant
Member had substituted a month for a week, as the
time within which it would be difficult to fit out a
ship of the line for sea with a full complement of
hands, in any of our great naval ports, he
would have been much nearer the mark.
As was subsequently stated by Sir JAMES
GRAHAM, in support of the system of demon-
' stration ships recommended by him while First
Lord of the Admiralty, it took no less than three
months of the last year to fit out the Ganges;
three months have not sufficed for fitting out the
Powerful, though under the command of the Gal-
lant Captain NAPIER ; and the Impregnable,
though with the crew of the Malabar entirely at
her disposal, has been more than a month in com-
mission without being able to put to sea. These
facts are the best illustrations of the defects in the
present system. And yet when we come to in-
quire the cause of the delay in the fitting out of
these ships, we are astonished to find hardly so
much as a passing allusion to it in the speeches of
Right Honourable and Honourable gentlemen on
either side of the House. Most unquestionably
neither Lords PALNIERsTON nor JOHN RUSSELL
—in attempting to show that our interests were not
neglected in any part of the world, but particularly
in Mexico--forgot to make even a passing refe-
rence to the difficulty of obtaining able and efficient
crews for the ships destined for the South Ameri-
can station. With respect to the sound policy of
keeping a good squadron in the Mediterranean, we
have before stated that we entirely agree in the view
of this question taken by the Noble Foreign Secre-
tary. But why, in order to check the policy of
Russia in the Black Sea, should we be so
unmindful of her power in the Baltic ? Is she
more dangerous if she approach us by way of
the Dardanelles than if she were to menace us
by passing the Sound ? Does it not look rather
farcical to be always apprehensive of the de-
signs of Russia, in one quarter, and' yet wantonly
to expose ourselves—nay,,to court her attacks
in another? Approving, as we do, of the po-
licy of the Government in keeping up a strong
squadron in the Mediterranean, as required to
check Russian aggression in that quarter, we
are truly at a loss to understand upon what
principle we leave our own shores exposed to the
possibility of invasion by the same unscrupulous
power, unless we are hypocrites enough to feign a
greater solicitude for the welfare of the subjects of
the Sultan MAHMOUD than for that of our British
fellow-countrymen I We can surely maintain a few
guard-ships on our own coast without being under
the necessity of withdrawing tt single frigate from,
any foreign station.

Valan;luke

After which,
THE INVINCIBLE.
Te-Morrow there will be no performance.
On Thursday, Richelieu, with Fra Diavolo.

The col.

TO CORRESPONDENTS.
nication from J. B. G., of Paris, has been received
and shall be duly at tended to.

=~~

4Akt
c."`",t1=41:440.-71.: • t:.5.
F

LONDON :
TUESDAY, MARCH 1!2, 1'339.

In'the House of Lords, Lord FurzwiwAm's ninton
en the Corn-laws was fixed for the 14th instant, next

Toursday.
The Bishop of LONDON, who wishes the people to
keep Lent like the Papists, and the Sabbath like the
Puritans, a,ked Lord MELBOURNE what the Govern-
ment meant to do touching a Sundaydelivery of letterset
the Pokt-olhee, but all that he could get from Lord
MELBOURNE was, that the proposition was not under
the consideration of the Treasury, and that nothing had
been done on the subject, which the Lordly Bishop con-
sidered not satisfactory.
In reply to a question by Lord LYNDHURST, Lord
MELBOURNE explained that the capture of Aden, at
the entrance of the Red Sea, was caused by an attack
having been made by the fortress on an English
ship, which led to a negotiation to purchase
the fortress ; tf_qms were agreed on, but when the Eng-
lish came to take possession, more was demanded, upon
which the fortress was attacked and captured. It in not
usual in private life—what may be the diplomatic rule
ne Jinow not—to take a commodity from the owner, be-
cause he is reluctant to part with it for a price once
agreed on, and he demands something more. The do-
cuments in the case ate to be laid before the House.
If we can preserve the spot, it seems likely to facilitate
very much the communication by steam between Bom-
bay and Suez.

iLord LYNDHURST moved that the %officer of the
House of Lords might attend the Court of Queen's
IBench with the notes of the evidence taken be-
fore the New Zealand Committee. It app'ars that
ithe evidence was, an application from the Commons,
I sent to that House, which ordered it to be printed.
1 Part of the Report was printed by the Times, and
against the Times an action was brought for a libel
contained in passages extracted from the Report. The
defendant pleaded a justification, and requested that
.
! the of B;;er of the House of Lords might be allowed to
prove in Court that he had only published evidence
taken before the Lords. A Committee sat first to in-
quire into the propriety of granting their request, it
I being one of privilege, and decided against it.
' Lord LYNDHURST asked the Lords to rescind
the resolution of the Committee. The LORD
CHANCELLOR, Lords HOLLAND, ELLENBOROUGHt and
SHAFTESBURY, supported the Committee. Lnrd
BROUGHAM made a good speech in favour of Lord
LYNDHURST'S motion, which was finally carried by 31
to 18. This decision was, we think, important. It
breaks down another barrier of privilege. It was con-
tended on the one hand, that it is ridiculous, absurd,
aid hypocritical to pretend to regard as sacred, privi-
leges that are every day violated, which their Lordships
afford convenience to violate, and actually pay for the
violation; and it was added, if their Lordships allow
their speethes to be reported, why should they not allow
the evidence taken before their Select Committees to be
published, and if published, why not allow the fact, that it
is evidence taken before them to be proved by compe-
tent persons? It was argued on the other side, that
tlon-,h their Lordships silently permitted a violation
of their privileges by the publication of the debates, they
were not to concede a fa% our to an individual on the
ground that he had committed a breach of privilege ;
that it they sent their officer into a Court of Justice to
prove the report of the evidence, they might next be
called on to prove the reports of their Lordships'
speeches, which would be contrary to the Bill of
Rights. This is the second important question of
privilege which has grown out of the Commons pub-
iishing reports, that of Stockdale being the other ;
and their Lordships' decision in this case seems likely
to
dlning the matter to a speedy issue. The LORD
CRIES JUSTICE has held that the printer of the House
of Commons is answerable for any libels he may print ;
• nl, if after the evidence has been proved to be take
before the Lords. the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE should
hold to his opinion, and the matter be libellous,
he will be brought probably into conflict with the Lords
as well as the Commons. Lord HOLLAND, indeed,
protested strongly against their Lordships being impli-
cated in anything. the Commons thought proper to print,
but as they have allowed their officer to appear
in the. Court, they permit that to be questioned as
libellous which is a part of their own proceedings.
Lord HOLLAND'S suggestion, that the Court should be
contented with the best evidence it could get, would
avoid the difficulty. His opinion, however, was over•
ruled,' and the privileges of the Peers given up. Lord
BROUGHAM'S able and amusing speech, is worthy of
perusal. The Peers did no other business

Notwithstanding the consistent opposhitn of the
Hon. Members for Kilkenny and Bridport, the
Resolution of the Committee was finally carried
without a division. From the spirit manifested by
men of all parties during the debate, we my justly
claim for Captains CRAUFURP and NAPIER, for
the Flag Officer, and if we may be allowed without
vanity to include ourselves, the merit of having
succeeded in preparing the way for important
reforms in the future administration of this De-
partment of the Public Service. Though Minis-
ters, for their own credits' sake, will take some time
to introduce the changes which have been forced
upon them by the nation, yet we will undertake to
pledge ourselves that never again during the life-
time of the present generation will the interests
of the Navy be so neglected as they have been
since the death of Mr. CANNING. Neverthe-
less, till the reforms are effected we shall not
relax in our efforts to accelera.e their accom-
plishment.

In the Commons, after the presentation of petitions,
on the motion for going into a Committee of Supply,
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE moved his vote of censure on the
Ministers for interfering, in the case of the theatres,
with a resolution of the House. He complained of the
Nlnisk.rs having treated the House with eontempt,
and made a speech full of interest and knowledge on the
subject. Lord JOHN RUSSELL explained that her
MAJESTY'S Ministers had not thought it decent or
proper to interfere with the customary observances
of Lent, but that they did propose next year to
make an alteration. The Noble Lord's speech was
deemed conciliatory, and Mr. DUNCOMBE was advised to
Rithdraw his motion, to which he objected, unless he
obtained an assurance, that the Bill to be proposed by
the Noble Lord had the sanction of the Bishop of Lori-
n.lN. At length, however, he consented—as was un.
derstood, and the motion was withdrawn, and so
ends the contest between Mr. BuNN and the
Bishop of LONDON, which has been carried on
through the Imperial Parliament and the highest officers
of Ler Mqjesty's crown.

9:-. rilS 'Motion thin t'vening
Mr. VILLIERS brings
,or tht: House to i:.,solve itself into a Committee on
the Corn,iaws, to which Mr. CAYLEV, a *,,t
mentioned on the Ist, who almost recommended
open rebellion in 1835- because barley was down
to 245, per quarter, is to move an amendment that
the Corn-laws have always worked well. Few or
no persons have any sanguine hopes of success.
For our parts, we must say that we consider the
CornAaws, so abominable—they are such an out-
Thy , rage against decency and justice—so destructive of
postponed debate on the Navy tstimates national prosperity, and so inimical to the national
was opened last night by Sir It. PEEL, with a peace, that, bad as we think of the Legislature—.
approving
speech, in which the Rightof 11-.. Hon. Baronet—after selfish as we know the Members of the House of
the
policy - •
of the creasing our naval Commons to be—ignorant as we are well aware
force
triarin a ratio corresponding with the increase in they are of the effect of their own actions, yet we
444 ine armaments of France and Russia— i cannot suppose them so fiendish, so utterly lost to
wove that the charges of dangerous reduc. I all honest and honourable thought, as to ersev i
y the H
naval strength of the counbtry, brought I in upholding the Devil's laws. ere
At l p
east till we vernment bon. Secretary for i learn from the Votes of the House, that they have so 1

'Fite House went into a Committee of supply on the
Naval estimates, to which we have elsewhere adverted.
Aftenvards the House resumed the adjourned debate on
.Nlr. SHAW'S motion concerning the state of Ireland, and
a considerable deal more talk took place on that three&
bare subject, till at 15 minutes past two o'Clock all
parties being heartily sick of further discussion,. .the
House was counted out for want of an audiencei So
much for Irish crimes, and Irish For grievances.