The Sun.
London, England, 1854-05-11 00:00:00

adapted for vessels having a draught under eight
feet ! Now, this incident may be accepted as
perfectly authentic. And it is surely sufficiently
significant ! It is surely quite testimony enough
of the folly of providing the allied fleets with gun-
boats drawing 11 and even 13 feet of water—a
draught altogether unfitting for the navigation of
the shallow waters lying between Cronstadt and
St. Petersburg. The fact here mentioned—a fact
notorious and wholly indisputable indicates
quite plainly and obviously that, no matter
what may happen to Cronstadt, the Russian
metropolis beyond it is inaccessible to the
combined fleets so long as they remain unpro-
vided with steam gun-boats suited to the shal-
llow current of the Neva and to all the peculiarities
of the shoal-water navigation.

Precisely for these reasons do we regard it as
especially desirable that gun-vessels like those
before specified should be placed at the command
of Sir CHARLES NAPlER—vessels drawing net
13 feet, or 11 feet, or even 8 feet, but merely
5 feet of water when fully armed and equipped
Vessels running in their " best trim," under
steam, 13 statute miles, and under their " worst
trim" 13 statute miles, per hour ! Vessels carrying
4 long 32-pounders and 4 long 68-pounders—and
capable, besides that, in consequence of the
masterly ingenuity of their construction, of
firing two of the 8-inch guns parallel to the keel
at either end, each end being " forward" (the ves-
sels being provided with two rudders, and having no
"aft" whatever), and of bringingalithe 8-inch guns
over to either side for a broadside ! Vessels
like these would surely be inestimable iii
those shallow waters—particularly remember-
ing that the Russians are already provided
with their prototypes in the Nix and the Sala-
mander. Conscious almost painfully of this, we
cannot but rejoice that this gun-boat question has
been brought before the notice of the House
of Commons by Mr. KENNEDY„ and through
the press under the particular observation
of the public by Mr. SCOTT RUSSELL, how-
ever inconvenient the inquiries of the former and
the explanations of the latter may be to a certain
section of her MAJESTY'S Government.

There is one portion of Mr. GLADSTONE'S
financial career to which, as a matter of justice
and fair play, we are desirous of giving the credit
to which it is entitled. We shall not, in treating
of this matter, be accused of unduly favouring
the Right Honourable Gentleman, or of admitting,
on trivial or insufficient grounds, the completeness
of his vindication on one of the points on which
he has been most severely attacked. We have
been sufficiently explicit on the points where we
conceived that censure was merited, to be enabled
to bestow approbation where it was really merited,
without the fear of misconception or aspersion.
If we have fearlessly exposed the errors and de-
lusions of which he has been guilty, we may also
give him the credit to which he is fairly entitled
for his resistance to a system injurious to the best
interests of the community, and calculated to
foster and strengthen the exclusive privileges and
monopolies that have been so loudly, incessantly,
and truly complained of for many successive years.
We have ever been the strenuous advocates of
" Free trade in banking." We have felt that a
"monopoly in money" is just as prejudicial
to the people as a monopoly in corn, in tea, or in
any other commodity. We feel the inconsistency
of " Free Trade " and a fettered currency, and
urged the adoption of the former not the less
energetically because we conceived that it must
necessarily lead, and that very speedily, to the
removal of the monetary trammels by which the
trade and commerce as well as the industry of the
nation is hampered and paralysed. Unfortunately,
however, we did not speak from the Treasury
Benches, or as an organ of Downing-street. Truth
was not palatable unless proceeding from official
quarters, and the people continued apathetic and
indifferent to what was really of the most vital
importance because it was not urged ex cathedra.
Now, however, that a Financial Minister exposes
the abuses, and the Leviathan of the Press follows
up the attack with steady determination, we may
hope that the public attention, which is alone
essential to insure an adequate remedial measure,
will be strongly directed to the interesting topic.
Mr. GLADSTONE unsparingly denounced the
system of Exchequer " thimblerlgging," which
has been so long carried on with impunity. He
showed that, while such urgent complaints were
put forward on the part of the friends and advo-
cates of the Bank—while the voice of lamentation
was to be heard in Threadneedle-street, and the
Old Lady refused to be comforted, because she
was assailed in her tenderest point—her pocket—
by having to supply, at 3 per cent., funds for
which she could find ample occupation at 5 per
cent., there was no real foundation for these plain-
tive "Jeremiads"—that the Bank system was to
obtain interest for merely nominal loans, when
there was no actual advance, or where it was
made out of the funds of the customer—a system
analogous to that said to have been very popular
with Irish land agents of the old school. Thus
he showed that while Sir CHARLES WOOD was
supposed to have borrowed, and actually paid
interest on, 2, 26'7, 000/., that " the minimum
excess of the public balances in the Bank, in
that quarter, over and above the advance ou
deficiency bills, was 1,696,000 1" while the
Right Honourable Gentleman himself, although
not quite so liberal as Sir CHARLES, paid interest
on 2,490,0001., while the excess of balance in the
Bank was never less than 1,160,0001. This, then,
so far as his dealings with the Bank were con-
cerned, was "the head and front of his offending"
—that he refused to give his assent to the con-
tinuance of a system by which the public were
compelled to pay for pecuniary accommodation
which was not afforded for the use of money which
was never actually required. In opposing and
denouncing this indefensible system, Mr. GLAD-
STONE has deserved support ; and we do not sup-
pose that his proceedings will be less energetic or
determined because he has used such expressions
of overstrained courtesy in his address. Although
feeling the highest respect for the Governor and
Deputy-Governor of that establishment, his own
duty was to defend the interests of the public.
Like a British pugilist, he tenders his hand before
standing up to the scratch ; but will he
exhibit the less determination on that account ?
We think not ! and his second, the Times,
is determined that there shall be no mistake on
the subject—that it shall be clearly understood
that its Right Hon. Friend means mischief, and
intends to cripple the power which his adversary
has repeatedly used to his serious detriment.
The Times considers—and we fully concur in
the opinion—that "the very compliments of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Chairman and
Deputy-Chairman of the Bank are suggestive and
significant !"—clearly indicating that there is
something very ominous looming in the future
towards these parties. It inquires whether
"perfect harmony" between the Government and
the Bank, which is so very desirable, is " most
likely to be secured by employing an agency which
has an interest pointedly and obviously opposed to
the interests of the Government?"—and whether
" this harmony would not be more likely to be
obtained by absorbing these functions' into the
Government itself, by making Government,
in fact, its own banker ; and instead of the
not
thcarteztainnu go:
tirr und
public"
ur t rendering ye„
very intelligible plan of securing har-
he
Whether tYhe parties absolutely
diversity of interests,
ees ya
gcertainr by disagreethei r
suffers. When they quarrel, the com-
311unity, like Picx.wicit between Porr and SMIRK,
uffer the blows from both sides. When they
agree, it is still worse. Why, then, not have that
'which offers the only true solution of the difficulty?
',Why not have a really National Bank to manage
t. he pecuniary concerns of the nation ? Why should
IA -(3 delegate to a private corporation what the
limes truly describes as "one of the most lucra-i
i;i ye and indispensable prerogatives of the Crown."
N o; we must no longer "pamper" the overgrown
)st ablishnient—we must only permit the nation
to i ssue paper that shall be received as " a legal
t4_,nc ler." We have too many burdens to allow
.profits to be derived from the circulation of
two ity or thirty millions of paper money to be
diet Irted from their legitimate channel. The nation