The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-11 00:00:00

had England done anything amounting to a recogni-
tion of the French title to Algiers ?
It is not necessary to insist, for one moment, on the
vast political importance of any movements or events
which may have a probable tendency, though more or
less remote, to affect, prejudice, or come into actual
collision with, our influence in the Mediterranean.
This fact, we may assume, as not liable to be put, at
any time, in question between any parties. The re-
ply of Sir ROBERT PEEL appears to us to be emi-
nently characteristic of the man—marked by a little
plausibility, a little cunning, more inconsistency, and
an utter absence of all true dignity. To exemplify
this last objection, in the first place the British Premier
says—" I shall feel it my duty to limit my reply merely
to a statement of facts, because whatever passes here on
the subject of Algiers becomes an immediate subject
of discussion in the Chamber of Deputies." What a
reason for withholding explanations or information
from a distinguished Member of the British Parlia-
ment—that they may become the object of comment
in the Legislative Assembly of some foreign country !
What an admirable reason for withholding from the
" Grand Inquest of the Nation" the lights necessary
to guide its opinions—because they might be com-
mented on in Paris, by French Ikputies! But Sir
ROBERT, though he cunningly intimates that " it is
❑ot consistent with his duty to encourage discussion
of such matters," is too prone to commit an inconsis-
tency, not to depart from his previous declaration,
"that he would confine himself to a statement of
facts," by adding thereto at length a full comment
upon, and explanation of them. lie recurs to the
Earl of ABERDEEN'S dispatch to our Ambassador at
Paris on the,subject of the French possessions in Al-
giers. This dispatch had been quoted by M. GuizoT
in the Chamber of Deputies :
" The Comte Ste. Aulaire's version of Lord Aber-
deen's words was—' I was Minister for Foreign Affairs
in 1830, and were I to go back to that time, I should
have much to say respecting the occupation of Algiers
by France, but I take affairs as they stand in 1841, and
as they; have been left by preceding Governments, and
I look upon that occupation as a fait accompli against
which I have no objection to make.' Lord Aberdeen, on
seeing this published, wrote to our Ambassador, re-
questing him to explain to M. Guizot that this was not a
correct report of his words. In that dispatch he says—
' I readily subscribe to the accuracy of that report, with
the exception of, the last sentence, in which I said, not
that I had no objection,' but that I had no observa-
tion' to make, and the context will show my meaning.
What I said was the result of mature reflection. I felt
that after ten years' acquiescence, observation would be
useless, but it does not follow that I had no objection to
make, although I did not express any.' "
Sir ROBERT added the admission that our Consul-
General at Tangiers was (so fai from being under an
exequatur from the French Government) with the
Emperor of Moaocco, acting upon instructions from
this Government.

But Sir ROBERT, more absolute than the Emperor
of MOROCCO, insists on Parliament's confiding on the
responsibility of his (Sir ROBERT'S) Government :
" I repeat that I think it much better to leave these
matters to the responsible Governments than to make
them subjects of discussion in Parliament." The
responsibility of a Government which has recorded
its matchless titles to public confidence in its pro-
ceedings on the Factory Bill, the Sugar Duties Bill,
and, above all, the Bank Charter Renewal Bill!
What will the modesty of the Premier expect next
from the subserviency of the Commons ?
Sir CHARLES Narmt then • addressed some grave
questions to the Premier; of these the most important
were—" Was it true that Spain had consented to
allow France to send troops into Morocco through
Ceuta ? Was it the intention of her Majesty's Go-
vernment to increase the. naval force of the country ?"
For what Sir CHARLES had said about the suspici-
ous aspect of the coincident hostilities of Spain and
France with Morocco, the probable employment of
the strong fortress of Ceuta, on the coast of Barbary,
by permission of Spain, in advancing the operations
of the French armament, lately dispatched to that
coast (three sail of the line, a frigate, and four
steamers), under the command of the Prince DE
JOIN VILLE, and his sarea stic notice of thatyoung gentle-
man's pilot-seizing affair on the waters of Mexico, we
must refer to the Parliamentary Report. Sir ROBERT
first schooled the gallant officer for attempting to get
up a discussion on our naval strength upon the
second reading of the Railways Bill ; and he made
this statement as to the main object of his questions:
—" I venture to say that there never was a period
when the power of this country to make a great naval
demonstration was greater than at present, although
the number of ships actually commissioned is small."
Now Mr. C. Woos, an important authority on this
point, and late Secretary to the Adrsiralty, gave a
very different account of our condition
This present year there was an emergency also.
Ships were to be sent to the coast of Africa, and what
was our ability? 117 e had three guard-s!lips and three
line-of-battle ships ready. lAre were never, in fact, re-
duced s.) Liw as at present since 1835, when the Right
Hon. Barooct was before in office."

Hereupon the Premier waxed wroth ; declared he
would not answer Mr. WOOD'S observations; and,
like a spoiled school-boy, complained that the Hon.
Member did not use him fairly. Viscount PALMER-
STON " thought the Prime Minister had no right to
express surprise at questions being asked him about
the amount and capabilities of our naval forces; nor
did he think that the Government required previous
notice to enable them to answer questions on a matter
of so much importance." Sir RonEwr complained
that the Noble Lord did not "play 'fair ;" and he
blustered about the "no answers he would have
given" had there been due notice of such questions as
had been put to him that night. Mr. C. WOOD and the
Noble Viscount vindicated themselves from this child-
ish imputation on their mode of exercising one of
the most undoubted rights, and discharging one of
the most important duties of Members of Parliament ;
and Lord HowicK asked, with an expression of stern
surprise, "on what ground the Right Hon. Gentle-
man complained of unfair proceeding ?" And truly,
after the hurrying, unfair, technicalities insisted on
by the Premier in expediting his Bank Charter Re-
newal Bill, never did a complaint of unfairness come
with a worse grace from any Minister ; and never
were explanations less satisfactory on matters of vital
concernment to the national honour and welfare so
begrudgingly thrown at the heads of the Opposition
than those of Monday night last.

The session of the French Chambers is now rapidly
drawing to a close. Most of the departments of the
budget have been disposed of, and from all appear-
ances the Chambers will be prorogued in the course
of next week. In answer to questions from M.
LANJUINAIS in the Chamber of Deputies, relative to
the late changes in the Greek Government, M. GUIZOT
said FictllGC had done everything consistent with her
duty towards a foreign Power to keep up a good
understanding among different parties in that country,
Unfortunately she has not been successful, but she
had nothing to do in the formation of the new Cabi-
net. The national assemblies were about to meet.
and if the Cabinet had a majority, it would.stand.
If not, it must fall. M. CREMIEUX then complained
that the English Consul at Algiers _had not de-
manded his exequatur from the French Government.
M. GUIZOT said England was not singular in that
respect. The present Consuls of Sweden and "Spain,
as well as those of England, possessed the exequalurs
which they obtained before the occupation of Algiers
by the French, and it was not customary to renew
them, unless in cases of death, or the appointment of
new Consuls.
The Mbniteur publishes at length the dispatches
lately received from Marshal BUGEAUD, but they add
little to our previous information. The two follow-
ing letters, however, will be read with interest, as
they show that there is a disposition on both sides to
come to amicable terms, and are very characteristic
of the parties. The first is addressed by the Marshal
to SID EL GUENNAONI :
" In all your preceding letters you accuse us of having vio-
lated your territory, of having infringed the laws of good
fellowship which reigned between us, which means that you
attribute to us all that has been done, and that we have '
nothing to reproach you with. lam not habituated to these
diplomatic artifices. Igo straight forward and candidly to
the point. lam a soldier, who obeys only his King, and
'seeks for nothing but the interest of kis country. You say
that you still wish to maintain the same good harmony which
has always existed between the two empires. I wish this as
much as you do, but we must come to a clear und!rstanding.
Tell me distinctly what it is you require. We wish to pre-
serve the boundaries which the Turks had, and after them ,
Abd• el-Kader. We wish for nothing that belongs to you,
buatde vtr-eandd affordlongeresirethahtimyousueschoouurl,drenlinghim when he is
receive Abd-el-
Kalmost exhausted, and then sending him forth anew against
us. This is the war which you have carried on against :us
for the last two years. We desire that you will cause to re-
tire to the western inner parts of the empire, La Deyra, the
chiefs who have served Abd-el-Kader ; that you cause to be
dispersed the regular troops, the Goum and Asker ; that you
admit no more the tribes who migrate from our territory, and
that you immediately bend away those who hate taken re-