The Sun.
London, England, 1850-12-16 00:00:00

altit

LONDON, MONDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1850.

England being any day open to invasion—as was
first demonstrated by his Grace the Duke of WEL-
LfsisToN—it becomes a matter of no inconsiderable
interest to listen to every reasonable suggestion of
defence, whether it be military or maritime in its
character. The reality of our perilous position is by
this time beyond the reach of doubt or contradiction.
The fact has been proved indeed not less by the
absence of all argument to the contrary, but by the
cogency of reasoning which has characterized the
lucubrations of every individual following up the
opinions of the Commander. in-Chief. From the ex-
plicit manner in which that illustrious soldier pointed
out the danger as at present existing, it would have
been but a miserable pretence, evading in any way
the difficulties of our insular position. If the Duke
himself spoke out thus plainly—what reason could
exist for any one else to maintain silence, or speak only
in inuendos ? The reality of the evil having become
already so notorious—why on earth should the
recommendation for its removal be regarded as a pe-
rilous exposure ? Manifest, however, as these things
have been all along, it has nevertheless been objected
that the very mention of our indefensible state as a
kingdom is something little short of being actually
treasonous. The objectors not reflecting that the
reverse would on the contrary be the case, and that
he would veritably be the traitor who should venture
to gloze over the existing situation of England among
the powers of Christendom. Quietude and timidity
upon the subject, we maintain, would have been in
the very highest degree culpable ; and, hence, conse-
quently, we cannot look, as many do, upon the argu-
ments of Sir FRANCIS HEAD as ill-timed, or upon
those of Sir CHARLES NAPIER as ill-judged, seeing
that the simple fact upon which all those arguments
are built up was long ago proclaimed by no
less a personage than Field-Marshal his Grace the
Duke of WELLINGTON.
Referring at the present moment expressly
and exclusively to the course of proceeding
in reference to this great and all-important
question, which has been hitherto pursued
by Rear-Admiral Sir CHARLES NAPIER—we
would here direct especial attention to the letters ad-
dressed to various parties upon the subject during
the last few months by that distinguished officer,
those documents having very recently been collected
together and published in the form of a substantial
volume.* Under any circumstances a work from the
pen of the NAPIERS would be certain to secure to
itself our attention and respectful consideration ; but,
considering the peculiar circumstances under which
the present one makes its appearance, considering the
time chosen for its issue, considering the importance
of the subject and the experience of the writer, it
assumes to itself a more than usual interest, and
possesses a more than ordinary attraction. Added
to the fact of the correspondence comprised in this
volume on "The Navy—Past and Present," being
written by Admiral Sir CHARLES NAPIER, it has the
additional merit of being edited by General Sir WIL-
LIAM Nertna, the historian of the Peninsula. Con-
sequently the work comes before us invested with a
twofold authenticity—signed by a naval hero, and
countersigned by a military annalist. On the very
frontispiece, as it were, of the production, the editor
tykes occasion to administer a vigorous blow on that
part of our defensive administration to which much of
the existing evils and embarrassments are attributable.
He exposes the profligate expenditure regained in
the erection of public works, or iu their subsequent
renovation, by reason of the exorbitant charges
made in consequence of the estimates of the Ordnance
department. Demanding, as they do, five times the
money for any given work which would be asked for
by private contractors, the officers in this department
entail the most ruinous outlay upon the community,
without yielding for that outlay anything like a Come'
pensative advantage. In illustration of the disastrous
system here referred to, we commend pages iii. and iv•
of the "Introduction" to the moat serious consideration
of our Financial Reformers.

Reverting, however, to the arguments put forth by
the author, and not merely by the editor of this im-
portant book on naval administration, we would
briefly allude to the peculiar right of Admiral Sir
CHARLES NAPIER to come forward as the advocate of
innovation. That right or privilege we insist upon
in his behalf, not because of this or that achievement
performed by him in his professional capacity,
when leading on the mariners of England off St.
Jean d'Acre or off Lisbon, but simply and
briefly because of the wholesome improvements
already suggested by himself in the arrangements of
the national service, and since then carried into effect
to its manifest benefit and development. Among these
bhould especially be borne in recollection his advice
to discontinue the barbarous system of flogging round
the fleet, and cf nii-jecting petty officers to the igno-
miny of corporal punishment, both of which recom-
mendations have been at length happily carried into
effect. Besides which, it is not to be forgotten that
Sir CHARLES has in like manner exerted himself ener-
getically, with a view to aid in ameliorating the con-
dition of the seamen employed in the Royal Navy, some
of his most excellent suggestions having ultimately ,
been realized, such as that of paying the sailors

• " The Navy : its Fast and Present State." By
Rear-Admiral Sir C. Napier, K.C.Q. Edited by major_
General Sir William Napier, h.O 112 &c., &c. Byo.
pp. 259. ',widow J. and D. A. D 4 rling. 1851.

LONDON,

abroad, and " instead of imprisoning them on board a
ship for two or threee years, giving them leave to go on
shore on all proper occasions." The practical and really
admirable character of the reforms proposed by the
Admiral in regard to the management of the mari-
time service may, however, be most conspicuously
shown by transcribing the following paragraph from
his " Preface," containing, as it does, a variety of
appropriate statements :
" In 1816 I proposed to Lord Melville a system of re-
gistration, which was iinperfectly carried out by Sir
James Graham in 1830, and improved by a Bill brought
in by Mr. Sydney Ibirbert and myself; but it is very far
from being perfect. I brought in another Bill, obliging
every apprentice in the merchant service to set ye a cer•
taro period in a ship of war before he could become a
regular seaman; but that Bill was not taken up by the
Admiralty, and was in consequence lost. It object was
to do away the bad feeling that exists against a man oi-
-1 war in the minds of most merchant seamen, and to
teach the apprentices in their youth the different exer-
cises, so as they might be useful when called out in the
event of war. Had that Bill passed, we should have had
between four and five thousand lads of eighteen years of
age every year, and at the end of three years they would
be at liberty to remain, or return to the merchant ser-
vice, according to tho wants of the Navy. This, in my
opinion, would have been the first step to do away itn-
oressment. These lads, knowing the habits and customs
of a man-of-war, would come forward more willingly
than the merchant-seame❑ of the present day, who have
a utfang feeling against the Navy; that feeling is, I
hope, }Nashing away; but it will be a long while before it
entirely disappears, and any attempt at impressment will
bring it tassels in a tenfold degree,"
Another admirable suggestion is thrown out im-
mediately afterwards, relating this time to the in-
iquitous and ruinous manner of payment. The
passage to which we allude runs as follows :
" The system of register tickets is little attended to
by the master and owners of merchant ships. Men are
often embarked without tickets, and the Custom-house
are not sufficiently strict. A few examples would go a
great way to check this irregularity, and strict orders
ought to be given to ships of war to muster the crew of
merchant ships, and report all those who have seamen
on board, without their tickets; but even these precau-
tions will be ineffectual, till owners are prohibited giv-
ing the men notes for their wages, payable after the ship
has sailed. These notes are sold to the Jews for half
their value, and the men consider desertion as no crime—
quite the contrary, they think they are doing the Jew.
The ship-owners lose nothing; the sailor leaves his
clothes behind, fresh hands are shipped, and no trouble
is taken to apprehend the deserter; whereas, if the sea-
man was paid in money, it would become the interest of
the ship-owner to apprehend and punish him if he de-
serted. What would be said, if the seamen in the Navy
were paid by notes, which would not fetch half their
value?"

In addition to such subjects as those above particu•
larized, others of a no less interesting and important
nature are touched upon by Sir CHARLES NArrEn in
the volume under consideration ; the wasteful and ex-
travagant expenditure incurred in ship-building being
particular)y and deservedly reprobated. As the cor-
respondence, however, in which these matters are
brought under discussion, has been familiarized to
the multitude by piecemeal publication in our own
columns, and in those of some of our contemporaries,
it would be superfluous at present to do more than
thus distinctly and emphatically notify the eircum•.
stance of its collective republication.

We have repeatedly directed the public attention
to the imperative necessity of a great and combined
exertion being made to obtain not only a considerable
reduction in the enormous amount of taxation, under
which the energies of the industrious classes. are
crushed and paralysed, but, also, a complete alteratio❑
in the present iniquitous system, so that every man
should be required to contribute to the support and
maintenance of the national establishments and the li-
quidation of the national liabilities, secundum statuin
et facultates, according to the position which he oc-
cupies, the means he possesses, and the stake he holds
in the country. This is a matter of the plainest
equity, the most simple justice. It is the constitu.,
tional privilege of the British subject, but how
grievously is it violated, and how frivolous
and inadequate are the excuses put forward
by the Ministers of Finance of every Government and
every party, for the glaring inequalities which they
call upon Parliament to sanction ! We are well
aware that it is exceedingly difficult, perhaps impos-
sible, to make a perfectly equal assessment on every
description of income, so that each man should con-
tribute his exact proportion to the national exchequer.
But that is no reason why there should be no effort
made to arrive at a more equitable approximation, and
to get rid of the monstrous injustice now in daily opera-
tion—the gross anomalies that would not for a mo•
went be tolerated by the inhabitants of any other free
country in the world.
The only argument adduced in support of the
system is, that because perfection cannot be ob-
tained we must not look for any improvement !
That because we cannot accurately ascertain
the capitalized value of an annuity on the life of an
aged and sickly man, or of the fluctuating and pre-
carious profits derived by a professional man by
almost incessant toil in the practices of his calling,
that they are to be regarded as equivalent to incomes
derived from the public funds, or the ground rents of
real property. Or, in other words, that what may
not be worth two years' purchase, what no bank or
capitalist would accept as a security for the advance
of money to any amount, should be assessed as
highly, and bound to contribute as largely, as that
which is well worth, and could be readily disposed of
at, thirty years' purchase. This is a plai❑ reductio ad
absurdum, but what signifies any argument so long as
the people remain apathetic and indifferent to the
question on which their own welfare and prosperity
so greatly depends ?

Before the last general election we pressed this
most important subject on the attention of the various
constituencies ; we showed that it was no party ques-
tion, but one for which men of all classes and parties,
Whig and Tory, Conservative and Radical, Protec-

tionist and Free•trader—all, in fact, who desired the
full development of the industrial capabilities of their
common country—might freely unite, and cordially
co-operate together ; and we strongly urged the pro-
priety of the fiscal question being made one at least
of the tests by which the merits of the respective
candidates might be ascertained. There was
a golden opportunity which, under our present
system of septennial Parliaments, might not arise
again for many years. But nothing could awaken
the tax-payers from their dreamy slumbers. Other
subjects of far less importance were dwelt on, dis-
cussed, and quarrelled about in due course, and
with all the earnestness becoming the free and inde-
pendent electors, who were so fortunate as to be in
the enjoyment of the franchise. But the questions
that came home to the pocket of every voter—the
medium or currency in which the taxes should be
paid, and the manner in which the imposts should be
levied, were treated with the most contemptuous dis-
regard. The opinions of the candidates sere scarcely
inquired into on monetary and fiscal reform.
Before many months had elapsed there were many
bitter reasons to deplore this fatal indifference. Before
the new Parliament had even assembled the commer-
cial crisis ensued, which brought the nation to the
verge of bankruptcy, which levelled many of our
merchant princes to the dust, and overturned firms
which it had taken ages to elevate to the proud posi-
tion in which they were placed before the arrival of
the day of ruin, which reduced the value of every de-
scription of property from 20 to 50 per cent., and
entailed the most lamentable sufferings, the most
painful privations on the industrious population of the
country, on all who earned their daily bread by their
daily labour. The statute that had fearfully aggra-
vated the mischief, if it had not directly produced this
untoward state of affairs, was necessarily suspended.
A Parliamentary inquiry followed, as a matter of
course. But the representatives of the people were
perfectly careless as to a topic respecting which no
interrogatory had been exhibited on the hustings.
An obedient majority recorded their votes in favour
of Ministers, and the same infamous monetary code
still continues unchanged and unaltered, to bring new

sufferings and fresh ruin upon the country.
In the same session the income-tax expired. It
was shown to be unequal in operation, and unsound

in principle, to inflict heavy and grievous injury on
persons deriving their incomes from limited

estates, for lives or terms of years, or from the profits
obtained from trade, manufacture, or commerce, or

from the exercise of skill or labour in any pursuit.
But the gross injustice was continued for a further
term of three years, without change or alteration, and
why ? Because the revision of the entire system of tax-

ation was not insisted on before the Members were re-
turned to Parliament ; and Honourable Gentlemen

having a long tenure
.of their seats before them could