The Sun.
London, England, 1845-05-08 00:00:00

2itit

LONDON, THURSDAY, MAY 8, 1845.

The nous° of Lords did not sit last night.
The House of Commons met at Four o'clock.
Mr. FITZGERALD took the oaths and his seat for the
)f the room of Mr. OTWAY CAVE,

moved that the Glasgow Bridge
'fitted.

posed by Mr. Fox MAULED and

negatived by a majority of 25, the numbers being—For
the motion, 27; against it, 52.
Mr. F. FRENCH moved the first reading of the Great
Western (Ireland) Railway Bill.
Mr. WARBURTON thought that as the Standing Orders
Committee had reported against the Bill, and as it was
intended to have a Select Committee to consider the
subject of the applicability to Irish railway Bills of the
standing orders relating to English railway Bills, it
would be as well to adjourn the further consideration of
this Bill until after the Committee should have made its
report.
A long conversation ensued, and it was ultimately ar-
ranged that the Bill should be read a first time, but that
the second reading should be delayed until after the
Committee to be moved for by Sir GEORGE GREY should
have made their report.
Among the notices of motions was one by Mr.
Viu.ntas, on the subject of the Corn-laws, for the 20th
of May.
Mr. EDWARD ELLICE moved the substitution of Lord
FREDERICK HALLYBURTON and Mr. DAVID MORRIS, lOr
Mr. PATRICK STEWART and Mr. BICKHAM ESCOTT, on
Select Committee on Prisons (Scotland).

Mr. PRINGLE opposed ,the motion, and the House
divided, when there appeared, for the motion, 80; against
it, 22; majority for the motion, 58.
Sir J. GRAHAM, in answer to Mr. BOUVERIE, said
that he had caused inquiries to be made about the truth
of the accusations which he had brought against Mr.
MAZZINI, on the faith of the report in the Moniteur. He
had caused inquiries to be made of the judge who tried
RIBIERO and CAPRIOLI in 1833, and of the public pro-
secutor who had conducted those trials. Their answers
to the inquiries made were full, explicit, and direct ; and
they stated that no evidence was produced at the trial
which inculpated Mr. MAZZINI in the least. Had he
known at the time he made the original state-
ment, the fact that Mr. MAZZINI brought an
action against a newspaper for repeating the charge,
and much more if he had known what the im-
pression of the Judge who tried RIBIERO, and that of
the public prosecutor were, he would never have made
the statement be did. He now thought it due to Mr.
MAZZINI to make the only and the best reparation in his
power, namely, that the retraction should be as public
as the accusation.

This statement was received by the House with loud
cheers.

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE thought the Right Hon. Gentleman
had reason to complain of the person who had put the
Moniteur into his hands, and who must have been aware
of the facts of the case. The Right Hon. Gentleman
was right to make inquiries before giving the explana •
tion, which, however, came rather late. It would, how-
ever be very satisfactory to Mr. Mezzna and his friends;
and had he not from the beginning believed Mr. Raz-
ma to have been innocent, he would not have intro-
duced his name to the House.

Sir J. GRAHAM had only received the dispatch of Lord
COWLEY, in answer to his inquiries, yesterday, and, had
the House sat, he should have then given the explanation.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE did not attribute unnecessary delay
to the Right Hon. Baronet.
In answer to Lord PALMERSTON, Sir ROBERT PEEL
stated that separate, and not joint remonstrances,
had been made by Great Britain and the United
States to Spain and the Brazils, on the subject of
the slave trade, and that although the treaty of 1841 for
the suppression of the trade, agreed to between Great
Britain, Austria, Prussia, Russia, and France, had not
been ratified by France, yet that the other powers held
the treaty inviolate, notwithstanding its non-ratification
by France.
In answer to Mr. H. BERKELEY, the CHANCELLOR Of
the EXCHP.QUER said that the Government intended to
remove the 'Welsh mail from Bristol, but that Bristol
would not suffer any inconvenience in consequence.
The second reading of the Scotch; Poor-law Bill was
postponed to Friday week.
Mr. SCOTT moved the second reading of the Chattel
Interests (reil property) 1111. The measure, which was
opposed by the law officers of the Crown, was lost by a
majority of 3, the numbers being for the second reading,
27 ; against it, 30.
Mr. COWPER moved the committal pre forma of the
Field Gardens Bill.

Mr. ROEBUCK was entirely opposed to the measure,
and moved as an amendment that it be committed that
day six months.

Mr. B. ESCOTT seconded the amendment.

Sir J. GRAHAM hoped the amendment would not be
pressed—there were many details in the Bill to which
he conld not agree, and he should certainly watch it
narrowly in Committee.
The amendment was withdrawn, and the Bill com-
mitted p* o forme'.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM then proposed the committal of
the Medical Bill pro formet, and in so doing stated the
alterations which he prop 3sed to make in it. He pro-
posed to institute a third college, the College of General
Practitioners, and to transfer to the College the privi-
leges now exercised by the Apothecaries Company, to
do away with the necessity for serving an apprentice-
ship, and to give the new College. representa-
tives at the Board of Health, making an exami
nation by the board the only portal to the pro-
fession. He also proposed to exempt graduates
of Oxford and Cambridge from the hardship of being
obliged to obtain permission of the College of Physicians
to practice within seven miles of the Metropolis. The
Right Hon. Baronet went at great length into the de-
tails of his measure, but these were the principal altera-
tions he proposed.
The House was then addressed by Mr. WAKLEY and
Mr. WARBURTON, and several other Hon. Members, and
ultimately the Bill was read a second time, passed
through Committee, and reported.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and
the House adjourned at Twenty Minutes to One o'clock.

There was a great deal of good sense in the ob-
servations elicited from various Members of the
House of Commons on Monday night last, by Lord
PALMERSTON'S very able speech on the subject of
slavery, and the scandalous malpractices of the late
Spanish Governor of Cuba, General O'DONNELL. In-
deed we had marked several passages in the several
speeches of Mr. Hums, Sir C. NAPIER, Mr. WAR-
BURTON, and Lord PALMERSTON, for commentary
but they led, though incidentally, to topics of still
nearer and more momentous interest, to which we
cannot, at a moment like this, refrain from adverting,
in preference to almost any other subject of political
interest.

The present state of the British Navy, at all times
a matter of paramount interest in our eyes, assumes
of late, from certain aspects in our external relations,
a character of the most profound and incalculable im-
portance. We had hoped, after the general concur-
rence With which, just before the resignation of
the last Government and the coming in of the pre-
sent, the opinions of the most experienced naval offi-
cers, both in and out of Parliament, were received, on
the dangerous practice of sending out our ships of
war miserably undermanned, that we should not soon
hear again of a return, on the part of the Admiralty,
to the most impolitic and perilous scheme of retrench.
ment which was ever resorted to in the councils of a
power essentially the most maritime of any in the
world. From the fair and manly manner in which
Sir G. COCKBURN has, from time to time, responded
to the applications and entertained the complaints of
some among the naval authorities in the House—espe-
cially Sir C. NAPIER, Captain Rous, Lord INGES-
TRE, Captain PECHELL, and the Hon. Captain BERKE-
LEY—we had entertained a confident ex-
pectation that the gross abuses and defi-
ciencies in various departments of the service,
which they had indicated, would not be permitted to
continue or to recur. We are compelled to own
that we are equally surprised and grieved that the
question of Captain PECHELL, on Monday, should
have received no answer at all, or just the most un-
satisfactory one in the world, from the Second Lord
of the Admiralty. " What had become," asked the
Gallant Captain, " of the fine men who had passed
through that excellent establishment, the gunnery-
ship at Portsmouth ?" Now, it would have really
been desirable to learn specifically how and where
the gunners and seamen instructed in the Excellent
had been distributed. The more diffused the better,
we should say, for the service. But all that we can
collect from Sir GEORGE COCKBURN'o answer is—
that the navy never possessed finer men than at pre-
sent; a vague generality that does not at
all meet the question. Have they been paid
off,
or drafted
m
ra
erve of thefsteosdinto some of the Admiralty's
services,
S
'tourvbeeyor of the
disgustedl‘rith
a experimental
cruise Navy's
bad ships, where the best of seamanship is requisite to
work the most unmanageable craft?
b
Captainso BERKE-
nueavyystwateasdntohta, tcohueldeonuoldt,
aassignnd /out
would
de
not,reane why
manned.the
navy
it was that the entries of men were made for parti-
cular ships—not for the service generally. Why bad
there been so much discontent among " the men en-
gaged under Captain LOCKYER in the Albior?"
(This is the large ninety-gun two-decker on which
we have so often had occasion to animadvert in re-
spect of her vicious construction, that will not allow
her, in bad weather, to open her lower tier of ports at
all, and whose rolling and pitching, in heavy seas,

renders her one of the dampest and most uncomfort-
able vessels in her MAJESTY'S service, although one of
the crack productions of Sir W. SYMOND'S school.)
Captain BERKELEY further asked why a large ship's
company were sent to sea with an insufficient
supply, especially as an experimental squadron ?
He said, too, the men were disgusted with send, g
in an experimental squadron, for this reason—they
saw that they had work to do which precluded them
from anything like rest. Why what a device was
this for accomplishing the objects of a squadron of
evolution and experiment, where, in the first place,
a full complement of men is indispensable to the
manoeuvres to be executed; and, in the second, the
most perfect good understanding between officers and
men is an absolute element of the service. If the
ships were undermanned, as a matter of course the
crews were overworked ; and at a period of all others
the most exigent of alacrity and cheerfulness in those
crews, they were goaded, as it were, to the extreme
of discontent. Are we to suppose Captain BERKELEY
in earnest—and how can we refuse to believe that he is
so—in adding that any misgivings as to the conduct of
our men, in the event of a war with America, are founded
on the notoriety of the fact that, if such a war were
now to break out, our ships must proceed to sea so
miserably undermanned, that they would have no
ground for reasonable expectation of success in a
competition to be waged under circumstances of
similar inequality and disadvantage to those of our
last naval warfare with the Americans. That such a
defective system should even have been contemplated,
is alarming enough; but that alarm is at least alle-
viated by the distinct pledge it called forth from Sir
GEORGE COCKBURN, " that there was no intention to
restrict the complement of sea-going ships, and that,
while he remained in office, no ship of our navy
should ever go to sea without being properly manned.
As for the experimental squadron, the object was
rather to try the ships than the men." Granted ;
but by allotting to the most severe duty an inferior
complement, surely the Admiralty is demoralising the
spirit of the general service.
Now, let us see what is the evidence to this vital
matter of the " manning" from other quarters; and
(always bearing in mind what are the grave pos-
sibilities, we should be sorry to write " probabilities,"
of a naval collision in the Western Hemisphere)
what are the very important bearings which the
question assumes in the event of such a war, and on
the honour and prosperity of this country ?
From an officer of the Superb, Sir C. NAPIER had
learned that there were on board that large man-of-
war not more than forty able seamen. " Well-
behaved" men there were, in plenty; but they knew
nothing of naval affairs; and so it was with
most of our ships of the line. The men were anxious
to do their duty, but the crews were of inferior
quality. Yet we could obtain as good men as any
navy ever boasted by setting about the object after a
right manner. W. find it impossible to deny the
grievous discouragement which seamen—who are
naturally enough animated by the hope of re-
alising their hard-earned prize money—must ex-
perience under such scurvy treatment and cruel
disappointments as they had lately to encounter
in respect of their successful operations on the coasts
of Syria and of China. But we cannot reconcile,
with the conduct of any great State department, con-
ducted by people of common sense, or having but an
ordinary acquaintance with the universal impulses of
human nature, the perseverance of our Admiralty in
any system of admitted annoyance and injustice to
the men at a period of such pregnant eventfulness
as the present. The Government was broadly ac-
cused by Sir CHARLES NAPIER of being afraid to
issue a proclamation for able seamen to come forward,
under the probability of a war, because they would
have to pay 101. bounty to each. For, since there
should be 40,000 men in the navy, the whole bounty
would amount to 400,0001., which the CHANCELLOR
of the EXCHEQUER would not like to pay. Whilst sci,res
and hundreds of thousands are laid out by a willing
country on the palaces and establishments of royalty, how-
ever, there must be no question as to finding 400,000l:for
bounty to able seamen, wherever else the money is to be
economized, whenever the emergency arises. And since
impressment, in the present state of public opinion, and
(let us be candid to ourselves, and look our own exi-
gencies in the face) of our political relations, would be
absolutely impracticable on any great scale, it is well that
we should accustom ourselves to contemplate the scale,
at least, of the alternative we may have to adopt. That
alternative will have all the advantages of being a con-
stitutional, a most popular, and most efficient one; and
we may depend upon it, it will determine the event of
any naval struggle, were it against the whole maritime
powers of the world, at once in our favour. There
would be no danger of complaint of a deficient supply of
able seamen; we might rather fear to have to encounter
a redundant mass of applicants. It seems that a paper
was recently laid before the American Congress which
showed that, out of 115,000 men in the whole naval mer-
cantile service of the United States, 100,000 were fo-
reigners. Of these probably 90,000 are Englishmen,
who, said the same Gallant Officer from whom we have
just quoted, "in case of war, would leave that service
and come into the English, provided a proper remunera-
tion was held out, and the slavish mode of impressment
was not resorted to."

Mr. CHARLES WOOD, the late Whig Secretary to the
Admiralty, assured the House that never since 1835 was
tho fleet of this country in so weak and defenceless a
state, as during the last year. When we read such
statements, pronounced by such men, we can scarcely
suppose that we are not dreaming; so impossible does it
seem to us to believe that men in one of the most re-
sponsible posts of public servic?, and with a full know-
ledge of all the threatening aspects of the political ho•
rizon around them, can thus have been tampering with
the duties of their station and their trusts. Lord IN-
GESTRE, in fact, confirmed Mr. WOOD'S assertion—for
he complained that last year, only, the Cornwallis, and
another ship, was sent out without their full complement
of either men, guns, or arms. If Mr. SIDNEY HER-
BERT imagines that his very jejune assurances .to the
House that these things were so, because the Govern-
meat did not think there was any necessity for adding
to the strength of our home service, and that on foreign
stations our ships were all fully manned, will countervail
the impression produced by the speeches produced by Sir
CHARLES NAPIER, Captain PECHELL, Lord INGESTRE,
and Captain BERKELEY, he is very egregiously deceived.
We do implore every Member of the House of Com-
mons, of whatever party, considering the feverish state
of many of our relations, both in the Old World and the
New, not to relax one effort or any one eligible oppoi tunity,
to keep up the Admiralty to the practical redemption of
the full pledge which we conceive Sir GEORGE COCK •
BURN to have given to the full manning of all our ships
of war, and the perfect equipment of all our sea-going
ships. Whatever the defects and errors of the past, we
are willing to hope everything of the future from the
undertakings of an officer of so distinguished a profes-
sional reputation and personal character as Sir GEORGE
COCKBURN.

Admiral DUNDAS has addressed a letter to one of his
constituents, in which he gives certain reasons for
changing his opinion, or, more properly speaking, his
vote, on the Maynooth grant. Among other reasons, he
states that he " voted for the introduction of the Bill, and
for Mr. WARD'S motion, in the hope that the funds to
pay the proposed grant would be defrayed from the super-
abundant revenues of the Protestant Church of Ireland.'
Now, if the Gallant Admiral voted for the introduction
of the Bill on any such grounds, he could not have
heard the speech of Sir ROBERT PEEL ; and no man in
the kingdem but himself entertained even the slightest
hope that Mr. WARD'S motion would be carried. Were
other Liberal Members, who have stood to their principles
with such unflinching firmness, to imitate this example,
the measure would be defeated, and all hopes of con-
ciliating Ireland be utterly destroyed. We care not for
words. It is easy to talk about a just appropriation of
Church property, a fair and liberal registration, and
an addition to the numb( r of Irish Members in
the United Parliament ; but can these objects
be obtained now, and is nothing to ba done—is
not even an instalment to be accepted, till
the whole amount of justice is granted ? From several
allusions in the letter, we are led to believe that some-
thing else than the good of Ireland has led to this
change. Moral courage is a much nobler quality than
physical courage. For the faithful discharge of Parlia-
mentary duties it is indispensable, and perhaps it is
equally indispensable in an officer appointed to any
important command in her MAJESTY'S service.

Madrid journals of the 29th ult. have been received.
They are chiefly filled with accounts of the magnificent
fite given by Queen CHRISTINA at Vista Alegre on the
anniversary of her birth-day. The following persons
have been appointed Gentlemen of the QUEEN'S Bed.
chamber:—Colonel Pedro Quiros, brother to the Mar-
quis de Santiago, M. Jose de Salamanca, M. Jose Maria
Huet, Brigadier Norzag,aray, M. Jose Maria Monreal,
and M. Chacon, Political Chief of Madrid. The Spanish
Government have forbid the entrance int ) Spain from
France of all descriptions of beasts of burden, as it fears
that the malignant disorder now raging amongst cattle
in certain parts of Germany, and which is said to have
made its appearance in the south of France, may extend
into Spain.
The Three per Cents. closed at 35 for cash, and 35
9-16 at 60 days ; the Five per Cents. at 25 15-16 at 60
days ; the Coupons, at 28i at 60 days ; and the Debt
without interest at 8i for cash, and 9 at 60 days.

The French Chamber of Deputies commenced on
Monday the discussion of the Bill for arming the forti-
fications of Paris. Several Members spoke against the
measure, but the debate excited no interest, and indeed
so little regard was paid to the speeches that at one
period of the sitting the noise of conversation drowned
the voice of the speaker, and he appealed to the Pre-
sident for protection. General LEYDET opposed the

aktnty of Tipperary, ir
detriaL4A Q
"W ittlivl4l4T
pt 9 .
e'
;.;
41111 b