The Sun.
London, England, 1844-05-18 00:00:00

Jontillff c 7-11113

LONDON, SATURDAY, MAY 18, 1844.

Lord ABINGEU, after the usual ceremonies, took
his seat in the house of Lords, last night.
Lord BEAUMONT postponed the second reading of
the Roman Catholic Penal Acts Repeal Bill, and at
the same time expressed a wish that the Government
would alloiv it to be brought on with as little delay as

possible.
The Duke of WELLINGTON gave notice that on
Thursday 'next he would move the adjouinment of
the House till .the following Thursday.
In answer to a question from Lord BROUG Ham,
the Earl of ABERDEEN said he believed the treaty for
the annexation of Texas to the United States had
been signed, but he trusted the Congress would not
sanction it. Whatever might be the result, his Lord-
ship added, be should, in reference to this matter, act
consistently with his duty as a Minister of the Crown.
It was a measure quite unexampled in the history of

nations.

Lord WHARNCLIFFE called the attention of their
Loidships to the present state of the Houses of Par-
liament, and made some remarks not at all com-
plimentary to Mr. BARRY. He said it
had become necessary to bring the sub-
ject under the consideration of the House, inas-
much as very extensive alterations had been made by
Mr. BARRY in the plans as originally laid down—
these alterations having been made without the con-
currence of the Committee which had been appointed

to watch the progress of the new buildings. He
moved that the matter be referred to a Committee of
the Board of Works. Several other Noble Lords
made remarks on the subject, but none of them
seemed disposed to justify the course adopted by Mr.
Thiaar ; and Lord BROUGHAM expressed a hope that
the architect for the Houses of Parliament in future
would make no changes without consulting the Go-
vernment. The motion of Lord WHARNCLIFFE was
agreed to, and the House adjourned at Eight o'clock.
In the House of Commons, after a vast number of
petitions had been presented, Mr. HuME gave notice
that when the Savings Banks Bill came before the
House he should move a repeal of the clause in the
Act of GEORGE IV., which allowed the Government
to deal with moneys deposited in the savings banks.
In answer to some questions put by Mr. EWART,
relative to the war between Monte Video and
Buenos Ayres, Sir 8.. PEEL said he feared there was
" little chance of its speedy termination. British
subjects, however, would be protected ; but he did not
consider that England would be justified in taking
any steps to put an end to the war between the two
belligerents. There was a naval force in the Plata
which would afford every protection to British

subjects.
The House went into Committee on the Customs
Duties Bill, and a number of clauses were adopted.
On the 13th clause being read, Mr. EWART moved
that the reduction of duty on coffee be fourpence, and
on cocoa one penny per pound.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer opposed the
amendment, and on a division the amendment was
rejected by a majority of 11.
The remaining clauses were agreed to, and the
House resumed.
The Stamp Duties Bill went through Committee.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of,
and the House adjourned at One o'clock.

The Navy certainly owes a debt of gratitude to one
of its most gallant andsuccessful officers, Sir CHARLES
NAPIER, for the consistent solicitude with which he
avails himself of every opportunity to advocate the
interests of the service in the house of Commons.

In the course of the present session, he has already
brought, under the notice of Parliament many
matters involving, unquestionably, some points im-
mediately connected with the efficiency as well as the
rights of this justly popular arm of the national
power. We may instance the force with which the
Gallant Commodore pressed upon the consideration of
the Legislature the folly of underrating the great
exertions now making by other maritime States in
getting up their fleets to a condition for
active service. He spoke, we remember, of
the admirable manoeuvring which he himself
had witnessed in a French squadron in the
Mediterranean ; and contrasted with our own tardy
progress in the business of providing harbours of
refuge on our shores, the promptitude of the efforts
made, and the advance of the works commenced, for
similar purposes, by the French on their coasts. The
Chambers, he stated, had voted, some years since,
170,000,000 francs on account of harbours of re-
fuge, and had voted 40,000,000 more for the same
' Aljects for the present year. By -an article in
Galignani, we perceive that the Committee of the
Chambers, on admitting a credit of 46,000,000
francs for the improvements of the ports of France,
has reported in favour of applying that large sum
equally between the ports of Marseilles and Havre,
for strengthening and improving the works of them.-
It is well that facts like these should not be with-
lrawn from the observation of the British public.
Incessant attention to them should be paid by both
the Legislative and. the Executive of England.
Thus, whilst we please ourselves with the important
?act that we have, at present, a large and un-
pestioned superiority in the extent and force of
)ur steam navy over every other flag in existence,
)ur ports and harbours, in their present state, at least,
tre by no means adequate to the exigencies of such
squadrons as in time of war we must maintain. The
French, on the other hand, at St. Maloes alone, have
1. magnificent basin, capable of containing 200 war
steamers, with a depth of twenty-five feet water.
Oar readers will, no doubt, have concurred in the
reflections of Sir CHARLDS IcAPIEU on the impolitic
caprice which seems to direct the counsels of the Ad f

iniralty Board with regard to the staff and extent o
our navy. The
power in this respect as the Bank of England
customarily does, in its analogous control of
the currency. The vicissitudes of expansion and

3ontraction in the latter case, are not more impolitic

though we may conceive them to be more absolutely
mischievous, than the absurdity of augmenting our

feet one day, not so much vin reference to the
iemands of the public service, apparently as that it

• _ _
nay be reduced on another! But the defective eco-
nomy of such a practice is as palpable as it must be
inquestionable. There is this additional evil con-
nected with the variety of duties which the reduction
)f force imposes on superior officers ; namely, that
m admiral—on the Mediterranean station, for ex-
unple—may not be at sea one month consecutively,
.mt of his five years' command there.
It does not appear to us that any sufficient answer
has been given either by. Mr. S. HERBERT, Secretary
4' the Admiralty at the time, or by any authority
connected with the Administration, since, to the grave
complaint brought forward by Sir CHARLES NAPIER
(on the discussion of the Navy Estimates the other
evening); as to the quantities of rejected ship timber,
which, after being refused by the superior Civil De-
partments of the Navy, had been, from time to time
received into •store by the store-keepers of the

several dock-yards. The timber in question, it
was said, bud been so received, after rejection,
by the order of some subordinate official ; but
it is impossible not to participate in the sur-
prise expressed by Sir CHARLES NAPIER at this state-
ment, seeing that, by the late Act of Parliament con-

solidating the two Boards—Admiralty and Navy—all
subordinate authorities were expressly deprived of any
power to issue such orders. Moreover, the Gallant
Officer put it strongly to the Secretary to the Admi-
ralty, that it was no reason to plead for this irre-
gularity, " that such timber might well be received,
after being rejected for ship-building, because, though
it might be either too long or too short for that ap-
propriation, it might yet be advantageously employed
in other work ;" for, as the Hon. Gentleman himself
knew, it had been received into store after being
rejected because it was bad timber. The
impropriety of such proceedings had been urged on
the Admiralty by the highest professional authorities.
We have some fears that there is a sort of monopoly
interest in the supply of ship timber, which it is the
tendency of the Admiralty, like all other authorities
in this country, to encourage ; or which is, at all
events, too potential just now for the Board success-
fully to oppose and defeat. We may recur to this
matter, however, more particularly at a fu-
ture opportunity. We cannot, in the mean-
time, abstain, for one moment, from remark.
ing on the momentous importance of a most
rigid adherence to the duties connected with the
supervision of naval timber received into store, whe-
ther we bear in mind the improving aspect of the
French navy, or the much too lowered standard (as
we deem it) of our own, notwithstanding all that
occurred in 1840. Whilst we are on this topic of
ugly unanswered questions, we could much wish to
learn what reply the Gpvernment are prepared with
to the complaint preferred on behalf of our seamen,
engaged in the late affairs in the Chinese seas, as to
their being kept out of their prize-money, on
account of the numerous captures made by them
of enemy's craft, &c. &c. To have removed those
of her MAJESTY'S vessels engaged in such services,
—to have retained the craft, &c., so captured—to have
had them ransomed by the Chinese authorities—and
then to treat the general compensation paid, in
Sycee silver, as a simple State payment made into her
MAJESTY'S Exchequer, was, as Sir CHARLES NAPIER
has strongly phrased it, neither more nor less than " a
piratical act," calculated to excite the utmost discon-
tent among the seamen who have been robbed by this
mode, of proceeding. Another proposition which Sir
CHARLES warmly advocated some time since, has more
immediate connexion with thesubject matter ofhis re-
solution on Thursday night. He touched on the invidi-
ous distidction which has been habitually made be-
tween public acknowledgments of naval and of
military services. His reasoning was irresistible.
Why not give sailors medals for the great victories
achieved by them, as you give soldiers for their illus-
trious successes ? IVhy not have distributed medals
to all engaged at Trafalgar, as you distributed them
to all engaged at Waterloo ? They tight yet be