The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-12 00:00:00

concealment. These are odd ideas of honesty and
justice in a statesman. What are Mr. GouL-
max's opinions of the constitutional uses of a navy ?
That our ships of war should be exclusively devoted
to the transport, backwards and forwards, of Royal,
and Serene, and Imperial visitors, or the attainment
of any given object of offensive warfare by
separate or combined operations on the coasts, or
azai9st the fleets and harbours of an enemy ?
Certainly the protection of our vast and beneficial
commerce and mercantile marine would seem not to
enter into Mr. GOULBURN'S category of a fleet's occu-
pation or uses :—" The Hon. Gentleman has said that
the claimants in this case are entitled to compensation
because the British Government withdrew their fleet
from the Baltic at an early period, instead of leaving
it to protect British subjects. Why was such a thing
ever heard of, as that a British armament, stationed
in a sea like the Baltic for warlike purposeis, should
remain there exposed to all the dangers of such a
situation, in order to protect British ships, and that
if it did not remain, and any loss ensued, the
merchants should be entitled to compensation ?"
These horrors of such an ignoble appropriation of
naval service we could understand in some inferior
clerk at the Navy-office or' in the Admiralty, whose
technical notions they might reasonably outrage, but
in a Privy Councillor of the Sovereign in the first

commercial empire in the world they are ludicrous.
Passing over the manly speech of Col. SIBTIIORP,
of which we must say that it was distinguished by a
spirit of justice, and an uncompromising vindication of
what he deemed to be the rights of a certain body of
his fellow-countrymen, which reflect upon him a
degree of honour not assailable by any suggestions
of personal or party dislikes ; we must next notice
the valuable assistance the claimants derived from the
consistent advocacy of Mr. HUMS. His rapid review
of former debates and former votes on these claims
will be acceptable, we should think, to every reader
of the debate, excepting the little knot of " Jim-
Crow jumpers," noticed in Mr. CHRISTIE'S muster-

roll of deserters, absentees, or new opponents.
Among these (proh pudor 0 were, Lord,ELIOT, Mr.
MILNES, Mr. E. TENNENT, Mr. PRINGLE, Captain
BOLDER°, Sir F. TRENCH, &c. On the prudential
argument of Sir R. PEEL and Mr. GOULBURN, we
beg to ask whether they intend to take a leaf
out of the book of certain Federal States,
on the other side of the Atlantic ? Do they call upon
the House to repudiate these claims in reference to
their amounting to a quarter of a million—not to
their justice or equity—with a view of cancelling the
political guilt of such a measure by the merit of
supplying future Governments with a precedent
for similar repud:ations under similar circum-
stances ? Sir ROBERT PEEL, however, we con-
dole with. He tumbled down in the middle of
a sentiment which was meant to be very
effective ! Sir C. NAPIER having complained of the
treatment our naval forces had received by being de-
nied prize money for their services in China, Sir
ROBERT got up one of his most plausible and in-
genuous gesticulations, in protesting that he was sure
these gallant men would always acquit themselves
with honour, and not fail in their duty because of
their not being rewarded in the manner alluded to.
" I did not say," interrupted Sir CHARLES, " that
the sailors would not do their duty. That they will
always do. But I said, if they had known you would
treat them in this way, they would not have en-
tered your service." Sir ROBERT made a feeble
but fruitless attempt to carry through his misunder-
standing. The Gallant Commodore would not let
him ; and so poor Sir ROBERT fell through his in-
tended " effect," protesting angrily against being
diverted (which he had not been) into a discussion
of the war in China on a question of Danish claims?'
This was not his only peccadillo of the evening. He
raised a cry of "out of time" against the claimants.
On a former occasion, Lord MONTEAGLE, we re-
member, beaten from all the grounds he had occu-
pied in resisting these claims, put this touching con-
sideration to the Legislature, as one which (judging
from his own impressions probably), must operate
conclusively against the case of the petitioners.
" Look at the amount. Why it is about 250,0001."
Well, too, we remember Lord BROUGHAM'S indig-
nant retort. " Was national justice to be done
or withheld, according to the tale and measure
of the claims upon it ?" But Sir ROBERT PEEL—
improving even upon the lofty tone of Lord MOST-
EAGLE'S political morality—throws in a lapse of time
as an additional plea to excuse the defrauding these
claimants of their rights. " The real question," said
the Premier, "is—whether the House of Commons
shall vote a sum of upwards of a quarter of a
million on account of a:leged captures upwards of 37
years since." The perfection of Ministerial justice,
then, it would seem, consists its closing the
doors of the public treasury on those who have suf-

fered vast losses, by no laches of their own, but by
the acts of the predecessors of her MAJESTY'S

Government or the Councils of the Crown—for
thirty-seven years consecutively—against the entrea-
ties and reproaches of the creditors themselves, the re-
monstrances of the public, the recommendations of
the Parliament, and the favourable consideration of the
Crown, as intimated by the Crown itself ; and then
turning round on the claimants with a dignified
sneer at the remote date of the wrongs on which they
claim compensation and redress
We exhort the claimants to a determined unflinch-
ing perseverance. The majority of four against the
motion is a legion in favour of the justice of their
claims. They must triumph : and they have had the
glory of compelling the.preient Government to record
their own want of generous policy and humanity by
the most humiliating victory a Government ever
achieved !

Accounts from Madr:d of the 4th inst. state that
the Government have given orders for the march of
6,000 troops for Cadiz, where they are to embark for
Ceuta. A brigade of mountain artillery, con-
sisting of 24 pieces, has been organised at that port,
and is about to proceed to the same destination. The
object of the expedition is said to be the occupation
of Tangiers. General Don JUAN VILLALONGA 15
appointed to the command of the expedition.
According to a letter from Barcelona, a decree was
to be issued on the 10th inst., dissolving the Cortes,
and assembling new Chambers for the 10th of Octo-
ber ; and in the same decree the Government was to
make known its system of government.
The Three per Cents. were done at 26 for cash,
and 261 at 60 days ; and the Five per Cents. at 19i,
at 60 days, with premium.

In the French Chamber of Peers on Wednesday
the Prince Ds LA MosßowA brought forward his
motion relative to the affairs of Morocco. Sir Ro-
BERT PEEL, he said, in the House of Commons, de-
clared that he had received the most complete and sa-
tisfactory explanations on the affairs of Morocco.
These communications, according to the English
Minister, were without reserve, even with regard to
the instructions given to the young Admiral, whose
appointment was sufficient to excite the susceptibility
of England. He thought that this was an impru-
dence which was not even justified by an frisk the
entente cordiale might run. He then attacked the
portions: of Sir ROBERT PEEL'S speech which he said
might be injurious to the French possessions in
Africa. The declarations of Sir R. PEEL could not
do otherwise than raise the courage of the Emperor

of Moaocco and ABD-EL-FADER, and encourage
them to persevere in their hostility to France. He
contended that there was a flagrant contradiction be-
tween the assertions of the English Minister and

those of M. Guizor in the Chamber of Deputies, in
answer to M. DE LAROCIIEJAQUELIN. He waited for
the explanations of M. Gtazor.
In reply, M. GUIZOT said—" None of the instruc-

tions given to admirals or generals had been divulged
to the British Government. Sir ROBERT PEEL could
merely have alluded to political instructions. The
policy of the French was known. They did not
want territorial aggrandisement or conquest, and this
was stated to Sir ROBERT PEEL. The Government
had demanded three things of the Emperor of
MOROCCO : lat. That no collection of troops should
take place on the frontier. 2,1. That those who
provoked the collision should be punished. 3d. That
ABD-EL-KA.DBR should be sent away from the fron-
tier. On the second point, satisfaction had already
been given. The son of the Emperor of MOROCCO
had given orders for the dismissal and imprisonment
of the two Kaids who had authorised the violation of
our territory."

The Chamber of Deputies was still occupied with
the Budget. The usual vote for public instruction