The Sun. — 1845-05-26 (London, England)

KENYON— men who would be trampled upon in their turn if their chosen advocates should prevail, and who yet cringe to the hand that would bind stronger their fetters. What hope have they from the House of Lords ? Was there ever such an absurdity heard of as Dissenters trusting to support from the Puseyite Bishops of LONDON and EXETER ? Yet such is the fact. They turn with contempt from the RUSSELLS, the Howicxs, and the MACAULAYS, leaders of a party to whom they owe so much, and trust to INGLts and LAW, and the bench of Bishops. In the whole history of the country there is no record of such deliberate folly— such a manifest act of political and religious suicide. They have inflicted a blow on the cause of dissent, from which it will not recover for ages, and furnished proofs of weakness hailed with the most intense delight by their present faithful allies. "We have tried these Church destroyers," say the high Tories, " in a reformed House of Commons, representing every large town, where Dissenters abound ; they could muster only 34 members in a House consisting of 505 Members, or about 1 to 15, and with our aid the united party sustained the most remarkable defeat ever known, not even excepting the palmy days of the old rotten-borough system. We know their strength, and we shall profit by experience, when they apply for the abolition of Church rates, rebel against Church extension, and raise a second time their voices against our plan of national education. PEEL has deserted us, but he has divided the forces of our enemies, and division is the certain forerunner of defeat." These are truths, unwelcome truths we admit, but the Duke knows, if the Dissenters do not, that " there is no mistake, and there can be no mistake."  The discussion of Friday evening last, like its predecessor, in the beginning of the week, on the navy estimates, was again productive of many important revels• tions connected with the past and present administration of our navy. If the plain speaking and somewhat homely rebukes to which Sir C. NAPIER is in the habit of treating the Board of Admiralty, whenever the business before the House of Commons suggests an opportunity, be disagreeable to the Lords Commissioners, and perhaps occasionally somewhat indiscreet as respects the interests of the public service (and it is very doubtful whether they are fairly amenable to this latter objection), they are evidently producing, and will continue to produce, the most beneficial restilts upon the efficiency and strength of the service. The Gallant Commodore, too, has been ably seconded, as we have before had occasion to remark, by such distinguished practical authorities as Captains BERKELEY, PECHELL, Rous, and by Lord INGEBTRX; and his Lordship's suggestions on Friday night, on the subject of the establishment of a scientific board, exclusively constituted for considering and reporting upon glj pew inventios, projects cf improvement, am? in  connexion with the construction, rigging, and sailing of our ships of war, are well entitled to the most attentive consideration. His Lordship now declares that which we should scarcely have inferred from a speech of his in the beginning of the week—namely, " that the office of surveyor of the navy involves a much greater amount of responsibility than ought to vest in any one man. That to expect all the ships in ordinary and in active service to be properly superintended by one individual, seemed to him quite unreasonable." This is the very complaint which they have made, who have most tenaciously impugned the " intuitive" system of ship building which Sir W. SYMONDS has been per. milted, at such vast expense to the country, with such uninterrupted fatuity on the part of successive Admiralty Boards, and with results so generally remarkable for their utter failure or their costly worthlessness, to indulge in. But of the Surveyor-General's ships a word or two more presently. We would here repair an omission in our argument of last week on the absurdity as well as the mischief of undermanning ships of the line at any time ; but, when they are to be employed in an experimental squadron, most particularly. We would ask, if the crews of such a squadron cannot do the duty of able seamen, what is the value of the test which their working of these ships, built on " various principles," can supply ? This scheme is like an attempt to ascertain the respectiie pace and bottom of so many untried racers by the riding of so many untried or awkward jockies. What man in his senses would lay out his money on their future performances upon a consideration of the results of such a trial ? If your steed is a good one, it will pay you t• have the best riders. If your ships are worth anything like what the Admiralty, or their faith in the judgment of the Surveyor of the Navy, contend that they are, it is worth your while to man them with a competent proportion of able seamen. Only ♦aried by its greater extent, surely the same argument applies to our navy at large. Nor does Sir GEORGE COCKIXTRN dispute that fact. So far from it, he declares that— " The advantage of having the ships on foreign service well manned was, that the men were rendered most efficient seamen, and they had a fleet in a fit condition to meet an enemy." " But"—and when we came to this " but," we were really anxious to find what was to be the qualification of the preceding position, to which we so cordially subscribe:—  " But, unless public affairs wore a very threatening aspect, he did not think that, in a time of peace, this country should be put to the expense of maintaining a larger fleet than was necessary for the protection of our commerce abroad." What! has nothing happened, of late, in either hemisphere—has no demonstration—utterly irrespective of commerce, been made by any other Power, which has made the presence of our flag necessary, where it has had neither merchants nor merchandise to protect ? Is the moral influence of that flag, is the physical force that is concentrated beneath it, never felt nor displayed except in the service of our commerce ? We will not advert to pending differences, which needless discussion will never diminish; but we will ask how Sir GEORGH COCKBURN'S observation will apply to our slave-tradeprevention cruisers? On a recent occasion, Sir