The Express.
London, England, 1848-09-09 00:00:00

NOTICE TO ADVERTISERS.

11to number et STAMIN issued by the authorities of the
Otootp-odice, daring 1647. to the
DAILY mots wpm 3.447.009

This, we Nem, Y within eieAt per east. etthe amble
breed to the Moray Elwell*, Monday ChroNitis, mad
Manage Poet, au, PV? toerntsz.
eddit;oa t the stove, Weed to the DAILY NEW,
Nermifeq Paper, there were ifineed for the Brawv7 Edition,
THY EX I'RBBB 778,714
Which ens mere, we believe, titan wee hated either to
the Globe Pander& livening Leper,.

n.cm WATIR LT LOPIUON lIIIDOI.
?me Day —Noma* II m 1... put Mc Aftsmaa. If Wm. p 11.
Tpusseamp•-lismisal•alsm. 111 Moramt. *maw put il.

LONDON. SATURDAY, SEPT. 9.

Tim Frankfort Ames* bas taken up both
eerily and seriously, the matter of the azielstice,
concluded between tho Kings of Pausste and
DZPIMARK, WA is determined, if not altogether to
annul that armistice, at least to suspend the execution
d its chief conditions. _ _ _

The letter of our Frankfort correspondent which
we published yesterday will have informed our
readers that the ministtrs of the central government
admitted that the /Ling of PRUSSIA had infringed the
conditions under which he was anthotised to conclude
an armistice, and that a majority in the Assembly
regarded certain of its articles as insulting to them
and subversive of their authority. It farther stated
that a committee had been appointed to report on the
propriety of suspending the military measures by
which it was to be canted into execution. The news
received last night adds that on Tuesday the Assets-

bly, over-rulicg the most strennoss 'Swim of minister'
to temporise, resolved, first, by a majority of 240 to
230, to discuss the propriety of 'impending the mea-
sures tor entoreing the armistice before disowning its
merits; and next, by a majority of 238 to 221, to
suswod the measures for carrying it into execution.
question is of considerable importance here, not
only for the openicg of the Elbe to our merchants, and the
restoration of our intercourse with the north of Europe,
but as, by one of the clauses of the armistice, Eogu
land is to guarantee its execution. It was concluded
on the 28th of May, and the treaty was to be ex-
changed and ratified in eight days, that is, on the
3rd of September ; now, as it was communicated to
;he Frankfort Assembly Orsly on the 4th, it appears to
have been assumed that the said Assembly had.
nothing to do with it. This is one of the things of
which the Assembly, not without reason, complain. It
remains to be seen, whether if the Frankfort Assembly
suspend the treaty, England will hold itself bound to
seen executed against the will and the order of the
Assembly.
One thing is certainly very wrong, and the Frank-
fort Assembly has every right to be indignant at it.
According to the conditions of the armistice, the Pro-
visional Government of Schleswig was to be dia-
-1 missed, and, to form a government in its place, the
King of DENMARK was to name two commieeioners,
the King of Peuders two more, and these four a fifth.
Instead of appointing a moderate and neutral per
son, the King of DENMARK named Count Moue, the
very man whom he before appointed to emery into
effect his obnoxious measure against Schleswig. And
not only does the King of Ditemsee thus appoint
this Dane, the mat obnoxious to the Schleswigers, but
the rest of the commissicners nominate Count MOLKE
their president. So that the chief ruler of Schleswig,
during the armistice, is its greatest and most de-
termined foe.
We do not think that the King of DENMARK has
been well treated throughout this business. But, '
really, if his object be peace with the Schleswig.»
and with Germany, his Majesty of Ditemsax has
taken the best means of disturbing both by his
choice of Count Moritz.

---- -----
Another cause of annoyance to the German parlia-
ment is the conclusion of the armistice between the
King of Dee NARK on nee side,the King of PRUSSIA and
the Germanic Confederation on the other. The German
parliament maintains that the recognition of the cen-
tral power by the King of PRUSSIA and the other
Princes of Germany, was equivalent to a renuncia-
tion of their right to negotiate with foreign powers,
except as a part of the Germanic body, and acting by
delegation from it. They maintain that a Germanic
confederation of states no longer exists; that they
have merge d in the one confederated state of Ger-
many ; and that the treaty is irregular, es not having
been contracted in the name of that confederated
state. This is a matter of etiquette—an inaccuracy
in the title given to one of the contracting powers—
which might have been amended; but the position in
which affairs have been placed renders it doubtful
whether it will ever como under discussion

The consequences of the step taken by the
National Assembly may be most serious, not
indeed extending to any renewal of war on the
Eyder, ot, of blockade at the month of the
Elbe, but occasioning a breach between Prussia and
the new central power, which may be not only incon-
venient, but fatal to both. After all, Prussia did but
rash into the Schleswig war, for the sake of putting
itself at the head of the German movement. It is but
natural retribution that Prussia should not only have
missed its aim, but decidedly broken with that move-
ment in withdrawing from the struggle.

NOT the lent instructive, and certainly the most
amnaing,featare of the evidence taken before the Com-
mittee on the Navy, Army, and Ordnance estimates,
is the light it throws on the philosophy and morality
of official men.
In perusing, for example, the evidence of the Earl
of AUCKLAND, the reader might imagine he is study-
ing some modem PYTHAGORAS, so distinctly is the
line drawn between the esoteric and exoteric doc-
trines of the school of official politicians. Some re-
made by the noble earl to the catechising of
Wrltillosts may serve to illustrate this:
Year lordship has stated that the force to be employed in
the eery would be in proportion to the force of other states ;
do yea mesa the states of Europe or of all the world ?
Porn, of all the world ; it must be in contemplation of cer-
tain political events, of which we can only conjecture the
probability or possibility.
Do you tionader that there are more ships of war in the
world now than there were in 1792 i—rertairsly not more
Mars Litre were in 1792. I thin c In 1792 the French had
90 sail of the line.
Yon are aware that in 1792 the British force consisted of
16,000 seamen and marines )—Thereabouts.
And it now consists of 43.000 t—Yes.
flow do you reconcile that increase with the feet you hare
stated that there are now fewer ships of foreign powers than
there were is 1792 t—That is a political question of which
yournssarnf sesitt.nedr; the number of effective ships of
war of foreign powers isprritape greater now than it was at
that time.

Lewd AUCKLAND lays down the law ex cathedra
that the British naval force must he " parry " in pro-
portion to that of all the world. When close pressed
by Mr. Hose he admits that other nations have not
a greater naval force in 1848 than they had in 1792 ;
and that the British naval force in 1848 is nearly three
times as great as it was in 1792. When asked how he
needles his theory with these facts, the mystegogue
etepirse " That is a political question of which govern-
meat must judge." It is a mystery With can only
be comprehended by the adepts who have been duly
]satiated into the mysteries of office. There is a logto
asd ea arithmetic revealed to the brethren of the
=lit "lodge," wlrch is above the comprehen-
tehas " rowans out of doors. The bureaucracy
are, in fact, a sect of freemasons entertaining views
sad acting upon principles which they cannot ex-
*in to any but the " brethren of the mystic tie."
WS shrewdly suspect that the esoteric doctrines of the
affielals are much upon a par with those of the 'mgr.
abie body with whom we have compared them. Lord
AUCKLAND does not appear to have a very strong
faith in the peculiar arithmetic of his sect; for after
llealrhfifterdeclaring that government alone can jap
tripling oar naval force while that of the
Test of the world remains stationary, be not a viola-
tion of the principle that our navy should always be
"pertly" in proportion to that of the whole world, Ime
qualifies his admission that the aggregate of foreign
navies has not increased since 1792 by ilsinuating
that" the number of effective ships of war not ready for
see is perhaps greater now than it was at that time."
We do not press for an explanation of what kind of
" effective "ships those may be which are "not ready
for sea," any more than for an explanation of the
" partly " which qualifies the doctrine that our navy
should be in proportion to the navies of all the rest of
the world. This is the language of the esoteric
sebool, and cannot of course be explained to us. Bat
what are we to think of a first Lord of the Admi-
ralty's knowledge of the affairs of hie own depart-
ment, when atter stating that foreign navies have not
augmented since 1792, he turns round and says
" perhaps" they have, when he finds his first answer
driving him to an inconvenient admission?
So tench for the philosophy of men in office ; for a
sample of their morality we turn to the evidence of
Admiral BOWLES, who Wag one of Sir ROBERT
PEEL'S Admiralty board :
You stated that Sir Thomas Harty bad expressed to you
the opinion that if the est:mates of Sir lames Graham had
been serried on for two er three years, it would have been
the ruin of the British navy I—l quoted an expression which
at the time made a great impression upon me. I quoted
his exact words.
That was in 1832 I—lt was is 1831 or 1832.
Sir Thaws Hardy signed those estimates, did not he ?
I suppose so.
How load did be continue Brat naval Lord of the Admi-
ralty altar this conversation I—l cannot perfectly -collect
whether he was appointed governor of Greenwich Hospital
in 1834 or 1835 ; it was probably in 1834.
The astianstee, as_you are aware, were continued on the
reduced footing I—Yes.
Sir Thomas Hardy must have remained In the Admiralty
daring that time I—Yes.
Do you think that Sir Thomas Hardy waste man to have
' remained first naval lord of a Board of Admiralty who wen
' ruining the British navy I—l believe Sir Thome Hardy
was estremely gl id to leave the Adnsinuty and go to
Greenwich. I can only state facts. He did remain at the
Admiralty undoubtedly from the sad of 1830 ti 11834, when
he became governor of Greenwich: hat I tel the ooximittse
what his opinion was in 1832.
• Do you think Sir Thomas Hardy, with that opinion,
woeli have put his hand to estimates which he believed were
ruining the British navy ?—lrnowissy he didput his now to
Maws, I coma say he weedif not. I Minis the com-
mittee lieay perfectly understand an officer spanking
.con
jgdwitially to another British officer, and stating Ale opinion
se to the eject these relined alginkileS world have *non the
rweestieretee. but at MO saps* tints not desiring to resign his
office and come to an opus breach with the board of which
he was tlrat naval lord, hoping that things might change for
the eater.
In 1834, Sir Jounce Graham left the Admiralty I—Yes.