The Sun.
London, England, 1864-07-23 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS,

TTMEs.—It is very satisfactory that a subject
which has been so long in men's minds as the re-
spective merits of public and private manufactories
should have been brought before the House of
Commons by a member like Mr. Cobden, who may be
trusted to say all that can be said against the system
which has lately received the preference of the
Government. There is, we presume, no one who will
refuse assent to the chief propositions which Mr.
Cobden lays down. There are valid objections to the
too great assumption of industrial enterprises by the
Executive of a country. Where the stimulus of pri-
vate gain is wanting there must be in some degree a
tendency to slowness, to indifference, to routine and
poverty of invention. Time is likely to be wasted
by those who do not see their direct and immediate
interest in alacrity; improvements must come slowly
when the duty of each man is only to work under a
system already settled, and to satisfy official superiors
who are rather irritated than gratified by discoveries
which involve troublesome changes. It is quite
true that the existence of great Government facto-
ries checks private competition—that it tends to at-
tach the Admiralty and the War-office to certain
inventions and certain mechanical theories, instead
of leaving their minds open to the reception of what-
ever is best, come from whatever quarter it may.
Then there are the favour shown to official designs,
the difficulty which outside merit has in gaining the
ear of the Departments, the jealousy, the complaints,
and the suspicion on the part of the public that it is
not served in the best manner—a suspicion which,
whether well or ill founded, is productive of no little
harm. These objections must have occurred to the
mind of every one who has thought on the subject,
and as they are ever and anon urged in Parliament,
besides occasionally appearing in print, it is quite
worth the w bile of the House of Commons to make a
searching investigation of the system, to discover its
weak points, to see how tar the public interests are
really neglected, how far the private manufacturer
suffers injustice, how far the inventive power of the
country is discouraged. Mr. Cobden and those who
think with him are entitled to demand that the Go-
vernment shall fully prove the advantages of the
system which it has developed to so very great ex-
tent within the last few years. The result of such
an examination may possibly be to show that a
greater reliance on private enterprise is possible and
that a greater readiness to accept the suggestions of
the outside world would be becoming. But taking
the manufacturing establishments of the Government
as a whole, we are not prepared to say that the na-
tion would be a gainer by abolishing them, and by
depending entirely, as Mr. Cobden advises, on con-
tractors chosen by ordinary competition. It must, in
the first place, be admitted as an argument in favour
of Government works that they have been the result
of experience dearly earned in a calamitous war.
Mr Cobden dwells on the circumstance that these
establishments were founded or greatly enlarged
since the Crimean campaign, and he compares the
free-trade system of buying cannon and muskets
which prevailed ten or twelve years ago with the
monopolies which the Government has now estab-
lished. But so far from this being an argument on
his side, it rather tells against him. What means
this general abandonment of the contract system,
this setting up of workshops where everything can
be made by Government hands to Government
order, except that in the opinion of those most
conversant with the former system it was no longer
sufficient for the wants of the country ? Does it
not seem to indicate that those responsible for
the safety and honour of the country, acting upon
the best scientific advice and receiving the
sanction of the Legislature, established Go,
vernment factories because they found that the
materials of war obtained from these works were bete
ter in quality, and could be more regularly and
rapidly produced than by private contractors ? We
believe that this is the real state of the case, and that
it furnishes a reasonable and valid defence of the
present system. On the system, we must repeat, we
do not look with especial favour. We quite recogs
nice its advantages, of which the greatest, no doubt,
is the temptation to persist in the use of antiquated
models because the Government establishment has
been fitted to produce them, and to reject or ignore
the suggestions of the outside world. Nor can we
without further evidence accept the official assur-
ance that these establishments are more cheaply
worked than private firms. We think that, it the
capital sunk in them and every outgoing were taken
into consideration, the result would rather confirm
the views of Mr. Cobden. But when the nation,
after the Crimean War, extended the principle of
Government manufacture to the greater part of what
wee wanted for the public service, it did it well
knowing these objections. It did not believe that
the establishments would teem with original genius;
it did think that they would be marvels of economy.
Bur it had other objects in view, and, looking at the
subject calmly, we believe that these have been at-
tained. The first was to insure excellence in every-
thing thee was supplied to either service, whether it
were a cannon, or a rifle, or an article of clothing,
or food. Now, on this head we have never beard
two opinions. Every one conversant with the sere
vices will admit that, whether cheaply or not, the
B:itish soldiers and sailors are now provided with
the beet. When a ship of war goes to sea it has
the best wood, the best iron, and the best workman-
ship that can be applied to anything that floats.
The bills may be heavy, but the work is not
" ecamped ;" no one has to fear unsound timbers
or a leaky ship. Now, with due respect to the private
shipbuilders of the country, we do not think that
their work would be so generally excellent, particu-
larly when vessels were required in a hurry. We
need only remember the gunboats built by private
firms in the Crimean war. The same may be said of
minor articles. In time of peace no doubt all would
go well. Things would only be wanted in moderate
quantities and at regular intervals. There would be
time to examine and reject, and to check the con-
tractor in the approved way. But it must be re-
membered that armies and navies are not wanted
for peace. It is the hurry and push of a war which is
the real test of a system, and unless it can stand
' that it is useless. The contract system is wo suspect
essentially one for peace. It is when largo quanti-
ties of munitions are ordered on a sudden, when
there is no time to examine and reject them and
wait for others that thecouutry might suffer greatly
from having no establishment on which to rely. Re-
collect one or two incidents of the Crimean War_ A
large quantity of boots was ordered for a regiment
then setting off for the East. They were to be sent
to Malta, and, in due course, the cases would pro-
bably only have been opened on Turkish ground.
But the troops for whom they were destined were
detained here, and the boots were delivered before
they left England. It was found that they were
wholly useless. They would have fallen to pieces
in a day's march. What would have been the fate of
a body of men who had been supplied with them in
presence of the enemy ? A week's campaign would
have laid up three-fourths of them. Do not let us
forget, either the intrenching tools furnished by con-
tract about the same time,—how the iron of spades
and picks bent double in the hands of our men, erne
barrassing to the utmost the ooerations of the siege.
Turely, the conviction that we can always have a
good article and plenty of it at the hour of need
may welt be purchased by a little extra expense.
The Government establishments insure the nation
not only excellence of materials, but independence
in the supply of them. They enable almost any
amount of whatever is wanted to be Wilted out on
any sudden emergency, and preserve the country
from being left at the mercy of any trade at the
hour of need. As regards the production of articles
for which there is a great demand in the Army or
Navy, and which are not likely to be superseded
by the progress of science, we think that Govern.,
went works, producing them regularly, rapidly,
and of the best materials, are advantageous to the
nation. -Where, however, the manufacture is in a
state of transition, and the model of to-day may be
superseded by that of to-morrow, there is undoubt-
edly much to be said in favour of Government
keeping itself unpledged to any particnlar system,
and free to choose amid the workshops of the
country.
POST--It is now just three weeks since we pub-
lished a very remarkable series of despatches be-
lieved to have passed between the Courts of Russia,
Austria, and Prussia. These pointed in unmis.
mistakable language to the re• establishment of the
Holy Alliance. The authenticity of the documents
was denied by some of the Governments from whom
they were supposed to have proceeded, and those
who regard official denials as conclusive were
doubtless convinced that this singular correspon-
dence was spurious. But there were others who
were not prepared to accept without reserve the
asseverations of the Cabinets of Berlin and Vienna.
If the documents in question were forged, it was
impossib'e to deny that the forgery was so skilfully
effected as to defy detection, except when submitted
to the searching glances of Count Rechberg and
Herr von Bismark. But, indpendently of that air
of genuineness which an examination of their con-
tents did not fail to discover in these despatches, it
so happened that surrounding circumstances tended
to corroborate the conclusion to which their perusal
irresistibly led. It was not merely as if the Go.
vernments of Austria, Prussia, and Russia had inti•
mated a desire to form an alliance for the protection
of their common interests and for the establish-
ment of a pure despotism in Central and 'Western
Europe, but those overt acts which they were daily
committing, and which were patent to all the
world, by a curious coincidence pointed to a pre-
cisely similar result. In Northern Europe a war has
been raging
the chief adviser of the Prussian King, in a moment
since the beginning of the year, which
Jf unacemmtuble frankness, declared was mainly
1 drected ngclthFA liberal imtitatzon. ISt/ 10ng,.,

said Herr von Bismark to Lord Wodehouse
in December last, " as democratic institutions exist
in Denmark, peace cannot subsist between that
country and Germany." As the Dano-German war
proceeded, attentive observers saw that this state-
ment of the Prussian Minister furnished the key to
the real motive of the hostilities. All that the
German Powers ostensibly demanded was granted,
or at least guaranteed, before the Austro•Prusstan
army crossed the Eider; but, nevertheless, the tide
of invasion pressed on unchecked. Alarmed for the
safety of the sister kingdom, as well as for her own,
Sweden thought seriously of assisting Denmark,
when at once, without a note of warning, Russia--
the friendly counsellor of the Danish monarchy--
threw an immense army on the frontier of Finland.
The concert between Russia and the German Powers
then became apparent, and in Denmark Western
Europe was justified in believing that she saw her
own liberties threatened. Under these circunsa
stances the despatches which we felt it to be our
duty to publish, and which it is needless to say we
should not have done if we did not feel perfectly
assured of their authenticity, disclosed facts which
bore all the stamp of credibility. By one statesman
they were at all events regarded as genuine, and the
testimony of so veteran a diplomatist as Lord Strat-
ford de Redeliffe may fairly be balanced against the
doubts of those who are officially bound to attach
implicit belief to the assurances of persons having
the strongest interest in proclaiming them to be
spurious. Believing, as he does, that in truth an
attempt is being made to revive the Holy Alliance,
Lord Stratford de Redeliffe was right in bringing
the subject formally before the notice of Parlia-
ment; and it is not the first occasion on which a
solemn protest has been made in the House of
Lords against those principles of government
which the Holy Allies would fain lay down for
the guidance of European States. Into the in-
trinsic evidence of the genuineness of the
documents which we published, and on which
Lord Stratford de Redeliffe based his obser-
vations, it will not be necessary to enter at length ;
but we may observe that the reply given by Earl
Russell tends rather to confirm than to remove the
opinion which we have always entertained. Lord
Stratford de Redeliffe pointed out that in Prince
Gortschakoff.s private communication to the Russian
Minister at Berlin, accompanying a despatch dated.
February 10, 1864, the Vice•Chaccellor stated that
its contents had been privately communicated to the
English Ambassador at St. Petersburg, to which
the only reply that it was in the power of Earl
Russell to make was that a conversation had been
reported by Lord Napier which might certainly be
considered as referring to the contents of that de-
spatch, but which also supply the groundwork for
the fabrication of the document in question. The
same answer was given in explanation of the state-
ment in another of the despatches that communica-
tion had been made to Mr Layard regarding its
contents, It is, of course, easy to meet assertions
with denials, and to argue against the presumed
authenticity of documents by showing the possibi-
lity of their being forged, but it must be admitted
that, in the two instances in which a tolerably fair
test of their genuineness was furnished by the in'
trinsic contents of the despatches, the result was
favourable to the presumption that they were not
spurious. But assuming that these despatches are
what they purport to be, and that an attempt is
actually being made to re-establish the Holy Alli-
ance, has Europe anything to apprehend ? Such
was the question put by Earl Russell last evening,
and answered by him in the negative. The Holy
Alliance, says Earl Russell, has been inoperative
for upwards of thirty years, and it is useless to
revive it. It is true that in the year 1821 the Holy
Allies crushed a revolutionary movement in Italy,
and that in 1823 France marched her armies iaoto
Spain, and, in conformity with the principles on which
the Alliance was of iginally projected, stifled the voice
of the Spanish people. On both those occasions
England protested, but her protests were unavailing.
But in the year 1830 the tide turned. The French
nation changed its government, and those who de-
clared that the voice of Sovereigns alone was the
voice of God made no attempt to coerce the popular
will. In 1848 revolution spread like an epidemic
across Europe, and the Holy Allies made no effort
to check its progress. In 1860 the Neapolitans
dethroned their monarch, and, two years later, the
King of Greece was driven in exile from his domi-
nions, but in neither the one case nor the other did
any State stand forth as the champion of monarchical
rights. The scheme of a Holy Alliance may there-
fore, as Earl Russell reasons, be considered as exa
ploded, and its resuscitation as impossible. But to
our minds it seems that it is precisely because the
despotic Powers of Europe have for so many years
been unable to exercise that dictatorship which they
at one time actually set up, that every attempt made
by them to revive their ancient policy should be
most jealously watched and unhesitatingly frus-
trated. It is because kingly authority has fallen of
late years into so much disrepute that the Czar of
Russia, the Emperor of Austria, and that champion
of Divine right, the King of Prussia, are desirous
of establishing it on a more secure basis. But they
may rest assured that they will fail. What is now
passing in Germany ought to satisfy them how idle
it is to suppose that Europe, in the middle of the
nineteenth century, will consent to be governed by
a council of crowned heads. In Southern and
Western Europe there is not a State which has not
passed at some time or other through the throes of
revolution, and which has not adopted the doctrine,
so blasphemous in the opinion of the Holy Allies,
that kings are made for peoples, and not peoples for
kings. But, independently of these obstacles, the
promoters of a second Holy Alliance must knew
that a combination of States which threaten must
lead to a counter combination of those which conceive
themselves endangered. Any attempt to realise
the scheme broached in the despatches which we
published on the 2d and 4th of July must lead to a
defensive and, if needs be, an offensive alliance
between the Westera Powers.

COUNTRY MARKETS.