The Sun.
London, England, 1862-11-03 00:00:00

and went so Jar as to dress himself in the national
costume. Nothing succeeded. The Greek journals
will now relate innumerable in!:cances of his
tyranny. But there is no lon der any belief in people
being tyrannised over by their kings; kings tyran-
nised over by their people would be more readily
believed in." The words we have here italicised
have, surely, their significance. OTHO, says the
Monde, in order "to please the Greeks," actually
" went so far as to dress himself in the national
costume !" Implying—Could he, by possibility,
have gone further ? The adoption of the Albanian
costume (no great personal sacrifice by the way on
King OTHO'S part, seeing that it is about the pret-
tiest masquerading dress any empty-headed Prince
could, with all the costumes of the world before him
to choose from, have contrived with anything like
good taste to select !) the adoption by OTHo of the
Albanian custtme being, in point of fact, the one
only boon specified by the Monde as_having, in a
reign of thirty years' duration, been vouchsafed to
his Greek subjects by that model Sovereign. Than
which—could anything, in the shape of an argu-
ment, be more utterly preposterous? Again, the
tyranny of nowadays, we are sententiously and most
gravely informed is--that exercised, not by Kings
over Peoples, but by Peoples over kings ! Par
exemple--by Russian Poland over the CZAR ! By
the Hungarians over the KAISER! By the Prussian
People and the Prussian Chambers over King WIL-
LIAM ! So tyrannised over by their Peoples, by the
way, being the Sovereigns of those three constitu-
tion countries, Belgium, Italy, and England—the
second sons of which Sovereigns are now talked of
as possible successors, one or the other of them, to
the throne of OTHo ! Among these, the Greeks
have one temptation to select H. R. H. Prince
ALFRED—namely, that presented to them by the
exceeding probability that, immediately upon that
selection, the Greek dominions would be enhanced
by the absorption, within them, of the lonian
Islands, over which England, under those altered
circumstances, would rejoice no longer to have any
reason for exercising her simply vexatious and irri-
tating Protectorate.

Mr. COBDEN, in his confessedly able speech at
Rochdale, pointed to the accession of Tories to
power, next session, as the means of obtaining
greater economy of the national expenditure. If
the advanced Liberals really are of this mind, and
if the more prudent Tories, who are well aware that
Lord PALMERSTON does their work better than Mr.
DISRAELI can, should yet join the Tory leader and
his more reckless band of office-seeking Tories, it is
quite certain that the two Tory parties, combined
with the real Liberals, could oust Lord PALMERSTON
and the old Whigs. But let us look at the case as
Mr. COBDEN puts it.

In the first place we must do the Member for
Rochdale justice. He has a strong case of enor-
mous waste of the national money. Notwithstand-
ing all that the United Service Tournal has written,
and all the comments of Lostile speakers and the
hostile press, we must candidly own that we can-
not get over the facts detailed in his " Three
Panics." He has established unanswerably the
fact that ttere was not the rapid and threatening
increase of the French navy which Government
autlorities have led us to believe. He has shown
that, in consequence of Sir JOHN PAKINGTON sink •
ing millions in wood when the Frenca were work
ing at iron, and only opening his eyes to this when
the millions were wasted, we seemed inferior in
iron ships for a while; and therefore, with some
show of reason, infers that a good deal of the per-
fectly groundless hubbub about French increase was
raised to conceal from notice the wasteful folly of
our PAKINGTONS and the Admiralty. He has also
shown by comparison of the increase between 1835
and 1859, both in seamen and dockyard wages,
that we had advanced out of all proportion to
France. These are his words:—

" I will give you a comparison between the first and the
last year of these two dates—the expenditure in wages in
the English and French dockyards, and the number of sea-
, men in the respective navies in 1835, when Sir It, PEEL
and the Duke of WELLINGTON were in power, and in 1859
and the year preceding that, in which Lord PALMERSTON
proposed his vast scheme of fortifications. In 1835 the
English expenditure on dockyards amounted to £376,377,
the French to £343,032; in 1859 the English expenditure
was £1,582,112, and the French £772,931. Mark me, there
was £1,205,735 more spent in 1859 by us than in 1835. And
the increase in the French dockyards during the same
period was only £421,899, so that the increase in the Eng-
lish dockyards of the expenditure for the construction of
armaments, which is the real aggressive outlay, in 1859,
had increased three times as much in England as it had in ,
France as compared with 1835."

The comparison of seamen gives the same results.
"In 1835 the number of British seamen amounted
to 26,041, and of French to 16,628 ; in 1859 the
number of British seamen amounted to 72,400, and
of French to 38,470. It follows that the English
had increased their number by 46,359 in 1859 as
compared with 1835, while France had only in-
creased hers by 21,842 in the same time, being less
than one-half of the increase in England." It is
impossible to see how these broad facts can be met
by those who would maintain that the French were
outstripping us in the creation of a navy, though
so persistently was that statement dinned into our
ears by the Government that we can hardly awake
to the fact that it could only have been a delusion.
As to what the two countries were actually doing
in 1859, what can any man of business reply to the
following
bri€fly and well-stated fact ? " I have
shown
you what France has spent in her dockyards
in the year 1859. While we spent £1,582,000 in
constructing ships, France spent only £772,000, or
less than one-half; and as we can build ships so
much cheaper than France that we can send ships
o
pay a duty of twenty per cent. upon
them,
you how could France, with
t I France
and
would ask
half the money,
have been preparing a fleet to rival
1
or to equal our own."

Let us admit, then, that a man like Mr. COBDEN,
who has thoroughly ransacked all details of the case,
and brought them as clearly before the public as he
did the details of corn law mischiefs years ago—that
such a man is entitled to feel strongly on his main
topic. Yet still we may question whether he would
mend the case by turning out Lord PALMERSTON
and letting the Tories in. His argument is, that the
Tories, now, use the Whigs as their tools to main-
tain that vast expenditure in which an aristocracy
naturally delights. That hence they compel the
expenditure, while they have none of responsibility.
Put them in office, make them responsible, and they
would spend, Mr. COBDEN believes, £5,000,000 a
year less, and if they did this, Mr. GLADSTONE has
told us that we might dispense with the income tax
very speedily.

Now this seems very plausible, but after all, is it
just ? Mr. COBDEN is beguiled by the DISRAELI SEC-
tioa of the Tories. But though Mr.WALPOLE made
his peace with Mr. DISRAELI atWyecomb the other
day--indeed, they were Battle hi both ministering at the
gh altar—there is a large party of high and
dry Tories who will never be led by Mr. DISRAELI
in a battle
,Egainst " bloated armaments." Lord
and
DERBY Sir dorIN PAKINGTON, Sir STAF.
and
FORD NORTDCOTE, the budding Tor Ch the Exchequer, yancellor of
certainly would not. The money.spending section of the
rit the Tories are by far the mail),
y ; money•saving few of them would be re-
&lced to the position in which Mr. GLADSTONE,
Mr. GIBa3ON, and Mr. VILLIERS are now, and
the
mnev.veuding Tories, iiided by the money-