The Sun.
London, England, 1865-06-17 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

- --.6-
TIMES.—Last night in the House of Commons it
was moved that a new writ should be issued for De-
vonport in the room of Sir Arthur Buller, who has
resigned his seat. A little consideration must sug-
gest that this is a very anomalous proceeding. The
present Parliament now counts its existence almost
by days, and it was, therefore, but waiting three or
four weeks, and Devonport and Sir Arthur Buller
might have had all the opportunities that are to be
derived from his resignation. Moreover, the appa-
rent uselessness of the proceeding is not its most
unsatisfactory aspect. The member who is returned
for Devonport will be only returned for the remain-
ing three weeks of the expiring Parliament. At the
end of that barren time the seat will again be vacant,
and Devonport will again have to go through at
least the form, and, it may be, the struggle, of an
election. In short, the result to Devonport is sim-
ply that it will have to pass through two elections
instead of one without any corresponding advan-
tage. The resignation of a member at the present
moment can, in fact, be of no benefit to himself,
and must inflict an unnecessary expense and trouble
upon his constituency. The fault, however, of the
present proceeding is in no way chargeable to Sir
Arthur Buller, and Devonport may lay its just com-
plaint elsewhere. The matter, in truth, involves a
somewhat unpleasant episode, for the occurrence of
which we feel much regret, but upon which, since it
has occurred, we are compelled to express a candid
opinion. The motion of last night, then, is but the
sequel to a similar motion on the preceding night.
On Thursday it was moved that a new writ should
be issued for Liskeard, in the room of Mr. Bernal
Osborne, who had resigned his seat. The cause of
this resignation was explained in an address by Mr.
Osborne to his recent constituents, which was pub-
lished in our impression of Thursday. From that it
appears there was a movement among the electors
of Liskeard in favour of another representative.
The favoured candidate is Sir Arthur Buller, the
brother of the late Mr. Charles Buller, formerly
the special pride of the electors of Liskeard.
The seat of Liskeard, therefore, being vacated
by Mr. Osborne's resignation, Sir Arthur had
no choice but to present himself at once if he wished
to take advantage of the favourable disposition of
the electors. But in order to do this it was, of course,
necessary to resign the seat he already held, and
Devonport accordingly, and the representative who
will take Sir Arthur Buller's seat, are unavoidably
punished in the manner we have described. Sir
Arthur Buller, therefore, is innocent in the matter,
and the responsibility must be laid at the door of
Mr. Osborne. That gentleman, it will be observed,
has inflicted upon two constituencies the trouble and
expense of a double election, and,we are also com-
pelled to conclude that he has done this deliberately
and with full knowledge that he was thus subject-
ing both his own and another constituency to the
same inconvenience. As he speaks in his address of
another candidate having been provided for the bo-
rough he deserts, it is impossible to suppose that he
was ignorant who that candidate was, and that the
consequences which have ensued were inevitable. It
will be plain that nothing but reasons so strong as
to be almost compulsory could justify a proceeding
so apparently inconsiderate and inopportune. Un-
happily no such reasons are forthcoming. Mr.
Osborne's address to his constituents contains, we
may presume, the best justification he is able to
offer for the step he has taken ; and from this point
of view it is extremely unsatisfactory. The contents
of the address may be very shortly summed up. Mr.
Osborne's constituents are not altogether satisfied
with his recent attitude in Parliament, particularly
with his bitter opposition to Lord Pahnerston, and
some of them have resolved to oppose him at the
next election. " In this dilemma," he has been
counselled by some of his " late friends" to resign
his seat, and, " accordingly, as it does not suit his
idea of a representative to be a Treasury depen-
dent or provincial delegate, lie has adopted their
suggestion." It is plain that this explanation has
nothing whatever to do with the peculiar man-
ner of resignation which Mr. Osborne has
adopted. If he were well informed that the
electors of Liskeard were so much dissatisfied
with him that he would stand no reasonable chance
in the ensuing election, prudence would, no doubt,
dictate that he should decline the contest, and his
" late friends" may have really been friendly in ad-
vising him to resign. But it is evident that every
purpose contemplated in such a proceeding would be
equally attained by waiting three weeks longer, un-
til the dissolution of Parliament, and then wishing
the electors farewell. Nothing is accomplished by
the present course but the infliction of a great an-
noyance on Mr. Osborne's " late friends," and on
another unoffending constituency. He has not even
gained any advantage from this step for himself,
but, if anything, the reverse. He has not only pre-
maturely placed himself in the position of a candi-
date wanting a constituency, but he has also shown
a want of consideration for his late constituents
which will prejudice his favourable introduction to a
new connexion. However unreasonably, in fact,
Mr. Osborne's constituents might have acted, it
would have been alike unwise and ungenerous to
retaliate upon them by this mode of annoyance.
But Mr. Osborne fails in making out any such case
of caprice against his late constituency, Certainly,
if the electors of Liskeard returned him under the
impression that he would give a general support to
Lord Palmerston's Government, they have good
reason to be disappointed. He has opposed the
Government with as much pertinacity and vigour
as a Liberal member with a sharp and witty tongue
could well display ; and his personal opposition to
the Premier has frequently transgressed the limits
which might be expected from a former member of
his Administration. No Tory has said such bitter
things of the Ministry as Mr. Osborne. Yet, in
spite of this, Mr. Osborne has, by his own confes-
sion, been pretty easy in his seat until lately, and
has represented Liskeard since 1859. Mr. Os-
borne's sneer, therefore, at the notion of being " a
Treasury dependent or provincial delegate" is
somewhat out of place. The electors of Liskeard
have acquired an honourable reputation among
constituencies, and they cannot be considered
false to their character or unusually hard upon Mr.
Osborne. But even supposing them to have been
somewhat unreasonable, they have certainly done
nothing to justify Mr. Osborne's unceremonious
treatment of them. Constituencies, like human
creatures, no doubt, have their whims from time to
time, but it is better tomeet all such errors in a con-
ciliatory spirit, and to be as slow to take offence as
to give it. Mr. Osborne takes great credit to him-
self for having acted in the character of an " inde-
pendent" supporter of Liberal principles. Why
could he not have completed the part by a frank
declaration to his constituents that he had been com-
pelled by his convictions to take a course of his own,
though somewhat opposed, as is proved, to their
wishes ? Though constituencies do not send " de-
legates," they cannot be expected under ordinary
circumstances to send representatives who barely
represent them ; and nothing can be expected to
induce them to do this but a personal regard for a
candidate and personal confidence in the general
tendency of his political opinions. This is the tie
between Mr. Roebuck and the electors of Sheffield,
and Mr. Osborne might have been opportunely in-
structed by the recent scene in that borough. If he
had shown similar frankness and good feeling, he
would at the worst have parted pleasantly with his
constituents, and would have come before any other
constituency with a more graceful plea.
HERALD.—We are so accustomed to complaints
about everything which concerns the Board of Ad-
miralty, that the remark that its administration is,
about as bad as it is possible to conceive may ex-
cite little attention, because regarded as a tiresome
truism. There is something so wonderfully
tenacious in the whole vicious system of blunder-
ing and costly mismanagement, it has become so
consecrated and fenced about by time and usage,
its history is involved in such a maze of conflicting
statements, and half intelligible blue books, that
the man who would master it has to sweep out
such an Augean stable of ill-arranged figures, its
bulwarks are defended by such an army of
arrogant officials, assailants are baffled by such
complicated bastions and counterscarps of cir-
cumlocution, that we need not wonder that so many
have recoiled from the task with dismay. Many a
stalwart champion has couched his lance against
the doughty old fabric, which has, nevertheless,
survived so many and such rude shocks from foes
on all sides that her defenders are disposed to wax
almost insolent in their defiance. To speak plainly,
the faults in the Admiralty administration are so
many and so flagrant that everybody who is not
directly concerned in excusing them must hope to
see rectified ; but so long as the country consents
to be governed by the self-opinionated chiefs of an
impracticable bureaucracy we are convinced that
they will continue to set their faces against any
reform. Mr. Seely, in his able speech last night on
the management of the dockyards, struck the key-
note of the business when he hinted that it might
be left to the Conservatives to carry out the change
which he considered imperatively necessary. The
Liberal party are always talking of " Reform," as if
it were their private property. If it implies the
degradation of the suffrage and vote by ballot, we
may leave it to them. If by that much-abused
word we are to understand the more practical and
beneficent work of reform in the administration of
the country, reform in finance and taxation, reform
in law, reform in the education and in the system
of housing the poor, then these are tasks which
must be left to the Conservatives, for the Whigs
are but bogglers at them. They but repeat the
shibboleth of progress, without knowledge of its
meaning. As we spend annually more money on
our navy than any other great power, not even ex-

civf
cepting the Americans in the height of their
war, we may reasonably require from our Govern-
ment that we should have in return the most power-
ful armament afloat. We maygo farther than this,
and regard it as an axiom that it is essential to the
maintenance of England in her supremacy on the
ocean that her navy singly should be a match for all
the navies in the world. How far this is from being
the case at this moment it were both needless an
distresssing to point. Every one knows that in fro'
clads we are absolutely outdone by France and the
United States, so that in a general war
placed in the greatest peril by our inferiority a
strength. We are far from having what we have 3t
right to demand from our Government—a greee
navy in return for an immense outlay. The cans
of this it is not difficult to find in the woful misma-
nagement of every department of our naval sadminis-
tration. Mr. Seely selected one blot from masYrro
the mark of his just animadversion last night. -L.
we should be,
whom, he asked, do we commit the control of our
dockyards, the establishments which turn out yeal
ster
those mighty three-deckers, those ironside mousier
of the deep, those swift corvettes, those gun boats,
sloops, and steamers—
" The armaments that thunderstrike the walls
Of rock-built cities, making nations quake
And monarchs tremble in their capitals ?"
We give it to naval officers, men who, however
eminent in their profession, however skilful !LI
navigating or fighting these ships, have no tecsa
nical knowledge of the method f building an
fitting them. It is answered that naval men are
also employed in private yards. The two or three, _
so employed are, however, noted for their scientinf
knowledge and practical experience. Under eaefi
dockyard superintendent is a controller, upon
the direction of the work in great part falls. 'a.:s
stead of paying these officials in such a manner
to command the services of the best of their class!
the Admiralty give them scarcely one-third of .thote
salary which is paid to a man holding a sice2o
position in a private yard. Under this sYs, '
everything is done in a routine style, money is e",.
pended in the most wasteful and absurd mannei;
and there is no room for the improvements rowed
are suggested continuallyby scientific experience ants
discovery. All suggestions of such improvernen4
come from the workmen. "If a man in the Rel
dockyards," says Mr. Seely, "thought certain wore
could be executed more cheaply, he went to the
foreman, the foreman had to go to the master shin
wright, the master shipwright had to communie?til
with the superintendent, the superintendent
to communicate with Somerset House, Somereed
House had to communicate with Whitehall ; ant
then, after considerable delay, the matter Nv,e4ll
back to Somerset House, and downward, usrhe
the communication happened to be lost by the
way." The details of the waste in Pli,i,bey
money in the-dockyards are so absurd that g
seem almost incredible. Thus, a boat or a fergill
costs twice as much at one dockyard as it does at
_
another. To make ingot into sheet lead the Goverlt
meat spend 2s. 6d. per cwt., in the open markei,tio'
costs only 3d. per cwt. Anchors and chain env,
bought from a private firm in the employ,e,',,,s- t
Government cost twice as much as they would
a private shipbuilder, making a loss to the coun',Ve,o,
in anchors alone, of £20,000 a year. To these '
tails of petty extravagance we have to add the cf°llvi,
ing fact that instead two millions a year the lit;
building in the Royal dockyards costs us in rea
ont
very nearly three millions a year, the Goverers 0
having included under other heads in the estilll7o 0,
the salaries, pensions, and many other heavy n'e
besides making no account of the interest on
plant,which would be reckoned by any private flrrii,
The result is that the ships built for us by G°v„ec,b,
ment cost half as much again, or even twice as %I.
as they would have cost if built by any private fig
Six vessels mentioned by Mr. Seely cost in si%Y t if
in repairs only more than they should have cn,s,fee
built de novo. If we put two millions or twill g
millions a year into the hands of public servtid,
for certain purposes, we should at least, he rsea
have practical men to disburse it, instead
captains, who know little or nothing of the "vey
ness. As it is, we are deliberately throwing alert
money money in the dockyards, at the rate, on the 10,rn
calculation, of one million a year. A raill°-.0
year ! What could we do—what, rather, coldu .00
not do with a million a year ? We could Pen ,°
off and rescue from misery ten thousand perselVe
artists, authors, inventors,
magnificent hospitaisdretl
charitable asylums. We could open a hilri
parks for the recreation of the masses. We CO4O
buy up all the heaths round London that our Peetiet
might breathe. We could furnish museums :illy
would make London the icynosure of the world , P. 61,
works of art that would cast Dresden and 01111.
into the shade. We could raze down an ugly ele,l
and rebuild it of marble. We could build tle
sands of houses for the poor, who are huddled into 0
bestial dens by our " metropolitan irnproveraesitsi:re
What could we not do with a million a year? 'to
need not ask. Thanks to Lord Clarence Pagett e
the venerable Premier, to the obstinate doctrinairs
e,
and placemen who rally round them, to the e5.,3
getic " whips" who collected them from club '°
coffee-house to save their country and their par ;ie
we must go on pitching it into our docks, and lea
these things undone.