The Sun.
London, England, 1870-05-14 00:00:00

(Ftlo3l A CORRESPONDENT.)

TIM fact that Sir John Pakington, late Seem,
rary for Wier, and Major-General Bt. Gearge,
Director of Ordnance, are at issue respecting au
important proceeding which took place in their de-
partment relative to the case of Oolonel Boxer, itreleat
proof that the wrong is not wholly on the side of
the last-named officer. The Boxer case, in
fact, has obviously been one of the most deplorable
muddles ever known in the history of the War-office.
Colonel Boxer has been dismissed from his post at
the Royal Laboratory for receiving a royalty or com-
mission on cartridges manufactured after a plan of
his invention, and supplied to the Government by
private firms who paid that commission. It is
pri2nd facie objectionable that a servant of the
Crown should be thus remunerated by private
firms who deal with the Government, as it is obvious
that an officer in Colonel Boxer's position has the
power of using his influence to obtain such firms the
preference. But Colonelßoxer received only a small
salary; he had made many very useful inventions.;
the nation had derived benefit from those inventions;
and yet no reward had been given him. He applied
for a gratuity, and the War Office committee, to which
the request was referred, declined to grant one.
This decision was given in January, 1868. Nine
months afterwards Colonel Boxer was informed by
letter that some of his improvements were of such a
kind as might fairly be expected to be made by the
Superintendent of the Royal Laboratory, "while
the other inventions you have enume-
rated—namely, your fuses, breech-loading am.
munition, and shrapnel shell for rifled
ordnance, having been patented by you, you must,he
(Sir John Pakington) considers, look for reward from
the royalties or other remuneration you may receive •
as a patentee from private manufacturers." This is
the remarkable phrase which has been so much in
dispute. It was wrong for Colonel Boxer to
receive commission on his inventions for goods sup-
plied to the Government by manufacturers; but
does not this letter authorise it ? Plainly Colonel
Boxer is told that he can have no money reward,
but he may accept royalties. And yet he
is dismissed for accepting royalties. Sir John
Pakington declares that. the unhappy letter was not
written in accordance with his instructions ; he did
not see it; he knew not what there was in it—as
if a War Minister could justifiably leave such
weighty matters to take care of themselves. But
General St. George, who signed the letter, now
writes to the Times to say that though Sir
John might not have seen the epistle,
he must have known the tenour of the
instructions sent. Whatever may be the fault of
Colonel Boxer, it is clear that the terrible blundering
at the War Office in no way justifies the high tone
of perfect confidence assumed by Sir John Pakington
the other night in the House of Commons.

In the House of Commons yesterday Dr. Brewer
directed attention to the unsatisfactory operation of
the laws as affecting the homeless poor. He attri-
buted the non-realization of the expectations
of the Legislature to the indiscriminate re-

lief afforded to the honest and dishonest poor
alike, and with a view to the remedying
of the existing evils he proposed a resolution to
the effect that the police should control
the relief to the vagrant classes. Mr. Goschen, the
President of the Poor Law Board, assured the House
that, unless they had the sympathy and actual co-
operation of the public, who were too prone to give
alms to the undeserving mendicants, it was impos-
sible to devise a scheme which would enable them
to grapple effectually with the evil. He
•expressed a desire to try the experiment of
detention; that is, to detain vagrants beyond the
time at present prt scribed by law, and some more satis-
factory definition of a "roving vagabond." The
motion was subsequently withdrawn. For upwards
of five hours afterwards the House discussed a
motion by Mr. Couper Temple, which condemned the
conduct of the Chief Commissioner of Works in
reference to Mr. Barry, the architect of the Houses
of Parliament. The motion was provoca-
tive of a warm discussion, Mr. Ayrton de-
fending himself very strenuously, and his proceedings
being justified both by the Premier and the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer. This motion was, upon a
division, defeated by a majority of forty-two.