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

'HE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY, MAY 14, 1870

as in the present instance, a point of national impor-
tance, opinions cannot differ as to the imperative
necessity that exists for the lesser to yield to the
greater claim. Wh it, then, remains to add when the
question resolves itself into a comprehensive subject
like that of the Observatory at Greenwich. Economy
of time and capital are very good things in their
way; but, like other advantages, the may be bought
at too dear a price. The House of Commons can-
not hesitate on the question, and the public will
already have pronounced its opinion on the matter.
It would be a work of supererogation to dwell on
the point, and all that can be said is that the wise
will derive a warning from the extraordinary narra-
tive, and realise the mistakes that people may fall
into, in their over-haste to make improvements
which are the reverse of their name, and militate
against interests which are dear to society, and
should claim respect from those who cannot coin-
, prebend their full importance.

TilE most remarkable feature of the Plebiscite
in France is beyond question the vote of the
army and navy. It was expected by almost every-
body, Reputhcans as well aslmyerialists,that theland
and sea forces would give a masts vote in favour of
the Empire. They are entirely dependent ou the
Government ; an adverse vote woe. ,1 be
likely to bring them into disfavour. The secrecy
of the ballot is not respected in France,
inasmuch as the box is placed upon a table, and au
official sitting before it is able to distinguish the
kind of bulletin deposited therein. Under such circum-
stances it seemed ridiculous to expect that the hun-
dreds of thousands of well-discipimed French troops
would display the smallest sign of hostility. Yet they
have done so. Altogether 40,000 soldiers voted
"No," and 5,000 men of the navy, took
the same course. In Algeria the army re-
corded 6,000 Noes to 30,000 Ayes. In all cases
the number of those who opposed the Empire is, of
course, vastly inferior to the numbers that supported
it. But the Emperor's friends and foes alike
anticipated a still greater disparity. The
forty thousand votes are a most unexpected manifes-
tation, and it is not surprising that the Republicans
are delighsed with such an issue. In one respect it is
gratifying to all friends of liberty. It
shews that there is greater electoral inde-
pendence in France than has been commonly sup-
posed. If the troops can vote "No " with impunity
—though it remains to be seen whether the grave
offence will be punished —no class of
voters need remain under official restraint.
If a soldier can vote just as he thinks
best, the rudest civilian may. On the other hand
this decision of the army is proof that the spirit of
disaffection and discontent has penetrated very
deeply into the nation. The symptom is
alarming. Forty thousand " Noes " aro like
forty thousand defects in the great machine, which
was pointed at as the most unanimous in Europe.
Should the taint spread—and we cannot forbear
rememembering that the revolt of the army over-
turned the Bourbon dynasty in 1780—timings
will look very serious for the second Empire. If
the army grow in discontent as the great towns have
done, the Emperor will derive little lrenuilt from the
hell) of his eeven million rw4ies.

(FROM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT.
ME tact that >i37 John rakington, late inere-
tary for War, and Major-General St. George,
Director of Ordnance, are at issue respecting an
important proceeding which took place in their de-
partment relative to the case of Colonel Boxer, is clear
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
lnu dies 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
prima facie objectionable that a servant of the
Crown should he 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. Put Colonel Boxer 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, 1808. 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 Jokn Pakington) considers, look for reward from
the royalties or other remuneration you may receive
as a patentoOom 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
Pakingken declares that the unhappy letter was not
written is 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 fesinned 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 relief 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 pre-
scribed by law, and some more satisfactory definition
of a " roving vagabond." The motion was subse-
quently withdrawn. For upwards of five hours after-
wards the House discussed a motion by Mr. Cowper
Temple, which condemned the conduct of the Chief
Commissioner of Works in reference to Mr. Barry,
the architect of the Houses of Parliament. The
motioniwas provocative of a warm discussion, Mr.

Ayrton defending himself very strenuously, and his
proceedings being justified by the Premier and the
Chancellor of the Exchequer. This motion was,
upon a division, defeated by a majority of forty-two.

,
6rtular.
tfill TT
N

HER MAJESTY.

WINDSOR CASTLE, May 13.

The Queen, accompanied by her Royal High-
nesses Princess Louise, walked and drove in the
grounds this morning.
Prince Leopold also went out.
Her Royal Highness Princess Louise, attended by
Lady Churchill, honoured Mr. Boehm with a visit to
his studio yesterday.