The Sun.
London, England, 1869-04-07 00:00:00

ty:,,6 p *4)..-_,!,
v,i4j4, r qi--,.--::-
1144-
_

LONDON, WEDNESDAY APRIL 7, 1869.

According to the argument set forth by the pam-
phleteer, upon whose sketch of the actual system
upon which " Our Foreign Relations" are now con-
ducted we commented yesterday—according to his
argument, as to the revision of that system in the
future, greater efficiency may be secured by the
very means of a more economical arrangement.
ItThe
o lonly
propositionremains
a i n s to
os ,
consider
s o least of t i
tr,eaall
yuriannga.
ay
thewh whether
truly, practicable. And, before entering into details
upon this point, we may premise at once that the
conclusion arrived at is entirely in accordance
with our previous convictions—namely, that it
is practicable. That much more economy and
much more efficiency may be secured readily
enough and simultaneously—that one, in a manner,
involves the other—that the terms, in one sense, are
almost co-relative. As a rule, it might even be said
—not alone in reference to this department, but in
reference to all departments of the Administration,
without any exception whatever—that extravagance
and inefficiency are almost inevitably found cheek-
by-jowl. It is not extravagance, however, strictly
speaking, that has to be complained of in regard to
the moneys voted for the remuneration of our orga-
nized diplomacy. It is rather in the manner of their
application than in the matter of their aggregate
amount. And here it is that we come point-blank
to the gist or argument of the whole scheme
set forth by the anonymous would-be reorganizer of
our existing system for the conducting of our Foreign
Relations. a When he proposes no economy whatever,
he shows how, identically, the same funds may be
much better applied. For example, we are spending
now annually £12,200 upon our Diplomatic Staff at
the British Embassy at Paris. This amount the
pamphleteer conceives in no way to be exorbitant.
He would, therefore, not in any way propose its
diminution. He would only suggest that it should
be distributed differently. The Ambassador himself
should still have the same income as hereto-
fore—that is, the splendid sum of £lO,OOO per
annum. It is with the remaining £2,200 that
he would deal differently—meaning in this, of course,
the pamphleteer. According to the existing arrange-
ments there are at the Paris Embassy the first Secre-
tary with £1,200 a year, two second Secretaries, one
with £4OO, the other with £3OO ; two third Secretaries
each with £l5O a year, and two unpaid attaches.
Our innovator proposes that in future nobody should
go altogether unpaid—that the labourer, what-
ever his name is, is worthy of his hire, and that the
£2,200 should be applied thus:—£l,ooo to the
First Secretary, £5OO to the Second Secretary,
£250 a year each to a couple of Third
Secretaries, and £lOO a year each to a
couple of attaches. Surely a reasonable—not to
say an equitable--proposition I In the instances of
Madrid and of Stockholm—the former a First Class
Mission, the latter a Second Class Mission—he would
deal somewhat differently, effecting a petty saving
of £lOO a year at Madrid, and another petty saving
of £2OO a year at Stockholm—each with an increased
guarantee, through the economy itself, of greater
efficiency. How this is to be effected at Madrid ho
explains by saying that, whereas now there is an
Envoy there with £5,500 a year, and a First
Secretary with £7OO, and a Second Secretary with
£350, together £6,soo—he should propose that in
future there shall be given to the Envoy £5,000, to
the First Secretary £BOO, to the Second Secretary
£4OO, and to a Third Secretary £250—being an
economy of £lOO as already intimated. At Stock-
holm, hitherto, we have had, and still
have, of course, an Envoy and three Se-
cretaries--the Envoy receiving an annual income of
£3,400, the First Secretary one of £5OO, the Second
Secretary one of £250, and the Third Secretary one
of £l5O. Stockholm being, as we have said, a Se-
cond Class Mission, the proposed reorganizer of
our diplomatic system would have the British Lega-
tion there consist henceforth of an Envoy, and
two (not three) Secretaries_ the Envoy receiving
£3,000 per annum, the First Secretary £7OO, the
Second Secretary £4oo—a saving of £2OO a year
being thereby effected. These and other similar sug-
gestions, thrown out in the course of his argument,
impart a practical value and importance to the pro-
positions of the pamphleteer. And they are certainly
propositions—the majority of them—eminently well
entitled at the least to con.sideration.

THERE is mutiny in the Conservative camp. The
Record tells us that a meeting has been held at the
Carlton Club, at which " great and just dissatisfac-
tion was expressed at Mr. DisBAELI's speech, and at
the more pronounced levelling-up avowals of his
pro-Maynooth lieutenant, Dr. BALL." The Record
might have added the still more open avowal of Sir
JOHN PAKINGTON. Our contemporary goes on to say,
"a strong intimation has been conveyed to their chief
that they do not intend to submit themselves tothe
dis-
cipline of the newcourse of education for the purpose
AT least let us be honest. In England, at all of meeting the Irish difficulty,and that in this matter
they are not prepared to take another ' leap in the
events, we are not a " Sabbath-keeping " people.
The gentlemen who waited upon Mr. BRUCE to dark."' This statement has an interest apart from
argue against the opening of the National Gallery the subject to which it immediately refers. It solves
and the British Musuem on Sundays assumed that the questions asked a good deal of late, "Can educa-
we were. Mr. BRUCE himself seems to have assumed tion be carried on without rewards and punish-
it, and to have refused to grant the prayer of the ments ? Can our schoolmasters give up the
National Sunday League because, though personally ; cane and the prize, and trust solely to the thirst
for knowledge ?" The answer is clear; they cannot.
ou cannot expect men to take a leap in
he approved of it, the nation disapproved. That 1 y
may be true (it is at least questionable), but closing I
the National Gallery and the British Museum is by thedark without at least a fair prospect that
no means the same thing as " keeping the Sabbath.', they will fall on something soft. Mr. DISRAELI
must first of all throw out the Irish Church Bill of
The simple truth is that the great
majority of persons
the Liberals before he can persuade the Conserva-
in our large towns not only do not
"Re6p the Sab-
tives to pass one of their own, lie has a difficult
bath," but absolutely and shamefully dishonour it by
task to teach his pupils theirs. We are inclined to
conduct that would disgrace a working day. It is
think that, clever master though he is, he will find
on the " Sabbath " that our beerhouses are
it too hard for him.
most crowded, that our spirit-dealers drip. es
their
best trade ; :it is on the " Sabbath " that we make
most drunkards, that we convert most men into
swine. And then we compare ourselves with France
and Italy; we point to our closed Museum and
Gallery and to the open Louvre and Pitti, and say,
"Stand by thyself ; lam holier than thou." If we
could but see ourselves as others see us, we should
discern that our English reverence for the
" Sabbath," on which we pride ourselves, means
merely that the working classes in England have lower
tastes than those on the Continent. The second find
their recreation in looking at the sacred paintings of
RAFFAELLE,the first find theirs in drinking " Old Tom;"
the second spend their " Sabbath " in the Palace
of the Louvre, the first spend theirs in the gin
palace. No doubt it is a sinful thing to gaze at a
picture of the Holy Family on the " Sabbath," only
do let us for very shame hold our peace about it so
long as the heads of our families celebrate the
" Sabbath" by lying drunk and incapable in the
gutter.

EXACTLY a dozen years ago this country was in
the turmoil of a sudden and unexpected general
election. The question before the country was not
Parliamentary Reform, not the Irish Church, not
any great measure of justice either in secular or
ecclesiastical politics, but whether our representa-
tive in China had done right in bombarding
one of the chief cities in that kingdom
with red-hot cannon shot, in order to punish the
Chinese authorities for hauling down the British flag
from a pirate ship which had no right to hoist it.
Parliament had condemned our representative ; but
Lord PAL3IERSTON acting upon the principle that
Great Britain must never admit herself in the
wrong, however wrong she may be, inflicted the
penalty of dissolution upon the Parliament, and
appealed to the country. The country supported
him, and declared, not that Sir JOHN BOWRING had
done right, but that his action must be upheld.
The chief advocates of the policy of justice
to all nations, whether Occidental or Oriental,
whether trong or weak, were rejected by their con-
stituents ; and men who loved their country, but
loved righteousness more, mourned over this
national endorsement of an atrocious wrong. Twelve
years have passed since then. The same Minister
holds the Foreign Seal as held it then ; but a change
has come over the nation. The voices that then
cried in the desert have since then been heard in
the Senate. Mr. GLADSTONE, who voted against Lord
PALMERSTON then, is Lord PALMERSTON'S successor
now; Mr.B.RIGHT, who was rejected by the third city in
England then, is, next to Mr. GLADSTONE, the most
influential member of the Administration. Lord
CLARENDON, as we have said, is Foreign Minister
now as he was then; but he has different colleagues,

THE debate on the Budget now proceeding in the
Lower House of the French Legislature is one of
the most important of late years. It is not merely
a discussion on the most hopeless and uninviting of
French topics—French finance. It usually happens
that the Budget—which is designedly made the last
item of the session, in order that it may not give the
Government much trouble—comes on for discussion
in July. But the country is now on the eve of the '
third general election under the Empire,and the com-
mencement of the Budget debate in April is a sign
that the end of the session is near. In a few weeks
will begin the contest which may have the most
important influence on the destinies of the EMPEROR
and his people. The Opposition, therefore, is ,