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

4,)N
• 54444-
~r(ljtt

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.
rlll i
The proposition is, to say h
It only remains to consider the
ehetleat
hesritof i t,
e alluring.
It ay anga.
truly, practicable. Anl, 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. 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. lle 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 duff erectly__ 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 ! 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 he
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 .20,500—he should propose that in
future there shall be given to the Envoy £5,000, to
the First Secretary £6OO, to the Second Secretary
£4OO, and to a Third Secretary £2so—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 2500, 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 contideration.

AT least let us be holiest. In England, at all
events, we are not a " Sabbath-keeping " people.
The gentlemen who waited upon Mr. BRUCE to
argue against the opening of the National Gallery
and the British Museum on Sundays assumed that
we were. Mr. BRUCE himself seems to have assumed
it, and to have refused to grant the prayer of the
National Sunday League because, though personally
he approved of it, the nation disapproved. That
may be true (it is at least questionable), but closing
the National Gallery and the British Museum is by
no means the same thing as " keeping the Sabbath."
The simple truth is that the great majority of persons
in our large towns not only do not "keep the Sab-
bath," but absolutely and shamefully dishonour it by
conduct that would disgrace a working day. It is
on the " Sabbath " that our beerhouses are
most crowded, that our spirit-dealers drive 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.

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