The Sun.
London, England, 1860-04-17 00:00:00

while, like ourselves, they have avowed
that without the Ballot and further readjustment I
of seats it can never be satisfactory to the people—
we must adhere, therefore, to our demand—
nothing less than the Bill. The very fact that the
country regards the Bill as so small an instalment
of its demands will create a very strong feel-
ing against members who refuse even so slight
a concession. We certainly are half inclined, how-
ever, to suppose that we have under-estimated the
concession. The determined hostility of the great
Berkshire interest, the schemings and grumblings
of uneasy Whigs, with the more natural opposition
of the professed Conservatives indicate at least
their belief that the really Liberal cause will be pro-
moted by the proposed extensions of the franchise.

It is difficult to see it. In the counties we cannot
believe that a single constituency will return a
member of different politics from what it has gene-
rally done; and as to the boroughs, we should
hardly expect that it will do more than strengthen
a little the liberalism of members already
liberal. We may be wrong, but, till we ob-
tain the Ballot, we look for no increase of
electoral independence, and for no improvement in
the popular character of the House. We can-
not think Mr. MASSEY and the Tories
have much reason to be frightened, but, if

. _
they have, we are quite sure they will do
wisely to conceal it. A Select Committee
would be an insult both to the country and to the
Government. The former knows all it wants to
know, so does the latter: What is wanted after
such long dangling of reform before us is not dis-
cussion but—ACTION.

The House of Commons reassembled yesterday
after the Easter vacation, and proceeded directly to
business on the Navy estimates, which, after some
smart debates were eventually carried to the
amount of about £530,000.

Sir CHARLES NArint, as usual, enlarged upon the
insufficiency of the Navy—both in ships and men ;
then he repeated his charges against the constitution
of the Board of Admiralty. That there is great
truth in all the gallant Admiral has said there can
be little doubt, but we must wait for a more re-
formed Parliament before an efficient remedy can
be applied. That the blame chiefly rests upon the
Board of Admiralty, being more of a political than
that of a real naval business department, is unques-
tionable. Hence the corruption in the dockyards,
and the gross expenditure of past times, for which
no one was considered to be responsible. Promotion
went by favouritism, and hence the overcrowded
list of officers on the pension list ; for when
once an officer, however incompetent, had got placed
on the ladder of promotion his fortune was com-
paratively made for the rest of his life, so far as to
be safe from the vicissitudes incident to his less
favoured companions. Thus we have a roll
of Admirals, Vice• Admirals, Rear-Admirals,
and Captains on the reserved and re-
tired lists long enough to man a squadron of
block-ships ! Lord CHARLES PAGET attempted to
make the best of things for the present, and promised
much for the future. No doubt it is all meant to
be realised, and when it is, the country will be saved
much money and be better defended. The sooner
the better.

A charming illustration of the extreme absurdity

of the high science, art, profession, or whatever
else you may please to call it, of Diplomacy, has
just been afforded by a communication addressed to
Count BERNSTORFF, Prussian Ambassador at Lou-

don, by Baron SCHLENIT2, Minister for Foreign
Affairs in the Prussian Government. It is a re-

markable document, which we published in its en

tirety in our impression of Saturday. Its date, by
the way, is—not inappropriately—the First of
April. It really means scarcely anything what-
ever. All that it appears actually to express might

in point of fact have been very well articulated in
about two sentences. Nevertheless the epistle runs

on garrulously to the extent of thirteen distinct
paragraphs. Like most State papers of this character
it seems to have been composed throughout, under
the guidance or influence of that cynical axiom

which declares that language was given to man to
hide his thoughts—a saying popularly but
erroneously attributed to Prince TALLEY-
RAND (and one, certainly, it must be al-
lowed, in perfect acordance with his atra-

bilious philosophy), but originally enunciated in
truth, among so many other whimsical observations
in the humorous " Citizen of the World," of guile-
less OLIVER GOLDSMITH. Nothing, upon the first

blush, could well appear more n aif than this curious
despatch written from Berlin on the Ist of April by
Baron SCHLEINITZ. Upon a careful scrutiny, how-

ever, it will be found far more ingenious than in
genuous. To render this apparent, it will really be
worth while to submit the document in question,
before it is forgotten, to some passing scrutiny.
It is ostentatiously, quite ridiculously, precise in
its explicitness, this verbose communication. It is
about as ludicrous in its elaborate peculiarity as
that comical gentleman Dr. DODGE in " Divorce a
Vinculo," now periodically testing the risibility of
the readers of Once a Week—that excessively
matter-of-fact personage who, when he is
reminded of a lady's hair having been cut off at
Brussels, observes, " You allude, I presume, to its
severance, or abscission or curtailment." The Dr.
DODGE, in more than one respect, of the Berlin
Cabinet is manifestly the Foreign Minister, Baron
SCHLEINITZ. It is absolutely droll to recognise, at
last, what is really and truly the source and the
significance—perhaps we should more accurately
express the fact by saying the insignifieance—of all
the extraordinary " pother" indicated through the
t ii
thirteen carefully elaborated paragraphs of
h in
amazing communication. Observe, however,
the first instance the obtrusive moderation and
Dodge-like simplicity of its commencement. Says
Monsieur le Baron, addressing himself to Monsieur
le Comte,—" Among the documents relative to the
affairs of Italy which the English Cabinet has commu-
nicated to Parliament is a report addressed by Lord
BLOOMFIELD to Lord J. RUSSELL, giving him an
account of a conversation which I had with the
Prince DE LA TOUR D'AUVERGNE relative to the
project of the French Government of incorporating
Savoy and Nice with France." It is an asserted
inaccuracy in this "account" of the conversation
here alluded to, which has aroused the ire and
elicited the denial of the Prussian Foreign Mini-
ster, as expressed in the despatch addressed to
Count BERNSTORFF. Before entering at any length,
however, into the explanations that seem to be de-
manded from him by this asserted inaccuracy, Baron
SCITLEINITZ must in the first instance apparently
give vent to his feelings somewhat ironically—
namely, in the manner following :—" I have no
need to tell you," he writes, " Monsieur le
Comte"—[and, therefore, as a mutter of course,
he immediately goes on to tell him,
Monsieur le Comte !]—" that in commu-
nicating to Lord BLOOMFIELD, in a perfectly
confidential manner, what had taken place between
the Minister of France and myself, in an interview
which had the character of a private conversation,
I did not expect that those details could be destined
to become the subject of a Parliamentary debate."
Aud, be adds, in a manner evidently designed to