The Sun.
London, England, 1866-08-06 00:00:00

~.....+./". ...............................
out delay, bills will be laid before the Diet required
for the convocation of a popular represen-
tation of the Federal State. How inconsis-
tent it seems that the Prussian Legislature should
thus arrange the affair of the other States, and
then insult them by declaring that they are free
and independent. With the Diet of Berlin to settle
their laws, and the Prussian generals to control
their armies, we shall certainly have a great deal to
applaud and admire in the independence of those
small States which have been the theme of so many
discussions, and given rise to so many conflicting
lopinions during the last few years.

No doubt it might have been a very good thing
for some change to have taken place in the con-
dition of these States, but we deny that it will be
a change for the better for them to be put under the
military dominion of Prussia. They would have her
more likely to prosper as they were previously,
and they could have made any alteration that the
force of circumstances demanded afterwards in a
more opportune fashion. As it is, when this sad
page in their history is written, it will be far
more true to say that they have come to Prussia
as part of the spoils of war, than to assert that
they are come together in a great organisation,
under the superintendence of that Power. The
very manner in which the matter is spoken of
shows what kind of a transaction it is
that is now taking place. Prussia has already
declared that she must take the initiative in this
work of the new Confederation, and the very fact
of her having had to draw the sword to enforce its
being carried out clearly demonstrates that, it is an
affair of force, and not a work of sentiment or of
sympathy, politically or-otherwise. The KING and
his Ministers only show their ignorance in declaim-
ing about the national development of Germany
taking place under their auspices. Peoples and
States can never flourish under the rule of tyranny,
and it is idle to say that they can. It will be for
Herr BISMARCK to give the word of command,
and all the arrangements and plans that the inha-
bitants of these annexed provinces may form will
go to the winds ; and whenever the authorities of
Berlin seek to make a fresh war of encroachment
the devoted places must contribute of their citizens
to swell the ranks of the aggressive forces. It is a
delusion and a mockery to call the accomplishment
of such designs the achievement of a great work of
national regeneration, and time will surely prove
it to be such. All we can say is that if
the members of the Legislature pass the
Act of Indemnity to the Government for
their illegally carrying bn the Administration they
will be committing a grave political blunder and
undoing the work of their predecessors. No doubt
they will allow themselves to be carried away by
the excitement and enthusiasm of the time, but not
the less will their conduct be unwise and the course
upon which they enter .a dangerous one. King
WILLIAM and his subordinates are now regarded as
conquering heroes, but they will soon appear in their
old guise, and re-enact the parts in which they were
such adepts of constitutional uprooters and sworn
opponents to all freedom of action or language.

The public will certainly be disposed to agree with
he concluding sentence of Sir JOHN PAKINGTON'S

speech on Saturday, in answer to Mr. SEELY'S at-
tack upon Admiralty extravagance. " The whole
system of our dockyard establishments" does cer-
tainly require to "be carefully and jealously
watched." Unfortunately, whatever differences
there may be as to minor details, however com-

pletely some charges may be rebutted and others
explained away or the offence mitigated, there
always remains a heavy accumulation of matter
for inquiry and complaint. The vices are no doubt
those of the system, but they are perpetuated by
the esprit de corps existing among all the officials
and employes on both sides. " There seemed to be
a rule," said Mr. SEELY on Saturday, " perhaps, to

some extent a good one, for the heads of Depart-
ments to leave matters to their subordinates, who
tried as far as they could to make out a good case,
and nearly all the Departments joined together in
defending each other, while past and expectant, as
well as present officials, but too often combined in
trying to put down an independent member." It is
very probable that Mr. SEELY may fail in substan-
tiating some of his charges, but there is no doubt
that the expenditure in the various Departments of

the Admiralty is excessive. The repairs, of which
Mr. SEELY complains so much, seem now to be
accepted as a regular part of shipbuilding. A ship
is altered and repaired before she has gone a single
voyage, and in many instances, when the vessels
are not new, the repairs are more costly than the
original construction. Mr. SEELY gave instances of
this. " The Niger, Highflyer, and Sparrowhawk
cost, in the shape ofjrepairs, £190,000, whereas the
cost when new would only have been £140,027."

The original building is often much too costly
when compared with the outlay in private
yards, and Mr. SEELY was probably not far wrong
when he maintained that the Admiralty were doing
work at nearly double its worth. " The Irresistible
was built at a cost, adding percentage, of £183,970,
whereas the cost ought really to have been £109,186,
showing an excess cost of £74,784. The Victoria,

again, cost £329,858, whereas the amount expended
- -

on her should only have been £191,191, showing
an excess cost of £138,657." The extravagances
to which he had called the attention of the House
amounted, said Mr. SEELY, to upwards of a
million of pounds. It is only fair to the
Admiralty officials, past and present, to add that
some of the member for Lincoln's charges
were disproved, and many of the particular items in
his bill of indictment were contradicted owing to
errors in transcribing the figures. Thus the charge
of £66 for repairing a cutter, which, newly-built
and fitted, would have cost but £3O, was really for
repairing three cutters. Again, the state-
ment that 83 boats were repaired at a
cost of £5,685 was inaccurate, the figures
of two different lines having been conected through
an inadvertence in copying. The sum of £5,685
stood for 282, not for 83 boats, as stated by Mr.
SEELY. Nevertheless, these explanations, though
satisfactory as to the particular items in
question, did not
alto
gether reassure the
house. They accepted, of course, Sir JOHN
PAKINGTON'S explanation unreservedly, but the
general feeling expressed by Mr. AYRTON,
was
who declared his belief that if his hon. friend, Mr.
SEELY, remained in the House of Commons
for the rest of his life he would never
exhaust the abuses of the Admiralty, and
that the whole system of Admiralty accounts was
one of mystification. Mr. CORRY said that he had
always believed there was great room for improvement
in the management of the dockyards, but he did not
think that things were quite so bad as they were
represented. The reason he gave for this belief was
amusing. " A few years ago," he said, " the late
Secretary to the Admiralty discovered that between
£4,000,000 and £5,000,000 of the public money
had been wasted by the Admiralty, but when he
got into office he was never able to substantiate
this statement." Mr. CORRY appears to have
overlooked the possibility of the inaction complained
of being due not to want of ability, but lack of in-
clination. Office is apt to throw a wonderful spell
over the In* energetic Reformer, and it is