NOTES OF THE MONTH.

Globe, Volume III, Issue 275, 29 April 1875, Page 4

NOTES OF THE MONTH.

(From the Spectator.)

The gathering at Lewes to do honor to Mr DodsoD, as one of the many country members who was obliged at the last election either to take refuge in a borough or to submit to defeat, became the occasion of political speeches from Lord Kimberly, Mr Goschen, and lastly, Lord Hartington, who was asked to respond to the toast of " Mr Gladstone and the late members of the Liberal Government," and who certainly made a rather lame business of his speech. He intended no doubt to make the note of "moderation" the key note. He did not quite agree, he said, in the taunt levelled at the Conservatives for not attempting to undo that the doing of which they had so much blamed. "There are things which a man might think were ill done, but which were irrevocably done, and which no wise man, although he might feel disappointed, would seek to undo;' but, beyond that, he thought many Conservatives were now tharkful that the Liberal's had done what they had. The Marquis then went on to describe the uses of a Liberal party at a. time like this, but the only use he 'welt upon was that of careful criticism and certainly his own criti ism was not careful He described Mr Disraeli as having lectured Prince Bismarck <it the Mansion House on " his foreign policy," which looks a little as if Lord Hartington thinks that the harsh treatment of one of your own ambassadors by the tribunals of your own country is a question of foreign policy, and after that, and a smile at the unfortunate recognition of Marshal Serrano's Government in Spain, he had very little criticism to make. His mot d'ordre for the Opposition was—These benches arc Liberty Hall; let every one pursue his indi vidual crotchets according to his conscience. auci uot luok J or oiucb, help from, auy uuc

else, an easy programme, not very lucidly expressed. It was an awkward situation for Lord Hartington, and certainly he did not make people forget how awkn ard a situation it was. Let us hope that hia choice as leader, if it happens, may not be one of " those things which a man might think were ill-done, but which were irrevocably done, and which no wise man, though he might feel disappointed, would seek to undo."

The French Assembly is getting on with its task of refusing to vote any permanent constitution. M. Ventason's proposal to confirm the Septennate and give the Marshal the power of dissolution is already gone ; and M. Laboulaye's, to vote the Conservative Republic, i.e., the Republic with two Chambers and a President, will, it is believed, also be defeated. Its only chance is the possible adhesion of the Orleanists, who, as explained elsewhere, are not satisfied that the Imperialists cannot make a coup d'etat. M. Laboulaye's speech was quiet and temperate, its object being to show that the difference between a Parliamentary Monarchy and a Constitutional Republic was very slight, and it was listened to with favour. Indeed, had the division been taken on Thursday, he might have won, but the Extreme Left supported adjournment till Friday, and the proposal was carried. The vote, therefore, is not in time for our issue. The next proposal will be for a dissolution, and, if that is rejected, the cycle will be complete,—the Assembly refusing to accept the Monarchy, to declare the Republic, to endure the Empire, or to ask for itself a new commission from the people. There will then remain no legal outlet from the situation ; and the Bonapartists calculate that France, in its impatience of suspense, will tolerate an illegal one.

Mr Bright's speech at Birmingham was something of a disappointment to those who had looked to it as an event likely to exercise a great influence on the choice of the next Liberal leader. He pointedly, and perhaps wisely, avoided the subject, taking, however, as it would seem, not a little care to put no fresh difficulties in the way of the colleague from whom he must have differed, as it turned out, on the education question, by any renewal of that old and embittered controversy. He confined his speech exclusively to the question of the Established Church, and while of course warmly attacking the principle of Establishment in a vigorous argument, of which we have said enough elsewhere, he showed, perhaps more prominently thin ever, that caution and conservatism of temperament which circumstances have conspired to overshadow in Mr Bright, but which is deep in him nevertheless. He deprecated altogether making Disestablishment a test-question. He admitted that it was not ripe for legislation. And he was warm in praise of the piety, energy, and self-sacrifice which the clergymen of the Church so largely display. The speech was a very eloquent one, though it seemed a little abstract to a crowd eager for the polemics of the moment. Mr Bright, in an incidental remark on the Public Worship Regulation Bill, introduced last session by the Archbishop of Canterbury, to whose apron, as he said, Mr Disraeli had tacked himself, quoted a friend's criticism on the very reckless and dangerous things which are often proposed and done by " very moderate men." That, no doubt, was a very true and very apposite remark. But Mr Bright's career and his tone last Monday suggest a pendant to it, on the very safe things which are often proposed and done by those who seem very violent men. Unquestionably Mr Bright, has oftener been charged—not always without justice—with embittering class against class, than any other orator in the country. But he has proposed, and done much to carry, the most stable and most stability-causing changes of recent years, and now he shows us the extreme caution and tenderness with which he advocates a change that could hardly help being perilous. The imaginative passion of the true popular orator is usually treated as destructive, but it is often —and certainly has often been in Mr Bright's case—only a vehement yearning for some change on which the conscience of the orator tenaciously insists as a necessary antecedent condition of an imaginative and even clinging conservatism of the heart. Mr Bright made a second speech at Birmingham at a conversazione given by the " Central and Ward Committees of the Liberal Association," but though he described the audience as in an unusual degree representative of the borough, he did not say anything important. He attributed the defeat of the late Government mainly to the anger of the publicans; to the obstinacy of men possessed not of ideas, but by them; to the over-confidence of the [Liberals, who forgot that they had against them the landlords, the Church, that " centre of political darkness," and the timid poor; and to the " enormous lying " indulged in by the Tories both in their meetings and through the press. He utterly disapproved the idea of sending working men to Parliament merely as such, as a course opposed to the truer policy of moulding all classes into a nation. The men who had for the last generation served the working men, himself included, were not working men in the class sense. He denied that he intended to divide the Liberal party by pointing to disestablishment, but said the discussion could not be evaded, and was most actively promoted by those who had most interest in letting it alone. Lord Kiuaberley and Mr Goschen both made telling speeches of the studied Moderate Liberal kind, Lord Kimberley expressing his delight at Lord Salisbury's newly-found interest —expressed at Manchester—for the reform of our secondary education, and regretting that he had allowed his greater zeal for the wishes of " pious founders" to extinguish that interest during, the labors of the late Government ; and Mr Goschen deprecating sensation Liberal cries, which he spoke of as tempting recruit* by holding out the chances of prizemoney ; and praising Mr Gladstone emphatically, not only for what he did, but for what he prevented—for the many foolish proposals he remorselessly nipped in the bud. Of course, every political leader worthy of the name must check unwise followers, as Well as encourage wise ones, and this is in many respects one of his most responsible and useful duties —one which Lord Hartington, however, with his characteristic laissezfaire policy of the Opposition, would apparently like to ignore. It would clearly be a mistake to take a leader whose policy it is—not to lead. The Marylebone Vestry missed a great opportunity. Part of Oxford street requires repairing, and a proposal was brought forward to substitute wood for granite throughout the street. This was supported by the Duke of. Westminster aud a laige portion of

the Vestry, and by all Oxford street tradesmen, but it was so strongly opposed, that Mr Galsworthy moved that the improvement should be confined to the portions requiring repavement and two or three other bits. This was carried, but the improvement is thus rendered partial, and what is wanted is an improvement on a grand scale. Wood, apparently the best noiseless matciial to use, — at least till we can wash the a3phalte daily, —can never be fairly tried till it covers whole quarters, or, at all events, long streets, so that the journey is not interrupted by by patches of noise, or horses worried by sudden changes of material. It was stated at the meeting that the repairs of Oxford street cost about £llOO a year, and that wood pavement would be little more expensive than granite, and less so than a macadamised road. There is scarcely any improvement for which the ratepayers would more cheerfully grant an extra halfpenny in the poundIn London the absence of noise means absence of disturbance to work. The German Parliament has passed the new marriage law, or law of religious ceremonies for the Empire, which is of the most comprehensive kind. Under its f revisions the civil contract is compulsory, though of course it may be followed by any religious ceremony; the baptism of children is left optional with parents, and all graveyards are thrown open to all sects. Men above twenty-four and women above twenty-three, may marry without their parents' consent, the marriages of priests and nuns is legalised, and all relatives usually entitled to marry in Christian countries may marry, with the addition apparently, as in France, of uncle and niece. Divorce is made a civil process exclusively, and separation a mensd et thoro is to be divorce. No widow or divorcee can marry again within ten months, and in cases of adultery the parties cannot marry each other. It is stated that since the adoption of civil marriage in Prussia seventy-five per cent, of all marriages in Berlin have been unaccompanied by religious ceremonies, and only thirty per cent, of the children born have been baptised.