NOTES OF THE MONTH.

Globe, Volume IV, Issue 322, 24 June 1875, Page 3

NOTES OF THE MONTH.

(From the Spectator.') The debate on the modified Coercion Bill for Ireland, to take the place of the laws which expire in December next, occupied the 24th and 25th March, without producing any very remarkable speech; though Mr Gibson, the new Conservative Member for the University of Dublin, spoke with remarkable lucidity and weight in favor of the amended proposals; and Mr Sullivan, M.P. for Louth, with his usual vivacity, though less than his usual eloquence, against it. The general drift of the criticisms on the Bill was that, in the present state of Ireland, special powers are quite minecessary to preserve peace, and are desired, so far as they are desired, by the Irish magistracy in the interests of official indolence and authority and of such class privileges as the gamelaws, rather than in those of the people at large. This was the position 1 iken, for instance, by Mr O. Lewis, the Home-rule Member for Carlow borough, in a somewhat vehement, and by Mr Redmond, the Home-rule MemberforWexfordiborough,inavery sensible and moderate speech. Mr O. Lewis declared that the Coercion Laws reduce Ireland to the condition of France before the Revolution, if you substitute Kilmainham for the Bastille, and a Lord-Lieutenant’s warrant for a lettrede cachet. Mr Sullivan devoted his speech to producing evidences (quite unneeded) that the Judges find very little ordinary crime in Ireland, and have not asked for exceptional legislation; and Mr Butt insisted, with much force, on the demoralising effects of granting to any administration unconstitutional powers. On the other hand, the Irish Secretary, the Irish Solicitor-General, and Mr Gibson insisted, not without some success, on the_ attenuated character of the powers taken in the new Bill, and the evidence afforded by the Government of their sincere wish to give up

coercion as soon as it may be compatible with safety to do so. We have elsewhere recorded our own inferences from the debate, but on the whole, while we believe that the Government might safely have gone further in the direction demanded by the Irish members, we think they deserve credit ft r sincere and frank, though ultra-cautious concessions. Mr Disratli’s speech was mainly devoted to show that England had been much more severely coerced under the famous six Acts of Lord Castlereagh than Ireland under the Peace Preservation Act, and he was very entertaining in his criticism on the efforts of Irish members to throw doubts over the reality of Irish Ribandism. In Mr Canning’s time, he said, besides the discovery of a new world, dry champagne was invented, and Mr Canning once expressed a desire to taste it. Charles Ellis, afterwards Lord Seaford, accordingly got up a dinner for the purpose of giving Mr Canning an opportunity of tasting dry champagne. After taking a glass and thinking a moment, the Minister said, “ The man who says he likes dry champagne, will say anything.” “ Now, I do not want,” said Mr Disraeli, “to enter into a controversy with any of my honorable friends opposite who doubt the existence of Ribandism, but this I will say, that the man who maintains that Ribandism does not exist is a man who,—ought to drink dry champagne.” The second reading was carried by 264 against 69—a majority of 195 against “ dry champagne,” but amongst the supporters of that beverage was, not unnaturally perhaps, the great apostle of hilarious sobriety. Sir Wilfrid Lawson. The chief interest, however, of Mr Disraeli’s speech was foreign to the subject in debate, and consisted in a personal explanation. Mr Butt had quoted the passage from the Prime Minister’s Mansion-house speech, in which almost every one but the Times gave him credit for referring to the severe preliminary imprisonment which Count Amim was then undergoing for an imputed and unproved offence —the passage in which he said that the working classes of England inherit a popular and personal privilege which the nobility of other nations do not enjoy. Mr Disraeli declared that the interpretation which gave point to this passage was a “ most stupid, and some thought a malignant” interpretation. He said that at Guildhall he was uo more thinking of Prince Bismarck and Count Aruim than in the Irish debate he was thinking of Rory O’More, —of whom, however, we suppose he was thinking, at least when he mentioned his name ; and further, he denied positively that “ any allusion or remonstrance, direct or indirect, public or private, by male or female,” was ever made to him or to any member of her Majesty’s Government on the subject ; as also that he was ever thanked by Prince Bismarck or by any one else for the official disclaimer of the allusion inserted in the Times. All this of course, as in duty bound, Buglishmen will accept. But they will not the less regard it as a most superfluous and mischievous bit of conciliation on Mr Disraeli’s part, to have been so eager to disclaim the interpretation which gave the only temporary point and interest to his remark. If Mr Disraeli’s “ unconscious cerebration” was a better critic of passing events than his conscious thought— i.e., if the observation were most applicable, as it obviously was, to the visible rigours of the Prussian law, in spite of not having been pointed at them, —why was he so eager to disclaim its application, lest Prussia should resent the close fit of the cap ? That disclaimer was precisely as timid, as undignified, and as injudicious, though not, of course, as unworthy, under the circumstances explained, as it would have been if Mr Disraeli had really backed out of a position he had deliberately taken up.

It is officially announced that the Prince of Wales is going to India in November for a tour of a few months, attended by Sir Bartle Frere as cicerone. Some of oar contemporaries are greatly exercised over this expedition, which is, after all, only an extension of an ordinary tour ; but although natives will be pleased, and the Prince, we hope, amused, the visit can hardly produce great political consequences. The notion that the natives of India, the most satirical realists perhaps out of Paris, are always ready to go into fits of enthusiasm on behalf of an unseen Sovereign and her children has, we suspect, very little foundation. Nevertheless, the visit will be acceptable to them, and the Prince will enjoy himself thoroughly in a totally new country, with a delicious climate and unequalled facilities for hunting big game. The Ministry should settle before the Prince goes what the etiquette is to be about “ presents,” what precedence is to be accorded to his Royal Highness in Native Courts, and whether England, India, or the Duchy of Cornwall is to pay the expenses of the trip. There can be no incognito for a Prince of Wales within his mother’s dominions. We regret to record the death of the French Ambassador in London, the Comte de Jarnac, at the age of 60. A member of one of the oldest families in France, yet half an Irishman by blood and residence, a thorough Orleanist in sympathies, and a man of much native capacity, as witness his half-forgotten novel “ Rockingham,” the Count was almost an ideal envoy from Versailles to St James’s. He was thoroughly trusted by his own Government and by ours, and was certain to send a clear account to France both of our sympathies and of their limitations. It is rumored that ho may be succeeded either by the Duke de Broglie, which would be a relief to the President’s cabinet, or by M. Drouyn dc Lhuys, which would be an anxiety to Berlin ; but nothing appears to have been yet decided. The appointment is rarely bestowed upon professional diplomatists. Like the American Ministership, it is apt to prove a very expensive honor, though it has never, we believe, quite tired out an Ambassador’s patience, as the cost of his mission is said by the New York Herald to have tired out General Schenck’s. The Cabrera ,l convenio ” has evidently failed, and the Madrid correspondent of the Times draws a gloomy picture of the condition of Spain. He says that Spain has now 247.000 men under arms, and is levying 70.000 more, without whom no attack on the Carlists can be attempted. The war costs £50,000 a day, or £1,500,000 a month ; the debt has increased to £375,000,000, with a charge of £11,250,000 a year; and the revenue has sunk from £25,000,000 to £19,000,000. There is no signs of the war drawing to a close, and it will probably only end with the total exhaustion of the Carlists’ pecuniary means. They are said to owe £18,000,000 already. This is a black picture, but it must be remembered that the army of Spain is much smaller, population for population,

than our own army and marine during the Peninsular war ; that the debt will probably be compounded for a manageable sum, say £200,000,000 ; and that the smallness of the revenue is the consequence of very lax and light taxation. Spain, if well governed, could still surmount all difficulties. Her danger is not the state of the Treasury or the magnitude of the army, but the tone of despair among the people. It is stated that one result of the last Session of Congress has been to raise Mr J. G. Blaine, a Pennsylvanian, who, however, resides in Maine, to the first as the next Republican candidatejfor the Presidency. Mr B’aine has been Speaker of the House of Representatives for the session, and his impartiality, firmness, and vigour of mind have greatly struck the leaders of the party, who see that the traditionary dislike of the third term will be too strong for General Grant. The Democrats have not decided on their candidate yet, but it is not impossible that Mr Andrew Johnson, the exPresident, and now Senator from Tennessee, may ultimately be adopted. He is a “ War Democrat ” in opinion, is a Western man, made many friends at the White House, and has the same kind of attraction for the masses as General Jackson had. If he can maintain his present attitude for eighteen months, which is doubtful, he may prove the favorite of the party. All manner of statements are current as to some action taken by Germany to induce other Powers to threaten that unless at the next vacancy a moderate Pope is elected, they will refuse him recognition. It was at first affirmed that Prince Bismarck had applied to the Italian Government to repeal the Guarantee Law, but this is categorically denied, and would, indeed, be useless, while Eurone still sent Ambassadors to the Vatican and received Nuncios from it. Some idea, however, of the possibility of reducing the Pope to a subject is evidently passing through the German mind, as his present position places him in a position of singular independence. He is not answerable to any municipal law, and has no territories to lose. We must mention ,here that the visit of the Emperor of Austria to the King of Italy is supposed on the Continent to refer to the action to be taken in the event of a Papal election. Meanwhile the Pope appears to show no sign of failing health. Mr Froude has explained his views as to the administration of the South African Colonies, in a lecture to the merchants connected with the Cape and a letter to the Times, and they appear to amount to this:- — The South African dominion of Great Britain is very valuable, and the South African colonists are very loyal, but the native population needs a much stricter Government. Slavery should not be established, but there should be one strict law against vagrancy, and another strict one for the enforcement of contracts, and a third against polygamy. The reports are not very clear, but as we understand Mr Froude, he would deprive any native of his right to be idle, first, by refusing him leave to roam aboul; secondly, by punishing him if he broke a contract of service; and thirdly, by abolishing polygamy, which enables him to live on the labor of his wives. There is no objection, that we know of, to the last suggestion, if we have the power to act on it, but the two former are very dangerous. Why is her Majesty’s dark-colored subject to be refused leave to go about, if he likes? Or why is a native who has promised to sell his labor to be punished criminally if he has not sold it, while the colonist who promises to sell corn but does not deliver it is punishable only by an action for debt ? Earl Grey showed years ago that the way to make lazy laces work and bind nomad races to the soil was to tax them, and his plan succeeded perfectly in British Burmah. Mr Froude, in his letter to the Times, tells g story which throws the British contempt for the dark races and for idleness Into very high relief. “ When,” he says, “I spoke in Natal of immigration from England, I was told impatiently that no white laborer from England could be brought to work, with so piany lounging Kaffirs looking on and laughing at him.” The moral he would draw is clearly that the Kaffir should be made by some sort of beneficent whip to cease to Jaugh and lounge, and then the free-born Briton, not being aggravated by Kaffir idleness, would cease to be idle in imitation. Did it ever occur to Mr Froude that one of the rights of freemen when they want nothing is to sit still, or is he prepared to apply his philosophy to Rotten Row ? Suppose West London gives up working because dandies lounge there and laugh at workers. Will he punish the workmen for striking, or the dandies, as in South Africa, for lounging ? ft is highly to be regretted, of course, that people should wander about from encampment to encampment, and. never do any manual labour ; and suppose we imprison, gay, the Duke of Sutherland for that line of Conduct ?

Yesterday week Sir Charles Dilke brought out all the blots in the Ballot Act, showing how differently different local authorities interpret its provisions ; how some try to give validity to the yote if they can, so long as it is clear how the vote was intended, while others insist on the correctness of every technical detail ; how the illiterate voters’clause is used as a means of making it clear how certain doubtful voters, whethei really so illiterate as to need the clause or not, are actually voting ; and in a word, explaining to how many failures of its intention the Act is liable. Mr Forster supported a revision of the details of the Act for next session or, what is just now the Government’s favorite equivalent for legislation—a Select Committee on it, also for next session. There are too many Select Committees just now to admit of having another, even on the Ballot Act. The thirty-eighth year of her Majesty’s reign will be remembered in futuredays as the flood-year of Select Committees Literary papers, if at all respectable and sober in their judgments, must take care what they are about. A Scotch jury has just given a verdict for £1273 against our contemporary, the Athenaeum, for an otherwise very sober and moderate, though hostile, criticism on the last School Atlas published by Keith Johnston. The damages are apparently given for its statement that “ the Atlas, though bearing the name of A. Keith Johnston, is the work neither of th q primus nor of the secundus of that name, for the son is no longer connected with the house established by his late father, the merited reputation of which he was so well qualified to maintain, but is gone to seek his fortune in Paraguay.” This statement was shown to be in some respects erroneous, and of course injurious to the reputation of the house for geographical accuracy and learning. Mr Keith Johnston the younger went to Paraguay on a commission to settle the limits between Brazil and Paraguay, and left Eng-

land onlyin January. 1871 As wcunderstand, the edition of the School Atlas in question was really brought out under his superintendence. In any case, the same staff of assistants was employed, and the work, it was understood, had in no degree suffered by his absence. No doubt a criticism of this kind on tte 'personnel of a firm as distinguished from the literary character of its work, especially if in any degree inaccurate, is a little unusual and undesirable, but to assess the damages for it at £1275 seems simply the very fanaticism of local prejudice. If such verdicts as these are to be multiplied the effect must be that good and learned papers will be gauged, while only bad and despised papers, which no one thinks it worth while to prosecute, will be left at liberty. If the Athenaeum's mistake ought to cost it £1275, it must be because the Athenaeum's judgment is usually so completely trustworthy. But where is the policy of shutting the lips of sober judges by subjecting their responsible discretion to all sorts of perils, while reckless judges are allowed every day to say what they please without challenge? We trust these excessive damages may be appealed against and set aside; otherwise school books will have a bad chance of review in the columns of those newspapers whose editors are as scrupulous in warning the public against what is faulty, as they are in praising what is good. Lord Shaftesbury is a man of many gifts, but none of these gifts certainly can have been received by him with a better grace than that presented to him by the costermongeis, of whose society he is president,— a valuable donkey. The donkey was led up stairs to the platform of the Foresters’ Hall, in Wilderness row, Goswell road, where the Earl presided, and was formally delivered over to him, with a eulogy on the donkey’s good qualities, especially his taste for good company and good living. The Earl, in thanking the costermongers for their gift, said “he would send his newly-acquired friend down to the country, where he would be well treated by his grand-children. When he (the Earl) had passed away from this life, he desired to have no more said of him than that he had done his duty whilst in it, as the poor donkey did bis, with patience and unmurmuring resignation, Sterne’s sentimental reverie on a dead donkey was inferior in every respect to Lord Shaftesbury’s pathetic praise of the living one. Indeed, he hit the very quality which donkeys simulate, if they do not possess,—resignation as distinguished both from mere endurance and from stolid indifference. Alone, almost, among animals the donkey can really sigh.