NOTES OF THE MONTH.

Globe, Volume IV, Issue 332, 6 July 1875, Page 4

NOTES OF THE MONTH.

(From the Spectator.')

The House of Commons showed, on April 15th, that they fully appreciate the gravity of the popular agitation for the release of Arthur Orton and for the removal of the Judges who tried him. A petition to that effect, which had been signed by certain inhabitants of Prittlewell, in Essex, and presented (in ignorance of its contents) a week or two ago by Colonel Makins, M.P. for South Essex, was then discussed, —Mr Disraeli moving that the order for this petition lying on the table be rescinded, mainly on the ground that in the latter portion of the petition its language implied, —no doubt in a hypothetical form, but still in a very contumelious way, —that the Speaker of the House of Commons had used unconstitutional language about the admissibility of petitions, for which language, if so used, he deserved to be impeached. Mr Disraeli’s motion gave rise to a very spirited debate, in which Mr P. A. Taylor, Mr Hopwood, Sir Charles Dilke, and others insisted on the danger of refusing to receive a petition, however violent and wrong-headed, on a matter affecting the deepest interests of the people, merely on account of its use of improper language towards the Speaker of the House of Commons ; while Mr Herschell, Mr Staveley Hill, and Mr Whitbread apoke in favor of Mr Disraeli’s proposition, though earnestly repudiating the notion of rejecting the petition only because it brought grave and incredible charges against the Judges. Sir Wilfrid Lawson, complaining that he got no counsel from his own leader, moved the previous question, declaring his entire concurrence in Dean Milman’s belief in the “ immortality of humbug,” and intimating that Mr Disraeli had been unequal to the occasion, and that the libellers of the Judges ought to be openly prosecuted. Mr Sullivan, said Sir Wilfrid, had once been put in prison—as indeed all the Irish members bad—for mildly attacking a Manchester jury, but Dr Kenealy is sent to Parliament for doing the same thing by a London jury. This speech drew Lord Hartington, who generally supported Mr Disraeli, though, as we think, on the wrong ground. But the speeches of the debate were Mr Macdonald’s, Mr Bright’s, and Mr Fawcett’s—all of them devoted to the object of forcing Di Kenealy to make good his promise of bringing the Tichborne trial formally before the House. Mr Macdonald, point ing out that Dr Kenealy was in his place, openly challenged him to support before the House the assertions he was sowing broadcast in the country. Dt Kenealy on this made an evasive speech, in which he merely asserted that a multitude could not be under a delusion, and never was ; whereupon Mr Bright, while expressing warmly bin belief in the earnestness of tin Moke el etors. denounced will eloqin-n scorn the man who would bring sucti charges as Dr Kenealy had brought against the Judges, without taking the first opportunity

to make them good in the House of Commons. Dr Kenealy, in explanation, said that he had a right to choose his own time, and that he was waiting to be supported by an adequate number of petitions, an explanation which saw tb' nobody, and which led Mr Fawcett to re mark that if Dr Kenealy evaded his duty any longer, the people of this country would despise him tor not having “ the courage of his opinions,” after which, the debate, which evidently stirred the Commons to the very bottom, ended in a division, proving the House to be virtually though not technically unanimous, 11 members voting for the previous question, and 391 against it The order for the petition to lie on the table was accordingly discharged without any further discussion; This was not a cheerful exordium for a somewhat uninteresting Budget, Sir Stafford Northcote stated that while the estimate of revenue of the past year had been put at £74,425,000, it had actually proved to be £74,921,873, showing an increase of revenue beyond the estimate of £496,873; and that whereas he had estimated the expenditure at £73,958,000, it had actually reached £74,328,040, showing a final surplus of revenue above expenditure of £593,833, or £130,833 above the Budget estimate. Sir Stafford denied altogether that there had ever been any possibility of a serious deficiency, and while admitting special errors in the estimates, thought that on the whole he had hit the mark very fairly. For the coming year his estimate was as follows: —

showing an estimated surplus of £417,000, if no changes'are to be made. But though Sir Stafford Northcote proposes no changes in taxation except one in relation to brewers’ licenses, which involves a loss of £60,000 to the revenue, and consequently reduces the surplus to £357,000, he proposes several other new charges even on that small surplus £70,000 for interest on local advances, £185,000 for repayment of debt—and he leaves £IIB,OOO of Irish education grant to supplementary estimates. If these suggestions are followed, the surplus would become a minus quantity, unless the revenue exceeds the estimate, which, however, very likely it may. Sir Stafford Northcote’s most important proposal was as soon as might be, he hoped it might be the year after next, to set apart a fixed sum of £28,000,000 for the charges on the National debt and the reduction of the principal, the whole balance, after payment of interest, being devoted to the cancelling of the stock itself. He wished to give £27,400,000 (£185,000 more than is necessary for the interest) this year for that purpose; in 1876-7 he hopes to give £27,700,000 for the same purpose, and in 1877-8 to rise to £28,000,000, and there to keep it. By this means, within a generation, i e., thirty years,—die hopes to reduce the debt by more than £200,000,000, —an impression worth making. Sir Stafford also broached a scheme for consolidating and auditing the local debts of the country, which amount, he says, including the School Board loans, to £84,000,000, and which are rapidly increasing. He wants to substitute for them registered debentures bearing a stamp which attest that the borrowing power under which the local debts are raised has not been exceeded, and that the other statutory provisions have been complied with—a stamp which would, of course, increase the security and therefore greatly diminish the rate of interest on these debentures. The local rates in England and Wales will amount, he says, to nearly £19,000,000 for the current year, a sum which is diminished, however, by the additional subvention on grants in aid of nearly £1,000,000, which was agreed to last year. Sir Stafford hopes to have a local budget before the 25th March in every year, and an Imperial audit. All these suggestions are excellent, but as yet they are of the nature of promises and hopes. The atmosphere of Europe is a little lighter for the week ending April 17th. The gloom was a little increased on Saturday by a notification that the Crown Prince had abandoned his journey to Italy, which looked as if great events might be at hand, but the Crown Prince has started, though he will not, perhaps, visit Victor Emanuel, and the official organs of Germany have been instructed to tone down the excitement. The North-German Gazette, in particular, says the Post, has made a mistake, although France has certainly been arming with a rapidity which looked as if she were arming ad hoc, that is, for some special project. It is added, however, that the Belgian affair, which was closed, must, in consequence of the language of the Belgian press, not be allowed to end; and the Belgian Government has actually re opened the inquiry into the affaire Duchesne, —that is, the story that a Belgian workman had offered to assassinate Prince Bismarck for a sum of money. The French press anxiously assures Europe that the French army is in no condition to undertake anything, and the Cologne Gazette which, though sometimes inspired, is often independent, says that England has entirely refused to place any pressure upon Belgium. The general impression left by the whole affair is that the German Government, in revealing the despatches which had passed between Brussels and Berlin, and in hinting ■o the people that war might be at hand owing to French armaments, wished to create an excitement in Europe for some purpose not yet revealed.

The Government has been twice crossquestioned in the House of Commons as to qhe position of affairs in Belgium, and has given very indefinite replies. In answer to Mr Sandford, Mr Bouike explained that a confidential communication had been made to the Foreign office, apparently by Belgium, but declined to publish the note received;

while on Monday Mr Disraeli gave Mr Lewis a still more enigmatical answer. Mr Lewis called the German note a “ menacing” o ie, and the Premier deprecated epithets. The note of February 3rd was only a remonstrance,” indeed, a “friendly remon- ; ranee” was the phrase usna ,! y adopted. He appreciated the communication of that ,ote to Lord Derby by Germany as an evidence of “ the cordial and confidential relations which happily subsist between Germany and England. gHe considered that the question was at an end. It was not expedient to explain a policy in answer to a hypothetical statement, but he would say, “if the independence and neutrality of Belgium were really threatened, we should do our duty to pur Sovereign, and not be afraid to meet Parliament.” The House took this as one of Mr Disraeli’s solemn jokes, but it is not quite certain that they caught the Premier’s meaning. People who saw him say he was surprised at the laughter, and intended to imply that in the case supposed he might have to ask Parliament for the necessary resources, and should not be afraid to do it.

It is quite evident that the farmers will not get a Tenant-right Bill out of the Peers. The Duke of Richmond’s Bill came on for its second reading on April 15th, and the Whig Lords denounced interference with freedom of contract quite as heartily as the Tories. The Duke of Argyll acknowledged that the bargain suggested in the Bill was “ an equitable one,” but did not see why Parliament should suggest it, or why, if five or six farmers were willing to take land on less equitable terms, they should be prohibited from doing so. Parliament for years had given up the attempt to fix the remuneration of any class. Lord Granville, besides opposing the Bill, out of which he thought the majority of Peers would at once contract themselves, while no pauper landlord or greedy landlord would submit to it, blamed the Government for exciting hopes which their measure would not realise, and evidently believed that, except in a few extreme cases, there was no reason for any legislation at all. He doubted if tenant farmers were anxious for changes which “ would screw up the relations between landlords and tenants so very tight.” We should have thought they would rather relax them, but our present point is to notice that the Whig landlords have rejected the best opportunity ever offered them of teaching the farmers that Liberals are not necessarily hostile to their interests. The result will be that at the next election the farmers will take matters into their own hands, and we shall have a “ country party” of a new kind. The Bill passed its second reading, but it will be debated in committee clause by clause, and it is most improbable that it will ever come down to the House of Commons, where Sir W. Harcourt, we notice, has given it a warm anticipatory welcome.

The Lord Chancellor stated the course which the Government would take with regard to the Appellate Jurisdiction. They propose to bring in a Bill constituting at once an immediate Appellate Court to hear appeals from all Courts, and to consist of ten judges, five of whom will be paid, while the other five will be the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, the Chief Justice of Common Pleas, and the Chief Baron of the Exchequer. The appeal from this Court will lie, for all divisions of the kingdom, to the House of Lords, but only for one year, so that at the end of that time the whole question of the Court of Final Appeal may be reconsidered upon broad and general grounds. As the Lords are evidently determined not to give up their prerogative, the final effect of this arrangement will no doubt be to create a Court which shall do the work of a Supreme Court, but leave a most expensive appeal to the Law Lords, who, as a rule, will confirm the decisions of the Court below. As, moreover, the Peers sit only for half the year, there will be considerable additional delay, and both delay and expense will fall upon the unlucky suitor. The Peers, however, save their powers, and that must compensate the country for the slowness and costliness of litigation. It is stated that Mr Wade, the British representative at Pekin, has insisted on an inquiry into the recent murder of Mr Margary in Western China. The Chinese Government has yielded “ under pressure,” and two British officers are to accompany a Chinese official to Yunan, the province where the murder occurred. Of course every facility will be given to the officers, and every needful hint to the people, and it will be proved to a demonstration either that no such person as Mr Margary ever existed, or that he was killed by a tiger, or that he killed himself.

RECEIPTS. Customs £19,500,000 Excise 27,800,000 Stamps 10,600,000 Land tax and house duties... 2,450,000 Income tax 3,900,000 Post office 5,750,000 Telegraphs 1,200,000 Crown lauds 385,000 Miscellaneous 4,100,000 Total revenue £75,685,000 EXPENDITURE. Interest on debt £27,215,000 Consolidated debt charges... 1,590,000 Arm; 14,678,000 Army purchase 638,000 Navy 10,785,000 Civil service 12,656,000 Post office 3,036,000 Revenue collection 2,694,000 Telegraph 1,098,000 Packet service 878,000 Total expenditure £75,268,000