NOTES OF THE MONTH.

Globe, Volume IV, Issue 365, 13 August 1875, Page 3

NOTES OF THE MONTH.

Lord Russell put a question to Lord Derby about the correspondence between Germany and Belgium, and in his speech remarked o Q the friendly tone of the German Government, declaring his assent to the principle that all States should provide better securities than they do “ for the punishment of offenders against the amity of nations at preace and he quoted the authority of the late Lord Westbury for the remark that there were two sets of offences which every Government may punish, first, offences against the Queen’s peace, and next-offences against the Queen’s amity. He recalled the incident of a prosecution directed at the beginning of this century against an Englishman who had incited to the assasination of the First Napoleon, a prosecution only stopped because war with France suddenly broke out; and he maintained that a Belgian artisan’s threat to assassinate Prince Bismarck, even though not followed by incitement to assassinate, or conspiracy, or any overt act ought to bo punishable. We have elsewhere observed on the difficulty of reconciling Lord Russell’s advice to Belgium, with his concurrence in the combination which overthrew Lord Palmerston on occasion of the Conspiracy Bill of 1858 ; probably, however, what Lord Russell really thinks, though half unconsciously, is this —that Roman Catholic Governments ought to be compelled to punish offences against their amity with Protestant Governments, while Protestant Governments ought not to be compelled to punish offences against their amity with Roman Catholic Governments. Lord Derby made a noncommittal reply, which did not involve the expression of any opinion of his own on the relative merits of the conflicting views.

The last reply of Belgium to Germany has been communicated by the Belgium Govern’ ment to the Chambers, and appears to be very dignified and moderate. The Minister reminds the German Chancellor how Belgium had already admitted that “if the Powers modified the common penal law in such a way as to make a simple intention or proposal (to commit a crime) not acceded to, an offence, the problem of penal law would have to be examined, and Belgium would probably have to follow the movement”— an inference, however, only drawn hypothetically from a supposition which seems to us never at all likely to be verified in relation to any proposal to strengthen the punishment of “ offences against amity” generally. The Belgian Minister blandly remarks that it is admitted by Germany that the need exists as much elsewhere as in Belgium, and that so soon as he hears of “ the steps adopted in Germany and elsewhere to bring about these changes, the Government of the King will devote itself to a study of them in their bearing on the customs and traditions of Belgium, as well as in their bearing on the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution, and will approach the examination of the subject with the most sincere desire to aid in the maintenance of good international relations.” That is prudent as well as courteous, but the promise of a weak man to reconsider carefully the duty of putting on handcuffs, so soon as a few of the strongest of his companions have voluntarily put them on, does not, perhaps, promise any very speedy action. Mr Bourke, however, was not very successful in making out an intelligible legal ground for refusing to acknowledge the belligerency of a force which has so long held its own as the Carlist force in the North of Spain. His only point was that English interests do not require the recognition of that belligerency. But, first, English interests might at any time require it, if we were to have to remonstrate with the Carlists on their treatment of English subjects; and Spanish (not Carlist) interests certainly might require it, under circumstances even more probable. And next, is it wise to make the matter one of mere English interests? If we were less arbitrary, less guided by mere interest, and more by the facts of the case, if wa were to adopt something like a general principle in these matters, would it be half as delicate amatter as it now is to communicate to any Government that we had, on the fulfilment of conditions previously laid down, acknowledged the belligerent rights of a regularly organised rebellion or revolution against it. In this case, the Spanish Government has itself admitted repeatedly that it is at war, by exchanging its prisoners with the prisoners taken by the Carlists, and a more completely objective test of the admitted existence of an organised and permanent military Government at the head of the rebellion, cannot be imagined than this ? If A acknowledges the belligerency of B, by treating with him as a responsible ruler, A can hardly find fault with C for acknowledging it too.

The comments of the Irish Press on the election of Mr Whitworth at Kilkenny prove that the election is a fact of considerable significance—particularly if it be true as the Freeman's Journal (the late Sir John Gray’s journal) alleges, that he had the support not only of the Roman Catholic Vicar-General, but of the “ Protestants and Freemasons” of Kilkenny. By the way, was not Sir John Gray a Protestant and a Freemason ? And if so, are we to regard it as another instance of increasing mutual toleration in Ireland that Cardinal Cullen had public prayers offered for him ? The character of Mr Whitworth makes his election a real test of a considerable change in the Irish mind. He is no unknown 11 political carpet-bagger, like some of the honourable gentlemen who carried Irish constituencies with a rush at the general election, for no other reason apparently than that they were utterly unknown, and so, if they had no friends, wore very handsomely compensated, considering what an angry region Irish politics are, by having no enemies Mr Whitworth is well known in Ireland, as in England, for a staunch Liberal of the Manchester school, who, though favorable to some measure of local government, positive y refused to join the Home-rule League, when his doing so would have ensured his election for Drogheda without opposition. We cannot help hoping that this election is the beginning of a serious attempt to improve the quality of the Irish representatives.

Lord Hartington’s proposal was to surrender altogether the right of the House to object to reports of debates, except when those debates had either been c xpressly secret, or when it was alleged that the reports were intentional mirepresentations ; and next, not to allow any single member, except the Speaker.—for considerations of Order,—-to have the right of excluding strangers without a vote of the Mi Mitchell Henry’s amendment to appoint a Select Committee with a view to considering

the utility of official reporting, was really irrelevant to the subject under discussion, as Mr Disraeli, who wittily characterised hie proposal as a “ Speech-Preservation Bill, ’’ clearly saw. But how Mr Disraeli managed to persuade himself that the safest thing to do was to d® nothing, with two or three indignant editors and newspaper proprietors opposite to him, we cannot conceive. Mr Lowe never made the folly of transcendental Conservatism more conspicuous than when he contrasted the wishes of the House with the customs of the House, and Mr Sullivan certainly used his sling and stone very happily when he struck down Mr Gathorne Hardy in the ardour of his first sentence by calling attention to the presence of strangers.

The debate on the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors (Ireland) Bill, which was “talked out,’’ for no conceivable reason, by Mr Wheelhouse, raised the question of Ireland being governed by Irish ideas in a way which gave Mr Gladstone the opportunity of explaining and practically justifying what he meant in using the phrase so oft« n and so absurdly distorted. In the course of a speech strongly supporting the Bill, he said: discredit, to neither of which I am entitled, for having, as was supposed, in this House, delivered myself of the sentiment that Ireland ought to be governed by Irish ideas. I never gave utterance to that sentiment without appending to it a vital qualification, which has been forgotten both by foes ana friends. I said that Ireland might be properly and justly governed by Irish ideas on those matters as to which Imperial interest did not call for uniform legislation. ’ Whatever Irish ideas on the subject of Sunday closing may really be, it is clear that they are expresssed by very uncertain sounds in the House of Commons. Of twelve Irish Members who spoke in the debate, five were vehement in their opposition to the Bill, and the five might fairly claim to be far more Irish of the Irish than the other seven. They were Mr Callan, the doubly elected of Dundalk and Louth ; Major O’Gorman—the Sir Boyle Roche and something more of our days -Mr O'Shaughnessy, and Mr O’Sullivan—Celts all over—and Mr Murphy, of Cork. We regret that the progresg of the Bill, which is, we believe, really desired by the majority of the Irish people, should be stopped—but Ireland may observe with advantage that its bitterest enemies are her own extreme politicians. The Liberation Society has had its annual meeting in the Metropolitan Tabernacle at Newington Butts, Mr Richard, M.P., in the chair. The financial report stated that the society has had an income of £12,800 in the last year, being £SOOO more than in any year since it was established. The society had not succeeded in raising the £IOO,OOO it had counted on as yet, but it “ sees its way to” £70,000, and is just going to set to work for the other £30,000. Tke chairman said that every great reform goes through three stages,—the pooh-pooh stage, the bow-wow stage, and the stage in which the worst opponents of the movement admit that the object in view is sure to be carried, but deny that those who fight the battle will carry it. According to Mr Richard, the Society for the Liberation of Religion from State Patronage and Control had passed through the two first stages, and is now in the third. Perhaps it is, but if it is, the worst opponents of the movement are a few rather chicken-hearted persons, who do not die hard at all. We doubt whether there was ever less real enthusiasm for disestablishment than there is now. Certainly the signs of deep enthusiasm are not to be found in the tone of Mr Richard’s own speech, or in that of the speeches of his colleagues. That the society is in earnest, we know very well, But the innocent kind of clap-trap which vanishes the moment people feel deeply is very conspicuous in the speeches of the leading agitators. Mr Gladstone, having been invited to attend the first Centenary of the Independence of the United States at Lexington, has sent a very impressive reply, in which he remarks that the Americans will now hardly blame very severely their British ancestors for attempting to retain their revolted colonies by main force, since after the war against the Seceded South, a very considerable sympathy with the imperial spirit which resists the separative force of conflicting interests, must prevail. Mr Gladstone adds that the American people did us a great service when they cut the tie between us and them, “ by relieving us from efforts the continuation of which would have been an unmixed evil.” We should have thought that would have depended on the character of the efforts. If the efforts made had been w ; se —like the (efforts we are now making to retain Canada—we doubt somewhat about the evil, and very much about its unmixedness. In an eloquent passage, Mr Gladstone reminds the American people that the occasion for joy on their anniversaries of Independence must depend on the use they make from century to century of that independence. The United States « w iU be tried as we shall be at the bar of history, but on a greater scale.” “ They cannot escape from the liabilities and burdens which their greatness imposes on them.” In short, the worth of the congratulations to be exchanged depends a good deal on what comes of their national life. But does a nation ever really judge itself in that way 7 Possibly Mr Lincoln, on the 4th of March, 1865 did for a moment thus attempt to weigh the nation in a truer balance than that which measures mere national power, hut it was a rare and exceptional effort. Nations have hardly any strictly moral selfconsciousness.

A Paris correspondent of a London paper reports a curious 'case that has been tried by the justice of the peace of St Pierre, in Martinique. The captains of three French ships were accused of not obeying the orders of the Governor. It appeared that it was the custom with all French vessels at anchor off the island to lower their yards in sign of mourning on Good Friday. The captains in quest on, who are evidently Hire pensenrs, seeing that the English and American ships did not follow the traditionary prescription, refused to lower their yards also, and con* tended that there was no law to force them. The people of St Pierre were indignant; they protested against the “ outrage to their religious sentiment,* 1 and forthwith went to the°Governor, who immediately despatched an armed force on board each vessel to lower the yards. The next day the captains were summoned before the justice of the peace, and each fined £5. They have appealed to the Minister of Marine against this sentence, and threaten that if he sides with the Governor of Martinique, they will petition the National Assembly on the subject.