NOTES OF THE MONTH.

Globe, Volume IV, Issue 386, 7 September 1875, Page 3

NOTES OF THE MONTH.

(From the Spectator.) The Goloss, a paper published in St Petersburg, argues, in an article which has attracted great attention, that the league of the Three Emperors is in danger. It was formed for the maintenance of peace, and is strained when one of the three wishes to go to war. Bussia desires peace, and her most natural ally is Britain, which, like herself from geographical position, is essentially pacific : —“ If the English are once satisfied that Russia does not think of invading India, the primary cause of past misunderstandings would be removed, and a perfect agreement might be effected on the principal points of Central-Asian politics. We have often contended that we are not the enemies of the English in Asia, and that we may be their friends, if they will only believe in the sincerity of our sentiments, and throw no difficulties in our way. If the English can once be made to understand that Russia’s extension to the northern declivity of the hills surrounding India will only strengthen England’s hold of India, and do away with all fear of invasion and insurrection, all would be well.” The Pall Mall Gazette says that in the original the words we have italicised signify “ to the summits of the hills,” a monstrous pretension, to which England could never yield. An alliance with Russia in Asia would be very convenient, but, we fear, for the reasons stated at length elsewhere, it would be impossible. It would be an agreement between the shore and the wave never to encroach upon each other. The shore would keep it, perforce —but the wave? The week has been full of rumors about something which was about to happen in Greece, The King was about to abdicate. A Russian fleet had been ordered to the Piraeus. A British fleet had been ordered to the Piraeus. A Turkish fleet had been ordered to the Piraeus, All these rumors are denied, and seem to be untrue, but the balance of evidence is in favor of the story that the King is wearied out, that he will try one more Minister, M. Tricoupi, and his Radical following, and that if he fails to form a working Government, he will abdicate. Great pressure will, however, be applied to him before he takes this irrevocable step, and it is possible, as we have tried to point out elsewhere, that means may be found to strengthen his bands. The root of mischief seems to be the determination of each fraction in the Greek Chamber either to obtain time, or to join the Opposition

against the Ministry in power. No administration, therefore, is safe for more than a few days. The ruler of Zanzibar—or “ Sultan,” as he is called here, although he is not even an independent Prince —has been dragged about London all the week, and is supposed to like the process. According to the reporters, he is most struck with the size of London, with the shipping, with the kindness of the people, with the “beaming faces” of the Prince of Wales’s children, and with the music. Ho seems to have a good deal of dignity, and much ot the Arab tact, receiving missionary deputations, for instance, with graciousnoss, as people useful for the conversion of heathen blacks. He quite patronised the Archbishop of Canterbury, suggesting, it is said, that his clergy would be welcome in Zanzibar, because there they might embrace the true faith, and he may possibly entertain the idea of sending a few Mohammedan missionaries to convert the English. If they were white and knew English, they might have as much success as the Mormons, and a guard of English Mussulmans would be a formidable addition to the strength of any Asiatic kingdom. The Minghetti Government in Italy has nearly been overthrown. It has demanded special powers to deal with the Mafia, the terrorist society of Sicily, which levies black mail from all classes, threatens the officials, and defies the police, but the Chamber was unwilling to accord them. It was argued, with some justice, that however bad the state of Sicily, the evil was due in part to the habitual neglect of the Southern Provinces, the non-opening of the roads, and the absence of effort to employ the neople. Fortunately, S, Tajani, a Sicilian member, was able to show that the influence of the Mafia corrupted the police, menaced the higher officials, and had even alarmed the Ministry intoconcessions, who however defended themselves by stating that they had hoped to break the Mafia from within. On a final division the Bill was carried by a majority of seventeen, and the Government saved, It is quite clear that Sicily is not governed, for in one of the richest islands in tbe world no traveller is safe, and no tribunal independent. The simplest civil order —such, for instance, as exists in Tipperary or the Gold Coast—would in five years double the incomes of the inhabitants, but it is unattainable.

A great debate has been going on in the French Assembly as to the future Universities of France, the Iladicals wishing to place at least the degree-giving power completely in the hands of the State, while the Bishop of Orleans and the Catholic party generally have fought hard for the Free Universities, and for their power to confer degrees without the interference of the State. At length what seems a very fair compromise has been arrived at. Nothing of course would be more absurd than to leave the degree-conferring power in the hands of uncontrolled voluntary bodies, if, at least, it were desired that the degree should retain any value as a test of study and attainments; and on the other hand, nothing would be more dangerous in its tendency to encourage the bureaucratic spirit, than to lodge all academical privileges in the hands of the Government. M. Paris’s amendment, which provides for a jury of examiners for degrees, selected partly by the State absolutely, and partly from the professors of the Free Universities, has been carried. M. Jules Perry’s amendment, which maintained the exclusive right ot the State, was rejected by 3G9 votes to 323 ; and M. Paris’s was carried by 379 to 335 votes. Tbe conclusion taken seems to us the moderate and wise one, though M. Jules Simon and many of the ablest Liberals were in favour of the exclusive privilege of the State.

A monster faceting to prepare for the debate in Parliament on the Permissive Bill was held in its favor in Exeter Hall on Monday night, when Cardinal Manning made an eloquent speech, which he himself described as strictly “political,” rather than either religious or moral, in defence of it. But his arguments as reported were not arguments in favor of giving each locality a choice whether it would have public-houses or not, but rather arguments in favor of breaking up the power of the Licensed Victuallers altogether and getting Parliamentary authority against them, —a very different thing. If public-houses are bad, surely they must be bad even in parishes where more than a third of the ratepayers wish for them; and if they are not intrinsically bad, why should two-thirds of the ratepayers in any parish have the power to deprive the remaining third of a shop which is a great convenience to them ? And how can people be kept “in slavery by drinking customs ” which no one but themselves constrains them to observe? Do you want a Permissive Bill to enable two-thirds of the ratepayers to remove the temptations to steal, before you can expect a man to emancipate himself from “ the slavery ” of our stealing customs ?

The debate on the Permissive Bill was as languid as most other debates in this languid session, when nobody appears to feel much interest in anything human, or at least political. Mr Julian Goldsmid remarked ratherhappily, that if it had not been “ for the honorable baronet’s personal popularity and gay gravity,” the House would have been sick of the Bill long ago—which would be true, only that the House is seldom quite “sick” of any question of which so many constituents in the country make a test question, though they may fear and deprecate it. Mr Carter, the member for Leeds, made a somewhat amusing attack on his colleague in that constituency, Mr Wheelhouse, who led the Opposition to the Bill, and who appears to owe his return very much to the Leeds incensed Victuallers, and is not at all ashamed of his obligations. Mr Carter .quoted a speech of Mr Wheelhouse, delivered last November at a dinner of the Leeds Licensed Victuallers, in which Mr Wheelhouse declared that “ he never felt so happy as when he took part in their proceedings, and never felt so much in his proper place as when he came among them.” Mr Carter himself had received invitations, but had declined them, not doubting, he said, that the dinners would be good, but doubting how far the company would be good; and the disorder in which this particular dinner attended by Mr Wheelhouse broke up, served to confirm him in his prejudice. Referring to this reflection on the licensed victuallers, Sir Wilfrid Lawson, who spokelate in the debate, said, with happy irony, in allusion to the present licensing law, that he, on the contrary considered the licensed victuallers “ the picked men of the country, who had been selected by the magistrates for their many excellent and moral qualities,” and that for his own part, though he was never asked, if invited he should go with pleasure to one of their banquets. He

insisted that the present law was a permissive law, as it gave the magistrates complete power, which is in tare cases used, to prohibit all public-houses in a parish, and his only object was to transfer the discretion thus exercised from the magistrates to the ratepayers. He maintained that the effect of giving the ratepayers power to abolish public houses would be to make those who kept them far more careful not to offend public opinion than they now are. At present theie were many representatives who, if they really represented the character of the places for which they were returned, might honestly say, like the American deputy upbraided with drunkenness, “ The fact is I am never too drunk to represent my constituents.” He gave an amusing account of his visit to Sandwich, where apparently he found Mr Knatchbull-Hugessen’s constituents not unwilling to duck him in the canal and very unwilling to hear his arguments—for, said one of the most drunken, pointing to a wealthy brewer who was present, “ what,” if Sir Wilfrid’s Bill was to pass, “is to become of this gentleman ? ” But Sir Wilfrid did not do’much towards convincing the House. He obtained eleven more votes than last year, but the party against him was greater than last year’s —greater by 70 votes. He was beaten by a majority of 285 (371 to 86).

The debate on the flogging clause in Mr Cross’s Bill for amending the law for offences against the person was remarkable for the weight of argument against that punishment. Mr Henley, who is not a sentimentalist, showed that within the last forty years violent crime had decreased with the mitigation of punishment, the number of cases being nearly the same, though the population had increased fifty per cent. Mr Lefevre argued very justly that the wife-beaters were the worst brutes among us, and they could not be flogged unless we were prepared to grant divorce, for the wives would not give evidence. Mr Taylor proved that garotting had been put down before the Flogging Act was passed, that flogged prisoners always reappeared in the prisons, and that while “ fioggable crimes” had steadily increased from 1863, non-floggable crimes had as steadily diminished. The International Prison Congress held last year in London, and composed of officials and experts, was more unanimous against flogging than upon any other subject. Nevertheless, the clause passed by 185 to 18, a curious testimony to to the reaction of opinion against lenity which is daily becoming marked. We confess we should like to see a few kicking murderers hung, as they ought to be, under the existing law, before we revert to a punishment which, if it does not deter—and that point is made doubtful by statisticsmust pro tanto brutalise the society which inflicts it.

One point comes out in the Blue-book on the Baroda trial which ought to attract Lord Salisbury’s serious attention. It is quite evident that the standing quarrel between Bombay and the Viceroy’s Government has extended to the affairs of the Native States. Sir Philip Wodehouse’s orders to the Resident of Baroda were quite different to Lord Northbrook’s, and when Colonel Phayre was superseded, the Governor actually suggested that he should be compensated for supersession. The possibility of this kind of quarrel ought to be terminated. It is bad enough when the subjectmatter is internal taxation, but when the difference extends to the political department, it may produce serious disasters. A Resident ought to listen to any representations from the Governor of the Presidency in which his State is an enclave, but surely he ought to be responsible only to the Viceroy. We might almost as well make Mr Layard, the Minister at Madrid, responsible to the Foreign Secretary and the Governor of Gibraltar.

Mr Seymour Haden has concluded his very prolix and pedantic communications to the Times, in favor of the very sensible reform which he proposes in our customs of burial, with a letter in which he maintains that the burial of the dead of London should no longer be left to voluntary management ; that the cemeteries are repeating over again all the mischiefs of the London churchyards, though on a larger scale ; that the Board of Works should have the regulation of the matter, and a cemetery be chosen to the East of London and North of the Thames,—in the neighborhood of Purfleet or thereabouts—where the soil is said to be particularly favorable for assimilating without danger to any one the materials of the body,—and that 1000 acres should be obtained there, which, with Woking Cemetery, where there are already 1000 acres of exceedingly suitable _ land, would allow for a great increase in the population, and, indeed, would admit of 200,000 persons being buried every year, without any grave being used a second time till the first body deposited in it was quite crumbled to dust —for which process he allows from seven to ten years. There is weight enough in these recommendations, but Mr Haden diminishes their force by the absurd parenthetical remarks he frequently interposes, as, for instance, that what men really have at heart in the public funerals of the great, is to do honor to the bones, as distinguished from the bodies of the dead—a most remarkable suggestion, as if it had ever occurred to anybody that the bones of the late Duke of Wellington, for instance, had any superior claim of reverence over his flesh and blood ; and, indeed, Mr Haden’s whole style of exposition is too like a fine imitation of that of the mournful profession he chiefly attacks. Still, his letters, when, as he would say, they have been reduced in the memory by the process of gradual decay to those “ bones ” of thought which “ we really wish to honor,” are useful, and we hope they may initiate the reform for which he contends.

The appeal against the monstrous damages given by a Scotch jury against our contemporary the Athenaeum, for the alleged “libel”of the firm of Keith Johnstone contained in its review of the last edition of his “ Atlas,” has been so far successful, that the damages have been reduced by consent of both parties, after hearing the opinion of the Scotch Judges, from £1275 to £IOO. The Lord Justice Clerk saw no justification for the high damages awarded, and Lord Neaves said that the sum awarded was “outrageous,” whereupon the pursuer’s counsel said he was in the hands of the Court as to the amount of damages which ought to have been awarded, and the Court assessed them at £IOO, and allowed the defender half his expenses in connection with the motion for a new trial. This is satisfactory, so far as it goes. We thought the attempt of the critic to go behind the “ Atlas ” itself to the individual responsibility of a member of the firm which had published it, a mistake, but looking to the evidence adduced of the conscientious

data on which that opinion was founded, and of the substantial correctness, or, to say the very least, the approximate correctness of that opinion, we think that a nominal penalty sufficient to carry costs, would have fully met the justice of the case. As the Times says, English papers will still continue to be very chary of their criticisms of Scotch books, while Scotch juries give such awards, even though Scotch Judges subsequently overrule and reduce them. Sir John Lubbock has obtained from the Government a half promise to see whether they cannot so far modify the scheme which he carried against the Government for the preservation of ancient monuments as to meet his views without incurring the terrible evils predicted by them as likely to arise from his Bill, Sir Stafford Northcote’s promise on the subject was, however, so exceedingly guarded, and held out so very little hope, that we do not look for much result from it. However, it would of course have been impossible to carry the Bill through the House of Lords without the concurrence of the Government, so that Sir John has probably made a virtue of necessity in the prudent course he has taken. Dr Kenealy has dropped the Tichborne case for the present, at least in the House of Commons, and devoted his energies to a Bill for establishing Triennial Parliaments. He was counted out in moving for leave to bring in this Bill on Tuesday, but he succeeded in carrying his motion to a division on Thursday night, though his speech, delivered between two and three in the morning, was too late to be reported. Leave to bring in the Bill was refused by a majority of 57 (68 to 11). We agree with several members who supported the motion, solely on the ground that it is very unusual to refuse a Bill a first reading, that it is a great mistake to give Dr Kenealy the least shadow of excuse for regarding himself as a martyr. As for the object of the Bill, our members are a great deal too much of mere delegates already, and spend a great deal too much on elections already ; nor does any rational man wants to increase either evil,