NOTES OF THE MONTH.

Globe, Volume V, Issue 548, 21 March 1876, Page 3

NOTES OF THE MONTH.

(Spectator , Jan . 15.) Political circles in Paris have been agitated by a Ministerial crisis. According to the accounts which seem to us least confused, M. Buffet took umbrage, or more probably, pretended to take umbrage, at M. L6on Say’s appearance as a candidate for the Senate on a list which contained the names of MM. Feray and Boucher. Both these gentlemen have promised to support the Marshal, both are rich and respected, but both are Republicans, and M. Buffet has therefore, as Premier of a Republic, proscribed them. He made his complaint on Saturday to the President, and Marshal MacMahon asked M. Leon Say to resign, which was done. M. Buffet had already designated a new Minister, when he found that MM. Dufaure and Wallon insisted on followM. Say ; that the Prefect of Police, M. Leon Renault, would not stop jin his post ; and that even the Due Decazes would retire if the Cabinet were so seriously |changed. Moreover, the Due d’Audriffet-Pasquier, president of the permanent committee, intimated that he might be induced to convoke the Assembly. M. Buffet was alarmed, and retreated, but proposed, to cover his defeat, that all the Ministers should sign an electoral manifesto. This was agreed to, but no joint manifesto could oe drawn, and it was at last agreed that the President himself should issue one, which accordingly appeared on Thursday morning, M. Leon Say continues his candidature, in conjunction with MM. Feray and Boucher, and the Cabinet once more resembles the Happy Family of street corners. The Marshal’s proclamation is a remarkable document, penetrated throughout with the Napoleonic twang. It is addressed to “ Frenchmen,” and tells them that they are summoned, for the first time in five years, to take part in a general election. "To-day, you still want order and peace.” It would be imprudent to revise our institutions, before they have been loyally worked, but to “ work them as the safety of France demands, the Conservative and truly Liberal policy which I. have constantly aimed at making prevail is indispensable.” “ I appeal ” to the men who place order above party. “ I invite them all to rally round my Government,” It is “ necessary not only to disarm those who might disturb the security |of legitimate interests] in the present, but to discourage those who menace it in the future by anti-social doctrines and revolutionary programmes.” France “knows that I neither sought nor desired the power with which I am invested, but she may rely on my exercising it without weakness , and in order that I may fulfil to the end the mission which is confided to me.” The Marshal concludes by “ hoping that God will help him, and that the co-operation of the nation will not be lacking to him,” —but obviously, even if those aids are withdrawn, intends to go on. The clear meaning of the whole document is that if the electors will support him he will be content, and if not, he will resort to force, and this threat pleases M. Buffet. The Premier forgets, as Marshal MacMahon once said, that to play the role of a Bonaparte one should be a Napoleon, The English Government has not yet accepted Count Andrassy’s note to the Turkish Government on the reforms to be made in Bosnia and the Herzegovina, and it is reported that the note must first be discussed at a Cabinet Council, which will not meet till the 18th January. The note itself is unimportant, as it only asks Turkey to be decently humane and just, and the Turkish statesmen will promise that with the easiest goodwill, but an idea has grown up that if Turkey breaks the promise it is to be enforced from without. Lord Derby naturally, therefore, hesitates to sign a note which may, in a nearly certain contingency, bind us to coerce Turkey in provinces inaccessible to British fleets. His hesitation, un er the new reading of the note, is justified, but his decision will probably do Turkey no good, whichever way it goes. If he signs, the Pashas will give the promise, and in breaking it, give their enemies a new loon* standi ; and if he does not sign, the Pashas will think that England still supports them, and will be emboldened to return a very curt refusal to the Austrian note. In either case, the neighbors of Turkey will have new cause for aggravation, and for applying the kind of pressure which exhausts her few remaining resources. The American Democrats arc showing their old tendency to be governed entirely by Southerners. The first step, now that they are in possession of the House of Representatives, has been to propose an Amnesty Bill for all Southerners—including Mr-Jefferson Davis—and hey will, it was believed on Thursday, carry it through, though possibly with the proviso of an oath of allegiance to the 'Union. The result has been to revive" some of the old war-feeling in the North, and especially to exasperate the bitterness about the treatment of prisoners. According to a telegram of the 13th instant, one speech by a Mr Hill defending the cruelties at Andersonville, accounts of which, with photographs of the victims, were circulated throughout the States, was ordered to be suppressed in the official rceord. There is no objection to a general amnesty, that we know of, except this, that the Democratic party is certain to accept the amnestied office-bearers of the Confederate States as its avowed leaders, and that as they are unchanged in opinion, they may prove dangerous to the Republic. Two remarkable incidents of the Prince of Wales’s progress through India are recorded this week. One was the laying of the foundation stone of the memorial which Lord Northbrook is erecting in Lucknow, at his own expense, to the native soldiers who fell in the defence of Lucknow. These men, as we have observed elsewhere, ought to have been honored sixteen years ago, and it is greatly to the credit of Lord Northbrook that he has perceived the indecency of the failure to do it. From a hint in Sir George Couper’s speech on the occasion, we gather that the Government had been asked to make the memorial national, and had declined. The other incident was the reception of the descendants of Mirza Jehander Shah, heir apparent to Shah Alum, the last of the race of Timour. They passed before the Prince of Wales, saluting him reverently, but in silence. That ceremony might, we think, have well been spared. If those Princes, of whom no one ever heard before, are not of the line of Timour, they should have been disregarded ; and if they are, it ihardly dignified to make them the English Sovereign. Napoleon no t have directed the Compte tfo ’Ohambord to attend his levee,

Sir W. Harcourt made his third speech to his constituents at Oxford on January 10th, He appears to have had for his first object to increase Liberal confidence in Lord Hartingtou. He bade his party beware of the dealers in programmes, “ programme” being neit her an English word nor an English idea. English leaders have not been of the class which keeps cut and-dried constitutions in a portfolio. The Romans, when in extremities from the attacks of the Carthaginian Hannibal, “ did not ask for programmes, but placed their affairs in the hands of a man sprung from a race inveterate for its fidelity to the public cause, courageous in his prudence, wise in his moderation, tenacious in his purposes, and Fabius saved Rome.” He was opposed to a consummate tactician, he was flouted and thwarted in his policy, and behind his back Varro, a popular General, was urged on to the crowning disaster of Cannae. Sir William advised them, therefore, not to follow the Yarro of to-day, but follow Fabius, and leave him to decide on the moment of attack. That is ingeniously told, though we never heard that the Fabii rose by sequestrating Augurs’ property, but who is Varro? Hannibal Disraeli we know, and Hartington Cunctator, but who is Varro? Is it Mr Plimsoll? He certainly made a dash on the Carthaginians, but then he has not arrived at his Cannas yet, and probably will never get there. At all event*, he is the only Liberal we know of just now with pluck enough left for a Parliamentary charge. The remainder of Sir W, Harcoart's speech was in the same spirit, though he only once again referred to Lord Hartington. To suppose that such a man, he *aid, would invent a policy merely to secure office, was “ to insult the understanding as well as to shock the conscience,” a sentence which was cheered as if it had been uttered by the hero in a melodrama. He deprecated the eagerness for a cry ; ho pointed to the Burials Bill and University Reform as “ great practical questions”—which, no doubt, they are in Oxford—and he emitted a shower of epigrams against desperate counsellors who would have the Liberal party seek a refuge from its misfortunes in political suicide. There was not much in the speech, though we have criticised it at length elsewhere ; but Sir William did make one noteworthy remark. If Liberal differences are too great for combined action, how is it that Liberal members get elected ? The differences exist in the constituencies as well as in Parliament. That is true, and well said, but then does the party in the country wish for a Liberal Ministry, as the party in a borough wishes for its member ? The dispute between Austria and Hungary threatens to become serious. Nominally, it is about the right of the Hungarians to establish a National Bank at Buda-Pesth whose notes shall be legal tender on this side of the Leitha. The Hungarians consider that this concession ought to be made to them, because of their contributions to Imperial funds aud liability for part of the general debt, while the Austrians objectthat the scheme would lead to universal bankruptcy. The Bank is, however, only the pivot round which the dispute turns, the Austrians being profoundly irritated by a recent Hungarian assumption that Hungary may, if the Empire goes to war with Turkey, refuse both supplies and troops. The Progressist Liberals in the Viennese Lower House have informed Prince Auersperg, according to a telegram in the Standard, that they will make no more concessions to Hungary, and would prefer to see the two kingdoms separated, and the Radicals are expected to make the same declaration. Note in connection with this matter, that the bankers of Europe have refused to furnish a small loan needed in Vienna because Hungary will not help to guarantee it, and the Government intends to appeal to the general public to subscribe. Mr Plimsoll addressed his constituents at Derby on January 10th, in a speech which, knowing his own tendency to be carried away by enthusiasm, he had reduced to writing. It scarcely admits, therefore, of condensation, but one main point was the condemnation of deck-loading. Upto‘lß6?, deck-loading was prohibited, but in 1862, Mr Milner Gibson, amidst an inattentive House, stated in a few words that he would abolish the prohibition, as totally nugatory and unfair to the British shipowner. Since this proceeding, which Mr Plimsoll compared to the re-imposition of the Corn Laws by a clause in an Act referring to the abolishing laws only by a number, the practice had revived. Accordingly, it appears, on a careful report of a sub-committee of Lloyd’s, that between 1850 and 1859, 3744 ships sailed from Quebec with timber, and between 186? and 1872, 3068 ships. Every case of logs wa« examined, and the sub-committee report that in the deck-loading period the proportion of loss was “ nearly four tinjes as great as in the ten years during which no deck loads were allowed.” Allowing for some other circumstances, such as the immense increase of traffic in the North Atlantic, the committee think the total increase of loss is fivefold. These facts, which are official, and not collected by Mr Plimsoll or his friends, are sufficient to justify the revival of the old law, even if Mr Plimsoll is wrong in believing that the practice is carried on in many cases with the intention of fraud. The Bishop of Winchester has written a very strong letter in favor of comprehension as the true policy of the Church of England, as opposed to mere alliance with the Protestant sects ; and the letter, which is addressed to Mr Horsey, of Southampton, who had condemned the Bishop for want of charity to Dissenters, has been published. Dr Browne avers that the Church of England is the ancient national Church, Romanism and Dissent being alike schism; that he had merely stated that truth, and ought not to be considered uncharitable for merely stating a fact; that “ the Church offers Dissenters every freedom to hold any opinions they like not fundamentally opposed to the Christian faith and that “ true unity cannot be secured by merely thinking alike, but by willingness also to join in one body ami act alike.” Apart from the historic question, Dr Browne, no doubt, states accurately the ideal position of the Church 0 f England, as we have often stated S ’ Q our . selves, but does he state its actua 1 portion J Must he not widen its doom*- ; n £ iderabl before he can fairly say tK ftt t £ e Charch / f England agrees jn* Dissenters on such fundamental que? IOUB a 8 j be v i r t ue 0 f ordination, the Ba r^ er d o tal element in the administration 0 f the Lord’s Supper, and the position of the laity in the 1 .lurch ? It may have a capacity of agreeing, so far as to be able to admit men holding Dissenting opinions to its Orders as well as others, but it has not formulised its agreement yet—seems, indeed, to shrink more and more from formulising it.