Saturday, May 4, 1872.]

T H E T A B L E T

543

Ireland and the Colonies, where they were weak. Among many other exceptions which he took to the Bill, the strongest was that the decision of Crown Cases Reserved might be left to “ three men who had never heard a criminal trial,” and on this point Lord Penzance agreed with him that a change would be necessary, and recommended the Lord Chancellor to accede to Lord Cairns’s suggestion, which was that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, “ as a docu“ ment, not as a measure to which a second reading had “ been given.” Lord Westbury spoke in the same sense, saying that what was wanted was a Bill founded on the report of the Committee of 1856, which would determine the jurisdiction and constitution of the inferior courts, and insisting also on the necessity of doing away with the division of the appellate tribunal into two bodies. The Lord Chancellor then gave way, observing rather despondently that Select Committees had already sat in 1813, 1822, and 1836, and he had thought the matter was sufficiently ripe for legislation ; adding that if the House had gone into Committee, he could have justified every point that Lord Cairns had attacked.

Lord Clarence Paget, as a former Com-

among the sex more immediately concerned, which was confirmed by Mr. Osborne Morgan: and Sir C. Adderley urged against Sir John Coleridge’s argument from the comparative intellectual capacity of the sexes, that it might lead to an anti-Salic law that women should always reign, and to the conclusion that women were fitted for all political offices and might sit in the House. Mr. Scourfield, in seconding the amendment, had already addressed the Speaker as perhaps “ the last male occupant of “ the Chair;” and it is so obvious that, the principle once admitted, it wouldbe extremely difficult to avoid carrying it much further, that it is not surprising that people who, like Mr. Baillie Cochrane, would otherwise have voted for the measure, refuse their support to it for this reason. We prefer to take our stand on the old-fashioned ground selected by Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen, who called the bill an attempt to amend the laws of creation, which have worked with tolerable harmony since that epoch. In spite of Mr. Bright’s good-natured concession, confining the enfranchisement to unmarried women, the bill was thrown out by a majority of 79— 222 to 143.

The German official paper,s continue to re-

f r a n c e a n d pea( (he[r denials of there being any foundation

s t e am v. s a il s . mancjer 0 f Mediterranean Squadron, and an ex-Secretary to the Admiralty, no doubt thought twice before he wrote the letter to the Times which has brought down upon him such an emphatic contradiction. His allegations were, that the late accidents to ironclads were owing to a deficiency of steam-power, and that this want of Steampower was due to a “ fatal impression” among the officers that they would displease the Admiralty if they burnt too much coal. Mr. Goschen replied in the House on Tuesday, somewhat indignantly, that, as regards the facts, when the Captain was lost, the signal had been made to get up steam ■ and connect the screws ; that the Lord Clyde had four of her boilers banked up, and had been going at nearly full speed; that the accident to the Defence arose from a mistake in delivering a message, which led the captain to believe that the steam was up when it was not; and that the Agincourt, when she stranded, was going at six knots an hour— as fast as she could go. The Admiralty instructions, therefore, had nothing to do with these misfortunes, and, moreover, only forbade the use of steam where the particular service did not require it. Still ■ more stringent instructions, by which the use of steam was altogether forbidden on ordinary passages, were proposed by the Secretary to the Admiralty of the day, and that Secretary, who also signed the instruction above alluded to, was Lord Clarence Paget. Lord Clarence replies in another letter to the Times that he does not believe that the Captain was under steam, and that the other vessels were not ■ under sufficient steam, and that the instructions to which Mr. •Goschen refers were drawn up when there were but few iron•clads, and when their sailing qualities were overrated. The controversy will have produced some good, if it results in its being more clearly understood that the instructions of the Admiralty were never intended to discourage the use of steam except in positions where it is absolutely superfluous, and that safety is in all cases to be preferred to economy. The revised instructions which Mr. Goschen has promised to lay before the House, and which Lord Clarence Paget hopes will be accompanied by copies of letters to officers, criticizing their consumption of coal, will, it is to be hoped, make this perfectly clear, and at the same time remove to a great extent the restriction in the case of iron-clads.

On Wednesday, Mr. Jacob Bright took up

women’s dis- the whole sitting with his Women’s Disabilities

abilities, gm was a j-ree

and Attorney

'General for England spoke on one side and the Attorney■ General for Ireland on the other. The speech of the latter was the gem of the debate. He was opposed to the bill because he did not know what it meant, and because its proposer did not know what it meant. He had listened to the speech of his learned colleague with great pleasure, because it was so very easy to answer it. Addison and bis contemporaries were not great men of letters because ■ a female Sovereign was on the throne, and the Augustan ^ge was named, not after Augusta, but Augustus. In fact *f Queen Anne were to come back with the knowledge ■ she had acquired in the meantime, she too would be opposed to the bill, which, like the Highlandman’s gun, might be a good one if it had “ a new stock, lock, and barrel.” ^ hen he voted for the bill last year, he was told by a lady of his acquaintar.ee that he “ might have been much more

usefully employed,” a view of the sentiment prevailing

Ge r m a n y . fQr « (]l e alarming statements” of the Daily Telegraph. A statement, however, may have no foundation in fact, and yet be made on some authority. And supposing that to be the case in this instance, the only conclusion to be drawn is that it has done its work, whatever that is, and is now disavowed. Whether its real object was to check the French ardour for military reorganization, or to hasten the payment of the indemnity, or to smooth the way for the postal convention, it is useless to conjecture. What appears on the surface is, that the French Government is keeping back the Army Bill, and that Count von Arnim has returned to his post, and had a cordial interview with M. Thiers on Tuesday.

The debate last, week on the conduct of the

t h e p o l ic y Mayors of Angers and le Havre, answered the g am b e t t a PurP°se of M. Raoul Duval, who brought the

subject before the Assembly, for though no action was taken, the opinion of the Government was elicited, and an assurance obtained from M. Victor Lefranc that illegal manifestations against the Assembly would be not only discouraged but prevented. Mayors, and such like functionaries, will probably abstain for the future from taking part in any agitation of this kind, although the Mayor of le Havre and his assistants have since protested, in an interview with M. Lefranc, against that Minister’s theory respecting the duty of mayors to hold aloof from political assemblages. The most curious feature of the debate, however, was the absolute silence of the Left, evidently in obedience to a mot d'ordre. The explanation of this is sought in the new alliance between the Ministerialists and the Left, between M. Thiers and M. Gambetta. The Patrie asserts that the general terms of this pactare that the Government is to support theRadicalsoncertain local questions, such as nominations to administrative posts, and by intervention on its side in municipal conflicts, and the like ; and that M. Gambetta’s party is to back up the Government on certain economical questions, and, should it come on for decision, on that of the return to Paris. The Patrie goes on to state that, on his return from his recent tour, M. Gambetta was called on to perform his part of the bargain by supporting the Government in a proposal for partial renewal of the Assembly. That M. Gambetta refused, on the ground that he and his friends were pledged to immediate dissolution, and that in this juncture M. Thiers resolved on the following plan : to oppose the project of dissolution, Io carry the financial scheme of Government and the Army Bill through, to negotiate for the liberation of the territory by anticipated payments in specie and bills guaranteed by the principal European banking houses, and then to appeal to the Assembly to declare itself dissolved— its task being finished— and to convoke a Constituent. If there is any truth in this, it may well be that M. Gambetta, in imposing silence on his party, is, as the Pa ll M a ll Gazette thinks, giving a proof of political capacity. His object being to secure an appeal to the people with a view to the establishment of the Republic, he may calculate that by offering no overt opposition he may encourage M. Thiers to proceed in the direction he wishes, and that by abstaining from open adhesion he will avoid frightening the Me larchists out of the road which leads to a Republic. The plebiscite once called for, his party will raise its own war-cry.