Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
This article displays in one automatically-generated column. View the full page to see article in its original form.


“ Postmaster-General Raikes is consider'

iog offers to advertise on the Advertise- backs of postage stamps.” Bad merits, luck to Postmaster • General Raikes. Is no spot to be guarded from the unhallowed intrusion of the audacious empiric ? Is the execution of our most Bacred correspondence to be unexempt, from the shameless aggression of Warner’s Safe Cure and the Waterbury Watch ? Must we look upon this picture and on this—the counterfeit presentment of Her Majesty the Queen and of Mrs Langtry s signature endorsing Pears’ Soap ? Hyperion to a Satyr 1 It may be said that in New Zealand we need not copy this depraved project of the Home Government, but with a “ parsimonious ” Ministry in power how can we hope to escape ? Let us trust Sir Robert Stout will come to the rescue and agitate on behalf of the “ open spaces ” on our postage stamps. We shall next be hearing of a scheme to hand over one side of the coins of the realm to the tender mercies of Mr Epps, or to farm out the street pavements as happy hunting-grounds for Mothe r Soigel. The heavenly bodies are as yet inaccessible to the hand of man and Mammon. But tho day may come when we shall be able to fly, “ unlikely birds” though wo be ; and then it will be possible to crown the achievements of the advertising art, and carry out the idea of the tradesman in ‘ Punch,’ who thought the glory of the full moon would be considerably enhanced by the addition of his firm’s signature in large black letters! The disagreement between the Conservatives and dissentient Liberals of , Birmingham in relation to the Bruuimngem.gjjj D g U p Bright’s seat seems to have been of a somewhat serious nature. The Conservatives asserted that an understanding had existed between themselves and the Unionists that Lord Randolph Churchill was to have the reversion of the seat, from which he tried to oust Mr Bright in 1885, before Mr Gladstone brought forward his Home Rule Bill. Whether such an understanding had really existed or not the Liberal Unionists refused to accept the arrangement, and selected Mr J. A. Bright, the Tribune’s eldest son, as their candidate. So serious did the prospect appear that Mr Balfour was sent down from London to bring the disputants to their senses by reminding them that local differences were as nothing in comparison with the urgency of keeping the seat for coercion. The Irish Secretary was successful in his patriotic endeavors, and Mr Bright was generally, though not officially, supported by the Conservative party in Birmingham. He won the seat by a large majority, but respect for his father’s memory was so strong an influence on his side that the result can hardly be taken as a fair criterion of the political opinions of Central Birmingham. The two sections of the Coercionist party subsequently quarrelled as to which had contributed most to the victory. Mr Chamberlain says “I did it”; the Tories say “We did it.” If they fall out at the next election, let us hope Mr Balfour’s blandishments will be unavailing, and that the Gladstonians may come by their own.

It may be presumed that Lord Lytton’s absence from the British Embassy at Paris during the opening of the Exhibition has not been without Lord Salisbury’s approval or connivance. Disapproval had already been expressed of commemorating the Revolution of 1789, and it was surely quite unnecessary to carry the disapprobation to such a practical length. Lord Lytton’s absence ia a very marked slight, and the only won lor is that the touchy Parisians have not made more ado about it. It will be noticed that Mr Gladstone and Mr John Motley have protested against the proceeding in the House of Commons. Mr Motley’s intense admiration for the Revolution perhaps might be held to bias his judgment upon the matter; but the principles of 1789 would hardly win Mr Gladstone’s enthusiasm. The Exhibition, and not the event which it commemorates, is, after all, the Important consideration today ; and, moreover, Lord Lytton is the last man who can fittingly indulge in an over fine scrupulosity.

Where is ilia British Ambassador?

The Marquis of Lansdowne, from whose estates tenants are, according to cable, being evicted wholesale with the assistance of the police and the military, was a member of Mr Gladstone’s Administration formed in 18S0. Along with the Duke of Argyle, he resigned in 1881 owing to disagreement with the Ministerial Land Bill for Ireland, which was too liberal for the views of the noble landlord. Mr Gladstone appointed him to succeed the Marquis of Lome as GovernorGeneral of Canada, and last year Lord Salisbury sent him to take Lord Dufferin’s place at Calcutta. He reigns there now with a salary of L 20,000 per annum, while his wretched tenants are being hounded out of house and home in Ireland,

An Evicting Viceroy.

It must be by rather a roundabout process of ratiocination thattheLondon Tlie'Edio’ ‘Echo’—that somewhat dcon Mr Dailey, cayed organ of anti-jingoism—-arrives at tbe conclusion that to place a memorial of the late Mr Dailey in St. Paul’s Cathedral or Westminster Abbey would be to record the “ slaughtering of patriots.” Mr Dailey was the moving spirit in the organisation of the famous New South Wales contingent to the Soudan, and the ‘ Echo ’ considers that in fighting against the Soudanese England was engaged in unjustifiable “slaughter” of “patriots”; hence the protest. But even if we allow the question of the iniquity of the war to bo begged—a very moot question Mr Dailey’s claim to commemoration by Englishmen is rather enhanced than impaired by the admission. That claim lies in the fact of Mr Dailey having been the most effective representative of what may be vaguely termed the Federation sentiment, or the sympathetic tie which binds colonists to the Mother Country. Now, according to the ‘ Echo,’ that sentiment was sufficiently potent not only to draw material aid from an important colony in a time of war, but to blind the eyes of those giving that aid to the fact that they were assisting an unrighteous project. Mr Dailey was the representative of colonial sympathy with the Old Country, not of the Imperial policy which directed British affairs in Egypt.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

Bibliographic details

NOTES., Issue 7922, 1 June 1889

Word Count

NOTES. Issue 7922, 1 June 1889

  1. New formats

    Papers Past now contains more than just newspapers. Use these links to navigate to other kinds of materials.

  2. Hierarchy

    These links will always show you how deep you are in the collection. Click them to get a broader view of the items you're currently viewing.

  3. Search

    Enter names, places, or other keywords that you're curious about here. We'll look for them in the fulltext of millions of articles.

  4. Search

    Browsed to an interesting page? Click here to search within the item you're currently viewing, or start a new search.

  5. Search facets

    Use these buttons to limit your searches to particular dates, titles, and more.

  6. View selection

    Switch between images of the original document and text transcriptions and outlines you can cut and paste.

  7. Tools

    Print, save, zoom in and more.

  8. Explore

    If you'd rather just browse through documents, click here to find titles and issues from particular dates and geographic regions.

  9. Need more help?

    The "Help" link will show you different tips for each page on the site, so click here often as you explore the site.