THE EFFECT OF MR CHAMBERLAIN'S SPEECH IN FRANCE.

Evening Star, Issue 11153, 31 January 1900, Page 3

THE EFFECT OF MR CHAMBERLAIN'S SPEECH IN FRANCE.

terms of the speech delivered on November SO at Leicester by Mr Chamberlain, in which he dealt with the French insultß to the Queen, and in which he warned the French Pteß3 that serious consequences, would follow if they did not " mend their manners," have already been published in these columns. The chief point of tho hon. gentleman's indictment was contained in the following words :—" We have \been accustomed for some time past to the abuse of the foreign Press, an abuse that has been carried to an extreme which I do not think has been witnessed for generations—abuse which in some cases has not only not spared the private character of statesmen, but has not spared the, to us, almost sacred person of the Queen.—(Cries of ' Shame,' and prolonged cheers.) These attacks upon Her Majesty, whether as ruler of this Imperial State, or still more as woman, have provoked in this country a natural indignation which will have serious consequences if our neighbors do not mend their manners."

The Paris correspondent of the ' St, James's Gazette'forwarded to that journal the following telegnima in which he has collected the opinions expressed by a number of the leading French newspapers : The ' Figaro' says :—We may overlook the firat impromptu at Leicester, but the second passed all bounds. ,'' . . It is inconceivable that in less than four weeks the English people, after applauding Lord Salisbury at the Guildhall, can acclaim with the same enthusiasm Mr Chamberlain's violent dktribea against ue. The 'Petite Republique' observes :—lt would be mad and criminal to associate the English people with the "game" whose insults would only posse 33 somo measure of dignity if they were the prelude of cannon shot.

The ' Autorito ' remarks :—We are confronted with a positive threat of war. Possibly it does not correspond to the British national sentiment, but then it is Mr Chamberlain who commands. We would assuredly have desired to preserve peace with Great Britain, but the Minister who leads her want 3 war, which is consfquently inevitable and close at hand. Under theße circumstances the most ordinary common sense constrains us not to allow our enemies to choose their own time.

The ' Echo do Paris' regards the new triple alliance to which Mr Chamberlain referred as "part of the phantom which hauutsthe overcharged imagination of the British Ca>3ar."

The ' Siecle' says :We indulged in a policy of pin-pricks, of ill-natured acts, and of words still more ill-natured. Some people were so clear-sighted as to demand an alliance with Germany against Great Britain. This is the result—an agreement between Great Britain, Germany, and the United States.

The ' Petit Journal' says :—The English do not stand on ceremony with people who believe themselves to be weak, and who seek tranquillity in resignation. In dealing with the English it is necessary to remain impassive. They ended by obliging President Krugcr to declare war because he had granted them concessions after concessions. Let us defend our rights, let ua laugh at their insults, and neither be intimidated nor molested, otherwise sooner or later we shall be the victims of their insolence.

The 'Journal' says:-—ln the frame of mind in which the English are a 9 regards ourselves we shall always be rendered responsible for everything which wounds the Eagliah nation in ita stupid pride or its interests. Mr Chamberlain's warning must therefore be taken seriously. The ' Radical' observes :—Mr Chamberlain's speech is a proof that the Emperor William and the British Government have agreed to lnugh at us. Moreover, we ourselves did everything possible to bring about such an understanding, for from the moment we felt it was impossible for us to come to an understanding with the Germans the mo3t rudimentaiy common sense should have shown ua that to treat the Eoglish aB " dirty toads" was not the best means of assuring their goodwill.

A writer in the 'Gauloia' says:—Mr Chamberlain wants war. That is a question for our Government to deal with. I have reason to believe that certain recent measures which were uob discussed because they were not understood respond to this necessity, which has been tardily recognised. But if wo are not resolved to have recourse to arms, let us abstain from everything which could play into the hands of those who are only seeking a pretext to attack us. Let us remember that we are a. great nation, and both in our language and our attitude preserve the dignity which becomes a great nation.

In the opinion of the 'Lanterne' Mr Chamberlain may secure Germany's complicity in the crushing of the South African Republics, but he will not succeed in concluding a durable alliance with her. "Do not, therefore, let us take the Colonial Secretary seriously," the journal adds. The' Petit Parisien' describes Mr Chamberlain's speech as an accumulation of dreams and hollow phrases, and says that he wished to throw dust in the eyes, of his audience, and to stupefy them so as to avoid being questioned on ihe defeats of the British Army in South Africa. The ' Rappel' observes : The views of the foreign Press and Lord Charles Beresford's speech refuting Mr Chamberlain's aggressivo attacks constitute our onlv vengeance, and if there is no reason for us to assume more polished " manners " it is because our manners are different from Mr Chamberlain's.

The 'Matin' says : The role of director of British foreign policy will perhaps devolve upon Mr Chamberlain one day, but as yet it is not his task to explain this policy to attentive Europe. Lord Silisbury, who has already on several occasions had to repair the blunders of his hotheaded colleague, is getting better, and we may thereforo expect soon to hear more moderate words than those of his Jingo Minister.

The President of the British Cliambsr of Commerce in Paris, in a letter to the 'Matin,' referß to the differences existing between England and France and to the attacks on tho person of the Queen, which have caused such strong feeling in England. After dwelling on the chivalrous instincts of the French and the respect which they show towards old age, he seeks to explain the attitude of a certain section of the Press towards Queen Victoria, who has hitherto been so much venerated in France, and concludes by statiog that the attacks in ques lion have greatly pained the Prince of Wales and the other members of the Royal family. The ' Matin ' publishes an article headed ' The English Crispi,' in which Great Britain is advised to rid herself of Mr Chamberlain. "Let a new Gladstone arise," the writer says, "and repeat the splendid words spoken in ISSI."

M. Urbain Gohier, writing in the ' Aurore' on the subject of the attacks on Great Britain and the Queen in a part of the French Press, says:,-" Against England, the home of the political, civil, intellectual, and economic liberty, all the forces of reaction are hurling themselves ; and against Eagland, too, are hurling themselves all our Pretorian conspirators, who require a war to restore a military dictatorship, and who dare not think of Germany. Transvaal gold is giving terrible aid." M. Gohier, in conclusion, says that he does not want war, but if France did have to go to war it would be to reconquer Alsace-Lorraine.

More Moving Literature.—" Do you know, Margaret," said a Columbus father to his eighteen-year-old daughter the other morning, - that, it was after twelve o'clock last night when that young- man left here?" " OIT it couldn't have been, papa." "But it was. Now, don't let that happen again." " But papa. I couldn't tell him to leave I did nothing to entertain Mr Staylate except to show him my scrap book." "'Well. I'll bring home my account book this evening, with the dry goods, millinery, and dressmaker expenses balanced up. If he calls again, show him that." '