OUR LONDON LETTER.

Otago Witness, Issue 2106, 5 July 1894, Page 50

OUR LONDON LETTER.

(From Oun Special Correspondent.) Lonbon, May 2. THE BUDQfiT.

Apparently the chorus of general approval which greeted Sir William Harcourt's Budget is already a thing of the past. It has been a curious experience. At first nothing was to be heard but cordial praise for the skilful manner in which a difficult position had been faced. I do not think that praise was misapplied. A deficiency of £4,500,000 had to bo dealt with. Could it have been less burdensomely provided tor than by increased duties on such luxuries as alcoholic liquor, by enlarged succession duties, by tho diversion of the siuking fund, and by au extra penny in the income tax on those who can best afford to pay it P Hardly, I fancy. But, as the old eaying goes, "any Btick will do to beat a dog with " ; and, similarly, any Budget can be utilised for political capital.

It has been discovered that a good deal of unpopularity can be worked up over the beer and ppirit duties. Naturally the trades interested in beer and spirits resent being singled out for taxation. Th«y protest warmly against tbis inequality, and urge that in this case the burden must fall wholly on the producers, as the addition cannot be added to the retail selling price and so placed on the consumer. Hence the brewers aud distillers will have, they say, to bear the entire burdeu, which one famous firm estimates iv its own case at; £30,000 a year.

Similarly the classes ' of income tax payers who will be hit by tho extra permy — those having £4-00 a year or more — aro bitterly hostile to it, while the graduated " death " duMes have elicited a doleful wail of deprecation from the lauded interest. One peer says plainly that he could not have occupied his propeity had such rates been in force at his accession ; they would have simply ruined him. The lancfed interest has been bard hit of late by the low prices and falling rents. It ib ill able to bear any extra strain. Yet now it is singled out for this heavy additional impost, besides the fresh rates which the new parish councils will have power to levy. Land's capacity of pecuniary yield is by no means inexhaustible, aud there is such a thing as " killing the goose that lays the golden eggs."

In one way and another a formidable array of malcontents seems to be gathering, and although I do not anticipate Ministerial disaster in the House of Commons or the rejection of the Budget Bill by the House of Lords, who of course cannot amend it, I can see that capital is being piled up for the general election, which some still expect to take place at an early date. To me it appears that the probabilities of an early election have materially diminished during the last week or two. Ministers are in no hurry to go to the country. They won't go unless forced. Latterly their majorities have been well maintained, and if this continues they may defer the evil day much longer than recently seemed possible. DISESTABLISHMENT. But the Budget is not the only stile over which Ministers have to climb. They have introduced their other two chief measures — the bill for disestablishing the Welsh Church aud the Registration Bill. Each of these bills bristles with controversial matter, and is already affording an extensive battle ground. Naturally the majority of English Churchmen are strongly opposed to the Welsh disestablishment scheme, which they regard as the prelude to a similar attack on the Church of England. To this it is answered that the circumstances are totally different, as the English Church is that of the nation, whereas the Welsh is an alien church forced upon an unwilling people and quite incapable of supplying the religious wants of the country. On these points issue is joined by the Welsh bishops, who certainly bring some very cogent proofs that the case against them has been inaccurately and unfairly stated.

One thing certainly is remarkable. The church has always claimed the test of a religious census, but those who assert tbat the church is in a hopeless minority have as persistently declined that test. This seems significant. One is chary of accepting the figures of either side unchecked, and they are in utter disagreement. On the disestablishment side it is urged that the Welsh are a nation of Nonconformists. On the church side it is retorted that the figures adduced do not represent 47 per cent, of the population, and that at the last general election, out of 150,000 voters 65,000 were on the church side, so that the adverse majority, although large, was not overwhelming. One Welsh bishop puts it at three to two, but I do not know what system of arithmetic he could have learned.

It is contended that the church has made such progress latterly in Wales that its opponents have become alarmed and are hurrying on this measure lest its chances should be rendered hopeless by the continued advance of church influence. All these exjiarte allegations must necessarily be taken with some grains of salt.

The extreme Disestablishmentists complain that the bill does not go far enough, because it leaves the church in possession of the church buildings and practically of the cathedrals also — these, although nationalised, being permanently available to the church on application beiug made to the commissioner — and the clergy being secured their stipends for their lifetime. But the bulk of the party are opposed to gross injustice and wrong and wholesale confiscation. Strenuous resistance is also being offered to THE REOISTBATION BILL

on the ground that it does not redress inequitablenesses in the allocation of representation. It is an unfair measure planned simply to suit party purposes. The Opposition contend that it is a purely " gerrymandering " scheme.

That the Government have drafted the bill with a view to the benefit of their party in the next general election there is no doubt whatever. They would have been more than human had they not done bo. Any Ministry would. But in this case party interests do seem to have been cherished a little more than usual. The new bill differs in several important respects from last year's measure. It excludes the lodgers' franchise which was in last year's bill, but it brings in one-man-one-vote and elections all on one day, which did not appear in the bill of 1893, the reason being that the Ministerial election agents had represented that the effect of the earlier bill would be injurious to the Government interests. The additional expense involved in the new bill is another ground of objection taken.

But, putting aside details, the assault on the bill is very much on the same basis as that of 1884— viz., that a change in the franchise ought to be accompanied by a revision of electoral inequalities ; in short, of redistribution. Sir Edward Clarke on Tuesday moved the rejec-

tion of the bill on that specific ground— viz., " the absence of proposals for the redress of the large inequalities existing in the distribution of electoral power." He contended that the bill, if it became law, would throw an immense additional burden of expense alike on the constituencies and on the candidates, and would practically erect an impassable barrier against working men candidates.

However, the bill will in all likelihood get through its second reading and may even survive the committal stage. If so it will probably share the fate of the 1884 bill, which was thro.vn out by the Lords in consequence of its being unaccompanied by any scheme of electoral redistribution. The Lords may now, as then, demand proof that the proposals are in accord with the public sentiment, which will be resented as an attempt to dictate that an appeal to the country shall be made. SIR C. RUSSELL. The Attorney-general, Sir Charles Russell, has been appointed a Lord of Appeal in succession to Lord Bowen, deceased. He becomes Lord Russell of Killowen. Some confusion will ensue through his being "mixed up" in people's minds with Earl Russell It is a pity he did nut choose .some more distinctive title. Nebody will dream of using such a mouthful as the full name, and as there id another "Lord Russell " already in the person of the Earl ifc will not always be easy to distinguish " t'other from which." By his elevation the British bar loses the most brilliant and successful advocate of modern times. Sir Charles Russell has long had no rival either as a forensic orator or as a crossexaminer. His fine countenance, intellectual and expresßive in a singular degree, greatly enhanced tho effect of his eloquence, and his highly-strung nervous temperament which at times quite overwhelmed him with emotional excitement— carrying him even to the length of unrestrainable tears— tended' to accentuate the influence of his burning words. His speech in the Parnell Commission trial was a marvel of logical analysis as it was of vivid and impressive rhetoric. Ho seems generally held to bo a sound lawyer, too, and is expected to mako a good judge of appeal. .By his elevation, too, the borough of Hackney loses its member, and a vacancy is created which both sides are straining every nerve to fill. The content will be one of the hardest ever fought in a London district so far as work goes, but I am not at all sure tbat the result will bo even a close one. Tho Ministerial side has a very strong candidate in Mr Fletcher Moulton. I do not regard Mr Robertson as a proportionately strong Opposition candidate. But there are many disturbing elements which may upset all calculations, and the outcome may be a complete surprise. Whichever way this election goes it cannot be held at all indicative of public feeling generally. It is simply Hackney's verdict. COURT GOSSIP. The Queen returned to Windsor from the Continent last Sunday evening. Tbis Sunday arrival is a most unwonted occurrence, iE not absolutely unprecedented. But the weather was so rough at her Majesty's embarkation port (Flushing) on Saturday that a start was not to be thought of, so as an important Council had been summoned for Monday there was nothing for it but Sunday travel. Her Majesty will leave for Scotland on the 22nd, going by way of, Manchester in order to "open" — or rather to consecrate (if I m«y use the expression) — the chip canal. The Queen has not; visited the cotton metropolis bince 1856 — 38 years ago — when she was accompanied by the Prince Consort, her four eldest children, and Prince Frederick William of Prussia — who subsequently became the Emperor Frederick of Germany. Of these six royalties only three now survive — the Queen, the Empress Frederick, and the Prince of Wales.. The intended review of the troops at Aldershot by her Majesty has been deferred until after her visit to Balmoral. There will be a third Drawing Room this season after the two already fixed, so as to -provide for sonic of the hundreds of disappointed aspirants to Royal presentation who are left . lamenting their exclusion from" this week's function. Only 200 can be presented under the new regulation, and many hundreds more applied, so that the proportion of refusals to acceptances is more than .two to one, and great indignation prevails. To soften their rancour it has been arranged that the Princess of Wales shall hold an extra Drawing 'Room on tho Queen's behalf. But even this will leive many out in the cold. Those New Zealand ladies who secured their presentations at the earlier Drawing Rooms of the spring were decidedly lucky, and no doubt are pluming themselves on their good fortune. It is not the mere form that some may suppose to be presented at Court. This carries with it a cachet, which is found exceedingly useful in travelling on the Continent, conveying the etitrie to several privileged and delightful circles, as well as a title to presentation at any foreign Court. So those who relied on the coming Drawing Rooms to provide them with this valuable introduction for projected tours may well feel a good deal of vexation.

The Kiug and Queen of Sweden and Norway aro to visit Queen Victoria in England during the coming summer, but the Sultan, it appears, h not comisg, as it was hoped he would. I say "hoped," for his visit would have meant a good deal to London Society and London trade. When one of those friendly Oriental potentates visits England, the word is passed round that Society is to do its part in his entertainment, if only by attending every possible " function " in all possible splendour. And Society gladly responds. Also the tradespeople gladly hail the stimulated demand for the things that go to make up this splendour. So naturally most people are sorry that the anticipated occasion for this exceptional festivity will not arise dnring the present season, when the longcontinued dulness of trade would cause any stimulus to be joyously welcomed in whatever shape it might come.

When last the Sultan of Turkey visited England— it was in 1867, 27 years ago— the London fetes given in his honour were splendid in the extreme ; indeed, have never been surpassed anywhere, and I say this on the authority of some who have witnessed most of the greatest European functions. Our visitor at that time was the uncle of the present reigning Turkish sovereign.

However, a fairly gay season seems probable. London, at anyrate, will be exceptionally full, with even more than the ordinary influx of the American element. The Yankee heiress will again be well to the front, and will most likely carry off some of the season's matrimonial prizes as usual.

I may mention, by the way, that the reason why the number of presentations at the Royal Drawing; Room has been so strictly limited of late is that a number of "pushing and greedy dames " have lately taken advantage of having been themselves presented to claim the right of simultaneously presenting all their own friends. This has become a positive nuisance, and so a line has had to be drawn. A limit is fixed as to total number, and the names sub-, mitted for approval aro subjected to a rigid scrutiny with the objeot of securing the " survival of tbefitteßt."

THE PIIEMIEB. Lord Rosebery has more than once made an earnest, almost piteous, appeal to Mr Chamberlain and the other Dissentient Liberals to 11 come over and help us." He does not exactly sing " Come back to Erin," but he refuses to believe that it is Home Rule alone that renders the separation permanent. He maintains that Home Rule was not the true disruptive force which rent the Liberal party in twain, but that the Reform Act of 1884- raised various new political and social issues which led to an indefinite unsettlement of opinion and culminated in the retirement of Lord Hartington, Mr Chamberlain, and the rest of the Liberal Unionists from Mr Gladstone^ following. With this view very few people agree even on Lord Rosebery's own side. It is pointed out that Mr Gladstont's sudden conversion to Home Rule came as a "supreme surprise" upon his party. He had denounced it as bitterly as ever up to a short time previously, and he did not disclose his adoption of it as his own policy until he had to form a Ministry. When he did reveal it those of his party who now form the Liberal-Unionist section of the Opposition left him at once, including Sir Henry James, who was actually Lord Chancellor-designate, but who relinquished even that splendid position rather than swallow Home Rule.

Lord Rosebery has been making another speech in which he proclaimed the chief mission of his party to be summed up in the word " devolution." (Now, pray, for goodness sake do not print that word as beginning with an "r," whatever yon may think of its real meaning, for then Lord Rosebery will say he has been cruelly misrepresented.) What he proposes is the devolution upon other public bodies of the duties vhich Parliament is unable to perform satisfactorily.

This seems plausible enongh, but when analysed it will be found to involve much the same sort of thing that people mean when they frankly spell devolution with an initial "r" instead of "d." For instance, Ireland and Scotland are to have local parliaments, because the Imperial Parliament cannot attend properly to their bußinesß ; Wales, I presume, will follow when her church has been disestablished, and then logically a revival of the Saxon Heptarchy in England should come next.

It is odd how Lord Rosebery, since his accession to the Premiership, seems to have lost his former consummate tact and to have acquired instead an undesirable tendency to verbal indiscretion. His utterances are constantly having to be explained away by friendly journals — not always with supreme success. Even last night the devoted Westminster Gazette was constrained to express a hope that his latest speech "did not contain his last word on the relations of labour and Liberalism." It goes on to say that, "Whether it was even a very wise first word may be doubted." It suggests that •'if there were nothiDg except gratitude in politics, and if the Labour men were entirely sweet in disposition and reasonable in temper, they would at once fall on Lord Rosebery's neck and promise to abandon all their nasty little ways," but fearß that there is no political gratitude and no sweet reasonableness in Independent Labour men, but much sore-headedness. The Premier's sin consisted in condemning* the movement in favour of an Independent Labour party, and in urging the Labour party to cast in their lot with the Liberals who had been and would be their best friends. He urged that any other course could only result in the replacement of the Tories in power. His critics retort that the party does nothing for Labour candidates ; it does not propose payment of members and payment of election expenses out of the rates, but, on the contrary, is trying to carry a Registration Bill which will increase election expenses. John Stuart Mill's advice to the Labour party is being reprinted. He counselled the working men to form a party of their own, and so to exercise an influence which they could not wield against an overwhelming Whig majority. On the other side is quoted the experience of New Zealand. The controversy is still proceeding. Lord Rosebery was also twitted by a Ministerial paper last night with having virtually admitted that there were disagreements in the Cabinet. Poor Lord Rosebery ! Once his every utterance was "the voice of a god, and not of a man." Now all seems changed, and he seems to live only to furnish texts for condemnatory articles on verbal indiscretions. On Monday next the exhibition of the Royal Academy will be opened to the public. The usual press and private views have been held this week, and have, of course, been numerously attended by the favoured invitees. I thought the crowd was greater than last year, but I have no statistics. I found that early arrival was the only way to get a decent look at the pictures, as later in the day one's view is constantly impeded by the passing throng. MISCELLANEOUS. The trial of the Italian Anarchists in London whose amiable design of blowing up the Stock Exchange was so skilfully discovered and defeated is still proceeding. They admit and boast of their intentions. It is to be hoped they will receive a sentence heavy enough to keep them out of harm's way for a long while to come.

Bomb hoaxes are now a perfect craze in London, several being perpetrated daily. It seems to an empty-headed youth a screaming joke to deposit a suspicious-looking pot or can in a likely spot, and then secretly watch its discovery, and to read the sensational accounts in the evening papers ; but it is very pitiful and mischievous tomfoolery, as indeed are all practical jokes. It may be the means of enabling some genuine dynamite plot to be success* fully worked off, through inspiring in the police a constant dread of being made ridiculous by being caught in one of these hoax traps. It would be well if the pretended and real bombists could be soundly flogged out of their folly and wickedness.

Mr Gladstone has been suffering for some days past from a slight stomaohic derangement, to which he has always been Bubject. It is not at all serious, and he is already getting over it. No date has yet been definitely fixed for the operation on his eyes. Dr Nettleship examined them recently, but finds the time not yet ripe for action. Probably some days before the end of the summer will be ultimately selected.