NOTES AND QUERIES.
THE Duke of Newcastle and the Gazette announce that commis- sions will be given to one Sergeant in each battalion of Lord Rag- lan's army after the battle of Inkerman, as it was after the battle of Alma. It is rather remarkable that the gentlemen amongst the non-commissioned officers who are deserving of this promotion should in each action be exactly one in each battalion. Has the War Department discovered the law of that proportion ?
Sir John Pakington paid a just compliment, the other night, to Colonel Blair and Sir De Lacy Evans who have not only attained distinction on the field of battle, but united with that the dis- tinction of being Members of Parliament. For them, therefore, the whole House of Commons had a double sympathy. The House entered more heartily into the sense of the heroism in Sir De Lacy Evans, and to the gallantry of the departed Colonel Blair, than would have been possible if those men had not been " honourable and gallant Members" with whose voice and whose high character both aides were personally acquainted. Objection has sometimes been made to the election of officers either in Army or Navy to seats in the Home of Commons, and the present is a time at which it would appear.that the duties must be peculiarly incompatible. Does not this manifestation of feeling, however, tell us that there are advantages in placing the House, by its re- presentatives, on the field of battle, and in having the field of battle and the marine of war represented in the House ? The hominrable and gallant Members bring to the Legislature a prac- tical experience, and the Legislature finds its heart assisting its head in a right apprehension of necessary facts by the means of its personal sympathies.
There are occasions for naming and occasions for omitting names. Everybody knows that it is impolite to be free in the use of the " he " or "she" in a note of compliments ; with the well-known illustration of the note from " Mr. and Mrs. Walter Norton and Miss Sandys," to " Mr. and Mrs. Charles Hawkins, and Miss Charles Hawkins, and the Governess whose name Mr. and Mrs. Walter Norton and Miss Sandys do not remember, informing Mr. and Mrs. Charles Hawkins, &e." At other times the anonymous and the pronoun become " the cheese." You must not mention a Member in the House. We have heard of a funeral meeting in which the person to be buried, a lady, was spoken of by her father as " the party in the other room." Sir John Pakington alluded to that historical exploit of the Monarch who with thirty thousand men " marched up the hill and then marched flown again,"—only that Sir John puts it anonymously and peri- phrastically, in true Parliamentary form, speaking of " the King who with thirty thousand men marched to the top of the hill, and when he had got up there lost no time in coming down again." But who was "the King"? It was the King of France. Sir John, how- ever, saw the inconvenience of making these jocose allusions to the predecessor of our ally ; for Sir John has been in the Cabinet, and knows the etiquette. Evidently he perceives that to specify which King might give offence.
Mr. Disraeli began his great speech on Tuesday night with a laboured vindication of the freedom of discussion, and then he proceeded to discuss with great freedom. May we ask the right honourable gentleman,—and we only remind him of a public duty in doing so,—to inform us what chains, what "locks, bolts, and bars," awaited him for speaking his mind in his place in the House ? He would not have made that appeal to the right of freedom of discussion,—he would not solemnly have said " to vindicate, as I have to vindicate tonight," had there not been some reason for his undertaking that patriotic duty, some danger which rendered it an act of heroism. What, then, is the secret in- fluence, -what the Star Chamber? The public have a right to be informed ; and when informed, will no doubt appreciate the man- ner in which Mr. Disraeli now emulates " my near neighbour," Hampden. Mr. Disraeli also calls the troops in the East " those unrivalled legions." Query, does he mean the regiments; or did he when in office contemplate remodelling the British army on the Roman plan?
He eulogizes the Queen's ally, the Emperor of France, and is grateful for the assistance which that august personage has brought to our Queen in her extremity. " It is precious, it is generous, it is cordial, it is sincere." It is generous, because it is accorded to a Government, " many members of which are distinguished for the vituperative language with which they have spoken of the French Emperor." This is said, of course, with the view of cementing the alliance between the French Emperor and the present Govern- ment. Mr. Disraeli's motto is, " Let bygones be bygones—but
never forget them." Is he correct in the fact, however ? Was the assistance brought to us by France, or did we bring the assistance to France ? If we remember rightly, these transactions in the East commenced with the endeavours of the French to establish .-a Latin supremacy in Turkish Palestine ; a supremacy contested by Russia, and terminated in a very ugly squabble that exposed France singlehanded to the intrigues and hostility of the greatest European Power. There is, however, an obvious reason why Mr. Disraeli trumpets the French alliance, even to the disparagement of his country. The present Government has recognized France on mature experience and deliberation as a right and just thing to do : the preceding Government hastened to recognize a Government which was sudden and new, and a proper subject for the specula- tive investment of a party unexpectedly endowed with the official influence of England. The praise of the French alliance is a mode of insinuating that it is " my thunder."
Our independent contemporary the Nonconformist notices from his seat in the House of Commons, that Mr. Disraeli, " clever as he always is—rasping—wearisome—hollow—violent—kept the House nearly two hours with an oration pronounced in his worst style, and which had in it no practical meaning, but abuse of the Coali- tion Government." "To this," adds our honourable contemporary, " Lord John, of course, was compelled to reply." But why ? Our contemporary no doubt only expresses a set rule ; it is always as- sumed that there must be a reply ; yet the rule would in some cases be better honoured in the breach than in the observance. The occasion was a case in point: the best reply Lord John could have made to Mr. Disraeli's speech would have been silence.
Previous page
