Punch (71.1876)

3G

PUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI.

[July 29, 1876.

PUNCH'S ESSENCE OF PARLIAMENT.

unch, Lord Derby, and Lord Granville being of one mind on
(?¥]I~\V^\\^ anZ point, England may safely be of that mind too.

: // f\} \>n England having for twenty years accepted the Declaration ratified

'vY/ A f V\\^V by "the judgment of Paris"—that "free ships make free goods"—

' v VJn^ declines [Lords, Monday, July 17), by the voice of Lord Granville,

as well as Lord Derby, to go back from that Declaration. Herein
the Lords follow the Commons, who have jnst shown, by a No-
House, their disinclination to disturb the new doctrine._
Lord Derby thinks that our disavowal of it just now would lead Europe to infer that England was refurbishing an ancient weapon of
offence in apprehension of impending war. " Quieta non movere " should be the motto of the moment.

Lord Granville goes further. He thinks the new doctrine the best for England under any circumstances. Suppose John Bull
neutral, the new principle gives him the carrying trade of the belligerents. Suppose bim belligerent, it leaves him his trade with
neutrals, while its abrogation would enlist every maritime power against him. This sounds well, though a very different way of
looking at the matter. For the present, England, at all events, lays aside a weapon that she has used of old with deadly effect
on her enemies, but which, like all deadly weapons, is capable of being turned against herself. One thing should plead for her with
all parties. It is not magnanimity that has compelled her renunciation of the largest right of maritime mischief in time of war, but
enlightened self-interest.

The ancient " Judgment of Paris " sowed the seed of war. The modern " Declaration of Paris " draws "War's worst sting—its right
of plunder on the high seas.

Has England more to gain than lose by the renunciation ? The question is a debateable one. " To gain," say Lord Derby and
Lord Granville. That settles it for the present.

Sanskrit, Arabic, and Persian versus German, French, and Italian. Which ought to count for most in the papers of Indian Competition-
wallahs ? Lord Stanley oe Alderley thinks \ Indian tongues should decide claims to Indian appointments. " Dubitatur," says
Lord Salisbury. What examinations are meant to pick out, is not the ready-made tool for India, but the best raw material.
Competitive examination, Lord Salisbury quite admits, has its bad points ; but think (he adds) of the blessing it is to heads of depart-
ments !—it doubles their power of obliging with nominations, and shunts influential incapables, patronage notwithstanding. We shall
yet see the system maintained, not because it secures the best servants, but because it saves chiefs trouble.