LONDON CHAT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2017, 28 February 1907, Page 4

LONDON CHAT.

royal VISIT TO CHATSWORTH. LONDON, January 11. Our King and Quoon have just left Ghntsworth House after u very lestivo visit to the Dnko and Duchess of Devonshire’s picturesque Derbyshire sent. There wore tlio customary jollifications, including some excellent private theatricals, in which such famous society beauties as Mrs Willie Jainos, Miss Muriel Wilson, and Princess Henry of Pless—all admirable actrossos, who would do credit to any stage—took loading part's. Tile usual outdoor sports.wore indulged in, sovoral big “shoots” being brought otf notwithstanding the genoral prevalence of snowy and inclement weather. The King and Queen left together, but when Sax by was reached tho Royal “special” was divided, one part branching off towards Sandringham, and taking the Queen, wliilo tho main portion with the King canio on diroct to London. Tlieir Majesties are reported as in porfoct health, tho Queen having wholly recovered irom her slight attack of influenza.

THE LATE QUEEN OF HANOVER. Tho case of poor old Queen Marie of Hanover, whoso death has just boon reported, had ono singularly pathetic feature. Her life—at 811 years—was in grave jioril irom an internal complaint, and could only bo prolonged by a most severe and painful operation, which needed to bo performed without anaesthetic, as at her timo of life anaesthesia would almost inevitably prove fatal. One might have imagined that in these circumstances she would have been permitted to pass a way in peace. Rut tho operation was performed, without anaesthetics, tho bravo old lady, who underwent intense suffering, bearing it like a heroine. Happily death soon released her from these needless agonies. In an admirable memoir of tho deceased Queen, given to-day, the writer says : ‘Queen Mary was married in 1843, ill very touching circumstances. Her Consort had been blind from youth upwards, and though she stood by his side with devotion and courage, never faltering for an hour, it is cortain that his physical infirmity strengthened the exalted absolutist extincts which wore hereditary in his blood. Princo Georgo, as he was then, opposed an unreasoning ideal of kingship to tho equal extravagance of the extreme revolutionary dream. Queen Mario was in every sense her blind husband’s unflinching partner. Resolute as was his character, ho would have boon almost helpless without her. For fifteen years ho endeavored to crush tho liberties of tho people, and down to tho middle of tho sixties absolutism in his dominions had on tho whole assorted a fatal degree of success. Then Georgo V. allied himself with Austria, and in those rushing weeks which decided the struggle of 1866 and predetermined the events of 1870, the Hanoverian dynasty was utterly crushed and ruined by tho conscquonces of Sadowa. Tho Hanoverian army vindicated its old ■prowess in tho victory of Laugensalza, but it was the last flicker of an expiring flame. The Iron Chancellor insisted on annexation, for between the extremo eastern and western portions of the Prussian dominions tho old olcctorato of the Georges was required to make the Holienzollern territories, so steadily and strangely acquired, a rounded, secure, continuous, and consolidated system.’ “THE SHAH IS DEAD—LONG LIVE THE SHAH!”

Another sovereign—the Shah of Persia—has also passod away. Personally the late Shah appears to harm been a well-meaning man, favorably disposed towards England, but in much awe of Russia. Of his successor little is definitely known, but he is credited with being a stronger man than tho late Shah, and also with greater amenability to Muscovite influence—which, if true, is a pity. But Sir Edward Grey is on the alert, and has so far averted any attempt on the part of our rivals to steal a march on us in Persia. Like his predecessors at the Foreign Office—Lords Lansdowne, Salisbury and Rosebery—ho has made it to be clearly understood that England will not permit any encroachment on or near the Persian Gulf, on the part of Russia or Germany; or any advance through Persia toward India by rail in the interests of either or both of those Powers. It is just as well that this should bo plainly known and clearly understood. It saves much bother afterwards. BRITAIN’S “SILVER STREAK OF SEA.”

International matters remind one of the Channel tunnel, which still occupies the lion’s share of London chat and newspaper space. The scheme is being run for all it is worth by certain financiers and agents, supported by a few interested engineers, who naturally, favor such an undertaking. But the weight of opinion is- enormously against the construction of the tunnel, the disapproval being primarily on the score of Imperial safety, but largely also on the question of profit. Arguments have been adduced to show that the tunnel could not possibly pay even interest on its cost, and the expense of working unless an utterly improbable volume of traffic at utterly incredible rates could be secured. The likelihood of shorter transit between London and the Continent seems now to be virtually dropped- Tlio obstacle presented by oven the fractional difference of gauge is so far as possible ignored, but its seriousness is indisputable, as I pointed out in my previous letter. Through transit between England and the Continent' would involve total reconstruction of rolling stock on one side or the other, a tremendous undertaking, whoso cost alone would be fatal to the financial success of the scheme. The avoidance of sea-sickness, would be the sole substantial benefit accruing from the tunnel.

As for protection against invasion, all the most capable authorities are as strongly convinced as over that this would not bo practically feasible. No one man would undertake the responsibility of blowing up or flooding the tunnel in case of need, thus destroying a vast amount of property and perhaps of human lives also. Nor would people carp to travel through the tunnel with the knowledge that any error of judgment or misconception might bring upon them one of several alternative fates of horror,the pleasantest of which would he drowning “like rats in a liolo.” The prevalent feeling unquestionably is that the Channel tunnol and its promoters should be “severely let alone.” * But tremendous efforts are being made by the promoters to enlist Parliamentary support for the scheme. There will be desperate fights over the question, but I feel sure that the good sense of the nation will triumph in the end over the attempt to do away with the splendid natural moat, and defence with which these islands—the heart of-the whole Empire—have been so kindly provided by beneficont Nature. A German writer .observed yesterday: “What would France give to have twenty miles of blue water as her eastern frontier 1” Just sol And that’s what wo have against the wholo European Continent. THE AMEER’S VISIT TO INDIA. A very valuable stroke of Eastern policy has "been effected by those who persuaded the ruler of Afghanistan to pay a ceremonial visit to India. It is often found convenient to forget that the western frontier of Afghanistan is to all practical effects the military frontier of the "British Empire, for if any foreign power—whether Russia, Germany, 'or any other—makes, or attempts any aggression upon that frontier,- we are bound by the most solemn engagement to bring the entire force of the British Empire to repulse it. In these circumstances, it is manifestly all important to have the best possible understanding with the ruler of the buffer-State. With the predecessors of the present ruler wo have usually been on no better terms than those of armed neutrality, and our relations have far more often been those of open warfare than of close friendship or alliance. It is earnestly to be hopod that we have “changed all that.” The present Ameer— Habibullali—has shown himself to be a sovereign of a type very different from that of most of his predecessors. Since his arrival in India liis behavior is declared to have, been that of a refined gentleman, his courtesy being of the kind which rests upon genuine feeiing and consideration for others, and not dictated by mere rules of politeness. He is evidently greatly pleased by his reception, and so far as human foresight can go we may congratulate ourselves upon haying converted a subsidised neutral into an effectivo defensive ally. IRELAND AND DEVOLUTION.

Apparently, Mr Augustine Birrell has had enough of education, and does not hanker after the care of a new Education Bill. For it is definitely announced to-day that he lias consented to take over the Irish Secretaryship in succession to Mr Bryce, who is the new Ambassador to the United States. There was some talk of appointing Mr Winston Churchill to the Irish Secretaryship, but it was felt that such a highly inflammable portfolio could not safely be trusted to such reckless hands. Mr Birrell himself is said not to relish the prospect particularly, but ho has “a pretty wit,” displayed at its best

in his attractive form of oratory commonly known ns “Birrelling,” and this may he]]) him with tho Irish. Furtlior, it is understood that one of his earliest duties would bo to bring in tho first of tho intonded Bills that in tho aggregate are to form a staircase loading up to Homo Rule. It is further understood that this measure has already boon drafted by Sir Antony M'Donnell, tho masterful Undor-Soeroturv who proved such a thorn in tho sido of the late Ministry, and whoso mission has been to load tho way to Homo Rule by tho ingenious process known as Devolution. Sir Antony has already told the pooplo of Ireland that the new Bill will secure to tho best Irishmen tho fruition of so many of tlieir hopes that they can. “mako it the fountain and the source from which tho whole of tlieir hopes may bo fulfilled.” It soouis to bo forgotten by the Ministerial party that Mr. Gladstone himself repudiated “devolution” as mischievous and impracticable. Among tho projects discussed in 1886 was a plan for delegating tho control of certain Irish affairs to a “central elective body.” This proposal Mr. Gladstone branded as “absurd” —first, bocause “those whom it is intended to benefit do not want it, do not ask it, and refuse it;” and secondly, because tho Unionists would naturally and emphatically, and rather justly say— We will not create your central board and palter with this question, bocauso wo feel certain that it will afford nothing except a stage from whi ford nothing except a stage from which to agitate for a further concession, and because we see that by the proposal you make you will not even attain the advantage of settling the puostion that is raised.” Are Mr. Gladstone’s successors and disciples going to “palter” with tho question? The Nationalists have warned them, and have warned tho pooplo of Great Britain that they do not want devolution, that they do not ask for it, and that they refuse it. All Unionists, 1 British' and Irish, who understand what devolution in any shape means, make against the very objections which Mr. Gladstone made against it twenty-one years ago. They say that, by tho admission of the Nationalists themselves it will settle nothing, and that it will form a stage from which to agitate for further concessions. “Tho truth of these propositions,” remarks the Times, ‘is manifest. They can hardly be questioned with any shadow of plausibility Yet statesmen who have declared that it would be dishonest to use the votes given to their party at the last election to carry Home Rule, are apparently roady to serve under tho Home Rule banner, which, as Lord Rosebery truly says, the Prime Minister has hoisted over his party in its most pronounced form.’ ” —Post.