MISCELLANEOUS EXTRACTS.

Globe, Volume IV, Issue 448, 20 November 1875, Page 4

MISCELLANEOUS EXTRACTS.

It is stated in the Italian papers that a discovery has been made in a library in Florence of the libretto of " Daphne," a pastoral opera by Ottavio Rinuccini, set by Peri and Caccini in 1594, which may be considered the first type of modern opera. Lieutenant-Colonel Alexander Strange, in a letter to the Times, expresses his opinion that such an iron ship as the Vanguard is the naval equivalent in force of a whole corps d'armee in the army— i.e., of 30,000 men—and he very justly remarks that no commander would accept the responsibility of commanding an army if he knew that a single accidental shot of the enemy's might annihilate a whole wing at a blow. The tmth undoubtedly is, that our rower of properly governing and administering the immensely costly and powerful naval weapons which we have invented, has fallen far behind our skill in constructing those weapons. We have made the sort of blunder which would be the best illustrated by supposing the existence of an organism as delicate as the human body, without the nervous system which governs, or as the philosophers say, " co-ordinates," its movements. Certainly there was no sort of " co-ordination" of the ironclad fleet in the fog on the Ist September. And unless such a co-ordination in times of peril can be established, it would be better to subdivide our risk, and have a mosquito fleet of gunboats, in place of these naval embodiments of corps d'armee. M. Thiers, who is at Lausanne, has been discoursing to a correspondent of the Debats on the work by which he is going to convince Frenchman that the higher philosophy is religious, though he rejects " the supernaturalism of M. Guizot." " It was strange, to say the least, to imagine a juggling God who performed tricks to draw the crowd." "Miracles," said M. Thiers, "are out of

place in the nature of God, who had no need of petty artifices to make himself believed in by his creatures." We do not know about the need. Whether the "petty artifices" were used or not, there seems to be enough need of means of one kind or another to make God believed in, for He is not very much believed in just at present, in France at all events. One hardly knows, indeed, whether M, Thiers' grudge against M. Guizot's supernaturalism is prejudice against supernaturalism itself, or prejudice against M. Guizot. Anyway, we cannot say we expect much from M. Thier's work. A writer who treats miracles as synonymous with juggles has evidently not studied deeply either theology or nature. The startling change in the combinations and effects of natural laws which are caused by purely spiritual causes, would be a better key to the true phenomena of miracles than such words as " petty artifices" and "juggles." It was natural perhaps that M. Thiers should write on theology to show that there was no department of thought for which he holds himself unfitted ; but in the result he will probably rather betray his weakness than assert his strength. A decision of some importance was given by the Chief Commissioner on Thursday last (says the S.M. Herald of the 18th October), in the insolvent estate of Edward Row and Company. The Oriental Bank Corporation sought to prove the acceptance of Row and Co. for £20,000, and the claim was opposed by the official assignee on the ground that the acceptance in question represented the same debt that the Bank had proved for in the estate of Beilby and Scott. The facts of the case were these:—The Bank had granted a cash credit to the amount of £20,000 to Beilby and Scott, taking as security the joint and several bonds of Messrs Beilby and Scott, and three other persons with other securities. The Bank also expressly stipulated that the acceptance now sought to be proved upon should be given as additional security, which was accordingly done. The Bank had proved on the bond in the separate estates of E. T. Beilby and W. Scott, electing to do so in preference to proving against the firm of Beilby and Scott. It was now contended by Mr M. H. Stephen, who appeared for the official assignee, instructed by Mr Rolin, that the Bank having elected to prove against Beilby and Scott (whether against the joint estate, or against the separate estate of each), were debarred from proving as against Row and Co., because that firm comprised the names of Messrs Beilby and Scott. It was, however, admitted that the two firnzs were entirely distinct and independent, and had quite separate and distinct liabilities and assets. The case of Goldsmith and Casenauve was cited on behalf of the official assignee as being directly in point; but it was contended by Mr James Johnston, who appeared on behalf of the Oriental Bank, that there were several distinctions between the two cases. After hearing argument, his Honor the Chief Commissioner decided that the proof could not be allowed.