New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1884-04-12
NOTES FROM LONDON.
DIPLOMATIC 80 POLITICAL - ARTIsTiC-PER-
SONAI1


beet a make confidential communications nom IFS
spvovs abroad impossible. The Sargent tonpieS
% ~, oro said 10 have had their origin IN the
,,tion of dispatch from Mr. Sargent meant
by him for the private enlightenment OF ms chiel>
One vnuld have thought that lesson to be taken
TO heart but the State Department seems unteach-
able. dispatch from New-York informs tho Brit
ish pnhlic that Mr.. Frelinghaysen has commune
Gated 70 member of the House of Representatives
q letter from Mr. Lowell TO the effect shat the cattle
disease here is used as political weapon and that
the exclusion Of foreign cattle is advocated by Eng
lsh Protectionists with the tnnly yelled object of
raising the price Of meat. True enough. and Mr.
Lowell was bound 10 acquaint the Department with
The fact. | have 10 means of knowing whether he
wrote confdentially 1t is enough Il say that an
exercise of common discretion MI Frenghuy-
sem part would have prevented the publication OF
euch dispatch No Minister can address his own
Government with perfect frankneSs II he writes
nndcr he penalty Of indscriminate publicity. No
Govern nent In Europe discloscs all the dispatches
II receives don't suppose ours does but where Is
The Inc drawnf
NJ Parnell addressed a company Of 200 Irishmen
At the Holborn Restaurant on st. Patricks Day
speaking to the toast Ireland a Nation Jour
nal edited by brutal Saxon points out, with char
acterisc want of good feeling that the expression
is ono which neither grammar nor history will
tempt for such slight matters as history and gram
mar will enable q proud and sensitive people to dis
regard petty criticisms of this sort IL might he
more to the purpose to ask whether Mr.. Parnell
awaited himself of this occasion To express his horror
at the recent murdcrOus attempts by lriShAmeri-
cans in the railway stations of London. II he did,
The brutal Saxon reporter has omitted to put Mr..
Parnelrs horror on record. Some of Mr.. ParnelFs
sentences may to point in an opposite Ill
rection and TO express not horror but aequiesccnce
in tho dynamite policy if not approval of It. They
had 10 depend said he on the exertions OF lrisImen
at home and abroad. lie would advise them not to
depend upon political party. They understood
better to-day the weak points IN the armor OF Their
enemy than ever they did before. They understood
and recognized the most suitable means OF attack
Now il Is not necessary to assert that Mr. Parncn
had dynamite in his mind he spoke Of the
most suitable means of attack. Bat this Is TO be
said His omission to condemn the use of dynamite,
coupled with the of the phrases have quoted,
will certainly BIZ understood by many Of his conn
frymen as justification of Outrages which are too
recent 70 have passed wholly ont of anybody'S
memory. Mr.. ParDers position is in fact the old
one federation of crime. and perfect readiness 10
avail himself of the results of crime. He is always
ready to censure the efforts of the Government to
prevent and punish crime. For the crime and the
criminal lie has seldom anything bat taclt approval
on Saturday that tho farmers of Ireland were FOOLS
ST they continued to pay certain taxes which Mr..
Parne does not lke.-taxes for extra police and
for the prevention of crime under tho Crimes Act.
Lord Wolseley on the Monday following. speak
ing TO the Benevolent Society of st. Patrick, OBJ
served that owing 10 circumstances Which they
would all willingly forget. Ireland stank in the
nOstrils Of many charitable people.
Whether there be any connection between the
two speeches is question whlch everybody can
answer each to his Own liking. Mr.. Parnoll is an
freshman. Lord Wolseey is an lrihhuan. And
there = o river in Macedon and another in Mon
mouth
Wien IL became known that tbs Master of the
Rolls was 10 preside the hearing OF the appeal IN
Belt versus Lawes there were plenty Of prophets to
foreteli the result that has happened Sir Ballot
Brett Is the Judge before whom Colonel Valentine |
Baker was tried The feeling Of London society or
of very influential sections Of It, at that time, was
STRONGLY in Colonel Bakers favor. When he was
found guilty MI Justice Brett pronounced uFou /
him v nat was commonly thought the very maid
sentence Of one years Imprisonment frst-class
misdcmeanant. Ii was secuson, not umprison-
1nert The feeling OF London society, OF Of very IN
fueu,al sections Of II. al this tm" is strongly ~
favor of Mr.. Belt. Again it happens that tho syn
patL, If Sir Ballot Brett and tho yI1pathies OF SO
cietv arr found to coincide. He made IL plain
during The hearing of the appeal, and nobody was
surpri-eI when, with great heat and passion, be
affirmed aud sustained the verdict OF the jury IN
MI Belts favor. Ii there was amy surprise, II
sprlue POM the fact that the Master of the Rolls
went 20 fax as 10 express his approved u MI Baron
Huddll toms summing mp at the trial The general
opinion of the profession is that Mr. Baron iiud-
dlestou', summing mp was a very prejUdiccd and
partisan performance. But lawyers are ingenious
In fading or nvcuting reasons Tor things. Al enl
nent practitioner has pointed ont that the Master
of the Rolls and Nj Baron Hnddlcston are neigh
bors. I don't know what that has 10 do with the
matter.
Tho Jew which both these ornaments Of the
bench took Of the artistic testimony Is not the least
strih.u- incident Of the case. Mr.. Baron Huddle-
ston treated Sir Frederick Leighton and Mr.. Mhlais
and re whole body Of their colleagues with de-
risiou. Sir Ballot Brett is perhaps more decorous
hut BE has the same contempt for an artists opinion
about att that his brother Hudd.eston proclaimed
Lord Coeridge took a sensible view. He thought
the unanimous testimony of nearly ali the eminent
srtis,, Of London substantially decisive OF ihe
roDt At issue. They all said Mr. Belt could not
have been the author Of the different bu5ts he
claimed As his These busts were ia style 80 0Ssi-
lar that no single hand could have produced them
all But Mr. Baron Huddleston and elr Billol
Brett aud the Belt jury thought this testimony
overborne by the testimony Of witnesses who de-
clarcd they had seen Mr. Belt at work on All tleae
bu,t. No doubt they had, or thought tAey h'''
but what work did they see him do7 Notim2 Is SO
EMS 81, IA deceive the layInan IN such a matter
II tie art world agreed thai picture was by Ru-
benz and a visitor swOre that he had seen John
sm.th II work on the canvas slppose Nj. Baron
HudG,eston and sir Ballot Brett would believe Mr
John smith He testes TO u fact Che ar world
only 10 Al opinion Nonsense Of tbs sort Is grayeiy
defen lel even in the press. Perhaps IN 10 other