once the measure for which that urgency had been demanded. This would have been the true constitutional course; and if the provisions of the measure had afterwards appeared to be objectionable, no one could have blamed the Opposition for resisting them in every legitimate manner. This, however, has not been Mr Gladstone's plan. It is all very well for Mr John Mor-. ley to tell the South London Radicals that "no leader has ever been more unjustly charged than Mr Gladstone is now with lending himself to obstructive and factious devices." Will Mr Morly venture to say that no such devices have been attempted, and if so, what are we to think of the leader who has made no effort to prevent them, and has gone so far as to ask for more delay, after nine days' preliminary debate, upon a question of vital importance?

Of course this importance is denied, and the necessity of any such measure as that proposed by Government is treated in the same way. Just as Mr Sexton told Mr Gladstone in 1881 that there was no increase of crime to justify the measure which he then introduced, so Mr Gladstone tells us the same thing in 1887. In the assertion which he makes in a letter published in the Observer' of April 10, Mr Gladstone apparently disputes the statement of Mr Sexton, for he says, "It is the first time when coercion has been proposed for Ireland without an attempt by the Ministry to show, what we know they cannot show, a state of exceptional, flagrant, or growing crime." But, whether or no Mr Gladstone was able to show "an increase of crime" in 1881, it is a fact to be borne in mind that it was not only, nor even mainly, upon an increase of crime that he based his so-called "Coercion "

Bill in that year. Upon the 6th January he told the House of Commons that it was "the duty” of the Government "to state, in the most distinct terms, to Parliament and to the country," "what is the real state of the case which constitutes the justification for asking for those powers. "Our justification," he went on to say, " is, not that we have not sufficient police and military force at our command,—not that the stipendiary magistrates are unwilling to do their duty, but that whatever is done by them to give effect to the laws for the protection of life and property and to prevent illegal meetings is frustrated, and that we are totally unable to restore life to the administration of justice in Ireland through, not the difficulty, but the impossibility of procuring evidence." Let any fair man read these words, and afterwards read Mr Balfour's speech on introducing the Bill of the present Government, and ask himself how it is possible that the statesman who uttered the words can now be denouncing the Bill. Yet so it is: that which in Mr Gladstone is, we suppose, to be termed a generous and noble inspiration, but which in the case of any other living man would be called a factious and bitter spirit of partisanship, prompts him to denounce a measure less severe than one for which he has himself been responsible, as "the worst, most insulting, most causeless Coercion Bill ever submitted to Parliament."

These are the concluding words of the letter of Mr Gladstone to which we have just alluded, and we cannot avoid the remark that the epithets are much more applicable to the letter itself than to the Bill. For, save and except his wicked attempt to separate the "masses" and the "classes" (so

66

well described by Mr Goldwin Smith as "a deliberate attempt to set class against class, and to poison the heart of society for a party purpose"), Mr Gladstone has seldom written more mischievous and unjustifiable words than those in which he has striven to excite the mining population of the North and the "working men of London" against the measure of the Government. He is right when he says that there is a question of shame and dishonour for England" in this matter, for dishonour and shame it would indeed be if the Parliament of Great Britain should be persuaded to refuse that protection to the law-abiding inhabitants of Ireland which is the real and simple object of the Government Bill. Well, indeed, did Mr Hobhouse write to the East Somerset Liberals as to the real difference between his own honest and really Liberal views and those of the men who are trying to drag the whole Liberal party at the heels of Mr Parnell, and seeking to reunite their broken ranks by the cuckoo cry of "coercion." "They," wrote Mr Hobhouse, "object to the proposed coercion of criminals by the law. I object to the active coercion of law-abiding citizens in Ireland by intimidation, boycotting, and moon lighting;" and he goes on to tell a home-truth which we commend to Mr Gladstone's notice-"The present struggle is not between Liberals and Conservatives, but between those who desire to make the Queen's Government possible in Ireland, and those who wish to render it impossible." This, indeed, is the issue which cannot be evaded, and to which Mr Gladstone will not succeed in blinding the people of Great Britain. During the earlier stages of the debate it suited his purpose to minimise the melancholy state in which Ire

land has been existing under the baneful rule of the National League, and even to make light of a cruel outrage upon a girl who had committed the crime of speaking to a policeman, because, forsooth, some crimes of a similar character had been perpetrated in the wretched days of 1798, and therefore it could not be charged that this was a crime newly invented by the present party of disorder! Again, he deemed it becoming to extenuate agrarian outrage, upon the extraordinary plea that it was not directed towards the abolition of rent, but only towards the lowering of rents unjustly high—as if the amount of guilt to be attached to an action in itself unlawful enfirely depended upon the result at which the perpetrator ultimately aimed by its commission.

But the utmost amount of oratorical artifice or argumentative finesse will not lead sensible men away from the plain issues which are before the country. It is easy, of course, to sneer at the instances of crimes quoted by Mr Balfour, which have been committed without detection of the criminal, and to call them "unauthenticated" because the names were not always given. No men know better than those who sneer, how terrible would be the risk of those who had ventured to tell the tale of their sufferings, if their names were publicly announced to the agents of that foul and lawless tyranny under which the loyal part of the Irish population are now so truly coerced. Here, again, the people of Great Britain will not be deceived, for they well know that a Minister of the Crown would never propose legislation to the British Parliament, unless supported by facts which he had taken care to verify beyond doubt-although, for such good reason as that to which we have alluded, he

once the measure for which that urgency had been demanded. This would have been the true constitutional course; and if the provisions of the measure had afterwards appeared to be objectionable, no one could have blamed the Opposition for resisting them in every legitimate manner. This, however, has not been Mr Gladstone's plan. It is all very well for Mr John Morley to tell the South London Radicals that "no leader has ever been more unjustly charged than Mr Gladstone is now with lending himself to obstructive and factious devices." Will Mr Morly venture to say that no such devices have been attempted, and if so, what are we to think of the leader who has made no effort to prevent them, and has gone so far as to ask for more delay, after nine days' preliminary debate, upon a question of vital importance?

Of course this importance is denied, and the necessity of any such measure as that proposed by Government is treated in the same way. Just as Mr Sexton told Mr Gladstone in 1881 that there was no increase of crime to justify the measure which he then introduced, so Mr Gladstone tells us the same thing in 1887. In the assertion which he makes in a letter published in the Observer' of April 10, Mr Gladstone apparently disputes the statement of Mr Sexton, for he says, "It is the first time when coercion has been proposed for Ireland without an attempt by the Ministry to show, what we know they cannot show, a state of exceptional, flagrant, or grow ing crime." But, whether or no Mr Gladstone was able to show "an increase of crime" in 1881, it is a fact to be borne in mind that it was not only, nor even mainly, upon an increase of crime that he based his so-called "Coercion "

Bill in that year. Upon the 6th January he told the House of Commons that it was "the duty” of the Government "to state, in the most distinct terms, to Parliament and to the country,” “what is the real state of the case which constitutes the justification for asking for those powers." "Our justification," he went on to say, " is, not that we have not sufficient police and military force at our command,-not that the stipendiary magistrates are unwilling to do their duty, but that whatever is done by them to give effect to the laws for the protection of life and property and to prevent illegal meetings is frustrated, and that we are totally unable to restore life to the administration of justice in Ireland through, not the difficulty, but the impossibility of procuring evidence." Let any fair man read these words, and afterwards read Mr Balfour's speech on introducing the Bill of the present Government, and ask himself how it is possible that the statesman who uttered the words can now be denouncing the Bill. Yet so it is: that which in Mr Gladstone is, we suppose, to be termed a generous and noble inspiration, but which in the case of any other living man would be called a factious and bitter spirit of partisanship, prompts him to denounce a measure less severe than one for which he has himself been responsible, as "the worst, most insulting, most causeless Coercion Bill ever submitted to Parliament."

These are the concluding words of the letter of Mr Gladstone to which we have just alluded, and we cannot avoid the remark that the epithets are much more applicable to the letter itself than to the Bill. For, save and except his wicked attempt to separate the 66 masses and the "classes" (so

well described by Mr Goldwin Smith as "a deliberate attempt to set class against class, and to poison the heart of society for a party purpose"), Mr Gladstone has seldom written more mischievous and unjustifiable words than those in which he has striven to excite the mining population of the North and the "working men of London" against the measure of the Government. He is right when he says that there is a "question of shame and dishonour for England" in this matter, for dishonour and shame it would indeed be if the Parliament of Great Britain should be persuaded to refuse that protection to the law-abiding inhabitants of Ireland which is the real and simple object of the Government Bill. Well, indeed, did Mr Hobhouse write to the East Somerset Liberals as to the real difference between his own honest and really Liberal views and those of the men who are trying to drag the whole Liberal party at the heels of Mr Parnell, and seeking to reunite their broken ranks by the cuckoo cry of "coercion." "They," wrote Mr Hobhouse, "object to the proposed coercion of criminals by the law. I object to the active coercion of law-abiding citizens in Ireland by intimidation, boycotting, and moon lighting;" and he goes on to tell a home-truth which we commend to Mr Gladstone's notice-"The present struggle is not between Liberals and Conservatives, but between those who desire to make the Queen's Government possible in Ireland, and those who wish to render it impossible." This, indeed, is the issue which cannot be evaded, and to which Mr Gladstone will not succeed in blinding the people of Great Britain. During the earlier stages of the debate it suited his purpose to minimise the melancholy state in which Ire

land has been existing under the baneful rule of the National League, and even to make light of a cruel outrage upon a girl who had committed the crime of speaking to a policeman, because, forsooth, some crimes of a similar character had been perpetrated in the wretched days of 1798, and therefore it could not be charged that this was a crime newly invented by the present party of disorder! Again, he deemed it becoming to extenuate agrarian outrage, upon the extraordinary plea that it was not directed towards the abolition of rent, but only towards the lowering of rents unjustly high-as if the amount of guilt to be attached to an action in itself unlawful enfirely depended upon the result at which the perpetrator ultimately aimed by its commission.

But the utmost amount of oratorical artifice or argumentative finesse will not lead sensible men away from the plain issues which are before the country. It is easy, of course, to sneer at the instances of crimes quoted by Mr Balfour, which have been committed without detection of the criminal, and to call them "unauthenticated" because the names were not always given. No men know better than those who sneer, how terrible would be the risk of those who had ventured to tell the tale of their sufferings, if their names were publicly announced to the agents of that foul and lawless tyranny under which the loyal part of the Irish population are now so truly coerced. Here, again, the people of Great Britain will not be deceived, for they well know that a Minister of the Crown would never propose legislation to the British Parliament, unless supported by facts which he had taken care to verify beyond doubt-although, for such good reason as that to which we have alluded, he

might deem it his duty to withhold the names by which those facts were authenticated.

There is something else, too, which will not escape the intelligence of the British people, and which they will doubtless lay to heart. The leader of the Opposition has not been content with the encouragement to factious obstruction and the abuse of parliamentary privileges which he has so recklessly given in his place in the House of Commons. The letter to which we have called attention is one which raises a grave constitutional question. We have recently extended the elective franchise so widely, that the very smallest amount of prudence and frugality will enable almost any individual, eligible by age and sex, to obtain a vote. To a constituency thus enormously enlarged, two appeals have been made within less than twelve months, so that the new electorate has had sufficient practice in the matter of voting to render it tolerably certain that, upon the second general election at least, the answer to the appeal was given in an intelligent manner, and without risk of confusion or mistake. That answer was unequivocally opposed to the Home Rule project of Mr Gladstone. And now, forsooth, in the very first session of the new Parliament, Mr Gladstone deliberately appeals from the Parliament to the mob, and calls upon the "mining population" and the "workmen of London" to assemble and overawe the representatives of the people. Things are come to a pretty pass indeed, when an ex-Prime Minister and a great party leader appeals from the popular assembly and the extended electorate by which that assembly has been constituted, to the pressure which may be exercised by the mass meetings of a

metropolis with several millions of inhabitants. Moreover, it is to be remembered that the excuse for an appeal, at once so mischievous and so unconstitutional, is the introduction of a Bill, in some respects infinitely less stringent than similar measures for which Mr Gladstone has himself been responsible, and one, moreover, which, at the time at which the appeal was made, had not been discussed, either in principle or in detail, by the legitimate representatives of the people.

It is not possible to protest too strongly against this last assault by Mr Gladstone upon the constitution-this arraigning of Parliament before the mobocracy-this dragging of legislation into the streets. The protest should be made more earnestly and more emphatically by the lovers of democracy than by those who doubt the virtues of democratic institutions, because it is these which are really and directly imperilled by a course of proceeding which teaches the people that there can be nothing stable or trustworthy in a Parliament elected by the democracy, but that its deliberations must be continually submitted to the masses outside for their judgment and direction. Gladstone cannot, of course, be held responsible for all the language used, or the sentiments expressed at the gatherings which he and his lieutenants have excited and encouraged. Still, it is well to remember that lawless and violent words, and the utterance of dangerous and inflammatory sentiments, must be expected to follow an appeal made by persons in Mr Gladstone's position from the calm decisions of a legislative assembly to the partisan spirit of a defeated faction, and the excited passions of a mob. Thus, at one meeting,

Mr