we find the name of Mr Balfour supporters of Mr Gladstone's agigreeted with a cry of Shoot him!" tation. At another, regret is expressed that the attempt to assassinate the Czar did not succeed, coupled with a desire that Lord Salisbury and Mr Chamberlain might receive by parcel-post some "chemical" preparation which would remove them. The individual who uttered the last wish went a little too far for the Gladstonian member of Parliament who presided at the meeting whereat this speech was made; but, if we mistake not, he after wards stood side by side with Gladstonian orators upon one of the platforms in Hyde Park, probably upon that platform at which, according to one report, a coffin, with "Coercion " and " Balfour" inscribed upon it, served as a sounding-board for some of the orators who were endeavouring to justify the murderous policy of the National League. Again, we find that at the Liberal demonstration at Truro-where Lord Spencer, to the great regret of all those who have appreciated and approved his courageous administration of Irish affairs, lent the weight of his name and influence to the agitation-a spirit was displayed which should show the better sort of Gladstonians what are the real materials out of which their party is constructed. One of the speakers, in his delight at Lord Spencer's visit to Truro, declared that "the compliment paid to Truro was second only to that in 1880, when his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales visited the city for the purpose of laying the foundation-stone of the Cathedral." The mention of the Prince's visit was received with "loud hisses and cries of First'"-a reception which must have been as displeasing to Lord Spencer as it was discreditable to the disloyal This journey of Lord Spencer's to the west is deserving of special attention. It was an attempt made by the Radical organ sations of Cornwall to display their strength, and to overawe those Liberal Unionists who, in Cornwall, and still more in the adjoining county of Devon, have shown, not only strong vitality, but a resolute determination to prove that the old true principles of the "Liberal party "have not been, and shall not be, trampled under foot by the Separatist section of Radicals which follows Mr Gladstone, without a protest from those who have a better right both to the principles and the name. As a demonstration, there can be no doubt that the Gladstonians achieved a very fair amount of success, as, indeed, the trouble they had taken certainly deserved. Lord Spencer was received with respect and enthusiasm, and made a speech in which he justified his adherence to Mr Gladstone and his opposition to the "Coercion Bill" of the present Government. If, however, we analyse the speech, we shall probably be strengthened in the opinion that Lord Spencer is influenced rather by personal affection and reverence for Mr Gladstone, and by the power which a stronger nature exercises over one cast in a more feeble mould, than by any real and reasonable conviction of his own unbiassed judgment. The manner in which he gets rid of the charge of inconsistency is as delightful in its simplicity as it is pitiable in its weakness. "I administered exceptional criminal legislation in Ireland," says Lord Spencer, "when I did not believe that it was possible to give Home Rule to Ireland. I continued in the same belief until 1886; but then, having been converted to Home Rule, I became at liberty to oppose such legislation, as I now oppose that introduced by her Majesty's Government." must be held to be both inconsistent and unpatriotic in refusing to his successors powers which he himself demanded and obtained when in a similar position. There is a still more remarkable passage It is melancholy to read such in Lord Spencer's speech. He opinions expressed by such a man. contrasts the way in which Lord Let us put the proposition in a Cowper and Mr Forster dealt with more simple and intelligible form. the Land League, with his own When he was responsible for the manner of dealing with the Napeace of Ireland, Lord Spencer tional League, which he admits to asked for, obtained, and exercised be the "natural successor" of the with a firm hand, exceptional Land League-i.e., of that body of powers. Now, not being respons- which Mr Gladstone stated that ible for the peace of Ireland, he is crime" dogged its footsteps." Lord prepared to resist those who are, Cowper and Mr Forster had put and who upon their responsibility, down the Land League by arresting declare that exceptional powers and imprisoning its leaders. Lord are necessary, in their demand for Spencer magnanimously says "we such powers. And the poor, piti- never exercised that power, and ful excuse which he alleges as his we thought the proper way of justification is that he has, in the dealing with the National League interval, become convinced that was to see that it kept within the Home Rule may be safely given law." This is mighty fine talking; to Ireland. But even if this were but is it Lord Spencer's opinion so, and if the country had expressed that the National League has kept no opinion, ay or no, upon "Home and is keeping within the law? Rule," it would be a serious error And does not Lord Spencer perupon the part of a patriotic states- fectly well known that it is not the man, such as we take Lord Spen- question whether or not the League cer to be, to refuse to the Execu- and its agents have broken or are tive Government powers which it breaking the law, but whether the asks upon its responsibility unless law has not been so paralysed that prepared, not quibble it cannot be put in force? If a about the increase of crime as Northamptonshire tenant of Lord proved or disproved by the uncer- Spencer's had offended the "Fartain value of statistical evidence, mers' Alliance" or any similar orbut to deny the existence of a ganisation in England, and if, in state of things in parts of Ireland consequence of such offence, his which places an illegal authority cattle should be maimed, his above that of the Queen, and daughters have their hair cut off supersedes the ordinary law. But, and pitch poured upon their heads, when we come to consider that or if he himself should be shot in the country, specially appealed to the legs or otherwise grievously upon the point, has emphatically injured, Lord Spencer would probrefused to give Home Rule to Ire- ably be of opinion that condign land in Mr Gladstone's sense of punishment should follow such an Home Rule, then Lord Spencer outrage.' Would he be content he was 1 As a sample of the eagerness with which the Separatists are casting around them in every direction for excuses, and of their anxiety to extort from the with the statement that the law by which such outrages should be punished was "not in harmony with the opinion of the people"? Of course not. Yet that is the answer which is given to us by Gladstonian orators and the Gladstonian press when we protest against similar outrages in Ireland; and in the answer Lord Spencer practically concurs when he refuses to the Government power to enforce the law. Why is a loyal and law-abiding subject of her Majesty to be outraged in Ireland any more than in Northamptonshire? Does Lord Spencer really believe that Home Rule would be a remedy for such a depraved state of public morality as that which tolerates such things in the parts of Ireland in which they occur? He may rely upon it, that public morality must be improved, and criminal outrages punished with a strong hand, before any concessions can be made to Irish demands; and that to make such concessions, in any shape or form, until the supremacy of the law has been vindicated and established, would be at once a blunder and a crime. Lord Spencer protests against the proposed permanence of the Government measure. He entirely forgets that it is only to be ap plicable to districts proclaimed by the Lord Lieutenant, and that the proclamation can at once be removed, in the event of a better order of things being established, or the advent of a Government which deems it desirable that this should be done. Lord Spencer objects to an Irishman being tried. in England by an English jury; but it is questionable whether the proposal in the Bill of Mr Gladstone's own Government, that the trial might take place before three judges without any jury, was not of a more novel and stringent character. Throughout the whole of Lord Spencer's speech it is but too evident that he has allowed himself to be so entirely mesmerised by Mr Gladstone, that he can only see with the eyes and hear with the ears of his "venerable and beloved leader"; and under these circumstances, the best wish we can bestow upon him, as a loyal and well-meaning man, is that the trance may be of no long duration. We have not much time to bestow upon Lord Spencer's late colleague and subordinate, Sir George Trevelyan. No man has ever yet been able to achieve perfect success in the laudable endeavour to "run with the hare and hunt with the hounds" at the same time, and in this Sir 66 language of their opponents some condonation of their own position, we may refer to a remark made by Mr Childers at the party meeting in Edinburgh on 20th April. The right honourable gentleman actually held up Maga" as the defender of boycotting! In the Magazine we had written, "Let the Conservative party universally and firmly set upon the principle of withdrawing their business from all tradesmen they employ who do not support the Conservative candidate." We certainly said so, and do not feel called upon to retract our advice. But we did not say, "Let those Conservatives who are of our way of thinking compel all other Conservatives to carry out this principle; and if they do not do so, ostracise them, belabour them, maim their cattle, compel them to leave their fields untilled and their crops to rot, ruin them in every possible way, and shoot them down if you can do so with any prospect of impunity." If we had said this, there might have been some point in Mr Childer's quotation. But as we did not, we can only infer that the right honourable gentleman was adapting himself to the intelligence of his audience.—ED. B. M. George has succeeded no better paratively minor issues without than his predecessors. Having forfeiting the respect to which he honestly objected to Mr Glad- has been entitled by his previous stone's Home Rule scheme, and action. described it in strong terms of reprobation, Sir George underwent an honourable martyrdom in the Hawick Burghs, and was enrolled in the list of those Liberal Unionists with whom patriotism had proved stronger than party. Since then, party has been constantly endeavouring to win him back from patriotism, and, judging from various letters and speeches, his mental conflicts must have been of a curious and distressing character. To day it would seem that the cuckoo-cry "Coercion" has been too much for his virtue, and that he has discovered that exceptional powers which may safely be intrusted to Liberal officials cannot be left in the hands of their opponents. It will be seen that the weight of party is, at the moment, the heavier in the scale. To-morrow, perhaps, it may be different. We can only hope for the best, and at the same time regret that the certain result is that this vacillation will very much have diminished the confidence which the public were disposed to place in a man who had, on one occasion at least, acted according to his conscientious convictions, and done good service to his country by a courageous vote. Sir George Trevelyan must forgive us if we do not follow him in his really paltry criticism of one or two minor details in the Government Bill, which can, if necessary, be amended in Committee, and which do not at all affect the general scope, aim, and object of the measure, which have been emphatically accepted by the Unionist leaders, with whom Sir George has lately been associated, and whom he cannot now desert upon these com The frantic efforts of the Gladstonian-Parnellite confederates to excite the mobocracy against the Parliament have evoked a feeling throughout the country which will inevitably grow in force and intensity, as the subject is more and more impressed upon the public mind. Already, in many parts of the United Kingdom, loyal men, Liberals as well as Conservatives, have met to support the Queen's Government against the unconstitutional action of their unscrup ulous opponents. Those opponents, meanwhile, have to look to their own position, which has not been improved in the eyes of the lawabiding people of this country by the revelations which have lately been made concerning some of their associates and allies. On Friday the 15th of April, Colonel Saunderson ventured to say in the House of Commons that which has been said, without refutation or contradiction, in the columns of the Times,' with respect to the connection between certain leaders of the Parnellite party and men who have been obliged to fly the country under accusation of terrible crimes. It is possible that Colonel Saunderson, carried away by justifiable feelings, may have been somewhat too outspoken in his language, and may thus have afforded an excuse for the indignation, real or pretended, which his words evoked from the Nationalist allies of Mr Gladstone. It is impossible to prove that men who have associated with persons upon whom the guilt of murder and outrage has been afterwards fastened, were cognisant at the time of such association of the real or imputed guilt of those persons. None the less, however, must it be held culpable on the part of individuals, be they politicians or not, to establish intimate relations between themselves and men of whose character and antecedents they are ignorant. If charity be stretched so far as to make us believe that the Parnellite leaders were entire ly ignorant of the practices and intentions of their chosen companions, the damning fact remains that the companionship existed, and that there has been no such emphatic condemnation and denunciation of the men and their doings as might have been expected from men whose confidence had been so shamefully abused. On the contrary, the public has been led to believe that some of those very men have, up to a recent date, acted, if they are not even now acting, as the main supporters and upholders of the Parnellite funds; and Mr Parnell and his friends are believed to be upon as good terms with this wing of their army as with Mr Gladstone and his lieutenants. Be this as it may, the simple denials of the Parnellites, in however violent and vulgar language they may be couched, will have little weight with the British public. In his noble and outspoken speech on the 18th April, Lord Hartington demolished their position. Mr Sexton, in an able but discursive speech, had alluded to the statements, ample and detailed, which have recently appeared in the columns of the Times' newspaper, and which, unless contradicted, seem to bring home to some of the Parnellite leaders connection with the Fenian conspiracy, or at least with its members and organisers. In relation to these statements, Mr Sexton had used the words "slander" and "malignant forgery," but had gone on to say that he should, so far as he was himself concerned, treat them with contempt. A criminal action might indeed be brought; but Mr Sexton stated in so many words that an Irish member could not hope for justice at the hands of a British jury. Lord Hartington well remarked upon this statement that it did not harmonise very well with an expression of confidence in the British people and their opposition to "coercion," to which Mr Sexton had just given utterance; and as Lord Randolph Churchill subsequently pointed out in his speech at Nottingham, if Mr Parnell had no confidence in an English jury, he could submit his case to either a Scottish or an Irish one-the statement having been circulated by the press of the three kingdoms. But perhaps the most effective part of Lord Hartington's speech was that in which he tore away the mask from the face of "her Majesty's Opposition," and showed in plain terms the nature of their tortuous and unpatriotic conduct. They had no need, said Lord Hartington, to hunt up all kinds of excuses for their opposition to a Bill which was much less stringent than some which they had themselves introduced and passed. These Bills were intended to arm and strengthen the law, which had been defied and frustrated by the National League. But since they had become converted to Home Rule, they had come to the conclusion that the administration of the law should be practically placed under the control of that very League; and it was therefore natural that they should no longer support this kind of legislation. Lord Hartington's speech had a marked effect upon the House, which was by no means diminished or weakened by the petulant harangue which was |