to risk its loss by receding from last year's demands. Upon the probability of the contentment and pacification of Ireland being obtained by concessions to these demands, it is well to note Mr. Bright's letter to a Birmingham Home-Ruler on March the 15th. Mr. Bright avows his continued sympathy for for Ireland and the Irish; and with respect to Mr. Parnell and his Nationalist colleagues, he thus expresses himself: "I am asked why I cannot trust those leaders. I do trust them most entirely. I have seen their course for seven years past, and have heard and read their speeches. I believe in those speeches, and see in them only hatred to England and disloyalty to the Crown, and I am unwilling to intrust to their tender mercies any portion of the population now under the government of the Imperial Parliament." If we contrast the calm, sensible tone of this letter with the wild ravings of the Pall Mall Gazette' and the intemperate nonsense of Gladstonian orators upon provincial platforms, and, alas! even in the House of Commons itself, we shall not have mnch difficulty in discovering where the truth is to be found, and which is the right path for patriots to follow.

Let it, morevover, be ever borne in mind that in calling upon Unionists, whether Conservative or Liberal, to band themselves together and stand shoulder to shoulder against the common enemies of the empire, we ask no one to sacrifice his opinion and convictions upon any of the grave political and social questions which await solution in the future. We only seek to have it recognised and accepted, that the crisis is so grave, and the danger to the empire so real and serious, that everything

else must be postponed until that crisis has been passed and that danger trodden under foot. We freely admit that the Radical Unionist, who anxiously desires reforms in Church and State, the furtherance of which may have been his principal object and interest in political life, has a greater demand made upon him than that which is made upon his Conservative fellow-worker in the Unionist cause. But he is asked to abandon no opinion and to surrender no principle. On the contrary, if he has confidence in his own ideas and theories, he should feel that he is far more likely to disseminate the one and obtain the adoption of the other by being brought into contact and alliance with men who, recognising his honest loyalty to the empire in the hour of its peril, will in the future regard him and his opinions with increased consideration and respect. Conservative Unionists may hope, on the other hand, that their alliance with the more moderate of their heretofore political opponents may show the latter how small and unimportant are the differences which have as yet prevented them from a thorough and perfect combination, and that such a desirable event may yet be the outcome of the present condition of affairs.

We are by no means insensible of the difficulties which lie in the way of even such an alliance as that which at the present moment happily exists between the different sections of politicians who constitute the Unionist party. As Mr Chamberlain justly observed in a recent speech at Birmingham, it is almost impossible to persuade Tories to vote for Radicals, or Radicals for Tories; and the abstentions from going to the poll on this account lost many seats to the Unionist cause at the last general

election. The ties of party are immensely, nay, absurdly strong in England, so that men will constantly submit to very great sacrifices of personal opinion sooner than incur the reproach of disloyalty to their party by refusing to follow the policy of its leaders. But when, as in the present case, those leaders are divided, and the question of policy is one which vitally affects the very existence of the United Kingdom, something even stronger than party ties should awake in the breast of every Briton who is worthy of the name. There would be no greater mistake than to suppose that the contest was finally decided at the election of 1886. Those who were defeated have too much at stake to accept as final the verdict which was then recorded. Every effort will be made to obtain the reversal of that verdict; and to defeat such efforts loyal men must be firm, resolute, and united.

Our opponents are never weary of telling us that they are as much for the Union as we are, but that it is a real union of heart and soul which they desire. And yet, with these professions in his mouth, Mr Gladstone, with strange inconsistency, takes every opportunity of pointing out to the several nationalities of which the United Kingdom is composed, that they have separate and divided interests, and that it is England which is unduly outweighing and overbearing the opinions of Scotland, Ireland, and Wales. One would have imagined that a statesman who really desired a union of heart and soul between the people of these islands, would have rather loved to dwell upon the interests which they possess in common, and the many reasons which exist for such a union. Mr Gladstone, however, prefers to take a contrary course, and, not content

with trying to set by the ears the four recognised nationalities within the kingdom, his last effort has been to set up an additional nationality, and to persuade the great country of York that she, too, has some interest separate and apart from that of the rest of England. Yorkshire, forsooth, returned a majority of Gladstonians as her representatives at the last election, and therefore, according to Mr Gladstone, Yorkshire has in some inscrutable manner been wronged by the fact that collective England happily returned a majority of Unionists. This, however, is only one more example of the mischief which would arise from the adoption of Mr Gladstone's views. Everywhere they tend to division and disunion. Carry them out to their legitimate conclusions, and we must have a separate Parliament and Government in every county, if not indeed in every hundred or wapentake, or even in every parish of a county. It is indeed the idea of self-government gone mad, which seems to have taken possession of this eminent statesman's brain. Self-government is doubtless in itself an admirable thing, but, like other admirable things, it may be spoiled by overdoing; and that every part of a country should govern itself, irrespective and independently of the other parts, is, of course, a state of things incompatible with the existence of that country in the shape of a great and united empire. To common-citizenship in such an empire Mr Gladstone apparently attaches no value, or if he values it at all, it is as something quite secondary and inferior to the possession of a distinct and separate nationality, however helpless and unimportant the latter may chance to be. But it is in the aggregate of nationalities, closely united by common bonds

which at once aroused the wrath of those parliamentary bullies who are striving to overawe the House of Commons by their vulgar braggadocio. Accordingly, on the night of Friday the 18th of March, when Mr Dillon had succeeded in dragging the case of Father Keller before an unwilling House, Mr Balfour was contradicted, interrupted, and subjected to insulting language which would have disgraced Billingsgate. We grieve to say that it was not only Irish Parnellites who took part in this shameful behaviour. Perhaps no better could have been expected of Mr Labouchere, who has never shown the slightest respect for the dignity and character of parliament; but the citizens of York can hardly be proud of the part played by their representative, Mr Lockwood. This gentleman, owning to "the very small experience of the House which he possessed," took upon himself to lecture Mr Balfour upon the way in which he had

chosen to deal with the question," accused him, forsooth, of "want of respect" to Mr Dillon, and of approaching the subject "in a dictatorial spirit." This impudent attack probably had no effect upon Mr Balfour, but certainly did not reflect anything but discredit upon its author. It was both wanton and unnecessary, besides being most ungenerous, when we consider that it was made upon a man who had only filled his present office for some three days, and in whose speech there was really nothing which could in the least justify Mr Lockwood's bitterness. Nor was it on Friday only that Mr Balfour was treated in a manner so

conspicuously unfair as to call for notice. On Monday the 21st, the Irish and their Radical allies forced the House of Commons to sit through the whole night and far into Tuesday. The discussion was upon the Estimates, and had there been a real wish to discuss an Irish question, opportunity could have been found therein. But these honest and kindly opponents waited until Mr Balfour, after a long sitting, had gone to bed, and then, raising a discussion which could lead to nothing, insisted upon his presence, and refused to go on with the business until he had been sent for. Mr Balfour is not believed to be strong, and it appears to be the desire and intention of the genial Nationalists to wear him out. We trust and believe, however, that they are reckoning without their host. Even after the long sitting on Monday, and the lack of time to make any preparation for Tuesday's debate, his reply to the laboured invective of Mr J. Morley was spirited, pointed, and full of vigour. Mr Balfour has given evidence that he has a brave heart and determined spirit, and will not be daunted by the unworthy course taken by men who are unable to cope with him by fair and legitimate argument. For ourselves we are proud of our fellowcountryman, and confident that the public opinion of Great Britain will applaud his bold tone and courageous bearing, whilst all loyal men will uphold and support him and his colleagues in their resolution to enforce obedience to the law in every part of her Majesty's dominions.