loudly too, if they have cause to think that it was the obstinacy and incapacity of the officers that ran the ship on to the rocks and made the use of the lifeboat necessary. But really has it come to this? Has national shipwreck come upon us so quickly that an ex-Cabinet Minister already describes Great Britain as a vessel going to pieces on the rocks,' from which the passengers must be thankful to escape, even with the loss of their property?

Certainly the Birmingham speeches provide us with some startling surprises. 'I do not pretend to be a Democrat,' said Mr. Bright: 'I never accepted that title.' Mr. Bright, then, will not lead the Democrat army in person. He prefers to point out the way it should go and await the result. March on, brave army, and when you've won the battle let me know.' When I came to the sentence in which Mr. Bright asks his hearers whether they did not feel that something like a great calm had come over the country,' I was fairly puzzled. I rubbed my eyes to make sure that I was awake. I could only explain it on the supposition that Mr. Bright had visited a music-hall and carried away the nonsensical joke of some nigger clown-Yah, yah, how you am this day to-morrow?' The population of Ireland is about equal to the population of Lancashire and Yorkshire. Let us for a moment suppose that the same condition of affairs existed in Lancashire and Yorkshire that now exists in Ireland; that the county members and 500 or 600 citizens of the better class were imprisoned in Manchester and York gaols without trial; that the Radical papers were suppressed; that respectable women were arrested, children imprisoned for whistling seditious airs; that men dare not pay their rents or fulfil their contracts; that tradesmen were 'Boycotted' and ruined for supplying necessaries to the unpopular class; that women had their hair shaved off for being seen speaking to a policeman; that every day men and women were threatened, murdered,

mutilated, cattle maimed and destroyed; that 40,000 troops were employed in evicting tenants and safeguarding foxhunters; that the judge declared from the bench that lawlessness, terrorism, and deliberate combination for the perpetration of deadly crime stalked undetected;' if this was the present condition of Lancashire and Yorkshire would Mr. Bright venture to speak so pleasantly of the great calm that had come over the country'? and is not Ireland as much a part of the United Kingdom as Lancashire and Yorkshire? Let us look the matter in the face. Ireland contains about one-fifth of the population of the United Kingdom. By far the larger proportion of this population are in a state of rebellion against the law; not only are they in a state of rebellion, but they are in a state of successful rebellion, and Mr. Bright asks us to be thankful for a great calm. More than this, he calls upon us to be thankful that we are in the hands of those under whom these things have come to pass. But do we not know, does not every man know, does not Mr. Bright before all men know, and know as certainly as he knows that the sun sometimes shines in the heavens, that if the present condition of Ireland had existed under the Government of Lord Beaconsfield there would not have been stumps enough in the country to accommodate him and his friends in their holy duty of denouncing the tyranny, the incapacity, the treason, the &c., of those who had made such things possible, and to demand their impeachment?

II.

A TREE IS KNOWN BY ITS FRUITS.

Is it permitted to one who belongs to neither political party, and who does not care twopence who are the 'ins' and who are the 'outs,' provided the country is fairly

governed, to inquire what fruit we have gathered from the great Gladstonian tree that was planted amid such general acclamation three years ago? Has it been altogether a different kind of fruit, sweeter and more palatable than that borne by the tree that preceded it, or is it very much the same, only a trifle more sour and indigestible? I know I shall be told that where Mr. Gladstone is concerned no inquiry is allowed; that the rules that apply to ordinary politicians do not apply to him; that, in fact, where in other mortals we look for results, in him we must not only be satisfied but thankful for intentions. This is a very comfortable argument for those waiters on Providence,' as Mr. Labouchere calls them, who consider they will best serve their own interests and best insure their re-election by giving an unqualified and undeviating support to Mr. Gladstone.' It is of course no argument at all for heretics like myself, who can only see in Mr. Gladstone a most astute, eloquent, various, and, I must add, unscrupulous party leader. Good intentions are admirable in every one, but it does not do to forget they are so common that a certain thickly-populated place is said to be paved with them!

But there are other reasons why many in the country are curious to check the results of Mr. Gladstone's three years' dictatorship. The campaign in which he accomplished the overthrow of Lord Beaconsfield was not conducted within the ordinary lines of party contests. The buttons were ostentatiously removed from the foils. It was a duel à mort. The simple 'ote-toi de là, que je m'y mette' that, in tones more or less polite, is the usual war-cry of contending political parties, was in this case replaced with invective and denunciation of the most vindictive and personal character. I should almost lose faith in humanity,' said a member of the present Government, if the English people did not sweep this infamous Government from the place they occupy.' The fierce denunciations of Warren Hastings by the managers of

the Great Trial are the only parallel to the personal invective hurled at Lord Beaconsfield by his opponents at the last general election. 'What a wicked man Warren Hastings must be,' was the quiet remark of Warren Hastings to a friend as he listened to Sheridan's great speech. 'What wicked men we must all be!' was doubtless the remark of the members of the late Government as they listened to the charges of inhumanity, bloodguiltiness, &c., that were hurled at them by their accusers. Leaving on one side promises and 'good intentions' let us look actually at results; let us see what constitutes the great difference between the 'infamous' Government that was swept away by the last general election and that which has succeeded it.

Let us try and know the tree by its fruits: '-1. Irresponsible utterances: Hands off, Austria,' evictions are tantamount to death,' 'the Chapel Bell,' &c.; 2. The failure of the commercial treaty with France; 3. The Dulcigno difficulty; 4. The repeal of the Peace Preservation Act; 5. A reign of terror and horrible outrage; 6. The Land Act; 7. Acts of repression the most severe and most sweeping ever known in Ireland; 8. The Kilmainham Treaty; 9. The Arrears Bill; 10. Our crowning disgrace in the Transvaal; 11. The ridiculous squabble with the House of Lords; 12. The bombardment of the forts of Alexandria; 13. The burning of a portion of the city; 14. The break-up of the European Concert; 15. The despatch of 30,000 men to Egypt; 16. The despatch of the Indian Contingent to Egypt; 17. The blood-guiltiness of Tel-el-Kebir, of Obeid, of Trinkitat, of Teb, and Tama. nieb; 18. The stamping out the national rising in Egypt; 19. Hoisting Humpty-Dumpty on the wall again; 20. The sham trial of Arabi; 21. The Jingo parade of troops through the streets of London; 22. The Bradlaugh scandal, three times renewed; 23. Consternation amongst the Anglo-Indian community; 24. Increased manufacturing and agricultural depression; 25. The Clôture.

Well, I believe this is a fair catalogue of the political incidents of the last three years. Naturally, those who think everything must be for the best in this best of Governments will see everything to be proud of in it all; but to me, I confess, it appears very commonplace, very unsatisfactory, in no single respect an improvement on the last Government, or any Government preceding it. In spite of all that was promised, of the deafening flourish of Radical trumpets, there has been nothing grand or noble in it. On the contrary, to my understanding, it bears the unmistakable stamp of childishness and petulancy. It appears throughout to have been inspired and directed by two distinct motives-a desire to undo, at any cost, all that the preceding Government had done; and a desire to fulfil the impossible programme of Midlothian. It was childish to insult Austria and apologise the next day; it was childish to use phrases that directly stimulated Irish outrages; it was childish to force a quarrel on the House of Lords, when the House of Lords was right; it was childish to repeal the Peace Preservation Act, when it became necessary almost immediately afterwards to apply to Parliament for two Acts of repression far more stringent; it was childish to expect to advance the prosperity of Ireland by an Act that absolutely arrested the investment of capital in that country, and stopped entirely the sale and distribution of land. It was almost like 'setting fire to your bed in order to kill a flea' to stake the peace of Europe on the Dulcigno adventure. If it was so right to send 30,000 men to guard the gates of India in Egypt in 1882, why was it so wrong to send 30,000 men to guard the gates of India in Afghanistan in 1879 ? If it was so patriotic an act to employ Indian troops to prevent the Egyptians holding Egypt in 1882, why was it almost treasonable to employ Indian troops to prevent the Russians taking Constantinople in 1879? The cases are quite different, I am told. It may be so, but the objects were the same; but it is not the difference in the cases