which Mr Gladstone delivered to his Nonconformist admirers; but we observe with regret that in his allusion to "the important question of Disestablishment," he was unable to restrain his anti-Unionist sympathies, or to forbear from another attack upon the integrity of the Empire. Once more declaring that the question of Disestablishment ought to be decided, in Scotland, according to the wishes of the Scotch, and, in Wales, according to the wishes of the Welsh people, he went on to ask, "What is the use of our saying that, as long as England returns to the House of Commons a majority sufficiently strong to prevent discussion on any subject whatever, except such as the Government of the day, by the help of the dissentient Liberals, choose to place before it. This is a hard case." Mr Gladstone's ideas upon the subject of parliamentary and representative government appear to be confused and contradictory. If there is to be a United Kingdom and a National Parliament, it appears preposterous to question and cavil at the component parts of the majority which, after an appeal to the country, sways that Parliament and supports the Government of its choice. Mr Gladstone's anti-English predilections are painfully evident, and have arisen and increased in strength in proportion to the decline of his influence and prestige among English constituencies. Should the growing strength of the Constitutional and Unionist party in Scotland result in the return at the next election of a majority opposed to the Separatist followers of Mr Gladstone, we are quite prepared to see a melancholy diminution in the affection which that eminent statesman entertains for "dear old

Scotland," and to have pointed out to us in glowing terms the "hard case" of Ireland and "poor little Wales" being tyrannised over by a majority composed of Scotch and English members. According to the doctrine now laid down, the value to be attached to a majority depends upon its inclination or disinclination towards Mr Gladstone's own views and opinions. If the majority of English members happened to be Gladstonian, whilst Scotland and Wales had returned a large Unionist majority, does anybody suppose that we should have heard such denunciations of the preponderating power of England? The truth is that such talk in the mouth of any other man would be condemned as childish nonsense; and it is utterly unworthy of Mr Gladstone, unless and until he openly declares himself in favour of a divided kingdom, the abolition of the Imperial Parliament, and the establishment of separate assemblies for each nationality (why not for each county?) in the united-or disunited-countries.

Mr Gladstone's object, however, in the delivery of this particular speech, must not be forgotten, though it cannot excuse his line of argument. His one thonght at the moment was to induce Nonconformity to range itself as one man under his banners; hence he came as near as he dared come to the open advocacy of Disestablishment, and hence he more than hinted that in those parts of the kingdom where Noncomformists are in the majority, he would allow the advocates of Disestablishment to have their way. Certainly he made somewhat large demands upon the credulity of his hearers when, in the repetition of those misrepresentations of Irish history of

which he never wearies, he magnified the clemency and forbearance in the past of Irish Catholics towards the Protestants, absolutely ignored the massacre of 1641, and ridiculed the idea of the persecution of Protestants by a Catholic Irish Parliament. Nonconformists, however, are people who can read and think for themselves, and those who have carefully studied Irish history will smile at the gloss which Mr Gladstone throws over the deeds of those whom it is his cue to favour to-day, and, if they have anything of the spirit of their forefathers, will protest against that shameful disparagement of England, and exaltation of the Irish, in which Mr Gladstone so recklessly indulges, in utter defiance alike of patriotic feeling and of historical accuracy. Equally disgraceful is the manner in which Mr Gladstone refers to the recent action of the Canadian Parliament, in passing a resolution in favour of Home Rule being granted to Ireland. Everybody knows that resolutions of this kind, whether passed in Canada or America, must be taken with a large discount, by reason of the value of the Irish vote in American and Canadian elections. It was, how ever, an impertinent and improper action on the part of the Canadian Parliament, and one which was taken in opposition to the opinion of Canada's best and ablest statesmen. Had it been so taken in condemnation of any measure of Mr Gladstone's, we can conceive the eloquent burst of indignation with which he would have denounced it, and the scathing terms in which he would have read the Canadian Parliament a lesson upon the impropriety of its interference with the legislature of the United Kingdom. Under existing circumstances, however, he quotes this

interference with exultation, and uses it as another argument to show that the Unionists can only count upon England, and that in doing so they are ignoring the opinion of every other part of the empire.

When, in addition to the points in this remarkable speech to which we have called attention, we consider the strange misrepresentations in which Mr Gladstone indulged with respect to the recent controversies, in and out of Parliament, respecting the connection between "Parnellism and crime," and the still more extraordinary manner in which he attempted to explain away his former utterances with regard to "crime dogging the footsteps of the Land League," and Mr Parnell's party "marching through rapine to the dismemberment of the empire," we cannot help coming to the conclusion that in this exhibition at Dr Parker's, Mr Gladstone has really surpassed himself in his efforts to mislead public opinion, and must have enormously lowered the opinion entertained of him by his old supporters. For indeed, many of these have only left him gradually and with great reluctance; they have long cherished the highest admiration of his talents and character, and have scarcely trusted their own judgment when they found themselves unable to agree with and follow his views upon particular questions. But their alienation, though gradual, has been sure. Common consistency-or, if consistency be a thing of the past, common honesty-has been unable to keep pace with the turnings and twistings of Mr Gladstone's teachings; and some of those who have trusted him the most, and have brought themselves to believe that, at all events in

that an appeal should be made to the electorate whenever an essential difference of opinion prevails between two great political parties, or when large constitutional changes have been proposed by the Government of the day. But it is equally part and parcel of such a system that, when the opinion of the electorate has been pronounced, it should be recognised and accepted alike by victors and vanquished, and that the machine of Government should be allowed to work as before. This, however, is not the Gladstonian theory, nor is it the lesson which Lord Roseberry teaches his fellow countrymen. On the contrary, his efforts appear to be entirely directed to deride and to condemn the measures of the Government, and to misrepresent their conduct and the actual position of political affairs. We find him again reverting to the absurd and unsustainable charge of a coalition between "the Tory leaders" and the Parnellites in 1885, founded solely upon the fact that the Gladstone Government of that date, having succeeded in wearying and disgusting all parties, Tories and Parnellites were found in the same lobby upon that occasion, when a not unwelcome minority allowed Mr Gladstone to resign, in the full belief that no one would be found bold enough to take office in his place. That minority has been a god-send to the Gladstonians ever since it was registered in the votes of the House of Commons, but the story is somewhat stale now-as stale and unprofitable as the unworthy hints as to Lord Carnarvon's views about Home Rule, of which Mr. Gladstone made use during the elections, but with which Lord Rosebery did not condescend to supplement his statement concerning the "coalition." We regret to observe,

of

however, that he did not scruple to make use of the unfair argument with respect to the attempt of Lord Salisbury's Government to govern Ireland by the ordinary law. When the Parliament Great Britain had consented to establish household suffrage in Ireland, there was some ground for hoping that this extension of popular rights would have induced Irishmen to believe in the goodwill towards them entertained by their Scotch and English fellowsubjects, and that an increased desire would have been evinced to obey the law, and to maintain the Queen's authority. It seemed therefore worth the experiment to try whether this was the case; and even had it not been so, the time at which Mr Gladstone resigned in 1885 rendered it impossible for the new Government to have passed the renewal of the Crimes Bill through Parliament, in the teeth of the opposition which would certainly have been offered by the Parnellites and their ultra-Radical allies. But to try to govern by the ordinary law at a time when all politicians worthy of the name were supposed to be in favour of the union between Great Britain and Ireland, was a totally different thing to attempting the same thing after the extraordinary change of front executed by a large political party who, having proposed measures which directly threatened that Union, had excited Irish feeling, and encouraged an agitation which the ordinary law had proved unable to check. It is Lord Rosebery's own friends who are really responsible for the inability of any Government to govern Ireland, or to preserve peace and order without exceptional powers.

But if Lord Rosebery's recent speeches have been open to censure, we readily admit that his