lately indulged in! We think that, considering how the whole press of the country has been canvassing the manner in which the late election was brought about, and that, whatever his expectation may have been, Mr Gladstone certainly gained nothing by his tactics, he might have been spared this rencontre. We are happy to think that we in our March number* stated our belief that the dissolution of Parliament had not been long premeditated except as a possible dernier ressort. We do not accuse him of dissimulation in that respect, and we do take into consideration the desperate straits in which, no doubt, he found himself at the end of January. Many Ministers might perhaps have thought that, having once taken the step of summoning Parliament for the despatch of business, and so impressed the country with the belief that the Session was to commence in a few days, they were precluded in equity, if not in law, from suddenly reversing their policy and decreeing a dissolution. But such is not Mr Gladstone's way of looking at things. Twenty times within the last five years we have seen how easily his mind is reconciled to the straining to the uttermost of a law or a custom, or even a provision of the Constitution, when a measure on which he is intent can be promoted thereby. But the method of the dissolution and the mistakes of the Greenwich manifesto had, during the election time, been submitted to the public judgment, and received public condemnation. It is not quite clear why Mr Smollet felt called upon to be Mr Gladstone's accuser before Parliament; still less clear is it why Mr Gladstone thought it necessary to plead in such an excited strain to the indictment, which, after all, he did not satis

The House did

factorily answer. not appear to recognise the necessity, and if the challenge were to be answered at all, a knight armed cap-à-pie was hardly required to enter the lists. A stout yeoman able to use his quarter-staff or his fists might have seemed a fitter champion. And here, again, one is constrained to ask what had become of the numerous retainers who not long ago would have deemed it the height of good fortune to be allowed to do battle in the ring for Mr Gladstone. Why was the right honourable gentleman left to fight the battle alone? It is rather too soon for him to be utterly forsaken.

The monotony of the Session has been enlivened by an Irish debate, from which one learns with pleasure that the laws are being enforced in Ireland with a promptitude and vigour which for some years past have been rare in that part of the world. Of course the enforcement of the law is a grievance to lawbreakers; and hence the House of Commons has been appealed to against the perfectly legal, and, as would appear, most necessary acts of the Government. An Irish newspaper, entitled 'The Flag of Ireland,' has, it seems, been guilty of the gross indecency of writing of her Majesty the Queen as "the foreign lady who holds this country in subjection ;" it has glorified the Fenian movement; and it spoke disparagingly of the English army when it was supposed to have been surrounded and cut off in Ashanti. For these offences it received a warning from the Lords Justices, the purport of this warning being, that the offences, or any of them, if repeated, would bring the paper within the power of the law, and subject it to summary suppression. The feel

ing of every honest Briton who came to know of the matter undoubtedly was, that the writer of such infamous stuff, instead of being simply warned, should have been summarily punished. He would have felt the public indignation if he had uttered his abominable sayings where John Bull could lay his hand upon him. But the law prescribes, and no doubt properly prescribes, that a warning shall in the first instance be given to offenders of this class, to be followed by something a little sharper if the offence should be repeated. The Government, therefore, has not shrunk from the suppression of this unbecoming language: it has done all that it was empowered to do; and we, who burn with the consciousness that the offender has escaped too cheaply, may rest assured that, if the hint of the Lords Justices be not taken, he will have the full benefit of the law when he next may commit himself. As a proof that the Irish Executive is not likely to flinch, we may mention that this is not the only instance in which it has shown vigour in repressing disaffection. One Mr Thomas M'Evoy, a magistrate of the County Meath, thought fit at an election meeting to indulge in the delivery of a disloyal and pro-Fenian speech, for which he has been promptly deprived of his commission of the peace. These examples, be it remembered, could not have been made by a Government dependent for its existence upon the Popish vote. The same faction in the House of Commons which can now only bluster and tell out their grievance (proh pudor!), might have threatened the late Government with annihilation if it should persist in a firm and just execution of the law. Hence we may discern the enormous gain to order in Ireland produced by the late change of administration. A Government to which the Popish

vote is essential cannot avoid conniving at. such crimes as the body of Irish members choose to take under their protection. Had the choice of the people been less decidedly expressed than it was at the last election, the Irish members would have held-as they expected to hold-the scales in which the two great parties hung, and might have inclined the beam either way at their pleasure. A more dangerous state of things it is impossible to conceive; and electors on this side the water, when they read of these occurrences in Ireland, will rejoice that they did not half do their work, but returned a British majority outnumbering not only the Irish vote, but all those sections which would have coalesced with the Home Rule and other factions for the sake of maintaining their party in power.

The language of the 'Flag of Ireland' affords a melancholy proof of the amount of conciliation that has been produced by despoiling and disestablishing the Irish Church, and by slighting and discouraging the most loyal portion of the Irish people. The editor of the print does not, of course, stand alone. He represents a league or section of some kind and some magnitude, and one which does not hesitate to give its opinions to the world. Whatever the section may be, it seems but slightly sensible of, or responsive to, the great benefits conferred on Ireland by the late Government. We do not mean, however, to imply that the 'Flag of Ireland' represents more than a fraction of the Home Rulers, Fenians, and what not. At any rate, it does not imitate their tactics. It is too outspoken-lets us see too plainly the end that it is pursuing; it utters sentiments which, if uttered by all those who are struggling for the so-called Irish freedom, would speedily alienate

sympathy in this island, and bring the different movements to a standstill. At present the great body of the turbulent Irish profess to be, and we believe are, perfectly loyal to the Crown. The wire-pullers in Rome and elsewhere don't let them see too far into the ultimate designs. This was proved by innocent Mr Digby, who, in the debate of which we write, said that "when he joined the Home-Rule Association, he did so in the hope that it would afford the basis of a sure alliance between the two countries, but certainly not to encourage the publication of miserable and seditous libels." We quite believe you, Mr Digby; and we trust that you and other honourable and loyal gentlemen will, before you have committed yourselves too far, take more heed to your ways, ascertain what the adventure is in which you have embarked, whither it points, and whether the 'Flag of Ireland' has not, in its unguarded wrath, only too plainly demonstrated the real designs of those who are abusing your generous natures, and using you for purposes which you would abhor if you understood them. The pear is not ripe yet, and the 'Flag of Ireland,' though it meets with lenient treatment from the "foreign lady" whom it has maligned, may, for its loquacity, get a harder knock from another "foreign lady"-a lady clothed in purple and scarlet, of notoriously ill fame, and who, manoeuvre as she may, will never prevail against the gracious lady who sits on the throne of these realms, while there is a Briton alive to defend the Protestant dynasty.

Mr Butt's speech on this wretched affair evinced a bold ingenuity worthy of the late Mr O'Connell. The honourable and learned member attacked the Government for warning the seditious paper. The seditious article would, he thought, have

passed unnoticed, if Ministers had not, by the course they took, directed attention to it. The article, he argued (we know not on what grounds), would never make a rebel, but the warning might do so. This is the very purest Irish doctrine. Sedition, treason, are quite innoxious in themselves; it is only when the law attempts to interfere with them that they are dangerous. The general inference, of course, is that it is exceedingly unwise to throw any impediment in the way of Irish crime, which, provided it may only have free scope, will be the most harmless thing in the world. Absurd as all this reads, the time is not so very old when the unwisdom of it would have been less apparent. When there was a weak Government in office, and when a large division of Englishmen had been persuaded to believe in Irish grievances, it certainly would have been most indiscreet to direct public attention to seditious writings. The warning would have been followed by no decisive action, and might have excited sympathy for the criminal. The Executive dared not act, and therefore the only policy was to wink hard and let sedition have its way. But Mr Butt seems to forget entirely that we now have a Government which knows its duty in this regard, and means to fulfil it. It does not quite understand why, when disloyal sentiments are printed and published, they should be condoned, or at the best overlooked, lest a bird of the air should carry the matter, and increased circulation should be given to the seditious sentiments. We much fear that, when language of the kind complained of is made public in Ireland, only too certain means are resorted to for giving it the widest possible circulation. We do not imagine that the warning will at all increase the circulation

in quarters where it is likely to do mischief; but even if it were to have that effect, the antidote will accompany the bane: they who may read the offensive words will know that the author of them is under the observation of the law, and will incur punishment for his next offence. If the notoriety which, in a free country, must follow the enforcement of the law, were to be a reason for not putting the law in force, where should we stand as regards the repression of crime?

But while Mr Butt, with consummate ingenuity, was setting forth the mischievous consequences that in Ireland would follow the vigorous action of the Government, he was careful not to breathe a hint of another effect, which, in the opinion of many, will be more than a counterpoise. We mean, the effect which the publicity given by the warning, and by the debate in Parliament, will produce in England and Scotland. Here there is not the slightest danger of the author of the article making converts to his way of thinking. Nothing but indignation will be excited by the indecorum. But, then, of what importance is it that this honest indignation should be aroused! The debate, if it have no other effect, will do infinite good by enlightening the people of Great Britain. It is good for us that we should be informed as to the state of feeling and the aims of parties in Ireland; and the debate in the House of Commons, and the comments of the press thereon, convey clearer knowledge to the public than elaborate treatises filled with reports and figures. A few such facts as this brought to light will speedily decrease the number of Britons who, on the announcement of an Irish grievance, are ready with misplaced sympathy. They have only to learn what it is that they are desired to sympathise with, and they know

how they ought to act. It would be a good thing if the articles of the 'Flag of Ireland,' and of other seditious papers, could be reprinted in large type, and posted in places of public resort all over Great Britain. They would aptly supplement the instruction afforded by the publication of Judge Keogh's judgment on the County Galway Election. Let it but be shown how Popery controls elections, and whither "veiled rebellion" is leading, and it will exceed the power of even Mr Gladstone's tongue to beguile us to a policy of weak indulg

ence.

·

The strength of Irish disaffection and perversity has hitherto lain always in the division of English opinion with regard to Ireland. That division was the result of ignorance; people having no knowledge of their own were wont to adopt the views instilled by persons having an interest in promoting certain measures. But we may safely anticipate that, when more accurate knowledge concerning Ireland shall prevail, unanimity as to how she should be governed will also prevail. It is by contributing to this accurate knowledge that the warning to the Flag of Ireland,' and the debate thereon, will produce their most useful effect. Once let Ireland lose the power of dividing opinion in England, and the problem how to govern her is cleared of its main difficulties. We trust that she is losing that power; that the upas tree agitation is the last of the series of Irish excitements by which English politicians have so frequently obtained an unmerited eminence; and that in a few years we may find Ireland abandoning the hope of creating further dissension here, and endeavouring to work out her own weal and advancement, not by exhibiting her sores and whining for eleemosynary relief, but by persevering in in

dustry and by abstaining from turbulence and crime.

Before we leave this subject it may be well to note a remark of a weekly contemporary, the Saturday Review,' which, in reference to this debate on the warning, takes occasion to say-"Although Mr Disraeli, in one of his election speeches, taunted Mr Gladstone with the severity of the exceptional laws now prevailing in Ireland, it is highly improbable that he will, for the present, relax existing restraints." Our contemporary for the moment, we fancy, overlooked the real point of Mr Disraeli's taunt. He could not have intended to reproach Mr Gladstone simply for having passed the Coercion Act; because probably Mr Disraeli is quite as well satisfied with that measure as Mr Gladstone can be. But Mr Gladstone bragged that he could pacify Ireland by other means, such as cutting down upas trees; and it was the failure of these means, as implied in the resort to a Coercion Act, with which Mr Disraeli twitted him. Another sentence from the same article in the 'Saturday Review' has our entire concurrence, and is worth quoting "When Irish members truly assert that crime has greatly decreased since the enactment of the last Coercion Bill, they supply the most complete defence of a measure which has produced so beneficial an effect."

The nearest approach to a sensation that has been reached in the new House of Commons had place when the First Lord of the Admiralty introduced the Navy estimates. A "scare," as some honourable members called it, was the consequence of his speech. And, certainly, between the First Lord's announcement and the reply given by Mr Goschen, ground was afforded, if not for terror, at least for serious reflec

tions. The combatants evidently did not perhaps they did not care to-understand each other exactly. The reply contained no direct answer to the speech. The speakers generally, bringing up masses of facts and figures, used them so as to illustrate, each some particular argument which he himself was desirous of impressing on the House; but there was very little attempt towards bringing out for the information of Parliament, and of the public generally, the real state of our navy. Mr Ward Hunt necessarily possesses only a general acquaintance with the subject. His speech, standing alone, affords a pretty clear view; but his opponents, aware of the advantage which they possessed from longer acquaintance with details, quickly overlaid his facts with many sorts of matters, not exactly irrelevant, but not straight to the points at issue, and soon created a pretty intricate confusion. About one thing there is no doubt-namely, that the First Lord declared that the state of the fleet is not satisfactory, and that a considerable expenditure would be required to make it so. Mr Goschen, in reply, was understood to admit the imputation, but to demand why, as there was a surplus of six millions, the Government did not immediately set about remedying the defect. Afterwards Mr Goschen said he did not mean to admit the charge at all; and it is probable that he did not, but that what he wanted to imply, although he put it clumsily, was "It seems inconsistent with your declaration that you do not ask for more money, seeing that you have inherited such a surplus : as you do not ask this, one may take the liberty of supposing that you greatly exaggerate the deficiency." But no; Mr Hunt said there was no inconsistency at all. The state of things was as he had