less-against the Church. On the other hand, what do the wealthy classes do for the Church, which is the chief upholder of their unjust privileges? They do for it all the harm that they can. They defend it with their speech and ruin it by their actions. The state of London society that has been revealed by recent divorcecourt cases is a distinct advertisement that the Church is more useful to the Devil than to God. The Church sprung from the people, and as long as it is not a people's Church so long will it be This is the problem not a proper Church. This is the problem before Mr. Samuel Smith and all like him, who seriously regret that the Church is what she is to bring the Church, founded by Christ the Democrat, back to the constitution of its Founder.

The People's Palace.

Whenever a thing is good the Devil tries to get hold of it. And as with the monarch of the obscene depths so with earthly royalty. Royalty, that never gives a penny to the people, is never tired of trying to advertise itself the people's friend. By opening a People's Palace it would say, "See what your Queen gives to you, the people." So out to the East-end of London went our hermit-Queen, bowing like the Chinese Mandarin, and looking, to do her justice, as honestly and thoroughly bored as it is possible for a woman to look. The Palace she went to open is a creation from the brain of Mr. Walter Besant, the novelist, whose heart is with the people, but whose head has yet to be taught how the people are really to be helped. But, at any rate, the Palace was a great idea. It was to be a splendid hall of culture and enjoyment for the people. Unfortunately, the people do not seem to care much about it. Snobocracy has fallen upon it with its blighting curse, and that which was originally meant for the use of the people has been turned into an advertisement for royalty. The consummation of this farce of the snobs was the knighting of a Mr. Jenkins-or Jennings, or whatever his name is-who is chairman of the Drapers' Company, which company gave to the Palace Fund some of that money which comes to them from their ill-gained endow

ments. Thank goodness! it did not enter the Queen's head to knight Walter Besant. It is a wonder that the person who wanted to make our great novelist Lord Dickens did not think of that. So many titles are being bestowed on empty heads that it would have made them comparatively decent by giving one to Besant.

A Jubilee Hero.

The Queen has a son who is at present in India. He possesses a little of the musical talent of his family; he might have honourably and ably filled the post of a drummer or a flute-tooter. Being his mother's son, he is Commander-in-Chief of the Indian army, a post that should be held by the very ablest soldier in the empire. Now, at this present time, danger hangs upon the borders of India. Yet the time is selected as that in which a rule must be broken, and the Commanderin-Chief allowed to leave his post of duty in order that he may congratulate his mamma on having the power to place him in a situation for which he is thoroughly unfit. A few members of the House of Commons have uttered a protest against this foolishness. We think that they did wrong. It really does not matter whether any one of the Queen's sons is in India, Britain, or Wangeroo. We are fools to let them take away the rewards of honourable and honoured merit, and it does not matter one straw where they spend these rewards. Indeed, it would pay us in the end to give them their full salaries and ask them to emigrate.

Help for Those who Help Themselves. A prayer of the Athenians used to be "Send down, oh! send down rain, dear Zeus, on the ploughed fields and plains of the Athenians." That is the same thing as saying "We have ploughed, do thou water." But the English farmer appeals to Providence and Parliament not after but before he has done the best he can for himself. What he suffers from is not Free Trade but excessive rents. Yet he cries out to Parliament to help him when all he has to do is to insist that he has fair treatment from his

The most

At the National Conference of Iron and Steel Workers Mr. Trow, in an able speech, supported a resolution in favour of an increased number of Labour representatives in Parlia ment. He wisely said that he wanted men "who would be above patronage to fight their own battles irrespective of party." Not until such members appear in the House of Commons will working men obtain just legislation. In the last Parliament the Labour representatives did not act irrespective of party. atrocious propositions made in connection with the government of Ireland were too easily swallowed by the Labour representatives. In thus acting they not only sacrificed their own principles, but they let down the Liberal party by encouraging the belief that working class voters would support the party in advocating the payment of landlords, government without representation, a first order, and other abominations. If the Labour representatives had fearlessly criticised the Bill they would have saved their own reputations and preserved the Liberal party from destruction.

Tithes.

It is pleasant to learn that "the Tithe War has broken out afresh in Wales." This is a war that ought never to cease. Tithes are a demand to share the proceeds of other people's industry under the plea of supplying religious teaching which is not wanted. Tithes, therefore, are the most odious form of injustice. To be preached at by men who have their right hand in your pocket feeling for your hardearned sovereigns is an outrage beyond the range of human endurance. The public are beginning to discover this, and shrewd investors, who think of nothing but securities, see the danger of investing in tithes, the market value of which has fallen during the last few years from twenty-seven years' purchase, which they used to realise, to seventeen years' purchase, which is the outside value now obtainable.

Those Bishops Again.

Those of us Democrats - and we are not a few-who love and honour the National Church and respect her high traditions, are sometimes filled with disgust and despair at the feeble foolishness of many of her clergy. The Upper House of Convocation has agreed to a motion passed in the Lower House “to take such steps as may be in their power to prohibit and suppress this innovation, which is a great scandal in the eyes of many devout Church people, and is detrimental to the spread of true religion." And what think you is this innovation, this scandal, this thing "detrimental to the spread of true religion?" The words are so strong that it might be anything bad. It might be a claim on the part of a few clergymen to perform Ruddigore for morning service, to marry half a dozen wives, or to murder a churchwarden once a week. But one is lost in astonishment to find that this dreadful innovation is, that a few Estab lished Church clergy have occupied Nonconformist pulpits. Really we can hardly understand this. Are most clergymen fools? Will they dare to say that the pulpit of Mr. Spurgeon is less holy than the pulpit of the Archbishop of Canterbury? despair of the interests of true religion. Resolutions like that of Convocation more than justify Mr. Bradlaugh. When we are told that "the spread of true religion" is endangered because a State-paid clergyman preaches in the pulpit of a non-State-paid clergyman, then "true religion" has sunk low indeed.

We begin to

A London cook, a poor woman who seems to have lived an honest enough life, has been sent to three months' hard labour because she gave to a starving beggar man a handful of her master's broken victuals. Her theft, if we can use so harsh a word, did not probably amount to twopence. Now, if she gets three months' for twopence, how long should many public characters get who rob the poor of millions? It will be an awkward thing for them if they have to make the calculation in

the next world.

Shrewd and experienced members of the House of Commons declare that the existing state of things cannot long continue. They admit their inability to suggest the means by which a change is to be brought about. They allow that the connection between the Tories and Hartingtonians is more firm than ever, and that members elected as Liberals support a Coercion Bill introduced on false pretences, directed not against crime but against political agitation. It is, therefore, difficult to imagine that any course proposed by the Tory Government will fail to have the support of Liberals who have turned their backs upon the first principles of Liberalism

But it is contended that, as the present action of the Government is a denial of popular and constitutional principles, an outrage upon the decencies of life, and a direct attack upon national liberty, the people will not allow themselves to be coerced and defrauded without adopting some practical measure for the protection of their rights.

The Tory Government have been obliged to admit that the Crimes Bill is not required for the suppression of crime, and that it is intended tɔ crush minor offences, such as boycotting and

SITUATION.

other plans of campaign. These are the means which a defrauded people have had occasion to adopt in order to defend themselves against the unjust and crushing exactions of landlordism. The sole object of the Crimes Bill is, in fact, the crushing of all opposition to the exaction of unjust rents.

Lord Salisbury at the opening of the present Parliament announced his intention of collecting rents from the farmers, whether the land produced them or not, and added that if the farmers could not pay then the ratepayers must make good the deficiency. He and his coadjutors are carrying out this programme. That it will fail, goes without saying. How much misery and robbery it will effect before it is overthrown it is impossible to say; neither is it easy to predict the methods by which its overthrow will be accomplished. But we know that the British people will not much longer allow the British Parliament or the British army and police forces to be used as instruments for the destruction of national rights and national liberties.

We are glad to have an authoritative statement from Mr. Dillon that he is prepared with a plan of campaign which will neutralise the

Crimes Act if it ever becomes law. Mr. Dillon's plans of campaign are usually judicious and effective, and scruples against plans of campaign which were formerly entertained are rapidly vanishing, as it becomes increasingly apparent that our Tory and landlord Government has no scruples whatever against using their powers for supporting the unjust claims of the classes to which they belong.

British Tories imagine that they will have everything their own way because the Liberal party has been paralysed by errors, dissensions, and desertions. But after the Liberal party comes the British people, with whom our oppressors have to reckon before they can accomplish their designs. The British people are now beginning to realise the true nature of Toryism. They see in the millions of unjust evictions during the present reign, and the manner in which the existing Government are supporting the most unjustifiable claims of the privileged classes, that the time has arrived when the people must demand their rights or submit for ever to oppression and injustice. They are also beginning to see that they must not place their dependence on political parties or party leaders, and that, important as political organisation may be, one thing is of still greater importance, and that is to apply those principles of passive resistance to injustice which have been proved effective in mitigat ing oppression.

When plans of campaign become the recognised methods of action, not only in Ireland, but in Scotland, Wales, and England, there will be some prospect of restoring to the people the fruits of their industy, of which they are now robbed by the governing classes.

But because plans of campaign must be relied upon as the final method for obtaining justice, it does not follow that ordinary political action should be neglected.

What has happened of late has greatly cleared the political atmosphere. We now know that we have nothing to hope from the men who, elected as Liberals, have given their votes and voices in favour of coercion and brutal personalities. It would be a waste of time to wait any longer upon these men, whose gross betrayal of every principle of Liberalism has handed over to the Tory party the powers of government. These powers were not placed in the hands of the present holders by the people, but have fallen into their possession by the default of professed Liberals, who were elected, not to betray, but to support constitutional liberties.

Mr. Gladstone distinctly announced that, as the classes had not accepted the concessions he

made, in order to avoid their powerful opposition, he should in future rely upon the masses. In Mr. Gladstone the people have a leader who is more able and more willing than any other man to assist their cause. He has handsomely admitted the errors which he made last year, and is not likely to repeat them. Their repetition would, indeed, be as fatal to the Liberal cause now as it was a year ago.

speech which he has just delivered at PlyIf Lord Rosebery had made last June the mouth, ridiculing the exclusion of the Irish members from Westminster, he would have saved the Liberal party from defeat at the last election. But as matters now stand the Liberal party will not command general support until they are prepared with a programme which will not only define their Irish policy,

but will also include some at least of those

other important matters upon which early legislation is necessary. The Irish question is not the only question which must be settled, and dealt with advantageously in connection with settled soon; and some questions could be Home Rule. The Irish leaders say that it would be a heavy tax upon them to provide salaries for members of an Irish Parliament, and for a Parliament at Westminster. This objection would be met by the universal payment of members, and the payment of members is one of the most important points of the Radical programme, the adoption of which by the Liberal party would stimulate Radical

support.

Wholly exceptional legislation for one portion of the kingdom will be regarded bymany persons as having a tendency towards separation, and this apprehension can be best met by considering a scheme of Home Rule applicable to each section of the United Kingdom. As a matter of fact Home Rule is necessary for the English counties as well as for Ireland. Nothing can exceed the wretched condition of county government in England. Magistrates, practically self-appointed, and nearly all Tories, govern everybody and everything in English counties with a degree of tyranny and injustice which largely accounts for the depopulation of country districts. In Scotland and Wales the feeling in favour of Home Rule is strikingly manifested, and is rapidly growing. Without going too much into details, if it were understood that the Liberal proposals for Home Rule would be of universal application a stimulus would be given to political action which would secure for the Liberal party a large working majority at the next general election.