less of himself for anything which anybody else may say of him. He has, indeed, gone so far as to write a pamphlet which the 'Daily News' calls "an admirable and dispassionate statement," the title of which is "Irish Members and English Gaolers," and its object to show that the Irish "political offenders" are treated like "common criminals," and that the "English people" should regard this as a "betrayal of their confidence" by the Government. The "English people" are not such fools as to be taken in by this nonsense. No Irish member or Irishman who has been punished under what is called the Coercion Act is a political prisoner in the true sense of the word. A political prisoner is one who commits a political offencethat is, one who conspires or rebels against a Government, and commits acts in furtherance of such rebellion or conspiracy. But here are men who would be the first to bring an action for libel against any one who accused them of being rebels and conspirators, but who, accepting the safety and protection afforded them by the British Government, commit and excite to the committal of the most ordinary crimes, and then set up a howl of dismay when the law touches them, and declare in piteous tones that they are "political prisoners." Every humane man recoils from the account of an Irish "eviction," but who is to blame? If a man cannot obtain the payment of a debt justly due to him, he must perforce seek the aid of the law, and is not to be debarred from so doing merely because he happens to be a landlord, and the debt rent, instead of a bill for goods supplied. There are, of course, instances of hardship to the tenant; but it would be a greater hardship upon the landlord to allow the only

"

alternative of eviction eviction-namely, that his property should be kept by another man in defiance of him and of the law. The advocacy of the illegal "plan of campaign i.e., the plan by which tenants are to refuse to pay rent except upon their own terms; the exciting resistance to the law, and the making of incendiary speeches to an ignorant and excitable people,these are not "political crimes," but common, vulgar offences which deserve punishment; and it would be a sad state of things indeed if, while the poor dupes suffer, and lose their homes on account of the insidious advice which has prevented them from coming to terms with their landlords, the firebrand orators-the instigators of resistance to the law-should escape under the absurd pretence that they are "political prisoners." Mr Shaw-Lefevre's laboured arguments will not hold water, though they may afford to his new allies a further proof that he has qualified himself to sit on the same bench where Sir William Harcourt stews comfortably in Parnellite juice, and Sir George Trevelyan is perpetually seeking the "half-way house" between Home Rule and total separation.

Meanwhile, neither in Ireland nor in Great Britain will loyal men forget the courageous manner in which Mr Balfour defended the Irish constabulary from the charges so recklessly made upon them during the discussion of the Irish estimates. There never was a more gallant, a better disciplined, a more loyal body of men, than those who are now made the target for Nationalist and Radical abuse, because they have discharged their duty without fear or favour. They have been tried almost beyond bearing, and the marvel is, not that some head has

here and there been broken which did not happen to deserve it as much as some of its neighbours, but that the temper of the constabulary should have been under such command that none of the itinerant agitators who have added so much to their work and danger have met with disasters such as the British public would have heard of without overpowering sympathy, and would possibly have borne with much equanimity. It is hardly possible to accord to the Irish constabulary too much praise for the courage and moderation which they have shown during a time of grievous trial; and Mr Balfour is entitled, not only to their gratitude, but to the gratitude of the whole country, for the manly and courageous way in which he defended this gallant body of men from the vicious and venomous attacks of the pseudo- patriots below the gangway. The latter, indeed, contrived to waste an immense amount of public time in the dreary and interminable harangues, which their illimitable impudence and selfconceit induces them to inflict upon an audience which will assuredly some day come to a short and sharp remedy with the individuals who have no respect either for their own position or for the character of the representative body of the nation.

These wearisome and monotonous harangues were varied by scenes which reduced the House of Commons, for the time, to something more like a bear-garden than a deliberative assembly, and afforded pretty conclusive evidence of the absolute unfitness of the Parnellite Irish to be trusted with the control of a Home Rule Parliament in Dublin. Still, by the help of the closure, the first of the Irish estimates was, after this

wilful and wicked waste of time, at last passed, and it was whispered that the Parnellites intended the other estimates to go through without any real or determined opposition. This report, however, turned out too good to be true. On the vote for the Irish resident magistrates, Mr A. Pease, the member for York, incurred the responsibility of abetting the unjustifiable attacks upon absent officials, and, upon information which was imperfect and insufficient, so far lowered himself as to initiate one of these attacks upon an individual magistrate. Mr Balfour replied in a manner which, if Mr Pease has any proper sense of responsibility, must have made him thoroughly ashamed of the course which he had so foolishly taken. The Chief Secretary did more, however, than discredit and discomfit the member for York. Speaking of the refusal of certain Irish magistrates to subscribe to the fund of a hunt of which Mr E. Harrington was one of the committee, which had been imputed to those gentlemen as a grievous offence, he stated that their reason was that they could not support an institution managed by one who, as proprietor of the Kerry Sentinel,' had spoken of them in opprobrious terms, and of the police as "uniformed bloodhounds." This roused Mr Harrington to violent wrath, and another shameful scene of disorder followed. Subsequent disclosures showed that, although the term "uniformed bloodhounds" was a quotation in Mr Harrington's paper from some resolution of a National League meeting, the leading article in his paper of the 19th June last, for which, of course, he must be held personally responsible, had applied to the police the term "uniformned hell-hounds." Mr Balfour's justi

fication was therefore complete, and another proof afforded of the calibre and character of those persons who might be expected to guide and direct an Irish Parliament on College Green.

As it was evident that the Irish estimates alone, even without other necessary business, would occupy Parliament at. least until the 17th August, which had been fixed by the more sanguine prophets as the day of release, it was naturally expected that bills of a contentious character, in which little progress had been made, would have been quietly dropped. Most unfortunately, however, the Government came to a decision to press forward the Tithe Rent-charge Recovery Bill, in spite of warnings alike from friend and foe. There can be no doubt that the parochial clergy in Wales are in grave difficulties, owing to the resistance to the collection of tithes in the Principality, and that great pressure has consequently been put upon the Government to proceed with their measure. But whilst, in the first place, it is open to grave doubt whether the permission to recover his tithe rent-charge by county court process would improve the position of the clergyman, it is, in the second place, beyond all doubt that in numerous districts in England where the amount of tithe is the subject of grave complaint, the greatest dissatisfaction must inevitably be felt at an attempt to deal with the subject piecemeal, and to commence with a measure simply intending to assist the tithe owner, and increase the capital value of his tithe. The Government had themselves admitted that the subject was one which must be dealt with by a comprehensive measure. To push forward a partial and confessedly incomplete bill was an illadvised proceeding; and the change

of front executed by Ministers in the very middle of the discussion, by consenting to substitute the "owner" for the "occupier" as the person against whom the county court action might be brought, was simply playing into the hands of their Radical opponents, and placing their own friends in a position of unpopularity which was wholly unnecessary, and caused a natural feeling of indignation to which expression was given even by so loyal and staunch a Conservative as Sir Walter Bartelott. The result of this proceeding of the Government has been to inflict upon themselves an unnecessary humiliation by the forced abandonment of their bill, and to leave the question in a position which cannot fail to give rise to agitation during the recess, and probably to disturb the minds of many of their supporters in the rural districts. This, indeed, can only be avoided by the introduction of that "comprehensive measure " which has been promised; and it is somewhat difficult to see how time is to be found for this question to be fully considered, side by side with the Irish measures to which the Government also stand committed.

The Tithe Rent-charge Recovery Bill not only put an end to any chance of an early termination of the session, but it gave new life and zest to the despairing Gladstonians and Parnellites, and afforded them an opportunity for reuniting forces which had been recently shattered, and of inflicting a practical defeat upon the Government, by obliging them, under the pressure of several close divisions, to reconstruct the bill by which, as it was introduced, they had elected to stand. The incident is much to be regretted, and all the more so because, beyond and apart from this question, it will be ad

mitted by every candid person that the Unionist Government stands better at the close than it did at the beginning of the session of 1889. The legislative work which has been accomplished, if not so large as might have been the case in the times when undue loquacity was checked and "bores" silenced by the public opinion which former ly existed and was recognised in the House of Commons, has been satisfactory, and creditable to the Government. Meanwhile, another year of Lord Salisbury's tenure of the seals of the Foreign Office has confirmed and increased the confidence which the country has all along felt in the discretion and ability with which the Prime Minister has conducted our foreign policy from the first. No other No other living statesman possesses that confidence in anything like the same degree, and to no department in the Government can we look with greater and more unalloyed satisfaction. And if we have reason for such feelings with regard to our relations with foreign countries, it is not without a similar feeling of satisfaction that we regard our position at home. Although the chances of war have, since 1886, transferred several Unionist seats to the Opposition, we have not only a substantial majority remaining, but the alliance between Conservative and Liberal Unionists has survived the evil prophecies of their enemies, and has become more and more cemented since its first formation. Indeed this result was sure to follow, so soon as men recognised the fact that the old terms "Tory" and "Liberal" no' longer bore their old meaning, or accurately expressed any division' of parties which actually existed. All men are for progress nowadays, and, combined upon the great question of the unity of the

empire, Liberals and Tories who

are satisfied with our monarchical institutions can find common ground in the promotion of many social and political reforms which cannot be claimed as the special heritage of any political party, but which may be honestly promoted by all men who desire the progressive improvement of their country.

Whilst this is so undoubtedly the case, that suggestions are constantly made, from quarters more or less influential, for the incorporation into one political party of the Unionists, Liberal and Tory, who are really separated by little more than an imaginary line, it is evident that the "ultras" of the Opposition are gradually driving their more moderate allies into a position both of discomfort and discredit. The fact is, that the Home Rule cry has failed to take hold of the popular mind in England. Confidence in Mr Gladstone, rudely shaken as it was in 1885-86, remained in sufficient force to carry, in many constituencies, candidates who were ready to pledge themselves to follow him upon this question. Of the masses in England and Scotland, those who are Radical and Demo cratic have other measures for which they care far more than Home Rule, and are ready to break away at any moment from the leadership of the statesman who has not yet committed himself to the Socialistic programme. The Home Rule horse will hardly win the next "Grand National" stakes. For whilst the cry has failed to enlist the sympathies of a nation which, after all, takes a practical view of things, and is acute enough to have gauged the patriotism of the Nationalist leaders) more accurately than the latter could have wished, there is another side

of the question to be regarded. The firm and courageous attitude of Mr Balfour, and the inflexible determination of the Government to uphold and enforce the administration of the law in Ireland, have had the effect desired and expected by loyal men. Confidence has been slowly but surely re-established, and though much remains to be done, not a little has been already effected towards the attainment of a more healtliy state of affairs. Whether we look at the improvement in the price of agricultural produce, at the more punctual payment of rents, or, above all, at the Savings Banks' returns, we shall find unmistakable evidence of the improved condition ⚫ and advancing prosperity of the people.

Of course, the contrary is loudly asserted by the agitators and political "patriots," because such a state of things takes the bread out of their mouths, and terribly interferes with their vocation. To them it is essential that grievances should exist-that landlords and tenants should be at variance, and that evictions should continue to take place. But it is devoutly to be hoped-and indeed it may be confidently expected that the eyes of the Irish tenants will gradually become more and more opened to the true state of the case. Their hope of prosperity in the future lies, not in political agitation, but in the peaceful condition of the country and the recognition of the supremacy of the law. The safety and security of their property can only be obtained by the due observance of the law, and their ability to cultivate their farms without interference from those who wish to use them in the future, as in the past, as instruments to political ends in which they have really

no interest. The Irish tenants are beginning to see through these men, and consequently the power of the latter is slipping away from them. It is because they know and realise this, that they are so vehement in their abuse of Mr Balfour and the constabulary force, because the one directs and the other carries out that firm administration of the law which lessens their lawless authority. Probably, in their innost hearts the Nationalist members, or at least those of them who are really Irish, are very far from really hating Mr Balfour. For an Irishman likes courage, and of that quality Mr Balfour has made an abundant display. Their abuse of him is the best compliment which they could have paid the Chief Secretary; and in all probability the day will come when, not being under the pressure of the exigencies of to-day, they will open their hearts in retrospective praise of the Minister who has won their respect because he has never flinched before them, and whose courage has been equalled by the consummate ability with which he has met his opponents at every point, and opposed a determined front to all their attacks, inside and outside Parliament, upon law and order.

Mr Balfour and the Lord Advocate are doubtless the two members of the Government whose reputation has gained most in the estimation of their countrymen during the present legislative year, although the cause of constitutional progress has been generally well sustained by the members of the Treasury bench. The First Lord of the Treasury has amply justified the selection which bestowed upon him the leadership of the House of Commons, and has shown in a remarkable manner