mates, in order to suit the convenience of Irish members, was alone sufficient to imperil an early prorogation; for it was a hazardous experiment to trust either to the forbearance of the Nationalists and their allies above and below the gangway, or to the non-occur rence of some Irish grievance, which, in the judgment of these worthies, would justify prolonged discussion upon every item in the estimates which could by possibility be connected therewith. But the risk of a later session than had been anticipated was immeasurably increased when the question of the Royal Grants had to be brought before Parliament, in consequence of the projected marriage of a Royal Princess with the Earl of Fife. The

chance of an "exhibition of cheapJack Republicanism," as it was happily put by Lord Randolph Churchill, was too much for Mr Labouchere and the other popularity-mongers of our New Democracy. This party, wittily termed the Jacobins from the name of one of their leaders, as well as from the supposed affinity of their principles to the French party of that name, and who, from their ignorance alike of the history and the constitution of their country, might even more appropriately be designated the "know-nothing" party, found in this question of the Royal Grants an opportunity of flaunting themselves before the public as the disciples of economy, and the patriotic protectors of oppressed taxpayers from the extravagances of Royal demands and the expenses of monarchical institutions. The elaborate and tedious speech in which Mr Labouchere moved a refusal of the proposed grants, contained nothing beyond the usual claptrap arguments and the partial and irrelevant statistics with which public audiences are gen

erally "gulled" upon this subject. Beyond a studied but puerilo insult to Mr Chamberlain, and a bombastic declaration that the differences of the Opposition upon the particular question beforo the House would not prevent their unity and cohesive action whenever there was a chance of regaining office, Mr Labouchere said nothing to amuse the House-which was rather hard upon those who had to listen to the lengthy harangue in which he strove to show his fitness for the Lovel position of a leader of the Radical party.

The speech of his seconder was, in more respects than one, of a remarkable character remarkable for its confession of the importance of the differences which Mr Labouchere had striven to minimise; still more remarkable in its flagrant violation of good taste and manners, and its violent and untruthful assumptions with regard to the income at present possessed by her Majesty the Queen. The professions of lip-loyalty and of personal respect for her Majesty with which Mr Storey wound up his speech may be taken at their true value when read in connection with the rest of his speech, and with the sentiments expressed on the occasion of her Majesty's jubilee by the Sunderland newspaper with which he is connected. But, be this as it may, the gross exaggeration of her Majesty's income, computed by Mr Storey without reliable data, and insisted upon even after the rebuke of Mr Gladstone and the emphatic denial of Mr W. H. Smith, places the utterer of such inaccuracies in no very enviable position, and at the same time shows the kind of pabulum with which the masses are regaled by the unscrupulous politicians of whom Mr Storey affords so good an exanıple.

It is impossible to satisfy these determined opponents of the monarchical system. They are loud in condemnation of the servile Ministers and subservient Parliaments who paid the debts of former kings and princes out of the public purse, and yet they urge it almost as a matter of offence against her present Majesty hat she has lived well within the income provided for her at the commencement of her reign. Her Majesty's wise economy, coupled with the good management which has improved the Royal property, having resulted in a certain saving, our "new Radicals," by way of encouragement to future princes, actually urge this fact as a ground for refusing claims undoubtedly always recognised by the constitution, and of the possibility of refusing which no notice whatever had been at any time given to her Majesty.

In former times, no doubt, kings have troubled their subjects by their lavish expenditure, and the public purse has been depleted by the extravagances of Royal persons. It has been reserved for our sapient Radicals and Republicans of the nineteenth century to seek to punish the monarch for having avoided debt, and for the salutary economy which has enabled her to live within her income. As to the actual amount of that income, it is, as a matter of fact, really beside the question. At the commencement of her Majesty's reign, the Civil List was definitely settled upon certain principles which must prevail until the commencement of a new reign renders a resettlement necessary. Upon the present occasion, the demand made is one strictly in accordance with precedent and constitutional usage; and it is to be deeply regretted that upon such a question it should

have been found impossible to ob tain that unanimity of opinion which would have been in accordance with the general views of her Majesty's loyal subjects, and would have shown to the world that, in support of the limited system of monarchy, under which we enjoy the cheapest form of government and the greatest amount of liberty possessed by any European country, it is our habit to forget party politics and party considerations of personal position, and to unite one and all upon a subject which is emphatically one of general and imperial interest.

It would be wrong to leave this topic without reference to the independent and patriotic part played by Mr Gladstone, who once more appeared in the character of a constitutional statesman. In a speech which was undoubtedly one of the best which he has delivered in the House of Commons for many years, Mr Gladstone took high constitutional ground; exposed the weakness, unfairness, and fallacy of Mr Storey's statements; vindicated the position of the Royal Family and of the Government; and explained the existing relations between the Crown and the people with a comprehensive breadth of argument which at once removed the question from the petty, peddling quirks and quibbles with which it had been surrounded and muddled by the Labouchere - Storey. vapourings. Mr Gladstone pointed out that her Majesty has waived all claim for future grants for other of her descendants than the children of the Prince of Wales; and, moreover, he called attention to the fact, too often overlooked or forgotten, that Royal personages have less control than private individuals over their incomes, which are

materially affected and liminished by the large demands made upon them in consequence of the public position occupied by their possessors. He might have added with justice that never was there a Royal Family, the members of which so ungrudgingly lent themselves to support, alike by purse and by personal exertion, every object connected with the welfare of the State and the improvement of the moral and physical condition of the people.

After the speech of Mr Gladstone, the most valuable contribution to the debate upon the Royal Grants was undoubtedly that of Lord Randolph Churchill, who, on this occasion, made his first speech after a considerable absence. Upon the second night of the debate, Lord Randolph, with a clear and complete knowledge of his subject, mercilessly dissected and destroyed the laboured statistics which Mr Bradlaugh had inflicted upon the House, and showed the constitutional law of the junior member for Northampton to be no less faulty than his figures. Then turning upon Mr Storey, he dismissed that "loose speaker" with a few contemptuous words, in which he truly described his extravagant statements as "without the smallest justification," and proceeded to allude to the excellent manner in which the income of the Prince of Wales had been expended; and to show to the House, by incontrovertible figures, how great had been the gradual reduction of the cost of the monarchy to the country, and how infinitesimally small was the "burden" of the Royal Family. Lord Randolph made one quotation from a speech of Mr Mundella (when in office) which it is well to bear in mind. In answer to a question as to whether he did not think the allow

ance to the Prince of Wales excessive, Mr Mundella replied: "There is no greater mistake, in my opinion, than many working men make in supposing those personal allowances to Royalty are such a tremendous burden on the nation. They are a flea-bite as compared with some bad legislation, some miserable war, or some irregularity." These are true words, and Mr Mundella might have added more. These grants, necessary to maintain the position and dignity of Royalty, are "a mere flea-bite compared with what the country would certainly be called upon to pay, in one shape or another, if, instead of an hereditary monarch, we had an elected president, or such a form of Republican Government as might bring the Storeys, the Laboucheres, and other shallow-pated politicians of the like calibre, into responsible positions in the State. As it is, we have all the advantages of a Republic, and have at present experienced few of its disadvantages, although it is possible we may have to encounter some of these, unless the masses, who now possess political power, can be brought to understand and estimate at their true value the democratic talkers and scribblers, who, in their search for self-advancement, do not scruple to assail, with unblushing misstatements and unjustifiable inventions, any and every institution of their country, by an attack upon which they can pose before their dupes as reformers and patriots.

The impertinent self-assertion of Messrs Labouchere and Storey continued to display itself after the House had by an enormous majority approved the proposals of the Government, by numerous amendments of an inadmissible character, puerile misunderstanding of the law, and insolent contradictions of

those responsible Ministers of the Orown who were better informed than themselves. The matter having been fully discussed and decided on the three previous nights of debate, these twin brethren of democratic obstruction were guilty of a deliberate and discreditable waste of public time in prolonging it for three more nights in the first week of August; and even their followers and supporters were so ashamed of their tactics that they dwindled down to the number of about forty, and in some of the many divisions which these irrepressible legislators inflicted upon the House they mustered even less than that magic number.

The only other circumstance connected with these debates to which it may be well to call attention is the emphatic statement by the First Lord of the Treasury, entirely endorsed by Mr Gladstone, that in their judgment the fortune of her Majesty the Queen was not sufficient to make that provision for her grandchildren which befitted their station and dignity, and which Parliament would think necessary for their support. This statement-made, be it recollected, after the amount of her Majesty's fortune had been confidentially laid before the Select Committee should at once put an end to any credit which may have been given, in any respectable quarter, to the vague rumours with respect to the enormous accumulations of her Majesty which have been circulated far and wide by reckless and irresponsible demagogues of the Storey typo. Mr Labouchere's insolent contradiction, not only of the First Lord of the Treasury but also of Mr Gladstone, for whom he professes so great a reverence, only serve to lower his position and character still further in the eyes of all respectable politicians.

The debates upon the Royal Grants brought out in strong relief the slender bond by which the different sections of the Opposition are held together. It is easy to make light of the differences which continually threaten that bond, bụt nevertheless, although their expression may be restrained or softened during the lifetime of Mr Gladstone, they indubitably exist to an extent which will some day be sufficiently plain to the most casual observer. In the division upon Mr Labouchere's amendment, only one of Mr Gladstone's late ministry voted against him, that one being Sir George Trevelyan; but only 40 Liberals and 51 Parnellites followed him into the lobby, no less than 116 voting with Mr Labouchere. At the next sitting, Mr Morley, who appears to be always walking upon the tight-rope of politics, in terrible fear of a fall, moved an amendment in committee so like that which Mr Labouchere had moved on going into committee, that it required a subtle intellect to detect the difference. Upon this occasion Mr Gladstone, in his support of the Government, found himself without one single member of his late Cabinet, and with only a handful of his regular supporters. At the same time, although followed into the lobby by most of his late colleagues, Mr John Morley was only able to muster 134 as compared with the 116 who had supported Mr Labouchere in his previous amendment—a somewhat mortifying result for the ex-Cabinet Minister who is one of the favourites for the future leadership of the Gladstonian party. The truth is that the tie which binds together Gladstonians, Parnellites, and "New Radicals " is but a rope of sand. For a party attack against the Government they will doubtless be able to unite, but for the

purposes of constructive legislation they are widely apart. As the attempt to formulate Home Rule into a practical measure scattered the old Liberal party to the four winds of heaven, so any legislative proposal which might emanate from Mr Gladstone, if once more in the position of Prime Minister, would again shatter the heterogeneous mass of discordant atoms which constitutes his following in the present Parliament.

The postponement of the Irish estimates for the convenience of the Parnellite members did not inspire the latter with any feeling of reciprocal politeness. On the contrary, they returned like the dog to his vomit, and recommenced the obstruction which had been temporarily suspended. Whether it is the breeches of Mr O'Brien or the amenities of Dr Tanner towards the police, nothing is too trivial for a Nationalist to deem a matter of "pressing public interest," upon which he may fairly move the adjournment of the House, and delay public business in order to initiate a general discussion upon the wrongs and woes of Ireland. The police estimates afforded too grand and too legitimate an opportunity to be neglected. To "bait" the Chief Secretary, and to denounce the Irish constabulary in unmeasured terms, "the patriots" devoted themselves with the fervour of men to whom authority in any shape is obnoxious, and the guardians of the peace natural enemies. It is to be regretted that men who have held responsible office under Mr Gladstone should lend their aid to these indefensible proceedings. Mr Henry Fowler, during a comparatively short parliamentary career, has won for himself a creditable position, and has, in all probability, a career before him

in which he may render good service to his country. It is a pity that such a man should even indirectly lend himself to the tactics of the irreconcilable Parnellites, by carping at the expense of the constabulary to the country, and criticising estimates which he well knows to be swelled and increased owing to the disgraceful conduct of men who, by exciting an ignorant population to resist the law, have rendered necessary that increase of expense of which they have the effrontery to complain.

He began

Mr Shaw-Lefevre was the only other front-bench Gladstonian who joined in the attack on the constabulary. The "painstaking intellect" of Mr Shaw-Lefevre has been much exercised by the Irish question altogether. with some respectable old-fashioned Whig notions about the respect which should be paid to the law, and the rights, as well as the responsibilities, which attached to the owners of property. In order, however, to keep pace with the official Liberals who have leagued themselves with the Parnellite party, Mr Shaw-Lefevre has been obliged to gradually discard these notions, and has been for some time engaged in frantic efforts to prove to the Nationalists that he is willing to go as far as any one in the advocacy of their doctrines. Having no business whatever in Ireland, he thought it right to visit that country at a critical moment, and, having done so with the object of collecting evidence in support of a particular theory of tenant wrong, has considered himself an authority upon Irish matters ever since. It was cruel of Mr Balfour to say anything which implied a doubt that such was the case; but one may be consoled by the assurance that Mr Shaw-Lefevre will think none the