which Mr. Smith has formed his new views respecting Irish discontent, and hatred of England. The old facts on which his old opinions were based remain, I repeat, the same. The centuries of English misrule; the confiscations and "rooting-out" policies of the Tudors and the Stuarts, of Cromwell and William III.; the penal laws; the abominable proselytising institutions which were supported by Parliament up to 1832; the atrocities of '95-'98; the broken pledge to the Catholics in 1800; the nonfulfilment of that pledge until 1829, when Emancipation was wrung almost by force of arms from a reluctant Government; the vindictive disfranchisement of the forty shilling freeholders; the mean and spiteful effort to punish O'Connell because he had liberated his countrymen; the practical abrogation of the Catholic Relief Act until the accession of the Melbourne Ministry to office in 1835; the “indifference to Irish sentiment" shown in the passing of the Irish Reform Bill of '32 by the rejection of every amendment proposed by O'Connell; the unfair surrenders in the matter of the national schools to the Presbyterian and Ascendency parties-surrenders which largely justified the subsequent hostility of Archbishop MacHale and the Catholic clergy; the extremely inadequate measure of Tithe Relief, passed after a fierce and sanguinary struggle in 1838; the scornful rejection by the English people of O'Connell's offer in 1835-41 to let bygones be bygones, and be as one nation for the future; the maintenance up to our own day of the Irish Established Church, and of a system of land laws under which the tenant was robbed of the fruits of his industry and held in a state of barbarising bondage-these things, with their bitter memories, remain historical realities in 1884 as they were in 1867. Why, then, does Mr. Goldwin Smith now ignore the "Irish history" which, in 1867, he said, "furnished a full explanation of the defects" of the Irish character? Perhaps, he will answer, "because the Irish Protestant Church has been disestablished since, and two great Land Acts have been passed, yet the Irish do not settle down into a state of complete tranquillity." To this I reply, in Mr. Smith's own words, "the accumulated effects of so many unhappy centuries cannot be removed at once by a wave of the legislator's wand," even though that "wand" be "waved" by so potent a legislator as Mr. Gladstone. R. BARRY O'BRIEN.

RADICALS AND WHIGS.

"How long," asks Mr. Marriott in a recently-published pamphlet, "is the present connection between the Liberal party and certain Radicals' to continue?" The doctrines enunciated by these "certain Radicals" weigh heavily on his soul; and he calls upon "the Russells, the Cavendishes, the Grosvenors, and the Fitzwilliams" to rally to his banner, instead of deluding themselves with the notion that their sole mission is to moderate popular movements. They, as well as other true Liberals who have not had the good fortune to be born in the Whig purple, are implored to give up all political association with revolutionists, and as a preliminary step in this direction to disavow openly and publicly all connection with Mr. Chamberlain. The only difference between Mr. Marriott and many gentlemen who sit on the Liberal side of the House of Commons is, that what they plaintively whimper to each other, he, with the assurance of conscious strength, proclaims on the housetop. They and he have been sent to Parliament by electors, most of whom are as advanced as the "certain Radicals" of the aversion of these gentlemen; but it suits them to ascribe their own opinions to the Liberal party, and then calmly to suggest that all who do not agree with them should be ejected from it. Their error is to call themselves Liberals, for they have absolutely nothing in common with Liberal views, either on current or on prospective events.

A Radical has been defined to be an earnest Liberal. So soon as the Liberal party showed itself in earnest it became Radical. The 1 last general election was the result of this earnestness. All previous Liberal Administrations had been gangs. Whenever the gangs admitted a man who had professed Radical opinions to a seat in the Cabinet, it was on the understanding that it should be a back one. He was expected to subordinate his views to those of his colleagues; indeed, as Mr. Marriott rightly puts it, "the sole object of his being in was to put in practice the views" of the Cabinet, of which he had become a member. Of what did the gangs consist? Of hereditary Whigs; of bureaucrats who had laboriously worked their way up the official ladder; of men whose only title to office was that they were fussy wirepullers; of "men of the world "-that is to say, of that small portion of the world in the close vicinity of Pall Mall and St. James's Street; of more or less efficient administrators; and of the sort of Radicals, that Lord Beaconsfield once aptly called "extinct volcanoes." At their head there was usually a statesmen of real talent, who, whilst he had acquired such popularity in the country

that his name was useful to conjure with, was regarded as a safe man. It is no secret that this was not the opinion entertained, both before and after the last General Election, by the gang of Mr. Gladstone. They distrusted him, and they had made up their minds to shelve him. Even the fact that the triumph of their party at the election was due to his eloquence, and to the confidence which the country felt in him, failed to convince them that this would not be possible. Vainly the Queen sent for Lord Hartington and for Lord Granville, and requested them to form a Cabinet; vainly the members of the gang suggested that a considerable number of Radicals should be included in the Government, if only Mr. Gladstone were excluded. The nation had spoken. It had declared that Mr. Gladstone and no other should be the arbiter of its destinies, and it had declared this with so firm a voice, that the Rozencrantzes and the Guildensterns of Liberalism at last realised that the play of Hamlet without Hamlet was impossible. What then followed is well known. A Premier in the incubation of a Cabinet is seldom his own master. Every influence is brought to bear upon him to satisfy this or that ambition, and to accept as his colleague this or that man, because he is the representative of some great family, or has been a nonentity in some former administration. At first Mr. Chamberlain was excluded, and the militant Liberalism, of which he and Sir Charles Dilke had made themselves the exponents in and out of Parliament, was considered by the gang to be sufficiently recognised by the appointment of the latter to an Under-Secretaryship. Sir Charles, however, thought otherwise. Mr. Chamberlain and Sir Charles Dilke had both made their mark in Parliament. Whilst other Liberals had been faint-hearted, when confronted by the majority that the Conservatives had obtained in 1874, they had fearlessly and energetically struggled. Sir Charles had first come to the fore by calling attention to the extraordinary manner in which the Act regulating the expenditure of the Civil List had been set at naught year after year, and this had excited against him the rage and indignation of every flunkey in the kingdom. Since then he had taken an active and intelligent part in the advocacy of all Radical doctrines. Mr. Chamberlain had been Mayor of Birmingham, and he had remained the master-spirit of that great city. But the approval of Birmingham had not satisfied his ambition. He had perceived that the people were but little consulted in the choice of their rulers or of their representatives. Sir Robert Peel had said to the Conservatives of his day, "Register, register." Mr. Chamberlain said to the Liberals in the constituencies, "Organise, organise." Not only did he say this, but he showed them how to give a practical effect to the advice. Thanks mainly to him, the Liberals of each constituency learnt how to elect a large council,

VOL. XXXV. N.S.

P

charged with the duty of selecting a candidate or candidates; and it was arranged that, as a bond of union between these councils, delegates from them should periodically meet together to give effect to their collective will. This organisation, which had materially conduced to the success of the Liberal cause at the general election, was regarded with jealousy by the London wirepullers and by the London official gang. It had introduced a new factor into politics. It was the deathblow of wire-pulling and of gangs. And it is a curious illustration of the ignorance of its opponents, that the very organisation which gave to each individual elector in the country a means of directly influencing its councils, should be denounced as one which deprives electors of all such influence. The caucus, as it is termed, awakened constituencies from their lethargy. It showed them their power, and taught them how to use it. It was to politics what trades unions had been to tradethe binding together of scattered twigs in a faggot. Up to then, the constituencies had been but pawns in the game of rival politicians and rival office-hunters. Naturally Mr. Chamberlain, as the organiser of electoral independence, was a man of mark and note in the constituencies. He was popular, moreover, because there was a boldness and directness in his utterances, to which Englishmen had been little accustomed in politics, combined with a practical spirit which proved that he was likely to attain his ends. When he enunciated a principle, he was not afraid of its shadow, but was prepared to accept its consequences. The benumbing influences of custom and fashion had no power over him. There was nothing conventional or commonplace in his speeches. Those who heard them or read them felt, that a Statesman had arisen who was ready to do battle with the narrowness and formalism of the day. The men in buckram trembled and cursed him. But in every part of England, all those who hoped for and aspired to something beyond the everlasting crackling of dead thorns, welcomed him as their leader.

When, therefore, Sir Charles Dilke informed Mr. Gladstone that he would not join the administration, unless either he or Mr. Chamberlain were in the Cabinet, the condition was accepted; Mr. Gladstone gave Mr. Chamberlain a seat in the Cabinet, and Sir Charles Dilke accepted for himself an Under-Secretaryship.

Why Mr. Marriott should have selected Mr. Chamberlain for his attack can only be due to the fact that he regards him as the most dangerous opponent of the political doctrines which find less favour with the electors of Brighton than with their representative. Mr. Marriott, however, is not singular in this; not only honest and avowed Conservatives, but all those dishonest Conservative foxes, who have donned the Liberal wool in order to obtain a seat in Parliament from Liberal constituencies, have for long made

Mr. Chamberlain the special mark of their venom. Delendus est is their watchword, and if really they had any chance of success, they would be wise in their generation, for progress could not receive a more fatal blow than the removal of this resolute, able, and energetic man from the arena of politics. Nothing more clearly proves his strength than the despicable character of the accusations which are levelled against him. Political controversy must have reached its bathos, when a great party is called upon to insist upon the retirement of a Minister, not only on account of his political views, but because he accepts the salary attached to his office, has built himself a house in the town in which he resides, has acquired a large fortune in trade, cultivates orchids, and has even been known to wear one of these flowers in his button-hole. Let us, in the name of political decency, pass at once from such puerile and offensive twaddle, which can hardly find favour with those whose mouthpiece Mr. Marriott professes to be.

The writer of this Article has, it is almost needless to say, no authority to speak in the name of Mr. Chamberlain. He reads, marks, learns, and inwardly digests that eminent man's speeches; and from them he arrives at the conclusion that Mr. Chamberlain is the exponent of the views of the Radical army, in which the writer is a humble soldier. The ultimate aims and objects of Mr. Chamberlain seem to be those of most earnest Radicals. But he is a practical man-an opportunist. He is aware that perfectibility is as impossible in politics as it is in morals. He does not, therefore, compromise success by insisting at once upon all or nothing. Like Mr. Gladstone, he knows that a tree which it is intended to bring to the ground, must be cut through chip by chip. Radicals have too often suffered defeat from not taking to heart this fact. Principles should not be subordinated to tactics, but without tactics the best cause is sure to fail. Candour is always regarded as almost a crime by weak and tricky minds. Mr. Chamberlain is as candid as Prince Bismarck himself. This it would seem, in truth, is the head and front of his offending. He ought, although he may be prepared to give a loyal support to his colleagues, when they have settled the details of a measure, neither to suggest that such a measure should be brought forward, nor to dare to say before it be brought forward, that he personally is of opinion that it will not finally settle the question to which it has reference. This charge has been aired ad nauseam in Conservative and Whig newspapers and Conservative and Whig speeches, in regard to his utterances at Birmingham and elsewhere with respect to the anticipated Reform Bill. Mr. Chamberlain was aware that the Government was pledged to bring in a Bill assimilating the County to the Borough Franchise during the lifetime of the present Parliament. But it was a crime in him to say that the