aye, even if the same claims were preferred for Scotland, England and Wales? Does anyone seriously believe that if the present Secretary of Scotland, the Marquis of Lothian, started a National League, entered Parliament with fifty followers, and demanded Scottish Independence, on the old footing prior to the Union in 1703, a majority would accede to the novel request? Does anyone imagine that the latest champion in the tithe war, urged forward by Gladstonian instigation, and expatiating on the atrocious persecution of his ancestors by English monarchs, would meet with a more gracious reception to his petition for the restoration of the Principality of Wales? And, lastly, must I actually suppose that the representatives of all England, provoked. beyond all patience by the rebellious crew, would toss their hats in the air, and hurrah for "Old England." For my part I do not believe that our electors ever realise the possibility of any such eventualities. Hurl us backward in the course of political development for centuries ! Tear the social body limb from limb! Plunge us into tribal hostilities and clashing tariffs! The very idea is sufficient to make any patriot stand aghast! Has Mr. Gladstone ever seriously reflected on the consequences of his policy of political dismemberment? Just let us look at the political statistics of a Scottish, English, Welsh and Irish Parliament. Say a couple of peers from each county (suggested by the two members from each State in the American Senate): 64 members from the Upper House, and 100 in the Lower House for Ireland; 68 peers and 70 county members for Scotland; 24 peers and 30 county members for Wales; while 80 peers and 464 county members be required for England.

The same number, of course, must be set down for the Imperial Parliament, making a total of 1,800 members of the Imperial and National Parliaments belonging to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Verily, that is constitutional reform with a vengeance ! And be it remarked, including the reduction of the House of Lords in each instance, in accordance with modern representative government.

Now, can Ireland really afford to draft 200 of her ablest men to sit in Dublin and London for six months in the year, and at the national expense? Would canny Scotsmen part with 140 of their most successful manufacturers, merchants, and farmers to lounge in Edinburgh and London for one half of the year? Would Wales willingly empty her shops and offices of 60 men to fill up the empty benches at Westminster? And now-rub your eyes, John Bull-will you consent to the expenses of 928 M.P.'s to administer our imperial and national affairs? Such a large number of men could not be found without payment, as is already practised in France, Germany, the United States, and the Colonies. Accordingly, we may add £540,000, £90,000 apiece for Cabinet Ministers for each nation, not to mention a few extra thou

sands for new officials, to our increasing taxation, and the interest of £24,000,000 paid on our National Debt. But I have not yet exhausted the Gladstonian revolutionary programme. Granting that our constitution-monger succeeded in restoring the old nationalities of Scotland, England, Ireland, and Wales, what is the nature of the modern august body representing the hereditary power of the British nation? Six hundred and seventy members cannot be called for to administer the surviving departments of the army, navy, coinage, customs, taxation, diplomacy, Colonies, and dependencies? Deputies running up and down from Dublin, Edinburgh, and Cardiff to London, would be a veritable " Rump Parliament." Let us say then another couple of peers and two members from each county of Scotland, England, Ireland, and Wales, 332 the smallest number of members necessary to carry on the administration of British affairs in London, which would entail an additional expenditure of £350,000, and £90,000 for a Cabinet Ministry. For our part, our firm conviction is that John Bull will lay his brains asteep for some time before he ballots in favour of such sweeping and superfluous reforms in the administration of our national affairs.

Now before going farther, let me ask, on the supposition of the existence of an Irish Parliament, what would be one of the first steps taken by an Irish Executive? Beyond all question the transformation of every county in the four "Provinces" of Leinster, Munster, Ulster, and Connaught into "States," with subordinate Governments, with the immediate boast of possessing a Federal Constitution, on the model of the United States. Such, at least, is our natural anticipation on considering the opinions of her American" sympathisers" and the fund established for the attainment of Home Rule. "If I were an Englishman I should heartily support any scheme for allowing Ireland to manage her own local affairs, drawing the line between local and Imperial affairs roughly, as drawn here between State and Union, or in Canada between Province and Dominion," is the latest opinion expressed by a professor in Harvard University, Massachusetts, at the request of Mr. Godkin, himself an Irish Editor, in an article on "American Opinion on the Irish Question." Of course the utmost variety of opinion is found in the brief statements of the professors belonging to Johns Hopkins College, Baltimore, Columbia College, New York, Yale College, New Haven, and Harvard University. Nobody, I imagine, will lay much stress on the opinion of professional specialists, occupying scientific and theological chairs in these American Universities. At the same time, they may be regarded as fair representatives of the sentiments held by the educated classes of America on the Irish Question. Take a sample: "The five or six with regard to whom I am most sure that they understood it. are Liberal Unionists,"

issues from Yale.

"Three were anti-Gladstonians and four refused to give an opinion," shows the state of Johns Hopkins. "I believe in letting the English and Irish settle their own affairs in their own way; all that has been said on this side of the water is gratuitous impertinence," is certainly the most statesman-like utterance, emanating from Columbia College. "I think the present Tories make a mistake in not bringing forward, in some form, local self-government, in connection with the Coercion Bill," would probably be re-echoed by a considerable number on this side of the water. Nothing surprised me more than their total reticence regarding the prodigious efforts made to preserve the American Union. One would naturally have expected them to recommend a similar policy to ourselves. Be that as it may, call it a federation, confederation, or simply the old-fashioned nation, subordinate Governments would undoubtedly be established in every county in Ireland, if they succeeded in wresting their national independence from Scotland, England, and Wales. Are we to haggle over the mere titles of the ancient political divisions of the United Kingdom? In France they have passed under the name of "Departments" since the Revolution. They are "Cantons" in Switzerland. But hereditary shires and counties they will most likely remain in our old country, in spite of the new " Electoral Districts" fixed at the redistribution of seats and extension of the franchise.

Granting then that subordinate government will be extended on the principle of our municipal system to Scotland, England and Wales. Would any Irishman submit to be deprived of the privileges conferred on all the electors of Great Britain? Nothing could be better calculated to foster rebellion. All roads, bridges, poor houses, prisons, asylums, agriculture, judiciary courts, sanitation, taxation and finance, then, must be handed over to be administered by the new members of our provincial parliaments. And, moreover, at an immense advantage to the system of dual parliaments, imperial and national. Here, of course, the number of members for each county would be fixed in accordance with some standard, in proportion to population. But the simplicity of the system throws the complicated scheme altogether into the shade, for every farmer, manufacturer, merchant, banker, publisher, editor or artisan could attend the meetings of the provincial parliament in the county. town, discharge his duties in a day or two at most, and return by rail or car to his own home at moderate expense, and little sacrifice of time. Deplore we may, in common with the Professor in Columbia College, the fact that the House of Lords did not prepare the Bill for the establishment of provincial parliaments or county councils, to place the electors of counties on a par with the citizens in towns, for the existence of a land court consisting of practical agriculturists and judicial assessors in every county would have facilitated the revision and reduction of

rents during the course of the present season. The powers, however, conferred by the new Land Bill are considerable, and no one will grudge the salaries of all the valuators and arbiters deemed necessary to removethe grinding exactions of rack-renting, and cause the hearts of the people to shout for joy over the sterling generosity of our British Parliament. More than all that, Home Rule will be brought to the doors of every elector throughout Ireland with the utmost consistency. All inquiries regarding water and gas companies, railways, harbours, &c. would be conducted on the spot without incurring the enormous expenses of sending deputations to London.

66

Our hard-working, industrious and enterprising citizens honoured with the responsible duties of managing their own affairs in their own 'electoral districts" will rise, in their own estimation, in the social scale, and cherish the worthy aspirations and ambition of taking their seats after due experience in the Imperial Parliament in London. Every county of Protestant Ulster-the grand stumbling-block which drove Mr. Gladstone to offer National Parliaments to Scotland, England, and Wales-will rejoice in the benefits of Home Rule, and every Irishman from Prince Edward's Island to Vancouver, from Staten Island to California, may possess his soul in patience, devote his surplus profits to the amelioration of his own condition, and boast that his friends in the ould country enjoy political equality-a fair field and no favour-in common with all the citizens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

I am, Gentlemen,

Yours faithfully,

T. J. SCOTT.

TO CORRESPONDENTS.

on their

All communications to be addressed to the Editors of THE NATIONAL REVIEW, care of Messrs. W. H. Allen & Co., 13 Waterloo Place, London. S.W. Correspondents are requested to write their name and address Manuscripts. Postage-stamps must be sent at the same time if they wish their MS. to be returned in case of rejection.

THE

NATIONAL REVIEW.

No. 58. DECEMBER, 1887.

A REPLY TO LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL.

WHEN Lord Randolph Churchill made his speech at Stockton on the 25th of October, and examined the Gospel of Fair Trade, he must have felt rather like a cautious skater, standing on the edge of a lake, who watches a number of lads of half his own weight disporting themselves on the ice, and, wondering within himself whether or not he will venture, cross-examines those who are nearest to him as to How thick is the ice? How many persons have been upon it? What depth is the water? Has anyone been drowned? Why they all keep so near the shore, some, in fact, with one leg on it? Why they don't all skate the same way? and when will someone venture right across the middle of the lake ?

It must have been somewhat in this sense that his Lordship's. criticisms were made. In the lobby of the House various shades. of Fair Trade are to be found. Members are desperately afraid of the effect that any premature announcement may have upon the minds of their constituents. They are afraid of the big loaf and the little loaf cry on the election day, and of the fearful onslaught that will be made upon them, should they in any way commit themselves to the small loaf; consequently they invent most illogical programmes for themselves, and simply pray that they may never be cross-examined by a clever opponent.

Lord Randolph has taken in all this. He has lent his ear to the various pious opinions expressed by those who will not go the whole hog, and he has wisely decided that there is no call for him to commit himself, until it be proved to his entire satisfaction that the way is safe. I do not blame him. I admire the pertinence of the questions he has put; and when he says he is open to be convinced, but that the discordant music of the Fair Traders has not thus far charmed him, I am ready to admit that he may have good reason.

It seems to me that nearly everyone who wants to get into Parliament is for that very reason unfit to discuss the subject. Candidates nearly always trim a little, and are much blamed by their own party if they do not do so. In the matter of a change in our fiscal policy there is every temptation to trim. One con29

VOL. X.