the people of Ireland as enemies of the people of Great Britain that their argument is based upon that as postulate, that these two people are to remain, as they have been in the past, enemies, and to distrust one another."

Then, what does this "Irish criminal who glories in the name add? "We" (the people of Ireland)" might just as well ask security from you" (the people of England)" that you would not run away from us, as that you should ask from Ireland security that she should not separate from you."

Now the question is whether Mr. Dillon does not make a very serious mistake, or rather misstatement, when so vehemently asserting that the Unionists look upon the people of Ireland as enemies of the people of Great Rritain"? It is quite true, however, that Mr. Dillon himself, and all his associates, having nothing better to do than to promote discord and ill-feeling between the inhabitants of the two countries, have been maliciously spending their time in efforts to separate the two nations by means of the specious demand for an Irish Parliament, and it would be very desirable that all men professing Unionist principles, and allegiance to their Queen and country, should bear in mind, and impress upon others, that, were the Parnellites to accomplish even that part of their design' which they pretend would satisfy their aspirations, in a short time, the United Kingdom would no longer remain united without a struggle. It may, of course, be said that it is quite simple for any Unionist to make an assertion such as the above, but where is the proof? Ah, well! Have not statements that implied such a result been made by Mr. Parnell himself? In fact, we cannot do better than quote Mr. Parnell's own words, and then, taking into consideration that the first part of his demand (viz. the establishment of an Irish Parliament) has been refused, and that a Coercion Act is in force to compel obedience to the law, express a hope that Parliament will, from the very commencement of the Session, resolutely declineto lose time in re-opening the Irish Question.

Here is what Mr. Parnell himself has announced to be the Parnellite demand:

66

They could not," he said, "ask for less than the restitution of Grattan's Parliament. They could scarcely under the Constitution ask for more."

Supposing now the

66

Mark these words "under the Constitution." demand Mr. Parnell considers to be the outside that can be made " under the Constitution" to be refused, does he propose to submit? or, even if the demand for an Irish Parliament should be acceded to,. would Mr. Parnell and his party remain satisfied? Nothing of the kind, far from it; for Mr. Parnell continued:

"But no man had the right to fix the boundary to the march of a

nation; and while they struggled to-day for that which it may seem possible for them to obtain, they might struggle for it in the proud consciousness that they were doing nothing to hinder or prevent better men who may come forward in the future from gaining better things than those for which they were now struggling."*

46

A few days later Mr. Parnell proclaimed that the demand for the things for which they were struggling" was receiving the support of men outside of the United Kingdom; thus proving that the Parnellites expected external aid to carry out their schemes for domestic legislation. Mr. Parnell said:

"We have great helps; we have a race greater than our own across the Atlantic. We have a growing and influential population in Australia."t

And what have been the statements made to some of these helps ? The following is an extract from a speech made to the "race greater than our own across the Atlantic ":

66

'It now remains for us to prove, for the thousandth time, that as slaves we can be formidable foes. I assert here to-day that the Government of Ireland by England is an impossibility, and I believe it to be our duty to make it so."

This, no doubt, the Parnellites tried to do, but met with a check by the enactment of the Coercion Act, which the Unionist Government is so resolutely enforcing. There has not yet, however, been sufficient time for the success of the Coercion Act to be evident to the English constituencies; the Government can, therefore, quite reasonably insist upon a discussion of their administration of the Act being postponed until either its success may be anticipated, or its failure probable, through the Parnellites doing what Mr. J. E. Redmond calls their duty, viz., to make the Government of Ireland by England impossible; and, in the meanwhile, the time and energies of Parliament can be devoted to the consideration of the many important Imperial questions which have, for so long, been waiting their turn. Of course the Parnellites will assert that the Irish people want, and they must have, this, that they want, and must have, that; but the country has, at present, no certain means of ascertaining what the Irish people-as distinguished from the Parnellites and their foreign allies-really require. Two or three years of resolute government, such as is now being administered under Lord Salisbury and Mr. Balfour, are necessary before a true opinion could be formed of what the Irish people themselves demand. For many years they have not been free agents when expressing their wishes. They have been ground down under a tyrannical yoke-the * Mr. Parnell at Cork, January 21st, 1885

† Mr. Parnell at Cork, January 23rd, 1885.

Mr. John E. Redmond, M.P., at Chicago Convention, 1886.

yoke of the Parnellite League. They have been influenced by demagogues and agitators, whose suggestions-indeed orders-have been backed up and enforced by means of boycotting, and outrages, and crimes. The attempt to pacify and to restore law and order in Ireland should receive fair play, and it should not be permitted to hamper the efforts of the Government by means of obstruction from the men whom the law is intended to coerce. England should proclaim that she will no longer sacrifice important measures necessary for the welfare of the whole realm to Irish questions which, even if settled, would not satisfy the aspirations of the men whose idea of parliamentary warfare is obstruction, not debate. Unless wiser counsels than has hitherto been the case prevail amongst the Parnellites it will be necessary for the English constituencies to speak out, and, in the words of Lord Salisbury, at Derby, on December 19th, 1887, to "sweep such pretenders away." I am, Gentlemen, Yours faithfully,

January 19th, 1888.

GEORGE W. RUXTON.

GENTLEMEN,

Slipshod English.

TO THE EDITORS OF THE "NATIONAL REVIEW."

May I be allowed a few remarks on the article entitled " Slipshod English," in your December issue?

The writer, in the first paragraph, says, "Smart writing augurs flippancy and conceit." The scornful will probably call to mind the story of the fox who tried to set the fashion in the matter of tails.

By-the-way, I find, on reference to a dictionary, that the verb "to augur" does not mean "to betoken," but " to guess, to conjecture by signs." This being so, the sentence means, "Smart writing guesses flippancy and conceit," which, as Euclid would say, is absurd. However, this is a matter of but little importance; I should not have mentioned it, if I were not anxious to point out how unsafe it is for dwellers in glass houses to throw stones. For the same reason, perhaps I may be permitted to draw attention to the word "disjunctive" (p. 527), which is certainly no less improper than either of the phrases, "his late father" or "whether or no."

The writer waxes indignant over "the inexcusable license in the invention of words." Of course, nobody will be ready to say a good word for such abominations as "emigrating a family," and to "gentle "

Is this word, a substantive, correctly spelt?

a refractory horse; but what objection can there be to the use of the word " progress as a verb ?

Expletives also come in for the writer's wrath-but why? No doubt they may be employed to an unreasonable extent. But against a moderate use of them, who, excepting I. G. S., shall think to speak? Are they not frequently serviceable in doing away with what would otherwise be an awkward and ungraceful abruptness? Thackeray was not slow to avail himself of them.

I do not pretend to know more about the English language than do the majority of my neighbours; and I therefore claim no sort of authority for the remarks I have just set down. On the contrary, I have but mentioned a few of the ideas that occurred to me as I read the article-such ideas, I take it, as must have occurred to the greater number of general readers. To plain people this article is apt to appear as something very like an assault on things that are idiomatic, though, it is true, the writer somewhere seems to speak of idioms with approval. As regards myself, I know that I rose from the perusal of "Slipshod English" with an uncomfortable feeling that we were made for the language, and not the language for us; and probably there are others who experienced the like.

I am, Gentlemen,

Faithfully yours,
HAMILTON P. LYNE.

Medical College, London Hospital, E.
Dec. 19th, 1887.

TO CORRESPONDENTS.

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 ON their Manuscripts. Postage-stamps must be sent at the same time if they wish their MS. to be returned in case of rejection.