THE MAGAZINES.

Br far the most interesting paper in the Contemporary Review for March, is Mr. J. J. Claney's account of his reasons for .adhering to Mr. Parnell. Mr. Clancy writes like an English- man, without rhetoric or fanfaronade, and evidently thinks that his arguments ought to be convincing. They are, briefly, that in deserting Mr. Parnell, the Irish Home-rulers surrender the independence of their or ganisation, which he holds to be essential to the success of the cause ; that Mr. Parnell, and he alone, can terminate the internal dissensions of Irishmen ; and that no certain advantage to the cause has been offered in return for a concession in itself so inexpedient. Upon the first point, Mr. Clancy states his case in a paragraph which deserves to be quoted entire :-

" What were the circumstances of the occasion ? The verdict in the Divorce Court was given on November 17th. On November 18th the central branch of the National League held its usual fortnightly meeting in Dublin. At that meeting the attendance was unusually large. No less than eight or nine members of the Irish party delivered speeches on the occasion. The subject of every speech was the verdict that had been given the day before, and the position of Mr. Parnell. The declarations made, on that subject were clear, emphatic, and unanimous, and were enthusiastically received. They were to the effect that the question whether Mr. Parnell should go or stay was one for the decision of the Irish people, and that the Irish people wished and commanded him to stay. On November 20th another and a more important meeting was hold in Dublin. It took place in the Leinster Hall—the largest hall in the city—which was crowded to its utmost limits. On the platform every section of Irish Home-rulers was repre- sented, including the two law officers in the last Liberal Govern- ment. No less then twenty-five members of the Irish party were present. Amongst the speakers were two mayors of provincial cities. Again, the great topic of discussion was that which had been discussed at the mooting of the League ; again, the burden of the speeches was that Mr. Parnell should remain ; and, again, the enthusiasm with which the various declarations to that effect wore received was simply unbounded. On the same day two county conventions were held—one in Galway, and the other in Meath. Both were largely attended by priests and laymen, and the Irish party was at each represented in the chair and on the platform. At each a resolution expressing unabated confidence in Mr. Parnell was passed without a dissentient voice, and amidst every sign of genuine satisfaction. Outside those meetings and conventions, in the country, not a murmur of disapprobation at what had been said and done in Dublin, in Galway, or in Meath, came from any quarter ; on the contrary, any other expressions of opinion that were uttered on the subject anywhere coincided with those just enumerated."

It is clear, therefore, that, in throwing over Mr. Parnell, his followers submitted to English dictation, and merged their

body in an English party association. As to the dissensions, Mr. Parnell had already welded the "Whigs," or nominal Home-rulers, the Moderate Home-rulers, and the Fenians into one party, and was rapidly conciliating many Irish Conservatives, who saw that he was a statesman and not a mere destructive ; and as to the advantage to be gained, Mr. Clancy denies that any one has been secured, Mr. Gladstone being by no means wholly his own master, and the Gladstonians displaying a most sinister readiness to post- pone the whole question of Home-rule to proposals nearer to English workmen's hearts. It will be remembered' that Mr. Clancy is one of the few perfectly independent Parnellites, and a man whose speech in No. 15 Committee-room carried a weight which somewhat surprised English lookers-on. There is another paper on Mr. Parnell in the New Review, by Mr. Timothy Healy, and, under colour of easy impartiality, it is, as may be imagined, vitriolic, its main idea being that Mr. Parnell has deteriorated under the effect of his own unchecked ascendency. The paper, however, adds nothing to our knowledge, except the following extraordinary story, which, if it is true, certainly explains in part the great defeat in Kilkenny, and throws a disagreeable light on Mr. Parnell's inner nature : —

" The Saturday before the polling, however, a profound mistake was made. Being market day in Kilkenny city, a largo crowd of voters gathered to hear the speeches from a hotel window, fronting the wide market-place. As Mr. Parnell spoke, a rustic funeral came in sight. Mr. Redmond, knowing the Catholic reverence for the dead, pulled at his leader and asked him to stop till the humble coridge had passed. Mr. Parnell, however, persisted, and just as the coffin with the poor mourners following came abreast of the window, an inspiration caught him, and he pointed at it, shrieking, 'There goes the hearse of Sir John Pope Hennessy.' Even in savage or pagan countries this, probably, would be something worse than bad form. The Kilkenny farmers turned round to follow the outstretched finger and shuddered, seeing at what it pointed. For them it was not merely an uncanny or heartless parable. It was a ghastly, irreligious outrage on the dead. Coming from the illustrious Parnell,' whom they had been taught to regard as the pearl of knightly courtesy, it was un- pardonable. The funeral passed on, the meeting melted away, and from mouth to mouth passed the story of the outrage on the dead. The priests, then, wore not wrong about this man. Kil- kenny was lost."

—The remainder of the Contemporary, with the exception of an estimate of Mr. Rudyard Kipling by Mr. J. M. Barrie, is a trifle dull. "An Anglo-Russian" tries to state the case against the Russian Jews, but succeeds only in raising the impression that their persecution is more coldly deliberate than was imagined, its object, he affirms, being either to compel the Jews to depart, or so to reduce their prosperity that they will cease to multiply with their present portentous rapidity. Their birth rate far exceeds the Russian, while their death-rate is lower, and he seems seriously to believe that the Jews in Russia may increase till they are thirty millions. They are already six, and they were once only two. That prospect is, we need not say, no apology for cruelty and injustice; but even if it were, the means adopted to prevent it are singularly foolish. It is not the cultivated and the comfortable who multiply so fast, but the oppressed and the reckless, as witness

the Irish of a century ago, and the Chinese now. The truth seems to be, that the Russians, while greatly disliking the Jews, are morbidly afraid of their intellectual superiority and faculty for accumulating wealth.—" The Eclipse of Justine "

by Mr. Francis Peek, is remarkable from the obvious earnest- ness of the writer, who maintains that the inequalities in our punishments for offences are becoming disgraceful, and of themselves justify the demand for a Court of Criminal Appeal. They are certainly sufficient to create a strong feeling of sur- prise that the Judges do not prepare and observe a code among themselves.—Mr. R. Heath sends an interesting because appreciative paper on the ideas of the old Anabaptists, whose sect, he believes, will rise again. They all held, he says, the doctrine which Quakers call that of "the inner light," the something divine in each man, and drew from it the deduction that in an ideal state of society, there would be no laws save Christ's, no government save the invisible theocracy, no Law Courts, and no penalties except excommunication, Mr. Heath forgets, we imagine, that as the inner light is not equal in all, the majority must rule, and that as even religious ideas need interpretation, the trusted interpreter soon becomes a Sove- reign, as happened in Munster to the horror of mankind. In truth, such a system of thinking can have only one of two results,—the establishment of a theocracy sure to become despotic, as in the Puritan States of America; or total anarchy, each man doing what is right in his own eyes. In recording the frightful oppression to which the Anabaptists were sub- jected, he should have said something more of the provocation they gave, not only by doctrines, but by positive acts. In the Nineteenth Century, the Marchioness of Dufferin and Ava writes a pleasant and kindly paper on "The Women of India," defective only in this, that she does not give enough of the facts which must have come within her own experience. We finish reading with nothing but an impression that a com- petent English lady who saw many of the great Indian ladies, liked them. On one important point, however, Lady Dufferin is agreeably definite :—

" Of those Indian women who have attended the high schools or the university classes, and who are in fact educated, and, as it is called, emancipated, I have a very high opinion. In Oriental countries generally, emancipation from the strict rules of the purdah, and the education of women, are apt to moan dissipation and French novels ; but in India they really seem to lead to a higher life. The educated Indian ladies I have mot retain all the remarkably feminine character of their race; they lose none of the modesty of their demeanour, and I have never seen a sign, nor have I ever heard the faintest whisper, of any levity in their con- duct. The example they set, and the respect they command, will probably do more to advance the education of women, and to allay the fears of those who are opposed to it, than either theoretical considerations or the more conscious efforts of organised societies."

Lady Dufferin, while deploring the evils of child-marriage and the wretched lot of Indian widows, plainly despairs of improve- ment except through a change of opinion, and would limit social action from outside, for the present, to the provision of medical aid, which must be granted through trained female doctors.—Mr. A. Carnegie's paper on " The Advantages of Poverty" is a great deal better than either his reputation for thought or the title of his paper would suggest. Much of it is a most sensible argument against Socialism, which, he says, would kill civilisation, and his peculiar thesis that a rich man's sons would be better without his money, is, at all events, arguable. The great defect in his thought, is, that he holds pushing and the necessity for pushing to be essentially good things. Why P Why is the man with a million to make, necessarily either better or more useful than the man who, having inherited a fortune, has time, means, and above all disinterestedness enough to reflect in peace, and guide other men P The wisest man on earth, or at all events the only one whose repute

for wisdom is a proverb both in Europe and Asia, was also the richest man. It seems a striking thing to say, as

Mr. Carnegie says, that the born Prince or millionaire cannot have either father or mother in the ordinary sense— that is, cannot have close training from them--but where is the proof of the assertion P Millionaires in the making may

have no time for the domestic affections and duties, though even that is an absurd exaggeration ; but millionaires made have more time than other people. Does Mr. Carnegie really believe that a Crcesus has less natural affection than a coster-

monger, or less time to display it P or whence does he think that the intense family feeling among wealthy Jews and aristocrats

is derived P As to the mother in particular, let him watch any ordinary mother, and then ask what Madrid has to say about Queen Christina and her baby-King. We entirely admit that the children of the very rich do suffer from many temptations, but quite as large a proportion survives them as of the children of the poor. There is stronger sense in the following short

sentence, written in answer to an opinion of Mr. Price Hughes that in a country constructed upon Christian principles, a millionaire would be an economic impossibility :— " The millionaire class needs no defence, although Mr. Hughes; thinks it no longer of use since joint-stock companies provide the‘ means for establishing industries upon the large scale now de- manded. It is most significant that the business concerns which have given Britain supremacy are, with few or no exceptions, the creations of the individual millionaire :—the Cunards, Ismays, Aliens, Elders, Bessemers, Rothschilds, Barings, Clarks, Coates,. Crossleys, the Browns, Siemens, Cammols, Gillotts, Whitworths, the Armstrong°, Listers, the Salts, Bairds, Samuelsons, Howards, Bells, and others. Joint-stock companies have not yet proven themselves equal to properly manage business after such men have created it. Where they havo succeeded, it will be found that a very few individuals, and generally but one, have still control of affairs."

—Sir B. Baker argues that great ships can be easily transported on railways, and certainly proves that hydraulic lifts will lift them without breaking. But he does not prove that he can build a railway which will bear these concentrated weights, or that the ship could be carried. up steep gradients. If we are to cut a fiat railway wide

enough for the Royal Sovereign,' why not cut a canal P--- Lord Vernon's figures, in his paper on " Over-Mortgaging the Land," are very remarkable. He estimates the total value of the mortgages in Great Britain at twice the National Debt,. and the interest at £50,000,000 a year, and asks how, with a rent-roll of only about £67,000,000 a year, the landlords are- to do adequate repairs. The remedy he suggests is to limit mortgages to one-fourth of the total value of the land but it is hopelessly impracticable, or rather, hopelessly indefensible. It would at once so reduce the value of land. as an article of commerce, that it would be a tremendous act of confiscation. Lord Vernon will see this at once if he will carry his idea one step further, and think out the result of abolishing the right of mortgaging altogether, which, on his.

own showing, would be still more beneficial. The true remedy, and the only remedy, for over-mortgaging is to make sale easy and cheap. The land will then gradually fall either to those who want to cultivate it at a profit, or to men too rich to care whether it is profitable or not..--Professor Huxley, in " Mr. Gladstone's Controversial Method," shows himself in a towering intellectual rage with Mr. Gladstone, and says he

shall argue with him no more. So best, perhaps. After all, little is gained by controversy about a miracle, when one of the parties to it believes at heart that a miracle is as im- possible as a different answer to a rule-of-three sum. Will Mr. Huxley be very angry with us if we suggest that he rather turns . the argument as to the unlawfulness to Jews of keeping pigs, than answers it P He says it was forbidden to eat pigs, not to keep them. Have pigs any use except to provide pork ? The- usual morality of mankind holds the receiver as bad as the thief, and the instigator to sin rather worse than he who succumbs to it. To succeed in his main contention, Mr. Huxley must prove, not that Gadara was outside Judea, but that the owner- of the Gadarene herds was not a Jew, keeping pigs for other Jews to eat. The burden of proof lies with him, not with Mr- Gladstone, who may fairly presume that an act performed by the loftiest teacher of morality known was, in the absence of proof to the contrary, a moral one.—Mr. J. W. Cross, in "The New World," says the New World is new because it has become an " industrial world ;" but is he not rather yielding to the passion for effect ? When was the world ever, since it became a settled world, in a position in which industry was not the great motive-power ? What has always, been, even in Asia, the origin of States but the desire of in- dustrials, mainly, no doubt, peasants, to be allowed to labour in- peace P For what other end have they paid what we call taxes P Mr. Cross points to the rapid re-absorption in industrial pur- suits of the immense army raised in the Civil War; but what

is that but a reversion to the ancient method, when the peasants, arming for a few weeks for a reason, returned after; fighting at once to their ploughs ?

We shall await with interest the picture of French finance, which Mr. Hurlbert promises for next month's Fortnightly,

Review, and all the more eagerly if he will give us both sides,. and recollect that in France a good deal of taxation is paid in other countries to other people. The tax on transfers, for instance, seems a crushing one, but it supersedes nearly all the heavy payments in England to conveyancers. This time he is a little bitter about "the outlook." After all, the Republic is no more, as regards elections, than either Monarchy or Empire, and we cannot but think the charges against the Magistracy exaggerated. At least, if they are not, why does not the Chamber continually discuss them ? France would not bear an admission that her Judges are not impartial, and the charge, if not disproved, would discredit any system of administration.—Mr. H. E. M. Stutfield urges Egypt to conquer the Soudan, without showing at whose expense Egypt is to do it. She cannot do it of herself, and why, when our title in Egypt is still unsettled, should we engage in so incalculable an undertaking? Mr, Stutfield says we owe the Soudanese a debt, because we have killed so many of them, and that may be true ; but we shall not pay it by killing some more, and then establishing a transitory government. There must be a permanent settlement of Europe before we can attempt such enterprises, and even then we must organise an army of Arabs or Nubians first. We have not the white soldiers to waste.—Mr. E. Delille writes well about his subject, the French poet Verlaine, displaying frequently, and misusing occasionally, a rare delicacy in ex- pression; but we could wish him a better subject for the exercise of his power of appreciation. Verlaine, by his critic's own showing, is a poor creature with great capacity for being miserable, and great capacity, also, for filthy suggestion, always, of course, in pursuit of his end, the analysis of life. The vivisection of humanity will do humanity no good, nor, to our thinking, can it be a motive of sound art.—" Rossetti and the Moralists" is but a repetition of the old argument, that Art must exist for itself. Of "moralists," says the essayist, " there is no scarcity, but such artists as Rossetti are rare." He is, however, himself sensitive to the sickliness and artificiality of much of Rossetti's poetry, and criticises it through a fine image :—" There are lines of Rossetti's which are heavy with an overpowering sweetness as of many hyacinths. The atmosphere is like that of a hot-house, in which, amid all the odorous deliciousness, we gasp for a breath of outer air again." Sometimes, he might have added, the eweetness is that of carefully made perfumes, and not even that of bot-house flowers.—Mr. Hume Nisbet, in a very painful article on " The Papuan and his Master," pre- dicts the extinction of the Papuan, chiefly by his German conqueror, who is bringing over swarms of indentured 'emigrants. The Papuan, it seems, has even an exaggerated sense of property, and will die in defence of a cocoanut-tree ; and consequently, any one who wants his laud, as German planters do, will have to kill him. "There is only one way for a thief to live safely in New Guinea, and that is to exterminate the whale tribe of the man he has otolen from." Let us hope the German will find it more profitable to buy his cocoa- nuts ; but in any case there is no help until Australia be fully grown. The Papuan, by-the-way, Mr. Nisbet admits, is a can- nibal, and implacable in his revenge. He would eat everybody, hut that he fears arousing endless vendettas.—Those who still believe that Turkish domination in a European province is beneficial to that province, should read Mr. Hulme-Beaman on Macedonia, which, he says, is dominated by an evil Chief of Police, who commits all manner of oppressions, and is really responsible, not to the Sultan, but to Dervish Pasha, to whom the whole patronage of the province is left, and who makes out of it 225,000 a year. The officials are all bound together, and there is consequently no redress for any wrong, while appeals to the Throne are unheard. Mr. Hulme-Beaman does not, however, explain why, if this is the secret of oppression in Macedonia, the Sultan should protect Dervish Pasha, who, on this statement, is perceptibly endangering his Empire, the con- dition of Macedonia being perhaps its very weakest point.— Mr. Auberon Herbert renews his attack on the management of the New Forest, especially in the cutting of ornamental trees. His great object is that the Forest should be let alone, to develop as it would in an unsettled country ; and most Englishmen, we fancy, who love woodland will agree with him. The Forest must, however, be watched ; and will the same Englishmen vote the expense, instead of insisting, as they practically try to do at present, that the Forest shall be managed on business principles. Mr. Herbert, we note, thinks even planting unnecessary; but though it is true that the forest, let alone, would fill itself, is he sure of the kind of tree I' Lord Wolseley's article in the United Service Magazine on " The Study of War," is a vigorous appeal to the young officers of the English Army to study their profession. He tells them that, valuable as experience is to a man who finds himself under conditions under which he has to decide promptly, regardless of personal danger, yet it is no substitute for previous study of what has happened in war. He tells them that in his younger days, the words of Sir Charles Napier were always ringing in his ears :—" An ignorant General is a mur- derer. All brave men confide in the knowledge he pretends to possess, and when the death-trial comes, their generous blood flows in vain ! Merciful God ! How can an ignorant man charge himself with so much blood? I have studied war, long, earnestly, and deeply, yet tremble at my own deficiency." He says that these words encouraged. him to train himself by study for command, at a time when the men who had come into power in our Army during the long years of peace, all told him and his contemporaries that all study of their pro- fession was " rot." He says that whilst a number of gallant old fellows who have fortunately never had any very large responsibility in actual war continue to use the same language to this day, all those " who have been the masters of the military craft, who carried victory on their standards wherever they went and whenever they fought," have been invariably of the opposite opinion. He quotes the views of Napoleon and the practice of Wellington, as recorded by himself to Sir J. S. Kennedy. He appeals to Prince Eugene, Frederick the Great, Marshal Saxe, General Wolfe, the Archduke Charles, and Sir John Moore. His article ends up with some practical advice as to the nature of the study which he would recommend to those whom he does not desire to see "hunt less or play less polo, cricket, football, rackets, and all other manly out-of- door games than at present," but on whom he endeavours to impress the fact that "without the study of war, rte soldier can hope to make a name for himself" or do his duty ; and that, while "experience does not compensate for lack of know- ledge," inexperience had better take the advice of all the great soldiers of the past rather than of the idlers of the present, however venerable-they may be by age, infirmities, or rank.