errors and follies of the Tory party belonged only to a' dim and distant past, and if there were any signs that its present line of action was such as might deserve the sympathy and support of high-minded patriots, whatever their party predilections, these former offences might easily be everlooked. But at no period of our recollection has the Tory party been less deserving of a patriot's trust than at the present moment. It is hard to say for what principle it contends, what institutions it is prepared to maintain, or what considerations would restrain it from the gratification of that senseless greed of office and of power by which it has of late been distinguished. It is easy to make light of the alliance of the Tory leaders and Mr. Parnell. It is doubtless true that nothing in the shape of a formal contract between him and the Tory chiefs is in in existence. No rational man believes it. But the singular coincidence between the entire change of front towards the Nationalists in the House of Commons and the subsequent manifesto of Mr. Parnell calling upon all Irish electors to vote in favour of the Tory Government, is a fact which cannot be explained away. That Liberal Churchmen can believe that the salvation of the Establishment can possibly depend upon the supremacy of men who have thus been unfaithful to their own most solemn professions, trifled with the dearest interests of their country, and so acted as to bring the administration of justice into contempt in the very places where it needed most firmly and strenuously to be maintained, is simply incomprehensible.

But when we take a step further, and consider how the war has been carried on, how reckless these political defenders of religion have been as to their statements in relation to the acts of their opponents, how they have condescended to employ the most unworthy misrepresentations for the purpose of securing a fleeting triumph, how the patriot has been forgotten in the partizan, and the Christian sunk in the reckless combatant, there must surely be some of those who have made themselves conspicuous by their desertion of the Liberal party at this crisis who have already begun to doubt the wisdom of the action that they have pursued, even with regard to the one object which they have held to be paramount. Is it to be supposed that the Church can be defended by imputations of atheism and irreligion flung wholesale against men, numbers of whom are, to say the least, as faithful in testimony and abundant in labours for Christ as their assailants, and who are thus attacked entirely because of a difference of opinion on points of ecclesiastical and civil policy? Can it be that an in

stitution which is approved of God can need the unhallowed aid of dames of the Primrose League rushing up and down through the country, sometimes to alarm and intimidate and sometimes to wheedle the unfortunate voter, poisoning the minds of the wives of artizans with wild stories as to the destruction which Liberals and Nonconformists are seeking to inflict upon the institutions which most of them love; or, if these fail, too often resorting to personal accusations still more discreditable? Can it be a temple of the Lord which is built up with such untempered bricks?

The

A motley group indeed are these new champions of the faith-publicans, protectionists, Primrose leaguers, parsons, and, alas! too often the latter the most bitter of all. accounts which reach us from all parts of the country on this point are simply distressing. We are told of clergymen who from their pulpits have announced that Nonconformists are contemplating the desecration of cathedrals and churches, the arrest of the work of charity and benevolence, the trampling upon the most sacred feelings and instincts of Christian people by breaking down the sanctity of the Sabbath, or by depriving the people of the benefits of religious education, and who have affirmed that men who would disestablish the Church would crucify Jesus Christ afresh. There is no desire on the part of the Liberation Society to bribe the new electorate by the plunder of the Established Church. There is no intention to despoil it of a single penny of property to which it is fairly entitled; still less is there any intention to interfere, in the very highest degree, with the internal organization of the Episcopal Church, or to cripple its efficiency for its religious work. All that is sought is that its claims to nationality shall be abandoned, and that the unfair stigma which is branded upon all who will not conform to the terms of its membership shall be removed. There can be nothing more certain in relation to such a controversy than that appeals to prejudice and passion will ultimately recoil upon the party by whom they are employed. Those who the best know Nonconformists, even the men of the most advanced Liberal character, are perfectly aware that they are not robbers, that they have no sympathy with atheists, that they are not insensible to the value of a religious power in the nation; and though some may be blinded by the excitement of the hour, or so utterly ignorant of Dissenters as to accept such charges as true, the reaction will certainly come, and will be to the disadvantage of those by whom such unfair weapons have been employed.

This controversy has to be settled one way or another, for it is simply idle to suppose that the present election has done anything more than bring it to the front as one of the burning questions of the day. Looked at fairly, there is certainly nothing on which far-seeing friends of the Establishment can congratulate themselves. The Tories dominate London suburbs, but the voice of the country is against them. Well may the Establishment say, 'Save me from my friends.' Its friends have created for it a danger, and shown themselves unable to secure its escape. The battle has been fought under the most unfavourable conditions possible to Nonconformists. No effort has been spared to rally Church defenders to its support, and it is not to be denied that a large number of men who have ordinarily voted Liberal have on this occasion, as it has been well put by a Liberal Churchman, arrived at the conviction that their duty to their neighbour was not consistent with their duty to God, and have felt it right to ignore the former in their desire to discharge the latter. The opponents of the Establishment have, on the contrary, been prevented from putting forth their full strength. They were anxious if possible to preserve the unity of the party; they knew the question could not possibly be raised in the forthcoming Parliament, and they accepted the advice of their leaders and kept it in abeyance. Frantic appeals, therefore, which were made on the opposite side had to be met by them with the simple attempt to correct misstatements and to explain what might appear to need explanation. So far as they fought at all, therefore, they fought with their hands tied. Their opponents were kindling an enthusiasm which they were not able to counteract by like fervour on their side. Whenever the battle of the Establishment is really the question of the elections, Nonconformists will certainly conduct the struggle in a very different spirit and with an energy which has not yet been put forth.

The outlook, at present, is far from being clear or satisfactory. Eighty-six representatives of Home Rule-might it not be more correctly said, of separation and independence for Ireland-have to be reckoned with, and the party who have done so much to give Mr. Parnell his power are absolutely unable to deal with him. Indeed, it may be doubted whether they understand the gravity of the crisis which they have created, or think of Home Rulers or moderate Liberals as anything more than pieces for them to move backward and forward on the political chess-board according to the exigencies of their own game. Never was there a time when high states

manship was more wanted, and we have at the head of the Government a set of political pedlars, who have no definite policy except that of keeping office at any cost. In this they are encouraged by The Times,' which has never shown itself more unscrupulous or indeed mendacious in many of its statements, more bitter in its hatred of any Liberalism which is beyond that which it chooses to regard as orthodox, more anxious to do anything or everything to prevent the formation of a Liberal Administration. It is urging Lord Salisbury on dangerous courses when it counsels him to a course so unconstitutional as the retention of office. The leader of a band of 250 has no right to hold office, and the attempt to do it will ultimately be attended with disaster to his own party. The more pronounced the Radicalism of any of his opponents, the more desirous are they that Lord Salisbury should take the course on which the Ministry is bent. But in the present imbroglio we will not attempt to prophesy. Satisfied that the country is Liberal, we can afford to wait the course of events. But it is high time that Liberals should agree on some definite line of action. It is clear that all are not Liberals who desire to bear the name. Even the term Moderate Liberals' is vague. It is meant to cover Lord Hartington, Mr. Goschen, Mr. Bosworth Smith. The first has a large following in the party, the second has a slender company who contrive so to magnify and multiply themselves that they remind us of Falstaff's men in Buckram, the third is representative only of perverts who are Conservative in all but name. That we should accept the views which this latter gentleman, supported by The Scotsman' and 'The Spectator,' give of Mr. Chamberlain, and practically boycott all Radicals, would be absurd. The Liberal party must continue to have two wings, and the efforts of those who seek to force either of them into secession are direeted against Liberalism itself. We shall probably have some readjustment of party, but there is no reason why our veteran chief should not add one more glory to his illustrious career as the head of the united and triumphant Liberal party.

172

CONTEMPORARY LITERATURE.

HISTORY, BIOGRAPHY, AND TRAVELS.

John de Witt, Grand Pensionary of Holland; or, Twenty Years of a Parliamentary Republic By. M. ANTONIN LEFEVRE PONTALIS. Translated by S. E. and A. STEPHENSON. In Two Vols. Longmans, Green, and Co.

The twenty years during which John de Witt, in association with his brother Cornelius, ruled Holland was one of the most brilliant portions of her history. The best characteristics of the people then came out with brightest lustre. In the conflict with other nations, as in the contests of industry and the pursuits of peace, the various provinces for a while seemed to vie with each other without jealousy. Wars were maintained against England with such success that no permanent drawback seemed to arise from the heavy burdens to the development of internal resources. Admiral von Tromp, who, in conjunction with John de Witt, planned the famous Battle of the Downs, carried a broom at his masthead in token of their mastery of the seas, and Van Ruyter boldly sailed up the Medway. In the meantime trade flowed into the Netherlands, and art and literature flourished. The East Indies formed a rare source of wealth, and the carrying trade of the world was then almost wholly in the hands of the Dutch. Their manufactures increased; their fisheries were fertile and well worked. Such wealth was drawn from this source that it was said, figurately, in playful, popular, jest, that Amsterdam was built upon herrings.' The simplicity of life was maintained—a point which is admirably illustrated in many ways in the present work. Success did not induce indolence, nor did luxury indispose to exertion. The merchants did not change their mode of living; they did not cease to be plain citizens when they became millionaires. The turning-point was due to diplomacy and court intrigue, in which not a little was due to the English Restoration and the duplicity of our Charles the Second. The greatest diplomatic triumph of the time was thought to be the Triple Alliance, in the formation of which Sir William Temple had taken so prominent a part, and under which both France and England should have profited. But no alliance, triple or other, could bind the Second Charles; he schemed to outwit the De Witts, and to reinstitute the Stadtholdership. So utterly unprincipled was he that, while he was aiming to set the united provinces the one against the other, he could not help seeking to take some advantage of William of Orange, his relative. The plotting and counterplotting initiated by the English diplomatists at the beck of Charles took a considerable time to work out its worst results; but finally it did work them out. The Grand Pensionary was discredited