THE MAGAZINES.

THE Reviews, with the exception of the Fortnightly, are fall of Prince Bismarck, but we do not see that they add to our information much. The Contemporary gives the first place to a conversation between the Prince and the Emperor, in the style of " For Sceptre and Crown," the novel in which a Hanoverian Minister described the last days of the Gaelphic Monarchy. It is rather clever, its drift being that the Emperor asserted his right to rule, and his belief that " the Hope of the peoples would be the master of Europe," and that the Chancellor told him of his incompetence to be anything of the kind ; but as it must be purely imaginary, its interest is limited to its merit as a work of art. That is not great, for the Emperor, who is the unknown figure of the two, is not in the least explained. The paper in the New Review, again, contains an anecdote or two illustrating Prince Bismarck's methods, one of which, it appears, was to get his secret despatches directed by a cheesemonger in his shop, so that the smell as well as the writing might throw the Austrian Post Office off its guard ; but it adds nothing to our knowledge, except a statement that the Crown Prince, who, by his own account of the affair, urged on the proclamation of the Empire, doubted whether the Imperial throne would aggran- dise his House. It would weaken, he thought, the clan bond between the Prussians and their Kings,—which is possibly a

true view. Sir Rowland Blennerhassett's paper on the same

subject in the Nineteenth Century is good history, and most interesting, particularly in its account of the straggle Prince Bismarck made in 1866 to save Austria from a demand for territorial cessions ; but it contains no full appreciation of the Chancellor. The following passage will be interesting to Englishmen:— "It is now five-and-twenty years since I had the honour of being first presented to Prince Bismarck, but the conversation I then had with him made such an impression that, though followed by many others, not a word of it has faded from my memory. Various subjects were discussed. Speaking of England, he expressed the opinion, which I know he has not changed, that although more Englishmen than formerly spoke German, the ignorance of Germany in this country was greater than ever. Those who had acquired the German language did not use it for the purpose of studying literature and trying to understand the German mind. He did not believe that the work of any considerable German poet, from the Parzival of Wolfram von Eschenbach to the songs and ballads of Uhland, was at all widely or properly appreciated in England. 'Nations,' he said, have not yet been drawn closer 'together since locomotion has become more easy. This is a melan- choly reflection. In the days of my youth, a certain number of English used to come here and stay some time amongst us. Now they fly like woodcocks across the continent. No English leading public man has anything like the knowledge of Germany Carteret possessed a hundred years since.' " We suspect Lord Odo Russell, afterwards Lord Ampthill, knew a good deal more of Germany than Carteret ever did; but still, there is truth in the remark. It is very doubtful whether intercommunication greatly increases knowledge.

Ireland and England do not understand one another, and the leaders of the Southern States were honestly of the opinion that the Northerners would not fight.

Except the papers on Bismarck, the Magazines have nothing .striking in them this month. Miss Olive Schreiner's dream in the New Review, is in sentences quite wonderfully written, but

as yet we do not understand its drift; and are old-fashioned enough to dislike exceedingly the introduction of God into a vision " laughing " at his interlocutor. It suggests a total absence, not of reverentialness in the writer, but of the very capacity for being reverential.—In the same Review, M. Emile 011ivier publishes a short essay on the Berlin Labour Conference, full of eloquence, not so full of thought. It is really a protest against the assumption by the German Emperor of a right to become an international legislator, and the following is its most pregnant sentence :—" Prussia, by the substitution of armed nations for the former small armies

of soldiers by profession—another lapse into barbarism—has rendered it impossible to lighten labour of the heavy burdens which weigh it down. Socialism is the consequence and the punishment of this revival of the policy of conquest which has led to such a, fearful extension of the military system?' Is it certain that the conscription does not give back, in improved physical health and the habit of organisation, as much in money even as it takes away P Frenchmen are not expected to write history accurately ; but we may remind M. 011ivier that the practice of arming nations was forced on Europe, not by Prussia, but by Revolutionary France and the Napoleonic wars.—Of the merit of " The World's Desire," by Rider Haggard and Andrew Lang, we cannot judge until it is more advanced, further than to praise its singular beauty of expression.

Professor Dicey, in the Contemporary Review, describes with much care the working of the Referendum in Switzerland, and argues that it might well be introduced into this country also, at least as a check on constitutional changes. The following paragraph is the best account, in brief words, of the actual working of the system that we have ever seen :- " A Tudor monarch retained valued servants in his employ- ment, even though he rejected their advice. He acknowledged the legislative authority of Parliament, but he maintained his claim to be part of the Legislature, and refused assent to Bills which, though passed by the Houses, seemed to him impolitic. The Swiss people in like manner, being the true Sovereign of Switzerland, retain, in the service of the State, Ministers whose measures the voters nevertheless often refuse to sanction. The Swiss democracy values the legislative ability of the Federal Par- liament, but, like an English King of the sixteenth century, con- stantly withholds assent from Bills passed by the two Houses. The Referendum is a revival of the miscalled 'veto,' but is a veto lodged in the hands, not of a sovereign monarch, but of a sovereign people. Such a veto produces the same effects, whatever be the power by which it is exercised. It secures the Constitution against any change which the Sovereign does not deliberately approve ; it tends to produce permanence in the tenure of office ; it undermines the strength of that elaborate party system which

in England lies at the basis not of Parliamentary government, but of government by Parliament."

We agree that there is more hope in the Referendum than in

any scheme yet proposed, and believe that if proposed by a trusted Minister, it might be adopted. It limits, no doubt, the power of the House of Commons, but then it increases the direct power of the democracy, and Englishmen, like Americans, are learning rapidly to trust themselves, and to distrust their representative bodies. Within twenty years we shall witness a formidable movement against the House of Commove. Professor Dicey produces, moreover, what is, we think, a new argument for the adoption of the principle in a country like our own :-

" The popular veto on constitutional changes which freed electors from bondage to the party system might also promote the straightforwardness of English statesmanship. As things at present stand, the position of a statesman, forced to surrender a policy which he feels does not approve itself to the nation, is full of awkwardness. We all admit that a political leader must, sooner or later, shape his course of action in conformity with the will of the country. No one blames Peel for his loyal acceptance of the Reform Act ; no one now thinks the worse of Lord Derby for having in 1852 acquiesced in the national resolve to maintain Free-trade. Unfortunately, legitimate changes of conduct are apt under our present system to bear the appearance of dubious changes in opinion. It may often be a doubtful matter whether on a particular subject the country has, or has not, pronounced a final verdict. As the tenure of office is, or may be, immediately connected with a Minister's success in carrying a given Bill through Parliament, there is great difficulty in his renouncing legislation proposed by himself, when he finds the country will not support his Bill, without his at least incurring the charge of undue tenacity in clinging to office. The reference of a particular law, say a Parliamentary Reform Bill, to the people for approval or rejection, would greatly increase the freedom, and improve the moral position, of the Minister who advocated the measure. If the Bill were accepted, things would stand exactly as they do now when a Bill finally passes into an Act. If it were rejected, the Minister could, like a member of the Swiss Council, accept the rejection as a final expression of the nation's will."

—Mr. S. Laing states clearly and moderately some of the advantages of democracy against aristocracy, but he fails to show that the method of dealing with property which he advocates is, so far as it is consistent with justice, impossible under our mixed system. It was the Ten-Pounders who took on themselves the great burden of the Income-tax, in order to release the poor from duties on their articles of consumption. Is he sure that a freeholding democracy will do acts as magnanimous P—Miss Wedgwood's criticism of the Mid- summer Night's Dream is a very fine one, pp. 583 to 585 especially so ; but we hardly think Mab, the tiny elfiing, half- hidden in a hazel-nut, grew into the Queen Mab of all the later portion of the play without her creator's distinct volition.

Shakspeare never forgot that his characters must be capable of being played, and must have designed, therefore, from the

first to humanise his fairies. Modern stage resources are great, but no stage manager alive could find an actress in " shape no bigger than an agate stone."

The difficulty with a paper like that of Mr. Champion in the Nineteenth Century, called "A Multitude of Counsellors," is to know exactly what he means. It would be difficult to be more lucid in style, or more interesting in matter ; but which of the interlocutors represents Mr. Champion's view of the right P Is it Mr. Blake? If so, then Mr. Champion is fighting, no doubt, for the labourer, but abandons Socialism altogether. He avowedly throws the

consumer overboard, and represents the workman as governed entirely by selfishness, and only willing to forego his im- mediate advantage, as in the matter of overtime, when he sees clearly that he shall thereby secure an ultimate profit. He combines only to secure higher wages. It is true enough, as a matter of fact, but a fight between corporations instead of individuals is not exactly equivalent to a regenerated world. If self-interest is to rule, the man of brains is certain to become the capitalist, for his help is worth, say, to a thousand men a little sacrifice from each, which in the aggregate is wealth. Suppose that by possibility a man could monopolise thimbles, what would he get from each sempstress ?—and what would he be worth in ten years ? Now, the man with a quicker sewing-machine in his brain does monopolise thimbles.

The printers of the Nineteenth Century may say they produce it ; but suppose the purchasers' reason for buying it is to read a statement of social problems in Mr. Champion's remarkably terse English, can the printers prevent Mr. Champion, if he is guided by self-interest, from getting his price ?— Mr. Hamilton Aide is a successful novelist, but we suppose he means his account of his seance with Mr. Home to be a truthful narration of a series of facts, and if so, it is a real contribution to the evidence on biology. Eight persons, including M. Alphonse Karr, who was violently on the materialist side, saw a heavy table rise from the floor in a lighted room, under circumstances in which lifting was impossible, and saw also—which is much more wonderful—the lamp and pencils on the table roll about without ever rolling over. M. Alphonse Karr suggests unex- plained jugglery ; Mr. Hamilton Aide is half-inclined to whisper hypnotism, all the eight guests being, on that theory, the victims of an induced illusion ; while we ourselves should only ask for proof that will can never affect material things, and we dare say there are many other explanations, the im- portant fact being all the while that the law of gravitation was broken, just as it is when a needle sticks to a magnet.— Mr. Knowles Lees gives us some curious information as to the use of horseflesh as meat. It is rapidly extending on the Con- tinent, and in England the sale is considerable, " and possibly it is even greater than we suppose, owing to the manner in which the meat is sold and the secrecy of its sale. In Man- chester large quantities are sold at about twenty different shops in the lowest parts of the city, and in Salford at about twelve shops and to a large extent. Those figures were given me by the town-clerks : but higher figures have been furnished by authorities scarcely less credible." It costs about half as much as beef. There seems no objection to its use except this, that the fat will not keep, and that the flesh therefore, to be cheap, must be sold without it. We should prefer potatoes ourselves, or even dry bread ; but there is no physiological reason for the prejudice, though at one time it was universal : " The trade of a horse-slaughterer is lucrative enough. He pays about £1 a horse. From the hoofs are made glue, combs, &c., from the shank-bones the hafts of knives, &c., from the entrails Prussian blue, &e. Then the bones generally are ground down in the manufacture of manure. The skin sells at so much a pound, realising perhaps 12s. to 15s. The meat as cat's meat brings in Id to 1d. a pound. In fact, a dead horse is worth to the slaughterer about £1 a leg, or four or five times more than the slaughterer paid for the horse when alive. The knacker, therefore, need not starve."

—We cannot discuss Mr. Herbert Spencer's ideas of " Justice " in any space within our power to devote to them in this article ; but we can extract, and heartily thank him for, this pregnant paragraph, which we recommend to those of his admirers who are also followers of Rousseau :—

" Sympathy which, a generation ago, was taking the shape of justice, is relapsing into the shape of generosity ; and the generosity is exercised by inflicting injustice. Daily legislation betrays little anxiety that each shall have that which belongs to him, but great anxiety that he shall have that which belongs to somebody else. For while no energy is expended in so reforming our judicial administration that every one may obtain and enjoy all he has earned, great energy is shown in providing for him and others benefits which they have not earned. Along with that miserable laissez-faire which calmly looks on while men ruin them- selves in trying to enforce by law their equitable claims, there goes activity in supplying them, at other men's cost, with gratis novel-reading !"

—We recommend to every one interested in Ireland, Mr. T. W. Russell's account of her condition "then and now,"—that is, in 1834, 1842-43, and 1880. The contrast as to the supply of material wants is the contrast between barbarism and civilisation. Take these brief statements recorded by the Whately Commission in 1836 :-

" We cannot (say the Commissioners in their Report) estimate the number of persons in Ireland out of work and in distress during thirty weeks of the year at less than 585,000, nor the number of persons dependent upon them at less than 1,800,000,

making, in the whole, 2,385,000 A great portion of them (the Report goes on to say) are insufficiently provided at any time with the commonest necessaries of life. Their habitations are wretched hovels ; several of a family sleep together upon straw or upon the bare sod, sometimes with a blanket, sometimes even without so much to cover them; their food commonly consists of dry potatoes, and with these they are at times so scantily supplied as to be obliged to stint themselves to one spare meal in the day. There are even instances of persons being driven by hunger to seek sustenance in wild herbs. They sometimes get a herring or a little milk, but they never get meat, except at Christmas, Easter, and Shrovetide." They also add that " the earnings of the labourers come, on an average of the whole class, to from 2s. to 2s. 6d. a week for the year.' And that "mendicancy is the sole resource of the aged and impotent of the poorer classes. To it crowds are driven for the means of existence."

The average wage of labourers is now, says Mr. Russell, 2s. a day, by which he means, we presume, 12s. not 14s. a week. " In 1841, there were well-nigh half-a-million of mud cabins in Ireland. To-day the number is under fifty thousand, and these are largely to be found in that dark western area which I recently described in the pages of this Review."

The April number of the Fortnightly rather lacks interest, or, at least, we cannot be entertained by papers like Miss C. Black's in defence of marriage. Her datum that a majority of marriages are fairly happy is sound enough ; but if the con- trary were the case, the value of the institution would not be disproved. Nor can we admit for a moment that "it is hardly overstepping the mark to say that in the lowest stratum of our population, marriage virtually does not exist at all. The essential elements—fidelity and sense of mutual duty—are absent. Moral chaos reigns as to the relation between man and woman." That a high ideal of marriage is seldom realised anywhere in the world, is true enough ; but neither is a high ideal of anything else. The great facts of social life, of which the necessity of monogamy as the basis of the family is one, must be recognised and acted on before any great advance in society can be made. Miss Black writes as if institutions were to be tested mainly by their result among the cultivated, who are in all the world perhaps one-tenth per cent. of mankind. It is curious to note that this writer, who is fighting for the orthodox view, has a sneaking kindness for laxer divorce laws, though she holds that before they can be safe, manners and morals must alike become more refined. She says :—" Easier divorce may be necessary, but the oppor- tunity of making wiser and happier marriages is more neces- sary still—partly, though not chiefly, because in that direction lies the only safe path towards less stringent legal conditions." —Mr. W. M. Gattie, in a paper on " The Physique of Euro- pean Armies," states as his general result that the conscription is improving the physique of the European nations. They are becoming taller and more powerful men, the occupation pursued for three years of their lives distinctly raising all averages, a result strongly marked in the following Italian table :—

'Under 4 ft.114 in. to 5 &Sin. to 5ft. 7in. to Over 4 ft. Ili in. 5 ft. 2; in. 5 ft. 61 in. 5 ft.114 in. 5ft. 10} in.

1846-1857 4'50

28.00

5300

14.00 0.50

1887-1888 3.00 25'91 54'95 15'35 0.79

The British Army, Mr. Gattie contends, is degenerating in physique, the proportion of men per 1,000 under 5 ft. 6 in. having increased from 105 in 1845, to 528 in 18 87. That looks formidable ; but is there not another explanation Is it not the fact that as wages rise and employment grows brisker, the recruiting-sergeant has to accept a lower and lower class of the population,—that is, people who for generations have been worse-fed P Considering that, as Mr. Gattie points out, conscription draws in all classes, it is wonderful that the British Army keeps up the superior average size of its men as well as it does. The paper is worth studying ; but its conclusion ought to have been that the pay of the British soldier is too low.—Mr. Curzon's " Leaves from a Diary on the Karun River" (the Persian river debouching in the gulf supposed to have been opened to the British) is full of knowledge and of valuable glimpses into Persian life, written for the most part in a charming style; but if he wants general readers, he must excise one-half his details. They would be valuable in a report to the Foreign Office, but they create in the ordinary man's mind an impression that he can never remember all that.