round London, worth appreciable sums, too, of which the biggest

does not exceed two acres. And then he proceeds to say, what this writer knows to be true, that, sad as the lot of the agricultural labourer. may be, its hopelessness is a false idea. As large a proportion of labourers prosper in life as of artisans, the real evil being not that, but this,—that the labourer cannot prosper while labouring. The artisan can, and that makes all the difference. Even Samuel Ringer, Dr. Jessopp's illustration, did not save his money out of work for labourer's wages ; and Jehu was by instinct a dealer. Let every one who wishes to learn, however, read Dr. Jessopp ; and if he fails,—well, he will have the com- pensation of half an hour of quite undiluted literary enjoyment. Mr. F. Harrison, too, will give him pleasure with his talk of "A Pedantic Nuisance," a most amusing protest against the habit of spelling certain names, especially Saxon names, as they "ought to be" spelt, instead of spelling them as they always have been spelt. The serious part of his argument, which extends far beyond English history, and seems to us unanswer- able, is contained in this paragraph. Why are we to write Aelfred, Eadweard, and Eadgar ?—

" Alfred, Edward, and Edgar are names which for a thousand years have filled English homes, and English poetry and prose. To re- write those names is to break the tradition of history and literature at once. It is no doubt true that the contemporaries of these kings before the Conquest did, when writing in the vernacular, spell their names with the double vowels we are now invited to restore. But is that a sufficient reason ? We are not talking their dialect, nor do we use their spelling. We write in modern English, not in old English ; the places they knew, the titles they held, the words they used, have to be modernised, if we wish to be understood ourselves. We cannot preserve exactly either the sounds they uttered, or the phrases they spoke, or the names of planes and offices familiar to them. Why then need we be curious to spell their names as their contemporaries did, when we have altered all else—pronunciation, orthography, titles, and, indeed, the entire outer form of the language ? The precision for which we vainly strive in the spelling of names is after all a makeshift, very imperfectly observed by any one, and entirely neglected by others. And it has the defect of ignoring a long and suggestive unity in history, language, and common civilisation.

Paltoography should keep to its place, in commentaries, glossaries, monographs, and the like. In English literature, the literary name of the greatest ruler of the West is Charlemagne ; the literary name of the most perfect of kings is Alfred ; and the literary name of the greatest of poets is Shakespeare. The entire world, and not England alone, has settled all this for centuries. Manuscripts and Palaeography have nothing to do with it."

Sir T. Brassey will not allow for a moment that the late Board of Admiralty neglected its duties, or that the English Navy is in any danger of being inferior to the French. He says the facts are given in the following table :—

" ARMOURED SHIPS.

1885.

EXIMAND.

Class. Ships.

Displace- meet.

FRANCE.

Class. Ships.

Displace- ment.

1st 13 122,010 1st 3 29,860 2nd 14 . 86,310 2nd 12 86,030 3rd 14 112,410 3rd 13 ...

61,800 Coast Defence 14 ... 41,530 Coast Defence 12 ... 34,200 Total 55 ... 362,260 Total ...... 40 ... 211,890

1890.

1st 22 210,450 let 10 103,140 2nd 22 132,730 2nd 18 . 125,920 3rd 12 98,380 3rd 4 . 19,630 Coast Defence ... 14 ... 41,530 Coast Defence 19 ... 42,080 Total 70 483,090 Total ..... 51 ,.. 290,770"

To all who care to follow the controversy between Mr. Gladstone and the men of science about Genesis, it will be pleasant to read his paper and M. Reyille's, in the same number, though we think they may skip Mr. S. Laing's, in the Fortnightly. Mr. Gladstone has not specially dealt with the Deluge, and is not, we imagine, at all likely to assert that the Flood was universal. Might we, however, petition that if the controversy proceeds, the illustrious controversialists will leave Homer out of it P To all but a very few Homeric scholars, that section of the discussion is not only recondite, but, if we may say so without blasphemy, intolerably tiresome.

There is not much in the Fortnightly, to which, we are glad to see, the Editor has returned in full health and strength, though somehow for once we da not greatly enjoy his work, "Small Talk and Statesmen." It is a very good review of Mr. Greville's book, and a very bad one of Lord Malmesbury's, and adds but little to our knowledge of the subjects of either. The most original thought we find in it is the undoubtedly true one,— that the public impression made by Peel's tergiversation has been much exaggerated. His own party completely forgave him for his conduct on Catholic Emancipation, and none but his immediate opponents sincerely doubted his motives in reforming the Corn Laws. In estimating Lord Palmerston, Mr. Escott leaves his courage too much out of sight. He had genuine nerve, which is much rarer among modern statesmen than is supposed, and was the ultimate cause of his ascendancy, not only among his colleagues, but over general English opinion. He perceived

what BO many statesmen of his time forgot, and so many statesmen now are forgetting, — the great direct fighting power which England could display ; and he was ready to

appeal to it. The "Impressions of a Modern Arcadian," by Mrs. Nicholl, is a most able sketch of modern Virginia ; and we always read Mr. Lilly with admiration for his skill as a rhetorician. Does he not, however, put the case for Darwinism a little too strongly from his point of view? He must know ; but we should have thought he approached the confines of heresy, though, no doubt, the Roman Catholic Church has passed no opinion upon Evolution. He makes fine use of the argument

that if Darwinism is true, modern democracy is not. The essence of Darwinism is the natural right of the fittest to survive, a doctrine which, if applied in politics, would not

exactly imply a victory for the Irish Extremists, or confirm the notion that Divine right is with the majority. Divine right, if Haeckel could conceive of such a phrase, would be with those who could kill out the majority to foster the diffusion of the higher few. "My Contested Election" is a long-drawn joke ; and we do not gain much light either from Mr. R. B. Brett, who seems to us to exaggerate the Parlia- mentary power of the Parnellites, or from Mr. Arthur Arnold.

We entirely agree with his ideas of Land Reform, but we cannot admit that this is the special moment for that or any other measure until the Irish Question is ended. Tenure can wait; the right of the British people to control their own affairs cannot.

The first paper in the Contemporary Bevietv, by the Bishop of Peterborough, on " Oaths, Parliamentary and Judicial," is probably as able an article as ever appeared at any time in any magazine. We hardly see how any one who has ever read it can differ from its conclusions. In language of almost startling plainness and force, Dr. Magee maintains that, whatever the oath was meant for—and it was clearly dynastic —it was not meant to exclude Atheists ; that an oath without a sanction is nonsensical, and that an oath, therefore, forced upon a person who does not believe in a God is an absurdity ; that needless oaths are clearly condemned by Christianity, even if all oaths are not deprecated ; and that, consequently, though the plea of freedom of conscience is meaningless in an Atheist's mouth, the right course is to abolish all oaths. We need not say we thoroughly agree, though we are not sure that the wonderfully frank argument about natural rights does not go a great deal too far. Dr. Magee says :—

"And yet it is only on this supposition of a Divine Father and Ruler of men that such things as inalienable natural or birth rights are conceivable. He, the Supreme Father and King, may have given to his children rights into which, according to his ordinance, they enter at their birth, and for the maintenance of which they can appeal against their stronger fellow-men to him, the common Over-Lord of all. And of these rights the most sacred and the most precious may well be that of the conscience, which specially claims to be his voice in the hearts of men. But apart from him, what is conscience but a physical sensation in the physical compound of atoms called man ? And what is mare but the material environment of that compound of atoms ? Nature, as the Atheist views her, knows no right save force. The survival of the fittest, the extinction of the weakest, is her one and only social law. To talk then, in her name, of the rights of conscience, or of any rights whatever, is to talk unscientifically. If I could imagine myself, per itnpossibile, an Atheistic statesman dealing with such a plea on the part of an Atheistic citizen, I should say to hint—' My good sir, I do not understand what you mean. I could understand your claim if urged by a Christian, because he claims religious liberty and the rights of conscience in the name of One whom he asserts to be my Master as well as his. But you and I believe no such absurd and antiquated notion as this. Whence, then, do you derive your so-called religious or anti-religions rights ? Why am I bound to respect the pain which what you are pleased to call your conscience feels at my laws, any more than I am bound to respect -a pain in your head or in your stomach ? All these pains may, of course, matter a great deal to you ; but what do they matter to me or to "the greatest happiness of the greatest number," which you know is the great principle of government which you and I have substituted for that stupid old maxim, He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God' ?"

True enough in the month of the Atheist dictator ; but do not a Christian people owe a respect to the religions freedom of the Atheist P The final argument is, however, the one the Bishop fully acknowledges,—that the oath must do mischief, because it can only keep out the honest Atheist who refuses to take it. "Parnell and Grattan," by Mr. Traill, is not so good. Mr. Grattan is very courteous but very weak, Mr. Parnell always wins ; and after all, the fact that Grattan was an aristocrat has not much bearing on the discussion of Home-rule. The Irish do not fight for that system—or, rather, vote for it—because it was Grattan's, but only quote his Parlia- ment as proof that Ireland was once independent. So was England, even when Peers nominated her House of Commons. We fail to catch Mr. Traill's precise bias. Does he, perchance, agree that Home-rule would mean Separa- tion, and approve that result ? Sir Charles Warren, if we may judge from his paper on " Recent Events in South Africa," has arrived at the conclusion—always upheld in the Spectator—that South Africa needs a Viceroy, who, in his judgment, should be supreme over the whole territory, Cape Colony excepted. We would, however, ask him why the Cape should be excluded. Her self-government is not threatened, because the Colonial Office, with its reserved powers, is present on the spot ; and except over native territories, it is not proposed to invest the Viceroy with more power than the mother- country now retains. This would amount in practice, as regards the free Colonies, only to the right of veto, plus the command of the troops, two powers which, in the circumstances of South Africa—which, after all, it should be remembered, has not half a million of whites—it is impossible to surrender. We note, in the two papers on "Church Reform," that the idea of a lay organisation is steadily making way, even Mr. George Russell accepting it, provided the electors of the Church Board are really Churchmen, a point he would assure either by a distinct declaration of membership, or by a declaration of adhesion to the Nicene Creed, an odd qualification, which would admit almost all orthodox Dissenters. It is a curious sign of the times that of all who discuss this subject, nobody proposes to avail himself of the practical dividing-line,—the acceptance of Episcopacy. It is supposed that this would admit Roman Catholics; but is there the slightest practical danger of English Catholics attempting to interfere with Protestant worship ? Mr. V. H. Stanton, the author of the second paper, is more ecclesiastical than Mr. Russell as to the qualification for membership, and he desires to limit the force of the majority in some way not yet explained. If he really sees a way to confine authority to "men of learning and discern- ment," he should bring it forward at once. It would be a grand contribution to secular, as well as to ecclesiastical politics. Most of us Liberals have been seeking such a scheme for a good many years in vain. "The Little Prophets of the Cevennes" is a well-written account of the religious " seizures " to which certain persons of that district became liable during the great persecution (circa 1701), and a feeble explanation of the phenomena. We, at least, do not believe that those phenomena are explicable by hereditary memory, or that, as Professor Ewald Hering, of Prague, puts it, "Memory is a universal function of organised matter from the earliest exist- ence of things to the present time. Memory is continuous. Though individuals die, their offspring carry on the memory of all the impressions their ancestors acquired or received. We are, as the author of Life and Habit puts it, one person with our ancestors." Of course, we inherit much, and if anybody likes to call heredity unconscious memory, we have no objection ; but Professor Hering's idea thus stated goes so far, that the brothers of a household ought, on certain points of disposition, to be exactly alike. Notoriously they are not. Mr. Tustin McCarthy on Home-rule is, we think, whistling to keep his courage up. He asserts that Home-rule must be granted, because Mr. Gladstone is by himself stronger than the whole Liberal Party. We should have said that the marked peculiarity of Englishmen, differentiating them from all other peoples, is that they are singularly loyal to leaders and kings as long as they agree with them, and determinedly disloyal whenever they do not. The struggle is too near for prophecy, but speculators will not find their field of vision much cleared by Mr. Justin McCarthy.

In the minor magazines, the papers which have struck us most are the account of " Samanala and its Shadow," in the Cornhill, a fine, though rhetorical, description of a religions festival on Adam's Peak, in Ceylon, and of the effect of the deep shadow which at certain moments the mountain throws ; and the remarkable intellectual whim called, in Macmillan, "A Strange Temptation." The central thought, which is that the characters " created " by a novelist may have, after he has created them, an actual, though shadowy and temporary, existence, is old; but it is worked out with a kind of weird moderation that is singularly impressive. We fancy, chiefly because of the heroine's name, that we detect an old hand ; but it is using what is to her a new weapon. A substantial thought, or rather a thought become incarnate, is not a ghost in the old sense, and the idea that it may be doomed to suffer by its half- conscious creator, dreamy as it is, has been so handled as to be almost ghastly.