THE MAGAZINES.

M.B. KNOWLES has at last enlisted a reigning Sovereign among his contributors. In the Nineteenth, Century the King of Sweden and Norway publishes the first in- stalment of a memoir of Charles XII. The paper is highly

laudatory of that Viking in a periwig, who at the age of eighteen swept over North-Eastern Europe like a whirl..

wind, and till " Pultowa's day" won battles as easily as Napoleon. King Oscar is anxious to represent his predecessor in title not only as a national hero, but as a far-sighted statesman, and the memoir is therefore inclined to be some- what badly balanced. The interest of the subject is, however, very great. Charles XII. succeeded to the throne on April 14th, 1697, when only fourteen years and ten months of age, and on November 22nd in the same year, assumed the sole direction of public affairs. Before he was eighteen, he plunged into a war with Denmark, Poland, and Russia, leaving his capital, which he was never to behold again, on April 12th, 1700. From that time till the day of his death, eighteen years later, he was constantly in the field, sometimes a victor, and sometimes a vanquished fugitive, but always harbouring vast schemes of ambition,—one being that of landing an army in Scotland, and restoring the Stuarts. In all probability, however, this, his greatest and last scheme would have failed, for in 1716 Marlborough and his veterans were still available for defence. We shall look with interest, in the next instal- ment, for the account of the meeting between Marlborough and Charles XII., which took place in 1708. But for the successful persuasions of the English diplomatist, "the madman of the North" would have thrown his weight on the side of France during the War of the Spanish Succession, and the history of Europe might have been completely changed. —In an article entitled "Retiring the Irish Garrison,' Mr. Davitt endeavours to show, among other things, that the present Purchase Bill is in reality a "Relief Bill for English Mortgagees." Instead, however, of following his line of argument in regard to this point, which strikes us as any- thing but "telling," we will quote his opinion of how the work of purchase ought to be carried out :— "There is but one safe way out of the maze of this Irish land difficulty, and that is the way of courage and of principle which, it is to be feared, neither Tories nor Gladstonians will as yet con- sent to travel. It is the way marked out by Mr. Giffen in 1886. Give the land of Ireland and its rental to a representative national authority :in Ireland. Let such rental, or rather what will be substituted for it, a land-tax, be the source from whence such national authority will derive the necessary revenues for the administration of the country. Let Ireland's present fiscal con- tributions to the Imperial Exchequer continue, and allow such revenues to pay the interest upon the Consols with which the landlords' interests would be expropriated. To meet possible objections to this, on the score of alleged partiality to Ireland in such an arrangement, Mr. Giffen further wrote It might be thought at first that the concession is extravagant, that we con- cede far too much to Ireland ; but the truth is that the account would be nearly balanced as far as the Imperial Exchequer is concerned. Taking the rent of Ireland, as settled judicially, as about £8,000,000, the Consols at par to be given in exchange at twenty years' purchase would be .2160,000,000, involving an annual charge of .C4,800,000 upon the Imperial Exchequer. At present we spend annually upon Ireland for its local government— for law, prisons, police, education, and such matters—close upon £4,000,000, exclusive altogether of the outlay for the army of occupation, for the collection of revenue, and other Imperial matters. If it is thought that the account should be exactly balanced, it could be arranged that the local authorities in Ireland should pay over to the Imperial Exchequer, out of the rent-charge which they would be allowed to collect, any sum needed to make up the difference between the cost of the Consols necessary to, buy out the landlords and the amount now spent out of the Imperial Exchequer on the local government of Ireland.' Of course the 'twenty years' purchase' here mentioned would be an extravagant price and would be subject to discussion. Other details would also have to be considered, and provision would have to be made for a sinking fund, by which Ireland would in time wipe out her national debt. But the plan of the scheme would not require a single farthing of the British taxpayers' money, either by

credit or cash. The final settlement of the agrarian war in a national or State administration of the land, and the satisfaction of national claims to autonomy in the creation of a representative National Assembly in Dublin, would insure such peace and con- tentment as would enable the cost of government to be so reduced that an immediate relief of 40 or 50 per cent, could be given in the matter,f rent to the great and paramount industry of the land. This, together with statutory leases including the right of free sale, but prohibitive of sub-letting, would satisfy every tenant-farmer in Ireland, prevent the re-growth of landlordism, and enable Irish agriculture to weather the storm of external competition. Congested ' districts could be dealt with by County Councils which should follow the organisation of a National Assembly. The landlords, drawing the interest on their Consols from the English Chancellor of the Exchequer, out of Irish fiscal revenues, could remain in the country for the dis- charge of other and more useful functions, national and muni- cipal, than they have ever performed as the English Garrison;' while the popular or national sentiment of Ireland would become the best guarantee that those who should occupy the land, under the favourable conditions indicated in Mr. Giffen's plan, would faithfully fulfil their obligations, as not to do so, with the com- munity as the 'landlord,' would insure popular odium instead of public sympathy for the tenant who should refuse to pay the fair rent of his holding to the Irish State."

It is to be noted that Mr. Davitt, in another part of the article, lets it be clearly seen that he does not believe in the cry of repudiation.—In an African article, Sir Francis de Walton asks why we should not co-operate with Germany in East Africa, and declares that the two Governments should arrange "with as little delay as possible a complete understanding as regards the boundary-lines of the interior," In the Fortnightly, Mr. T. W. Russell writes an eloquent defence of the Land-Purchase Bill. His manner of dealing with the demand that there should be "a buffer" between the State and the tenant is specially happy. He shows how absurd and sophistical is the demand that the State, which has found the money and will be really anxious to collect the instalments, should put the administration of the scheme into the hands of bodies which would most likely have no objection to encourage defalcation :— " But why should the ' buffer ' be necessary ? And might it not be a weakness and a difficulty rather than anything else ? The Unionist opposition to Mr. Gladstone's land proposals in 1886 was based mainly on the fact that he proposed to advance the sum of £50,000,000 sterling to what, if his policy went to its logical con- clusion, would practically have been a foreign, and at some time, possibly, a hostile country. The Gladstonian policy undoubtedly set up a buffer between the State and the purchasing tenantry in the shape of an Irish Parliament. But the buffer was held by the Unionists to be a source of weakness rather than of strength, and they rejected the proposal mainly on this ground. And why should the buffer be necessary ? Ever since 1869, as I have said, -we have been pursuing the policy of creating an occupying owner- ship of land in Ireland. There has been no buffer between the State and the glebe purchasers under the Church Act of 1869, or the purchasers under the Bright Clauses of the Land Act of 1870. No one has come between the State and the thousands who have bought under the Ashbourne Act. Probably in the space of twenty years more than 20,000 occupiers have been trans- formed into owners under various Acts of Parliament. There has been no buffer between the State and any of these purchasers. The State has lost absolutely nothing—whatever it may have gained by the transaction. There has not been a hitch in the entire proceedings. Why, then, should Lord Spencer insist upon a buffer ? If 20,000 occupiers can be satisfactorily turned into -owners without loss, why should a buffer be introduced when the successful operation is about to be extended ? I hold the very -converse of this proposition. It is British credit that is proposed to be pledged, and the State has an absolute right to keep its hands firmly on the machinery—nay, it has the right actually to work the machinery. To hand it over to any local authority under present circumstances would be little short of insanity."

In truth, the demand for "a buffer" has been repeated like a . sort of parrot-cry, without any one stopping to inquire what good end could be served thereby.—Mr. Rudyard Kipling's

Lamentable Comedy of Willow Wood" is very disappointing. Tarts of it are clever enough, but as a whole it makes us yearn for one half-hour of Privates Mulvaney, Ortheris, and Learoyd. Two blas6 extinct volcanoes of passion, a man and a woman, -go out riding together on "grey downs late in the afternoon, a sea-fog coming over the cliffs," and talk as if they would never stop about their "pasts." No doubt there is a certain amount of " reality " about the dialogue, for the people who used to talk about their souls have largely taken to vivi- secting their emotions ; but this does not prevent it from being very dull. His failure here does not, however, in the least lower our estimate of Mr. Kiplin.g's genius. Every artist makes experiments which turn out unsuc- cessfully, and this is the worst that can be said for "The Lamentable Comedy of Willow Wood."—" The Working of

Woman Suffrage in Wyoming" is full of interesting things connected with the question of whether women should or should not have votes. The writer of the article, who himself appears to take a favourable view of the results achieved in Wyoming, has collected a mass of opinion on the subject from

all sorts of people. "Many correspondents insist that women never vote unless induced to do so by male politicians, and certainly they are nearly always conveyed to the polls escorted by gentlemen whose attentions bear the impress of something more than mere civility. They say further that the personal

appearance and social graces of the candidate play an all too important part. One correspondent thinks he can best ex- press this influence by the following example Mr. A. is such a perfectly lovely man, you know; just too sweet for anything. Mr. B. passed me in the street the other day and did not even smile." One of the replies received by the writer of the paper is delightfully specific :—" In answering the question, Do women vote independently, or do they follow their husbands or other male relations with whom they live ?' a correspondent of some political experience writes : This depends on the hair ; short or red-haired ones vote independently, the balance depend on their men for advice in voting as in other things." It will be noticed by those who are inclined to be cynical on the subject of female emancipation, that, as a rule, the women voters "appear unfavourable to candidates of their own sex,"—they have never, for example, ran a candidate of their own sex for either House. Generally speaking, the women's votes seem to be less easily purchased than those of the men ; though "the poorer women are not insensible to the seductiveness of the 'carriage ride,' and the gifts of apples, chewing-gam, and candy, with which an active candidate sweetens the memory of election day."—Professor Geffcken, in writing on "North American Fishery Disputes," from the standpoint of a student of International Law, completely

demolishes the contentions of the French as to their alleged right to take lobsters in the Newfoundland waters, and of the United States as to the making of Behring Straits mare clausum.

The National Review has this month a remarkable copy of verses by the editor, entitled "On Returning to England."

The following couplets on the English Spring have the true lyric feeling :—

"For here the cuckoo seems more glad, The nightingale more sweetly sad, Primroses more akin in gaze

To childlike wonder, childlike ways ; And all things that one sees and hears, Since rooted in the bygone years, And blending with their warm caress A touch of homely tenderness, Bid the quick instinct in one's blood Pay tribute unto motherhood."

The only other contribution which calls for notice is "Insect Communists," by Mrs. Fenwick Miller. All descriptions of

the socialism of the bee-hive are interesting, but we have seldom read anything more curious or entertaining about Bees than the present paper. The parallel between the dream of the Socialists and the actual social conditions reached by the Bees is extraordinarily close. The ideals of work for the sake of work, and female emancipation, have produced a race of unsexed slaves "to whom incessant violent toil for the support of a large population is the only possibility in existence."

The Contemporary has a terrible paper by Mr. Waugh on "Baby-Farming," which we trust will have the effect he desires, —i.e., will obtain legislation making it obligatory upon all per- sons who bring up children for hire or reward, to register their

houses, and to keep a record of the babies entrusted to their care. At present the trade in babies is worked in the following fashion. A "procurer," after inserting "adoption" advertise- ments in newspapers, undertakes for a sum down to relieve the mother from all further trouble with her child. She then dis- poses of the children by paying a smaller sum to the actual baby-farmers, who neglect the children till death frees them from any further obligation. The description of one of the " farms " is almost too horrible for quotation, but we give it in order to support the contention that further legislative action is necessary :—

" Here is the goal to which one skilful and busy procurer had conveyed five of her little victims. It was the back room of a tumble-down labourer's cottage, scarcely fit for a coal-place, about twelve feet square. Crouching. and sprawling on the floor, in their own excrement, were two of them. Two were tied in rickety chairs, one lay in a rotten bassinet. The stench of the room was so abominable that a grown man vomited on opening the door of it. Though three were nearly two years old, none of them could walk, only one could stand up even by the aid of a chair. In bitter March, there was no fire. Two children had a band of flannel round the loins ; one had a small shawl on ; the rest had only thin, filthy, cotton frocks. All were yellow, fevered skin and bone. None of them cried, they were too weak. One had bron- chitis, one curvature of the spine, and the rest rickets ; all from their treatment. There was not a scrap of children's food in the house. In a bedroom above was a mattress, soaked and sodden with filth, to which they were carried at night, with two old coats for covering. All the children's clothes in the place were the handfuls of raga they wore And a man and his wife sat watching them die of filth and famine, so making their living. It was their trade. Of one, which had died a few months before, was found a graceful memorial card, with the motto, He shall gather them into his arms,' which had been provided by the procurer who sent it. At the farm, its mother was not known. These five weary creatures were all removed into restorative care : all in- jured for years; some for life. Two never recovered, and died in hospital."

None of the other articles in the Contemporary call for special comment, unless we notice Mr. Justin McCarthy's shrill scolding of Mr. Balfour, in his paper on the Land- Purchase Bill. This diatribe would surely have been far more in place in the columns of United Ireland.

Macmillan this month, which, as usual, is thoroughly readable, has nothing better than the vigorous and eloquent essay on William Lloyd Garrison by Mr. Goldwin Smith.— It contains, also, a remarkable short story entitled "Ronald Lester." The writer, whose name is not given, should be heard of again. She has a distinct power for portraying suppressed passion.

In Blackwood, among other good things is an exceedingly .clear and well-engraved map of the Zanzibar coast.