THE MAGAZINES.

THE post of honour in the Contemporary Review is assigned this month to • two articles on the situation in France,—one by M. G. Monod, and the other by Mr. Hamerton. Both are Republican in sympathy, both are thoroughly acquainted with France, and both think General Boulanger more or less of a charlatan. Yet both agree, for different reasons, that he may probably win. M. Monod believes that the discontent is due, first, to the exclusion of Conservatives from power; secondly, to the anti-clerical tone of the Republic—which, he holds, inflames greatly the zeal of the Catholic section of the people—and thirdly, to the encroachment of the Chamber upon the Executive. He thinks that if the Executive could be released from its trammels, Radicals and Conservatives could succeed each other as in England, and then the Republic would live; but failing this, it will die, as every Government since the Revolution has died, after less than eighteen years of power. This, it will be observed, is very nearly what General Boulanger says in all his manifestoes, though he draws the deduction which M. Monod rejects, that the cure is to vote for General Boulanger. Mr. Hamerton thinks like M. Monod, that the great want of France is alternation between the parties ; but he admits a deeper discontent. He says the

peasantry are becoming Boulangist, they are suffering to an unprecedented degree, and the gentry and the clergy teach them to attribute all their sufferings to the Government :—

"Few people know the current of rural thought better than the keepers of those cafés in country towns which are frequented by great numbers of the peasants on market days. One such cafetier told me recently that all the peasants who come to his place are Boulangists. This is the more significant that they do not come from the same village, but from hamlets and farms many miles apart. Now, with regard to the working men in the towns, they are generally anxious about the prospects of employ- ment, and they are beginning to think that perhaps the rich would open their purses again if the Government were more to their taste. In the vine countries, that small creature, the phyllozera, is a dangerous enemy of the Republic. Vine lands in Burgundy are considered well sold at one-third of their former value, and I know an instance where one-twelfth has been willingly accepted by a vine-owner, who lost twenty thousand pounds through the depreciation. I know another, once a rich man of noble family, who keeps his worthless vineyards, and is now teaching in a school. In the vine countries all the ether trades are dependent on the vine, and its failure means general adversity. Everything that restricts the spending of money is unfavourable to the Republic."

Mr. Hamerton is a little more hopeful than M. Monod ; but even he thinks that the Republic must adopt some mechanism a little less "cumbrous and frictional" than Parliamentarism. But then, what is the alternative, except that Presidential government which General Boulanger is for the present advocating?—Mr. A. Dicey's paper, on " The Right of Public Meeting," is perhaps a little too detailed for his purpose ; but its general drift is most instructive. Nothing, for example, can be more clear or persuasive than this paragraph :- " The notion that there is such a thing as a right of meeting in public places arises from more than one confusion or erroneous assumption. The right of public meeting—that is, the right of all men to come together in a place where they may lawfully be for any lawful purpose, and especially for political discussion—is confounded with the totally different alleged right of every man to use for the purpose of holding a meeting any place which in any sense is open to the public. The two rights, did they both exist, are essentially different, and in many countries are regulated by totally different rules. It is assumed again that squares, streets, or roads, which every man may use, are necessarily available for the holding of a meeting. The assumption is false. A crowd blocking up a highway will probably be a nuisance in the legal, no less than in the popular, sense of the term, for they inter- fere with the ordinary citizen's right to use the locality in the

way permitted to him by law. Highways, indeed, are dedicated to the public use, but they must be used for passing and going

along them, and the legal mode of use negatives the claim of politicians to use a highway as a forum, just as it excludes the claim of actors to turn it into an open-air theatre. The crowd who collect, and the persons who cause a crowd, for whatever purpose, to collect in a street, create a nuisance. The claim on the part of persons so minded to assemble in any numbers and for so long a time as they please, to remain assembled 'to the detriment of others having equal rights, is in its nature irreconcilable with the right of free passage, and there is, so far as we have been able to ascertain, no authority whatever in favour of it.' The general public cannot make out a right to hold meetings even on a com- mon. The ground of popular delusions as to the right of public meeting in open places is at bottom the prevalent notion that the law favours meetings held for the sake of political discussion or agitation, combined with the tacit assumption that when the law allows a right it provides the means for its exercise. No ideas can be more unfounded. English law no more favours or provides for the holding of political meetings than for the giving of public concerts. A man has a right to hear an orator, as he has a right to hear a band, or to eat a bun. But each right must be exercised subject to the laws against trespass, against the creation of nuisances, against theft."

Any assemblage calculated or intended to cause a breach of the peace is an " unlawful assembly." " Magistrates, police- men, and all loyal citizens, not only are entitled, but indeed are bound to disperse an unlawful assembly, and, if necessary, to do so by the use of force; and it is a gross error to suppose that they are bound to wait until a riot has occurred, or until the Riot Act has been read." Those dicta seem to cover the whole case ; but, in truth, there is a point which is doubtful in law,—namely, the right of an assembly not in itself unlawful to resist dispersion by force. It has such a right to some extent, but what is the extent is not settled. Clearly it may neither assault, nor maim, nor slay, for it is not defending itself from anything except an illegal order, and what it may do has never been finally laid down.—Mr. Free- man, under the title of " Christianity and the Geocentric System," writes a long but excellent reply to the argu- ment that as the world is a little and unimportant place, nothing so important as an avatar of the Godhead can have occurred here. " It is unreasonable, it is argued, to believe that such a scheme as that of Christianity, implying

such awful mysteries and so tremendous a sacrifice, can have been devised for the sole benefit of such an insignificant part of the universe as this earth and its inhabitants." Mr. Free- man states many answers to that objection, but the one which weighs with himself is that man may well be exceedingly important in the universe, in spite of his weakness and in- significance. That the weak shall overcome the strong is, in his view, so constant a fact as almost to be a law. Man himself is one of the weakest of creatures, yet he rules his planet; and among men a ruling caste is always found to be physically weak. The world may hold a place in the universe out of all proportion to its physical size. Mr. Freeman's idea is carefully worked out in a most interesting paper ; but it will not convince agnostics, who will say, " Here is one more hypothesis," and to Christians it is needless. The theory of immortality once granted, all is conceded, for who can measure or define the importance of an immortal being P We cannot measure the importance even of a baby, for he may be a mere consumer of victuals, and may be the discoverer of fire.—Mr. Dale's final paper on his impressions of Australia is devoted to the moral and religions aspect of society on the continent, and is by far the least satisfactory he has written. We do not get a clear idea out of it, except that Australians are specially inclined to the form of gambling which we call speculation, and that they themselves are more alarmed by the rowdyism of their growing lads than by any other symptom. No cause except climate is assigned for this rowdyism, nor is any cure suggested except universal military training.—Mr. J. Runci- man calls attention, in " The Ethics of the Turf," to the enormous extension of betting among all classes, with a result, he says, of equally enormous demoralisation. The passion for cheating spreads till the most elementary notions of right and wrong die out, and the successful swindler is elevated into a hero. Mr. Runciman gives instance after instance of direct but unpunished fraud, and, in- deed, evidently doubts if a race on which the Ring has much to lose, is ever fairly run. He has, however, no remedy to suggest, except that of licensing bookmakers, and punishing the unlicensed with crushing fines. That would be to license evil, but apart from that, we do not see whence the good result of that system is to come. The more honest the gaming-table, the more numerous will be its customers.

Sir Charles Dilke concludes, in the Fortnightly, his ex- ceedingly bright and spirited account of the Belooch and Afghan frontiers of India. There has been no more enter- taining piece of writing in the magazines for a long time ; and though Sir Charles does not quite convince us, he adds greatly to our information. He thinks it indispensable that if we have to resist an invasion of India, we should do it by defending Afghanistan. If we have pledged ourselves to the Ameer to do that, we agree, on the ground of national faith ; but if not, we still maintain that we can fight best behind the Himalaya, because we should have all India for our base, and because direct water-communication with England would be always open. Nations which are compelled to fight with small armies should never fritter them away in guarding long lines of communication. If we go to Herat, or even to Candahar, the hill-tribes behind us may prove our most formidable foes.—Mr. H. H. Johnston, the African explorer, contributes a valuable opinion to the great missionary question. He does not apparently believe much in the utility of conversions, and, indeed, is inclined to think that the value of any creed depends upon the character of the race which embraces it ; but he maintains that the missions are among the greatest of civilising agencies, and that if let alone, they can reduce even African tribes to decency and industrial order. He is strongly of opinion, too, that the more European the missionary is, even in such a matter as his clothes, the greater and the better is his influence,— a view held by many most experienced missionaries. He disbelieves altogether in Mahommedan missions, and relates a sad history of a peaceful Pagan Kingdom which was at once converted and desolated by the Arab propaganda : —" The religion of Mohammed as developed by the Arab and the African is incompatible with the welfare of humanity. It embodies a great reaction of the purely animal side of man's nature, and as such must he steadily opposed, circum- scribed, and suppressed."—Professor Seeley's lecture on " Ethics and Religion " is in substance a warning to en-

thusiastie young men that they must build an ethical system on Christianity, and not set up a new one to rival, perhaps to oppose, the greatest and oldest of Ethical Associations.— M. Arsene Houssaye writes on Alfred de Mussel, and, we pre- sume, thinks he is praising his friend. He will leave on most Englishmen the impression that the poet was a brutal profli- gate who could not even refrain from insulting the women he seduced. That is not the truth about Alfred de Musset, but it is the effect of this article, which ought not to have appeared in an English magazine intended to be read by everybody.

—Mr. Mallock's able and clear paper, called " Cowardly Agnosticism," is an effort to prove that agnostics are cowardly

in not acknowledging that, under their system of thought, the moral imperative, the sense of duty apart from penalties, must absolutely perish. That it must perish, Mr. Mallock, in our judgment, proves ; but he does not prove that the agnostic refusal to admit it is in any way cowardly. They do not think so, and why should they say they do ? It would hardly be possible, however, to put the case against the worship of a non-sentient Universism more neatly than it is put in this paragraph :—

" Devoutness is made up of three things, fear, love, and wonder; but were the Agnostic's thoughts really controlled by his own principles (which they are not) not one of these emotions could the Unknowable possibly excite in him. It need hardly be said that he has no excuse for loving it, for his own first principles forbid him to say that it is lovable, or that it possesses any character, least of all any anthropomorphic character. But perhaps it is calculated to excite fear or awe in him. This idea is more plausible than the other. The universe as compared with man is a revelation of forces that are infinite, and it may be said that surely these have something awful and impressive in them. There is, however, another side to the question. This universe represents not only infinite forces, but it represents also infinite impotence. So long as we conform ourselves to certain ordinary rules we may behave as we like for anything it can do to us. We may look at it with eyes of adoration, or make faces at it, and blaspheme it, but for all its power it cannot move a finger to touch us. Why, then, should a man be in awe of this lubberly All, whose blindness and impotence are at least as remarkable as its power, and from which man is as absolutely safe as a mouse in a hole is from a lion But there still remains the emotion of wonder to be considered. Is not the universe calculated to excite our wonder ? From the Agnostic point of view we must certainly say No. The further science reveals to us the constitution of things the feeling borne in on us more and more strongly is this, that it is not wonderful that thi gs happen as they do, but that it would be wonderful if they happened otherwise : whilst as for the Unknown Cause that is behind what science- reveals to us, we cannot wonder at that, for we know nothing at all about it, and if there is any wonder involved in the matter at all, it is nothing but wonder at our own ignorance."

—Professor Dowden sends a careful estimate of the deceased critic and politician, Edmond Scherer. He describes him as an admirable critic, whenever his perceptions are not over- mastered by his Genevan morality. Did not his " Genevan morality," by giving him a standard, increase his critical power? Upon a much-discussed subject, M. Scherer embodied his critical philosophy in this exquisite epigram :—"' Veils,' says Scherer, ' are made to be lifted, but woe to him who lifts them, for the veil itself is part of the divinity." This criticism, too, on Sainte-Beuve is quite perfect in form, though the enemies of the author of the Causeries hold that when he bated, he ceased to search for truth :—" ' I expressed the idea,' he writes, when Sainte-Beuve died, that something came to an end together with his life. This something was literature in the old sense of the word, the pre-occupation of the mind with what is beautiful and elevated, or delicate and refined, the search for truth in thought and balance in expression ; in a word, all that has hitherto been called literary taste and the art of writing."

The Nineteenth Century gives us some more amateur criti- cisms on noticeable books, but they are not generally interesting, with the exception, perhaps, of the notice of a German novel called For the Right, in which Mr. Gladstone eulogises what he calls the "enthusiasm for justice." It is, he says, the rarest of all enthusiasms, because it cannot deck itself in varied colours ; but " the sanctuary of pure justice, frequented or not, is a Holy of Holies." That is a remarkable obiter dictum from a man who has so often seemed of late to let other enthusiasms obscure his notion of justice altogether.

—The most readable paper in the number is, perhaps, Sir W. Gregory's " Daniel O'Connell," which certainly shows O'Connell at his best. Sir William admits, however, that he had one immutable prejudice. He could not endure Sir Robert Peel, and judged him as unfavourably after the great battle about Maynooth as before it. The following admirable story testifies to O'Connell's quickness as a counsel :-

" One of O'Connell's earliest displays of forensic acuteness took place at Tralee. The question in dispute touched the validity of a will which had been made almost in articulo mortis. The instru- ment seemed drawn up in due form; the witnesses gave ample confirmation that it had been legally executed. One of them was an old servant. O'Connell cross-examined him, and allowed him to speak on in the hope that he might say too much. The witness had already sworn that he had seen the deceased sign the will. `Yes,' he went.on, 'I saw him sign it, and surely there was life in him at the time.' The expression, frequently repeated, led O'Connell to suspect that it had a peculiar meaning. Fixing his eye on the old man, he said, 'You have taken a solemn oath before God and man to speak the truth and the whole truth ; the eye of God is on you, and the eyes of your neighbours are fixed on you too. Answer me, by virtue of that sacred and solemn oath which has passed your lips, Was the testator alive when he signed the will ?' The witness quivered, his face grew ashy pale as he re- peated, 'There was life in him.' The question was reiterated, and at last O'Connell half-compelled, half-cajoled him to admit that, after life was extinct, a pen had been put into the testator's hand, that one of the party guided it to sign his name, while, as a salve for the conscience of all concerned, a living fly was put into the dead man's mouth to qualify the witnesses to bear testimony that ' there was life in him' when he signed the will."

—Lady Blake confirms the horrid story that Newfoundland sealers frequently skin the young seals alive, inflicting, as they live for many hours, or even days, the most appalling tortures. This is not done, as is said to be the case with

cats, to improve the skin, but out of pure callousness and reluctance to waste time in giving the coup de grace. The sealers regard the seals as fishes, and therefore incapable of feeling.—The remainder of the articles are unusually slight, even Professor Huxley's, though it professes to contain a full answer to the Christian theory of the Resurrection.

The Professor believes that the only true account in the Gospels is the one which, he says, implies that Jesus was laid in the tomb alive, and arose and went into Galilee. This is not the place to discuss the facts ; but does Mr.

Huxley imagine that the Apostles and Disciples suffered martyrdom without really believing that Christ had risen from the dead ? And with what motive, if he did not rise, did they invent a statement opposed to the whole experience of man? The contempt of .the Professor for St. Path's intellect is not a little amusing, especially as it is based upon nothing but this,—that St. Paul, being satisfied by a vision that Christ had risen, did not im- mediately cross-examine everybody as to the facts. When Mr. Huxley sees bread, does he go to the bakery to ask if bread it really be ?—The Rev. H. Sidebotham upholds the refusal of the Bishop of Gibraltar to allow a chaplain to be stationed at Monte Carlo, by the argument that as special attacks on gaming would not be permitted, ordinary ministra- tions would only soothe English visitors into a false impression that a visit to Monte Carlo was respectable. Would not that argument be fatal to the ministrations of the Church in any sinful place P Monte Carlo is a nuisance to Europe, no doubt,

and also a place full of sin ; but we should have thought that therefore it specially needed "ordinary services," supposed,

at all events by Mr. Sidebotham, to be means of grace.