There remains then only the fourth, the non-propertied class: it is in England certainly far the most numerous. As late as 1865 there were counted in the United Kingdom no less than 18,000,000 persons who with difficulty supported themselves, and 1,500,000 paupers requiring maintenance.

It is then this numerous and discontented class, both morally and physically the least developed of all, which must inspire itself with the idea that patriotism and the duty of service are identical! Truly, if we consider the social structure of the English people, we can understand that no party and no ministry can venture to undertake with earnestness the great question of military reform.

The reform of the English military forces on the principle of universal liability to service corresponds so little with the aristocratic character of its institutions, with the traditions of the English people, and with the materialism of its view of life, that it is very improbable that it will be carried out before England has met with a catastrophe such as Prussia, France, and Austria have already exBut will the artificial edifice of the British Empire survive such a catastrophe ?

perienced.

We hope it may. We hope it may, as we are fully conscious of the high function of the British Empire in the political and intellectual organism of the globe. It is a bulwark of civilisation, that precious inheritance we have received from our forefathers. It is a mighty agent, a strong and keen fighter in the great struggle between mankind and all that is hostile to it on earth.

ALEXANDER KIRCHHAMMER.

Captain in the General Staff Imperial
Royal Austrian Army.

WORKING MEN AND THE POLITICAL SITUATION.

WHAT do the working men of England think of the present political situation? What do they say of the Irish Land League, of coercion for Ireland, of obstruction in the House of Commons, of the way in which obstruction has been dealt with, of the general proceedings in Parliament in the first two months of the present session, and of the probable effect of these proceedings on the parliamentary institutions of the future? These questions, and others of a similar kind, have in varied phraseology been repeatedly put to me during the last few weeks.

answer.

The questions, though apparently simple, are by no means easy to Those who are generally classified as working men, namely, the manual labourers of the country, very much resemble other people who think at all; they often differ widely in their opinions on the great public questions of the day. It cannot, therefore, always be truthfully said that there exists a working-class opinion as distinguished from the opinions of the rest of the community. Moreover, no man has a right, unless specially authorised to do so, to speak for a body of men so large and so diversified in character and in opinions as are the working men of England. I certainly arrogate to myself no such right. What I may fairly claim, however, is to have had a long and close connection with large bodies of working men-to have had for many years, and to have still, good opportunities of knowing their thoughts and feelings on the leading social and political topics of the time. In the following pages I shall therefore profess to give only my own individual opinions, and the result of my own observation; though in doing so I have strong reason to believe that I shall at the same time express views which extensively prevail among working men in the North of England.

I may have occasion to criticise the proceedings of Mr. Parnell and his followers, but I shall endeavour to perform that operation in no captious or offensive spirit. If I attack their policy, I shall take care neither to impugn their motives nor to asperse their character. I am personally acquainted with many of those gentlemen, and feel great respect for them. With many of their aims, if I rightly under

stand them, I am entirely in sympathy. I have given some proof of this. An examination of the records of the House of Commons for the last few years will show that scarcely any English Member of Parliament has voted so often with them as I have done. While approving of many of their objects, however, I have felt an ever-increasing aversion to their methods. At the risk of apparent inconsistency, I have steadily voted against them whenever I considered their motions of a dilatory and an obstructive character.

Some of the ablest and shrewdest of the Home Rule leaders in the House of Commons have frequently stated to me that their great hope of achieving anything good for their country was by enlisting the sympathies and securing the assistance of the Radicals and working men of Great Britain. They believed, and rightly believed, that the great majority of the English people had no interest in the misgovernment of Ireland, and no wish to maintain the union between the two countries otherwise than in a spirit of justice to the Irish people and on terms of perfect equality. No one can doubt that of late strenuous and persistent efforts have been put forth to secure such an alliance. Nor was the time altogether inopportune. There were, indeed, many circumstances, negative and positive, very favourable to its accomplishment. The old anti-Irish feeling which operated with such force, bitterness, and intensity among English workmen and artisans some years ago had happily disappeared, and no provocation seemed capable of reviving it. The great mass of Englishmen of every class and creed had become fully sensible of the wrongs inflicted upon Ireland by centuries of misgovernment, and there was at last a genuine desire to make amends for past errors and to do justice to the people of that country. The action of the Government, too, at the beginning of the session appeared to afford favourable opportunity for agitation among the great constituencies of England. Seldom has such combustible material been prepared and placed ready for fierce declamation and passionate appeals to popular sympathies. The case was put thus: There was in Ireland a wretched starving peasantry, in too many instances robbed by unjust laws of the fruits of their industry. The land laws were admittedly unjust, and other grievances called loudly for redress. But instead of reform there was a drastic measure of coercion. While resisting this measure, the Irish members were silenced, and afterwards expelled from the House of Commons. New rules were specially devised to push this hateful bill with all speed through Parliament. Mr. Davitt, one of the ablest leaders of the Land League, was arrested and sent to prison without any reason being assigned for his incarceration.' The Irish Members of Parliament had all this excellent material for agitation and declamation. They had in their ranks men capable of making the best possible use of it—able, eloquent speakers, ready at any personal sacrifice to address public meetings in every part of the United Kingdom. The artisans, labourers, and trades-unionists of

the country were appealed to, and asked what they as free independent Britons thought of this unheard-of tyranny? To elicit an expression of their opinion, the potent machinery of agitation was set in motion. An Anti-Coercion League was established; public meetings were organised, large demonstrations were held in the chief centres of industry throughout the country, addressed by some of the most eloquent speakers of the Irish party. And what has been the result?

It can hardly be said that the agitation has been successful. No doubt, crowded, enthusiastic, and in some cases unanimous meetings have been held. But I think no one will pretend that the great mass of the artisans and working men of England, or any considerable number of them, have been won over to the side of the Irish Land League, have been led to endorse the policy adopted by the active section of the Home Rulers in the House of Commons, or have had their faith in the Liberal Government to any appreciable extent destroyed or weakened. The great trades-unions of the country have certainly given no response whatever to the appeal. Even in the northern counties, where one of the most powerful and widely circulated of the Liberal newspapers warmly espoused the cause of the Irish members, the result has not been at all commensurate with the efforts put forth. Why, with so many circumstances in favour of the agitation, was so little effect produced?

Though the Irish members had much in their favour, they had, on the other hand, great difficulties to encounter. A powerful Liberal Government had just succeeded to office, and though the working men disliked coercion, they had very great confidence in the Government. In the Cabinet were men who had fought long and bravely, and had won great popular victories. At the head of the administration was a veteran statesman who had a stronger hold on the heart and imagination of the people than ever statesman had before. There was almost boundless faith in the Government, and that faith was not to be shaken and overthrown in a day.

The autumn and winter campaign of the Land Leaguers in Ireland did not at all help them with English public opinion. I was in Northumberland at the time; I was daily associating with large numbers of working men, and had good means of judging of the effect produced. Their sympathies at the beginning were wholly with the Irish peasantry and tenant-farmers. But the reports of the speeches delivered at League meetings tended to weaken that sympathy, if not to extinguish it altogether. I have no means of knowing whether the newspaper reports were accurate. They were doubtless very imperfect; they might sometimes be distorted and garbled. What I know is that we were told of large and enthusiastic meetings addressed by Irish Members of Parliament. The speakers were reported to have inveighed strongly against the Liberal Government, frequently attacking by name some of its leading members. There was not a word

of frank acknowledgment that the Government had tried, however imperfectly, to deal with the question of land reform; not a whisper of censure was uttered against the House of Lords for having thrown out the Compensation for Disturbance Bill. Every available shaft of ridicule, every arrow of sarcasm, was hurled at the Government, and the Irish peasants were told that it was utterly hopeless to look to any British House of Commons or to any British party for remedy or redress. I shall not stop to ask what effect language of this kind, addressed to an excited people smarting under a sense of injustice, was likely to produce. I am dealing with its effect on English opinion, and I know it estranged great numbers of Radicals and working men who otherwise were favourably disposed to the Irish peasantry. I met scores of working men, and Liberals of other classes, who thought that Mr. Parnell and his friends were behaving exceedingly ill to the Government. For six years,' they said, we had a compact Tory administration, which neither did anything, nor attempted to do anything for Ireland. Every measure, however fair and moderate, brought forward by the Irish members themselves, was scornfully rejected by overwhelming majorities. Mr. Parnell and his followers accepted these rebuffs with apparent equanimity. But no sooner is a Liberal Government placed in power, a Government known to be welldisposed towards Ireland and giving clear and speedy evidence of that good disposition, than a fierce and violent agitation is commenced against them, and carried on with the utmost vigour throughout Ireland.' This may not be a just presentment of the case, but I have not the slightest doubt that considerations of this kind have driven away, and perhaps made entirely hostile, great numbers of Englishmen who might have been staunch and resolute friends. If the agitation made converts to the Land League in Ireland, it certainly offended and alienated large numbers of Englishmen.

It

It may, indeed, be fairly asked whether, if the object aimed at was to obtain a really good Land Bill for Ireland, there was not an altogether fatal mistake committed in the field selected for the campaign. Mr. A. M. Sullivan, in a speech delivered a few days ago in the House of Commons, said he had warned his friends that they were committing a grave error in addressing meetings in Ireland and leaving English public opinion uninformed or misinformed. seems to me that their chief, if not their exclusive, attention should have been given to England. Instead of agitating on the other side of the Irish Channel they should have been aiding the English Liberals to educate public opinion on this side. The Irish tenants could require no arguments to convince them of the necessity of land reform. All they needed was thorough union, and they should have been able, with some little help from intelligent sympathisers, to perfect their organisation.

Another mistake made in the recent agitation was in basing it too much on narrow, exclusive class grounds. The trades-unions were