the power of the truth resent the idea that His honour needs such vindication as would be provided by those who would force our legislators to avow their faith in some 'deity or other.' There is, indeed, something extremely ludicrous in the suggestion that religion, imperilled by the action of men like Mr. Samuel Morley, Mr. Gladstone, or Mr. Bright, is to be defended by the gallantry of Mr. Chaplin and his friends, who one day attempt to suppress Mr. Bradlaugh, and the next speak and vote in favour of that notorious horse-race which does more to corrupt the morals of the country than all the writings of the infidels of the day put together. But grotesquely absurd as the idea may seem, it is being worked for the annoyance of the Prime Minister, and it is but one of the weapons which will be used for the purpose. The device is an old one, but often as it has been expected, it is ever reappearing; and so subtle is it, that it succeeds in deceiving some even of the elect.

A more awkward and embarrassing question could not easily have arisen than that which Mr. Bradlaugh has raised. Though the Ministry contributed nothing to the difficulty, they are sure to be hampered by it. That they will sustain any permanent injury is not to be believed, for there is too much sense in the country to allow of pretentious hypocrisy on the one hand, and intolerant exclusiveness on the other, misleading the people. There is an intense repugnance to Mr. Bradlaugh, which is shared by many who have a certain degree of sympathy with his unbelief. There is also in the minds of another and a smaller section an objection to allowing an atheist a share in the making of our laws and the control of the Government. But when the question has to be fairly dealt with, the reason of the country will endorse the conclusion already reached by all true Liberals, that a test of Theism is just as contrary to equity as a test of Christianity, of Protestantism, or of Anglicanism. The position taken on such a question as that started by the Northampton election is really a test of the robustness of a man's Liberalism. Nothing can enable him to maintain his ground except a resolution to do right whatever be the consequence. It might be urged on a doubting Nonconformist Liberal, that the men who are so eager to have his support for excluding Mr. Bradlaugh are the representatives of the party who so long excluded him, and if they had the power would exclude him still; that much of their professed zeal for God is in reality a desire to annoy Mr. Gladstone; that the confession of various Tories that they would have raised no objection to

Mr. Bradlaugh's taking the oath if he had not himself paraded the peculiarity of his position, shows how shallow are their principles; and that the Ultramontanes who are abusing their their own liberty in order to oppress others, would be equally ready to suppress all Protestants. But there is a strong religious sentiment which might overbear all such considerations, were it not in itself held in check by a still stronger religious principle that principle of righteousness which is the heart of all true Liberalism. The eloquent advocacy of this principle by Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Bright gives them another claim to the confidence of the party. The men who could suggest that they have any sympathy with Mr. Bradlaugh are base slanderers, whose calumnious falsehoods can only recoil on themselves. If these great Christian statesmen have pleaded for his admission to the House it has been in opposition to all their own religious instincts, and simply because they would not allow their hatred of his opinions to betray them into injustice to the man or treason to liberty.

A question of a like kind has arisen in relation to Lord Ripon's appointment. For the expediency of that nomination the Ministry of course are responsible. On it we pronounce no opinion, because we have no adequate means of judging the qualifications of the new Governor General for his most arduous position. But the Prime Minister knows him, and he must also have anticipated the prejudices which his appointment would irritate and call forth. We are prepared to trust Mr. Gladstone's judgment, and if the Marquis was in his view the best man available for the office, we rejoice that he was not so weak as to pass him over because he was a Roman Catholic. Nonconformists have no reason to espouse the cause of Roman Catholics; and when we see the representatives of the Romish Church in the House of Commons displaying such furious intolerance, it makes it all the harder to protest against the application to one of their own number of that principle of exclusiveness of which they have made themselves the fiercest advocates. But our disgust with Mr. O'Donnell and his friends must not deflect us from the straight path of truth. Lord Ripon's Romanism ought not in our judgment to be regarded either as a qualification or a disqualification for political office. The Postmaster General recently took upon himself to lecture certain friends of religious equality for their intolerance in objecting to the appointment. We quite agree with him, and confess ourselves unable to understand the logic of gentlemen who, in one breath, insist that the nation has no right to give its sanction to a particular creed or church when they

are the sufferers from the preference, and in the next, outrage the right for which they have just been contending by putting a stigma on Romanists or on atheists, as the case may be. But we dissent from one of Mr. Fawcett's reasons, and one he puts prominently forward, as heartily as we agree with his conclusions. He says the Roman Catholics of Great Britain are onesixth of the population, and yet there is an outcry because Mr. Gladstone has given two offices out of fifty. There is no connection between the two points. The Roman Catholics are not one-sixth of the Liberal party, and, in truth, gave it little or no help. But the question is one of principle, not of numbers. When Mr. Fawcett introduces the latter point he surrenders the very position for which he is contending; for he bases his argument on the religious opinions of the Marquis of Ripon, instead of advancing the one irrefragable plea for equality in political privilege, irrespective of religious opinion. On this ground we take our stand, and only regret that any Liberals should have been so inconsistent as to complain of Mr. Gladstone for the consistent application of their own principle. Unfortunately there are some whose only idea of liberty is liberty for themselves, or at most for Evangelical Protestants.

The worst of these little discontents, trivial in themselves, is that the Tories take advantage of them to sow dissensions in the Liberal ranks. To one section they appeal on religious grounds; with the Whigs who were bitten by the Jingo mania they adopt another tone. With the latter, the Karolyi letter, than which a nobler document has seldom been indited by a statesman, is their favourite weapon. English statesman never occupied a more honourable position than that which Mr. Gladstone assumed in that correspondence. If there was humiliation for the country at all, it was through the action of Lord Salisbury and his colleagues. For months they allowed it to be supposed that their hope was in Austria, and that they did not regard with disfavour the designs on the Balkan peninsula which were freely attributed to her all over the Continent. It was of his belief in their designs that Mr. Gladstone spoke. Austria distinctly repudiated them, and then he recalled his criticism. It was Austria that was forced to explain, but it suited the purposes of the Tory party to represent Mr. Gladstone as humiliating himself, and they do not hesitate to proclaim far and wide that the Prime Minister has had to apologize to the Emperor of Austria. It may be a clever party move, but what is to be said of its patriotism or its justice?

But in the face of such an Opposition, is it unreasonable to

ask the more ardent Liberals below the gangway to exercise a little forbearance, if they feel that forbearance is necessary? The pressure of time itself is serious, and seems to us indeed one cause of difficulty. Less than three months can be given to the work of the year, but the Ministry have determined to do more in this fag end of a session than was accomplished in the whole of a Conservative Parliament. The supplementary Budget shows that our financial affairs are once more in the hands of a master, who is resolved on using his great power for the good of the country. It shows that the genius of its author is as brilliant as when it first burst on the world in the magnificent series of budgets which revealed his power. The farmers, in particular, may rejoice that at last there is a Minister prepared to deal with their crying grievances and redress. If Irish members thought less of themselves and more of the country, about which they talk so much and so unwisely, they would see that the measures introduced this session are an earnest of equitable legislation for Ireland. To expect them to listen to reason would be foolish indeed. Mr. Parnell and Mr. O'Donnell think it their duty to make themselves disagreeable, and they succeed in discharging it to perfection. To them it is not a matter of the slightest importance that they are dealing with a Ministry intent on doing justice to Ireland. They have a rôle to play, and they will play it. But it would certainly be a pity if their spirit proved to be infectious, and if advanced Liberals showed themselves lacking, we will not say in generosity, but in common sense. The essential condition to the maintenance of the Liberal power is confidence. That confidence Mr. Gladstone has fully merited, and should receive in no unstinted measure. Such a legacy of difficulties and complications has not been bequeathed to a Premier for many a day, and he is grappling manfully with them. Even if in some cases, as, for example, the recall of Sir Bartle Frere, he has not acted at once as we should desire, knowledge of his character should give the assurance that he will do the best possible, even if he does not immediately fulfil the expectations we have naturally formed? Is it impossible for advanced Liberals to exercise some trust? Of this, at least, they may be sure: the country trusts its own chosen leader, and will exact a severe account from any Liberals-whether they be old Whigs, zealous for the preservation of rabbits, or perfervid Radicals, too eager about some of their annuals' or impatient of any delay in punishing an aggressive proconsul-who impair his power for good, shorten his tenure of office, or worry the patriotic statesman

who, at seventy years of age, is addressing himself to hard toil in the cause of progress with a spirit and energy that may well shame younger men. Happily the party seem to be acquiring a coherence and unity which seemed lacking two or three weeks ago. If there were any who allowed personal mortifications to affect their action, they are beginning to understand the folly of giving the reins to their individual ambition, and to find that if they cannot resist the temptation they will have no abettors in their factious proceedings. The fierce fires of Tory hate are also doing something to wield together the mass of Liberalism. The mutilations in the Burials Bill will tell still further in the same direction. Nonconformists cannot accept a measure which leaves the real grievance unredressed, and the Bill must be restored to its original shape, and even further improved in the Commons, and the party will reap the advantage of having a common object for which to fight. Its members may have been too confident of an easy victory. Everything that compels them to assert their power will give them more unity and more strength.

CONTEMPORARY LITERATURE.

HISTORY, BIOGRAPHY, AND TRAVELS.

Italy and Her Invaders: 376-476. By THOMAS HODGKIN, B.A. In Two Vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

If an apology were required for the issue of this important work, it is amply forthcoming in the elaborate closing chapter of the second volume, wherein the author discusses the causes of the fall of the Western Empire. It naturally seems a work of difficulty, after all that has been written by the stately Gibbon and others upon this momentous period, for an author to strike out an independent line of thought and treatment; but this Mr. Hodgkin has been very largely successful in doing. The work shows thoughout that he is animated by the spirit of the true historian, and such faults as it possesses are those of style. There are occasional passages also where comparisons instituted between the leading personages in the narrative and European characters and events of our own day fail to strike us harmoniously, either from a certain roughness in the handling or from a lack of appositeness in detail; but these defects are remediable, and in no sense touch the high and solid merit of the history. It is a triumph for Mr. Hodgkin to have taken up a story upon which the eloquence of previous historians has been unsparingly lavished, and to have invested it