Retaining the vice-royalty, while there is but one kingdom, is an inconsistency.

2. The Lord-Lieutenant is ostensibly the representative of the Sovereign; but in reality is well understood to be the representative of the ministry for the time being. His main object must be to obtain votes, so as to secure a parliamentary majority for his ministry. There can be no real loyalty felt towards a Lord-Lieutenant, and there could be none towards the sovereign, if the sovereign were to be changed with each change of the ministry. The evil of the office would be though still very great-much less if some nobleman, unconnected with party, were appointed for life. But as it is

3. The Lord-Lieutenant is a sort of hostage placed by ministers in the hands of their opponents; who have an opportunity of thwarting and teazing, through him, the ministry they dislike. Then

4. The short tenure of office, which naturally results, makes each Lord-Lieutenant constantly a beginner. If he is a candid and intelligent man, he will be just beginning to learn who is, and who is not, to be trusted, and how Ireland should be governed, by the time his vice-royalty comes to a close. At first-and, if he is not a very wise man, throughout-he is beset by persons studying to mislead him; and it will take time to find them out.

5. It has been said that a ruler resident in Ireland is likely to be the best judge of the deserts and qualifications, for each office, of those around him. He may become such by the time half, or more than half, of his time has expired; but then he is exposed to solicitations, and bullyings, and temptations to jobbing, and to courting popular applause, in Ireland, far more than if he lived in England. "He has need," says the proverb, "of a long spoon who sups porridge with Old Nick."

'6. As for the need of a local government, as if for a distant province, it is, now at least, ridiculous. When a man can easily breakfast in London and dine in Dublin; and when a message can be sent in twenty minutes, such a plea is absurd. But

7. At all times, it appears that Ireland was just as well governed under lords justices, and I have always found that their time is not occupied for more, on an average, than an hour a week.

2. It is represented that the Irish people are greatly attached to the office, and this is true of a small number of Dublin shop-keepers, and a few empty folks who like levees and drawing-rooms*, and a good many political agitators who wish, for their own sakes, to keep Britain and Ireland as distinct as they can. But all these are far from a majority of the Irish people. They are, however, united in their object, zealous and clamorous, and thus prevail over a far greater number, and of wiser and better men, but who do not like to put themselves forward for a task which might seem ungracious, and

* But I should much like to see a real regal court in Ireland. A residence of the Sovereign for two or three months annually, would do more to make Ireland peaceable and loyal than all the bullying and all the coaxing that have been alternately tried.

would expose them to some ill-will, and after all is no particular concern of theirs. A small body of well-disciplined soldiers are an overmatch for ten times their number of a scattered and undisciplined multitude.

'April 1861.' (Pp. 179-182.)

Our last extract shall be made for the purpose of exemplifying his tendency to illustrate his positions by quaint and minute observation. He is discussing the mental differences of the

'sexes.'

"Though readily attaining proficiency in various departments, women seldom reach the very highest in any. And this cannot be attributed to any difference in Education; for it is found where the difference is on the other side.

'E. g. more females than males learn painting and music; and many of them succeed well; but the tip-top painters and composers are almost all males.

'And the same with cooking. It does seem also that women have little of inventive power. They learn readily; but very rarely originate anything of importance. I have long sought for some instances of invention or discovery by a woman. And the best I have been able to find is Thwaites' Soda-water. A Miss Thwaites of Dublin, an amateur chemist, hit on an improvement in Soda-water, which enabled her to drive all others out of the market. But besides this, some small musical compositions, and some pretty novels and poems, are all the female inventions I can find.

'Mrs. Somerville is said to have been one of the five or six mathematicians in the world that understood the works of La Place. But she discovered nothing. And we cannot refer their deficiency in invention, in any department, to their not having been trained to that particular department; for it is remarkable that inventions have seldom come from those so trained. The stocking-frame was invented by an Oxford scholar, the spinning-jenny by a barber, and the power-loom by a clergyman. There is a feminine figure of speech by which I have sometimes detected, even in a good style, the female hand. In speaking generally, a man uses the masculine pronoun singular when meaning to include each sex: a woman almost always makes a solecism, by using the plural as if it were singular; e.g., A man would write, "If any one should think so and so he is much mistaken:" a woman would be apt to say "they are."' (P. 189.)

...

Anybody can test the truth of this last remark by a question adroitly addressed to his wife or his sister.

We have endeavoured to use the volumes before us for the purpose of illustrating the peculiarities of this distinguished prelate as a thinker, and as a public man, who has left his mark on the age more durably perhaps, and more deeply, than others who have won for themselves a more ostentatious

popularity. For it was not so much by the development of original or striking thoughts, as by the persistent cultivation of a peculiar mode of thought, that he produced his influence. There is no corpus' of Whateleian philosophy. We have to collect it as well as we may out of the numberless Sibylline leaves of his writing, from the well-known ' Historic 'Doubts' down to the Commentary on Bacon's Essays, and the present Commonplace Book; mostly brought out for some temporary purpose, though pregnant with matter of permanent value. Nor are there such things as Whateleian opinions, or a sect of Whateleians. But there are many Whateleian thinkers: men who apply to religion, politics, moral philosophy, those peculiar modes of testing truth and excellence of which he set the fashion and inculcated the use; and, making all allowance for the exaggerations into which the master was apt to fall, no less than his disciples, they have formed a school whose efforts will not soon be forgotten.

But it would be unjust to his memory to take leave of him without paying due honour to other qualities, which he himself would have been the last to exhibit to notice, except so far as his great unaffectedness of moral character necessarily brought them forward. As he was essentially the most truthful of men, so he was the most unreservedly generous. His liberality was not of that kind which can be compared, sovereign for sovereign, with the munificence of other men. It was anything but systematic; but, when called for, unbounded except by his means; as overflowing, regard being had to the changed manners of modern days, as that of the legendary saints of old who divided their cloaks with beggars, or went to bed supperless to feed poor children. For money, we have said, he cared not at all. Nor did he care a whit more for display, or for system, in giving it. Indeed he abhorred systematic charity, like an ultra-political economist as he was. But where a case

of what he deemed real distress came before him, his style of largess was not after the measure of other men's. The instances of his profusion in this way cannot and never will be fully known.

'A ripe scholar and gentleman,' says Mr. Fitzpatrick, 'died some years since in Dublin, leaving his family almost destitute. Dr. Whately having been made acquainted with the circumstance, aided them by the relief of 1000l. A classical teacher was threatened by a legal execution; Mr. M, on his behalf, represented his painful situation to the Archbishop, who, being informed that 2501. would make him a comparatively free and happy man, filled a cheque for that amount, and thus averted the catastrophe.'

VOL. CXX. NO. CCXLVI.

EE

Simple acts enough; but how many people, with life incomes only, have ever done the like? Similar cases have been brought to our knowledge; it would require not many of them to account for the fact that, living hospitably and well, but not profusely, he left at his death little more than the moderate fortune with which he had begun his long life. If he spoke of his own generosity, it was but to comment on it in his peculiar humour. I have given a great deal away,' he would say; I have no doubt often made mistakes; but there is one thing with which I cannot reproach myself; I never relieved a beggar in the streets!' But he possessed, in addition, a quality which in his high situation is equally noble, more useful, and we fear even more rare. We quote again from his biographer, Mr. Fitzpatrick :—

6

'There never was a man so little tinged by nepotism, or who exercised the patronage in his gift with less consideration for selfish interests. And it is much to the advantage of this prelate's fame, that while five of his chaplains have become bishops, it is only in this the last year that he presented his son, Edward Whately-who has been fifteen years in orders-to the comparatively poor parish of St. Werburgh's. With this exception there is not, in the united dioceses of Dublin, Glendalough, and Kildare, a single minister who is either connected with, or related to, Archbishop Whately.'

Statements like these, which defy controversy, form the noblest epitaph. But, alas for human nature! was there not something in the very nobleness of this self-denial, and the entire absence of display which accompanied it, calculated to provoke the emnity of inferior minds? How many of those who joined in the cry of persecution against the Sabellian, Socinian, Anti-Sabbatarian, may have nourished in their hearts a certain unrecognised grudge against the man of simple and stedfast honesty, who was putting the Mammon of their secret worship to shame, by making his life a daily protest against those multifarious disguises of decent saving, and providing for one's family, and gratitude for favours received, and due consideration for the claims of party and for the wishes of distinguished patrons, and all the rest of it, under which this kind of unrighteousness is habitually veiled? We may be accused of cynical severity: let those who think so first point out to us, how many men as spotless in these respects as Whately have filled situations of similar dignity. The enumeration will not be a very toilsome one; and then let them say whether the Archbishop might not justly have added superiority of this class to his catalogue of things which are hardest to forgive.'

ART. IV.-1. The Co-operator: a Record of Co-operative Progress, by Working Men. Edited by HENRY PITMAN. Manchester: 1864.

2. Co-operative Tracts. New Series. Printed at Dewsbury: 1864.

3. Self-help by the People. History of Co-operation in Rochdale. By G. J. HOLYOAKE. London: 1863.

4. Co-operation in Lancashire and Yorkshire. By JOHN PLUMMER. (Companion to the Almanack, 1862.) 5. Les Sociétés de Coopération. Par M. CASIMIR PERIER.

Paris: 1864.

THE

HE Co-operative Societies of our country have been enjoying an increasing notice and appreciation for three or four years past; and heartily have they relished this success of opinion. The present year, however, will, in that respect, please them better than any former one; for it so happens that five or six of the most prominent topics of social interest during the recent Session of Parliament have a direct bearing on the theory or practice of the Co-operators. This sect of industrial society has now become so considerable in numbers and in property as to have fairly fixed the attention of the literary class; and thus its story has been told with sufficient fulness and repetition to render it unnecessary to tell it again. In books of narrative and political economy, in reviews, in discussions at Social Science Meetings, in essays read in Mutual Improvement Societies, the story of the Rochdale Pioneers' may easily be found*; so that we may fairly assume that our readers are aware, one and all, who those people are, and what they have achieved. A few words will show what their doctrine is, and what their numbers and condition are, or were when the latest official estimates were sent forth; and when their actual standing in society is thus made out, we may proceed to point out why their transactions are particularly interesting at the present time. The Co-operative principle is that the Workers are the Capitalists. By this, if it is found practicable, the opposition between Capital and Labour is annihilated; and the principle is found practicable

6

An historical sketch of the rise and growth of Co-operative Societies appeared in the pages of the most conservative of our contemporaries, the Quarterly Review' for October 1863; and, rightly considered, no principle is more conservative than that which identifies the labourer with the capitalist.