the celebration except the Lord-Lieutenant and his officials. Nobody cared about them. I called the attention of an English friend to these facts; to the scene we were looking on; to the absence, the almost enforced absence, of Castle patronage. I asked him what he, as an Englishman, thought of it. "The thing is done," he said. "The nation is made. All that now remains is for the Lord-Lieutenant and his staff to bundle and go, and let your people come in and take possession of the Castle and carry on the government of the country in a proper way." And he added, "If I were the LordLieutenant, I would not remain in Dublin another day."

Since that time some things have happened which do not tend to raise the reputation of Castle administration in the eyes of the Irish people. Never, I suppose, in modern history have there been revelations like those which lately were made concerning the character and conduct of certain Castle officials. I have some respect for the feelings of my readers; I know what is due to the pages of the CONTEMPORARY REVIEW. I shall not ask any one to listen to a recital of that hideous story; I leave it to the courts of law. I shall not ask my readers to study the history of what are called the Dublin scandals, but it is absolutely necessary that I should draw the attention of the English public to what came of these scandals. I fancy that a great many intelligent Englishmen are still under the impression, if they think about the matter at all, that some gross and monstrous charges were made by malignant Irish Nationalists against certain high-minded public servants in Dublin Castle, and that the trumped-up accusations met with the exposure and contempt which they deserved. I am sure that only a small proportion of the English newspaper-reading public are even yet aware of the fact that the charges were only too well-founded, were acknowledged to be true by the verdicts even of Castle juries and the judgment of loyal Irish judges. This is the story told briefly: Certain very serious accusations were made by the editor of United Ireland against some leading officials of the Castle-one the person at the head of the Detective Department, another who was until lately Secretary to the Dublin Postoffice. Mr. Trevelyan at first refused to believe that there was any truth in the charges, and accused the editor of United Ireland, Mr. William O'Brien, a Member of Parliament, of employing a detective for the purpose of trumping up accusations against public men. The late Mr. Fawcett earnestly repudiated all belief in the charges made against the Secretary of the Dublin Post-office, and paid that person a very high compliment. No one could blame Mr. Fawcett for this. As I pointed out in the House of Commons when the PostmasterGeneral had done speaking, Mr. Fawcett's responsibility for the conduct and character of the Dublin Secretary was of the most strictly technical or titular order. Mr. Fawcett knew nothing per

sonally of the Dublin Secretary, and could only speak of him on the authority of others. However, such were the facts. What happened in the end? I pass over all the intermediate actions for libel, and trials for felony and then for conspiracy, and I come to the close of the chapter at once. Mr. Justice Murphy, delivering judgment on a motion made by the Post-office Secretary for a new trial of an action for libel, declared that, "having regard to the mass of evidence before him, he was convinced that the jury were right in concluding that a vile gang existed in the city of Dublin, leagued together for loathsome purposes," and that the official in question was "one of the gang." Openly and publicly, on clear and sufficient evidence, to the mind of the jury, and to the mind of the judge, a jury has found him guilty of loathsome vices, that should cause him to be shunned by all persons having regard to decency." Chief Justice Morris on the same occasion said, "It was not contended on the part of the plaintiff," the Post-office Secretary," it could not be contended, that there was not ample evidence of the commission by him of loathsome and horrible deeds." So much for that official. The head of the Detective Department was put on trial and found guilty; he was sentenced to two years' imprisonment with hard labour. The judge who sentenced him is Mr. Justice O'Brien, one of the most aggressively loyal and fiercely anti-Nationalist judges on the Irish Bench. Mr. Justice O'Brien expressed his unqualified concurrence with the verdict of the jury. Suppose all this had happened in England; would it have been enough for the statesmen in charge of the departments concerned to say that they had not known or suspected anything of what had been going on for years? Would it have been enough for them to say that they assumed, as a matter of course, that all officials were telling the truth, and that all Nationalist Members of Parliament must be telling lies? Would not these statesmen be told, and somewhat roughly: "You ought to have known; you ought to have inquired; you ought to have found out the truth long ago; you ought to have been quite certain of what you were saying when you got up in Parliament and vindicated and championed the men who according to the judges of the land were members of a vile gang." Of course this is what would have been said in England; but equally of course nothing of the kind will be said in this particular case. As to the brave man who at such terrible risk to himself exposed this hideous scandal, are the Dublin Castle statesmen obliged to him for it? They must feel glad in their hearts that such guilt has been exposed, but will they say in public one single word of praise to Mr. William O'Brien? Of course they will not. Will Mr. Trevelyan get up and say that he now acquits Mr. O'Brien of the accusation of trumping up charges against officials? Of course he will not. The London newspapers

used to denounce Mr. O'Brien day after day, while the charges he made were yet unproved. The moment the charges were made good and the offenders denounced by the Irish judges, the whole thing was dropped. I do not know whether any London paper ever published the observations of Mr. Justice Murphy, of Chief Justice Morris, or of Mr. Justice O'Brien.

Is it surprising that under such circumstances the Irish people generally should dislike the Castle system? Some of the offenders I have mentioned had been for years entrusted with most important and responsible functions in connection with the administration of the criminal law. Another official of the Castle who has had a great deal to do with the arrangement of juries and the prosecution of accused persons was himself guilty, not indeed of offences anything like those which were brought out in what are called distinctively the "Dublin scandals," but still grave enough to call for the severe reprobation of one of the English judges. Now I would ask of any impartial Englishman, what on earth is the use of expecting the Irish peasant to have any respect for laws which are thus administered? What does the Irish peasant see? He has seen the law administered by the persons I have mentioned; he knows that these men were the paid officials and the Castle favourites; and he knows that Mr. Parnell, Mr. Davitt, Mr. Dillon, Mr. Sexton, Mr. Healy, Father Sheehy, Mr. Harrington, Mr. William O'Brien were put in prison. Against the private character of any of the men I have last mentioned not even calumny itself has whispered a word. Dublin Castle is the place which, according to the Irishman's experience, imprisons the men he loves, and keeps in its pay persons of atrocious character; keeps them in its pay until at last the criminal courts and the judges have to interpose in the manner I have described. I shall not invite my readers to enter into the question connected with the conviction and execution of Myles Joyce. I only remind them that during the recent debate in the House of Commons, Mr. Charles Russell, Mr. Edward Clarke, and Mr. Gorst were of opinion that there was not a case made out for the conviction of Myles Joyce. I shall not reproduce here the words of earnest and generous indignation in which Mr. Edward Clarke stigmatized the character and questioned the credibility of one of the Castle officials who was mainly responsible for the conduct of the trial. It is in vain for Mr. Trevelyan to argue that the evidence was sufficient for the conviction of Myles Joyce. No man in his senses will believe that Mr. Trevelyan's authority on criminal law can balance that of Mr. Charles Russell, Mr. Clarke, and Mr. Gorst. Besides we had the case of Kilmartin, likewise accused, found guilty and sentenced; but who, happily, was not sentenced to death. In his case there was a reinvestigation. The Prime Minister himself

happened to be in the House during the debate on Kilmartin's case. Subordinate officials had bluntly refused to grant any manner of reinvestigation; but Mr. Gladstone luckily came into the House of Commons before the debate closed, and he was impressed by some of the arguments used not merely by Irish Members, but by such Englishmen as Lord Randolph Churchill and Sir Robert Peel. He granted an inquiry, and what was the result? Kilmartin had to be set at liberty. There the intervention of the Prime Minister himself was necessary to rescue an unfortunate victim from the system of Dublin Castle.

"When I was in prison," a young Irish lady said the other day as she sat next me at a dinner-table where some English people were guests. This was in London; naturally some of the guests were a little amazed. "When I was in prison!" The words did sound strangely coming from the lips of a young lady of education, of social position, of the highest character, of the sweetest nature, the dear friend of every one who knows her. It was strange, but it was true. The young lady was Miss Mary O'Connor, sister of Mr. T. P. O'Connor, M.P. She was thrown into prison by the authorities of Dublin Castle because she was a member of a Ladies' Land League. She was kept in prison for some months, like many other Irish girls, and was released when all the "suspects" were released. There was no charge against her; there could be none; she had positively never even taken a conspicuous part in the Ladies' Land League agitation, and she is a girl who personally shrinks from any manner of public display. But she attended some meeting of a Ladies' Land League, or committed some other crime of that sort, and the Castle put her in prison. I thought as I heard her speak thus casually of having been in prison I should like to sermonize a little on the subject to the English men and women who were present. I should like to point out to them the utter and absolute futility of any expectation that the laws could be respected in Ireland so long as the authorities of Dublin Castle turn them to such uses. This young lady was not even imprisoned under Mr. Forster's "Reasonable Suspicion" code, which is now out of date. An antiquated statute of Edward the Third was discovered which had to do with dangers to public peace or something of the kind, and permitted the incarceration at random of everybody and anybody. I wonder how many Englishmen or Englishwomen took the trouble to know that at one time the Castle authorities were putting educated and respectable girls to prison under a statute of Edward the Third? All this, however, is the natural and the necessary consequence of a system like that which prevails in Ireland. The existence and the application of the Castle system make the population disaffected. The Castle authorities believe that they are defending the very life of their system by

arrests and imprisonments: the arrests and imprisonments make the Castle more hated than before, and so the thing goes on. The Castle is an absolute anomaly in a civilization like ours. Despotism and constitutionalism cannot be worked together in one kingdom. The two forces will not run in one team. It is idle to discuss the character and the merits of this or that Viceroy or Chief Secretary. There cannot be a successful Viceroy or Chief Secretary in Ireland under present conditions. The thing is an impossibility. Mr. Campbell-Bannerman, I see, is reported as having said the other day that Lord Spencer is winning back for English rule the affections of the Irish people. One's breath is taken away by such a statement. Can it be possible that Mr. Campbell-Bannerman really said anything of the kind? Can it be that he believes such a thing? Spencer certainly does not. Lord Spencer knows better.

Lord

If I were to presume to give advice to the authorities of the Castle, there is one suggestion I would make. It is not advisable for the sake of the Castle influence over the country to make it a point to find a situation more or less remunerative for every Irish Member of Parliament who goes over from the Nationalist to the Ministerial party. If there were anything the Castle wanted to complete the disfavour with which it must in any case be regarded by the country, it would be this practice. Within the last few years we have had two or three conspicuous instances of this kind. Men who had made themselves obnoxious to the National party, that is, to the nation, were at once taken up by the Castle and provided with salaried office. This is an objectionable practice in almost every way. It is not well to have the appearance of hiring loyalty. No doubt the gentlemen who were lately installed in office had become Ministerialists out of the sincerest and best intentions. Of one of them in especial who has just died I do not wish to say an unkindly word. He "walked his own road whither that led him," as Carlyle says; others of us walked our own road, too, which led them farther and farther away from the Castle. But it has a bad effect when the Castle says in substance to the great majority of the Irish people: "So then you don't like this or that person; you accuse him of having deserted you; of having broken his engagements with you? In your overwrought, impassioned Celtic style you say he has betrayed you and your country? Very good; then the Castle will show its appreciation of him by finding a situation and a salary for him." I humbly submit that this is not exactly a course of conduct likely to promote the cause of loyalty in Ireland. It is not precisely the best line of policy for winning over the affection and confidence of the Irish people. Of course, I know what the Castle would say. It would say the Nationalists are not the Irish people. No, to be sure. The men who are assumed by every one, friends and enemies alike,