Parliament gradually extended its author- surd to sacrifice office for the sake of enforcing restrictions on the competence of this Parliament which their own authors know in their hearts to be not worth the paper on which they are written. Thus I see no absolute impossibility in the sup position that Mr. Gladstone may succeed in the course of next year in passing a bill through the House of Commons by which Ireland would in reality be accorded complete legislative independence, while at the same time it would be possible to represent to the public that the bill did not materially impair the supreme authority of the imperial Parliament.

ity beyond the limits originally assigned. Yet, short of armed intervention, Great Britain would, on this hypothesis, have no practical power of hindering the Irish legislature or the Irish ministers from extending their authority to any extent that they might deem desirable. I have no doubt if Mr. Parnell had lived he would have made a hard fight for a positive undertaking as to the specific conditions of Mr. Gladstone's Home Rule scheme before he consented to replace the Liberals in power. But I am inclined to think that in the end the uncrowned king would have deemed it wiser to put Mr. Gladstone into office, even without any definite pledge as to the details of his scheme, than to give the Unionists a new lease of power, and thereby postpone in definitely the establishment of an independent Irish Parliament, of which he was to have been the leader, and by means of which he reckoned confidently on effecting the complete separation of Ireland from England. Thus, if my calculations are correct, Mr. Gladstone will meet with no insuperable difficulty in getting the Nationalists to vote for a resolution hostile to the government without insisting on the disclosure of the scheme by which he proposes to confer legislative independence on Ireland without impairing the supremacy of the imperial Parliament. I do not share the view held in so many quarters that the devising, or even the passing of such a scheme, is beyond the bounds of possibility. I fully admit that the attempt to repeal the Union, and yet to retain the supremacy of the imperial Parliament, is as insoluble a problem as the squaring of the circle. But it is not impossible to devise a scheme which, with a little good-will, may be represented as fulfilling two inconsistent conditions. The same causes which have made Mr. Gladstone and the Liberal party so eager to get back to power will render them still more reluctant to give up power when once they have obtained it. Whenever it comes to the alternative of either giving way upon any special provision of the Home Rule Bill, or of incurring certain defeat, it is the Liberals, not the Nationalists, who will be the first to surrender. The position of straining at the gnat when you have swallowed the camel is one which it is difficult for a party to maintain for any length of time; and when once the Liberals have consented to give Ireland an independent legislature it would be ab

I do not say that such a bill will be passed through the House of Commons. I do not overlook the extreme, inherent difficulties of any attempt to conciliate the Nationalists without alienating the English Liberals. I do not leave out of calculation what, with the fear before my eyes of rousing once more the wrath of the great Sir William, I will euphemistically describe as the chapter of accidents. But still, after making all allowances, it seems to me by no means an impossible contingency that Mr. Gladstone may contrive to pass some sort of Home Rule Bill through the House of Commons be fore the close of the session of 1893. We may take it for granted that if he does so succeed the House of Lords will throw out the bill, and in this case we should have a dissolution of Parliament followed by a general election in about twelve months from the present time.

It is this contingency for which the Unionists have got to be prepared. There is no good in ignoring the truth, that a general election held under the conditions I have supposed would not be so favorable in many respects to the Unionist cause as the one which has just concluded, and which has resulted, however unsatisfactorily or inconclusively, in a Home Rule victory. It is all very well for Radicals of the Labouchere type to urge the expediency of postponing Home Rule till a variety of reforms are passed, which are supposed, rightly or wrongly, to be likely to strengthen the power of the Liberal party in the English constituencies. But whatever the Radicals may wish, the Nationalists command the position, and can, according to a slang phrase, call the tune. Now they as I have said above

are well aware that their one chance of carrying a Home Rule Bill depends upon Mr. Gladstone's tenure of power. As they do not happen to share the Harcourt

We Unionists, therefore, who rightly or wrongly regard the maintenance of the Union as a matter of life or death to England, are confronted with the possibility of a graver danger than any we have yet encountered. It was a heavy blow to our cause when in 1886, for the first time in our annals, an English statesman and an English party were found ready to accept the repeal of the Union as a possible solution of the Irish difficulty. We have just sustained a far more serious blow by the result of the late elections. We should sustain a blow far exceeding the two former in gravity if, after a Home Rule Bil had been passed through the Commons and had been rejected by the Lords, a Parliament should be returned the major. ity of whose members were pledged to support the bill in question on its reintroduction.

ian superstition that Mr. Gladstone is | Home Rule Bill a chance, and thus getting exempt from the casualties and ailments rid of the Irish question, at any rate for which in the case of ordinary humanity the time being. are inseparable from advanced age, they will insist on the Home Rule Bill being given precedence of all other legislation; and in so insisting they will have the approval of the Irish priesthocd. We may therefore assume that next session will.be practically monopolized by the discussion on Home Rule. I am not quite certain myself that this will be a disadvantage to the Liberals. They will not be called upon to fulfil the promises they have made to the agricultural electors, to the partisans of disestablishment, or to the advocates of local option; they will be able to plead with truth that all these reforms and all reforms of a similar character are necessarily blocked till the Home Rule controversy is settled for once and for all, as, according to their contention, it can only be settled by consenting to the Irish demand for a separate Parliament. The late elections showed clearly that the British electorate have never fully realized the gravity of the Home Rule issue, and are, indeed, sick of the whole matter. Is there any reasonable probability that in twelve months' time the apathy in respect of Home Rule against which Ministerialist and Opposition candidates have alike had to struggle will be exchanged for an attitude of intelligent interest? For my own part, I can see no cause for so imagining. Under these circumstances the Liberals will be able to assert that the settlement of the Irish difficulty and the consequent enactment of various measures in which large portions of the constituencies take a genuine interest are hindered by the arbitrary action of the House of Lords. In other words, the Liberals will be able to go to the country not so much on Home Rule for Ireland as on the cry that the authority of the people's Chamber is overridden by the caprice of an irresponsible hereditary legislature.

I think we may safely assume that twelve months hence the British public will be even more weary of the Irish question than they are now-and that is saying a great deal. It is possible this weariness may induce the electorate to inflict so decisive a defeat on the partisans of Home Rule as to shelve the question for another generation. But it is equally possible, and, as I think, far more probable, that if things go on as they are going now this weariness will create a popular feeling in favor of giving Mr. Gladstone's

It may be said that the danger in question is remote and uncertain. Mr. Gladstone may fail to upset the government; he may prove unable to form a ministry; he may find it impossible to frame a Home Rule Bill which both Nationalists and Liberals would agree to accept; he may not succeed in carrying his bill through the House of Commons; he may give up Home Rule in disgust, and elect that the next phase of his political transformations should be passed in the serene atmosphere of the House of Lords. All these and many other similar hypotheses are possible, but their converse is possi ble also; and what I ask myself is supposing events to follow their natural course, and that we have to fight the country again next year on the question of Home Rule, are we more likely to succeed than we were last month? If I am assured that we are going to carry on the campaign under the old conditions, then I confess, however reluctantly, that I should have to answer the above question in the negative.

The first step towards success is to acknowledge failure; and I see no use in disputing the plain fact that we have failed so far. We started in 1886 with a majority against Home Rule of over a hundred; we are now in a minority of forty. Yet we contend - and contend with reason the electorate are, if anything, less enamored of Home Rule in the present year than they were in the former. We have been beaten, first at the by-elections, and later on at the general election, not be.

- that

cause the constituencies have changed | ests, and even popular prejudices. Pure their minds upon the Irish question, but reason and abstract principle may have because they have never realized the par- their weight with philosophers and scholamount magnitude of this question and ars, but they are caviare to the artisans have attached infinitely greater value to and peasants to whom, wisely or unwisely, questions of subsidiary importance. Thus, we have entrusted supreme electoral our failure is due to two causes: the first power. Different baits are required for is, that we have not carried home to the different kinds of fishes; or, to express mass of our fellow-countrymen our own the same idea more crudely, you have got conviction that the repeal of the Union to suit your programme to your public. is a matter of life or death to England; In respect of sentiment the Unionists are, the second is, that we have allowed our- I admit, at a disadvantage in comparison selves to be outbidden and outmanœuvred with the Separatists. It is idle to discuss by our opponents in respect of the ques- whether the popularity attaching to Mr. tions which really interest the masses. Gladstone's personality is founded upon To quote the famous saying of Napoleon reason. It is enough for us that it exists, the Third after the first disasters of the and is a potent force in politics. The French army in 1870, "Tout peut se spectacle of the aged statesman fighting rétablir." Yes, everything may be set with all the vigor and passion of youth for right, but not if we proceed in the same the cause of Ireland has taken hold of the way and act on the same lines as those imagination of the masses; and on our which have landed us already in defeat. side we have no single champion - one who can even compare with the member for Midlothian as a popular attraction. Still, we might do something to redress the balance. One of the minor causes of the decline in the personal popularity of the present ministry has been the absence of marked individualities in its ranks. Seldom, if ever, of late years have we had a ministry in which so many of the leading positions were filled by men who no doubt discharged their official duties with fair efficiency, but who were, politically speaking, nonentities; and this, too, at a time when the power of addressing the public is daily becoming more and more important. It would be invidious to mention names, but we may fairly ask how many members of the present Cabinet are there who can be expected to be of the slightest use, either inside or outside Parliament, in the campaign the Unionists will now have to fight as an Opposition? There are many of the younger members of the Conservative party, such as Sir John Gorst, Baron de Worms, and Mr. Plunket, who have achieved great success in addressing public audiences; and Conservatives who can uphold the cause of the Union out of doors are the men who ought to be Mr. Balfour's colleagues in the next Unionist Cabinet. There can, I think, be few friends of the Union who do not regret that the advice given months ago in these pages was not taken, and that the ministry did not go to the country with Lord Randolph Churchill as one of its leading members. The result might have been different if the sometime leader of the Conservative party had been able to

Those who are familiar with what I have written on this subject are aware that from the outset I have deprecated the resolution of the Liberal Unionists to maintain a separate and distinct organization, and have foretold that this attempt must end in failure. I have said all along that the Conservatives are the strongest single party in the United Kingdom, and that the one way to preserve the Union is to strengthen the hands of the dominant English party. If when a Conservative ministry was placed in power after the elections of 1886 the Liberal Unionists had joined the government and had coalesced not only in fact but in name with the Conservatives, the public could hardly have failed to realize the gravity of the crisis. The magnitude of the issues at stake in the maintenance of the Union will, I am convinced, never be estimated by the country at large till the Liberal seceders show by their acts as well as by their words that they place the maintenance of the Union over and above every consideration of party names and party politics. Our people never have understood, and never will understand, superfine distinctions. In the eyes of the great public the Liberal Unionists are only Conservatives who liked to be called Liberals. The sooner they abandon an untenable position the better for their cause and for themselves.

In the next place, the Unionists, if they have taken to heart the lesson of the late elections, have got to place less reliance upon argument and more reliance on appeals to popular sentiment, popular inter

speak, not as a private member, but as one invested with the authority of high office, and had thrown himself -as under those circumstances he would infallibly have done heart and soul into the fight for the Union. Whatever criticism may be passed on the political career of Mr. Goschen's predecessor in the chancellorship of the exchequer, he has got the ear of the public; and the Unionist cause cannot afford to dispense in opposition with the services of any politician who can command a hearing..

From Good Words.

A MODERN DUTCH PAINTER.
BY ROBERT WALKER.

THE best Dutch art of to-day is the legitimate outcome of the Dutch art that made the fame of Holland during the sev enteenth century. More especially in the works of such of the well-known Hague painters whose chief is Israels do we note the respect for truth, the appreciation of the value and meaning of their immediate surroundings, the tender love of their own national life and manners that distin

I would also urge upon my fellow-guished Rembrandt and his great contemUnionists the urgent necessity of making poraries. The modern painters and the up their minds as to the price they are giants of the older art-history of their prepared to pay for the support of the country are of one race, however much electorate. In an article I wrote in these circumstances, varying temperaments, pages a year ago I pleaded the expediency and different capacities may have altered of the Unionists taking up a sympathetic the methods of expression and, in many attitude on the eight hours movement. cases, circumscribed the range of the men The advice was repudiated by the Union of these latter days. Art, like wisdom, is ists, but was accepted by the Separatists, always justified of her faithful children, and the result is the return of a Separatist and in turn fills their hearts with a knowl majority. I can quite understand people edge of how best to understand her moods. objecting to the eight hours movement. But she has nothing to give in exchange I have very imperfect sympathy with it for lip-service, or for merely mechanical myself. But I am prepared to advocate obedience to the letter of her laws. She legislative restriction of the hours of labor rewards only those who have ears attent if by so doing I can preserve the integrity for her faintest whisper. of the United Kingdom. If my fellowUnionists are not prepared to pay this price, there is no more to be said. I can only repeat the advice I gave twelve months ago, and bid them remember that if they wish to get the working-class vote they have got to pay for it, either in meal or in malt.

I claim no credit for political foresight. The conclusions I drew then-in common, as I hold, with the conclusions I draw now are patent to anybody who has the courage to look facts in the face. If we wish to recover our lost ground, we Unionists have got to close our ranks, to increase our popularity with the country, and to pay the price required to enlist the sympathies of the electorate on behalf of our cause. If I am told that what I ask is impossible, as the price is too high, then there is no good in further argument. But, just as Henry the Fifth vindicated his conversion to Catholicism on the plea that "Paris vaut bien une messe," so I, for one, am perfectly content to surrender the name of Liberal and to accept legislation on labor questions, of a kind in which I personally have little or no belief, in order to uphold the Union, which is, to my thinking, the sheet-anchor of England's greatness.

EDWARD DICEY.

Among the later Dutchmen who have shown themselves "worthy heirs of old renown,' ," Artz occupies an honorable place. He is not among the greatest or the strongest of those who in recent times have made the Hague a notable art-centre, but in his own way and within his own limits, he was a true artist, and full of sympathy with human nature as he saw it around him, in its placid, gentler manifestations.

David Adolphe Constant Artz was born at the Hague on 18th December, 1837, and resided there until he was about eight years old. His parents then removed to Amsterdam, and as they were in a comparatively humble position, young Artz had early to begin to work for a livelihood. He had strong artistic instincts, however, but up to his eighteenth year, could gratify these only by occasional attendance at drawing classes in the winter evenings. The inevitable crisis came; against the strongly expressed wish of both his mother and step-father (his own father was dead and his mother had married again), he resolved to become an artist, and began his regular artistic education by gaining admission to the life-school at the Royal Academy at Amsterdam. Here he made the acquaintance of Josef Israels, and their intimacy

T

developed into a close and lasting friend. Mollinger introduced Artz to Mr. (now ship, which had a great influence on Artz's Dr.) Forbes White, of Aberdeen - the subsequent career. Israels was by some well-known art collector and critic who years the elder of the two, and had al- happened to be on a visit to Paris; and ready laid the foundation of his reputation. Mr. White in turn, brought Artz into close He was brimming over with enthusiasm contact with several young Scottish artists and earnestness, thinking no labor too who were studying in France. Mr. (now great so that he might attain excellence | Sir) George Reid, Mr. John Dun, Mr. in his beloved art. He was every night Longmuir, among others, became intiat the life-school, and by precept and ex-mates of Artz, and from them he learned ample encouraged and strengthened his younger brethren. Acting on Israels' advice, Artz, in 1866, went to Paris to continue his studies. Two of his chief comrades in Paris were his own countrymen, James Maris and Kämmerer. For the first year, he worked in the same studio with Maris, and then he and Kämmerer occupied one atelier. Israels had given him a much-prized introduction to Courbet. To Courbet Artz mentioned his desire to become a pupil at the Ecole des Beaux-Arts. Courbet's characteristic advice to the young aspirant was to stay at home and work, "Prenez un modèle et fermez votre porte !'

Artz made many pleasant friendships in Paris, and grew, during the eight years he lived there, to be, as he said himself, "almost a Parisian." By Kämmerer he was introduced to a little literary and artistic club that numbered several distinguished men among its members. Of these I may mention the brothers Coquelin, the actors; Paul Deroulède and Paul Ferrier, men of letters; Saint Saens, the musician; Léon Glaize, painter; Croisy, sculptor; and Charpentier, the publisher. What a good time they must have had! Artz always looked back with great delight to the pleasant hours he had spent in the society of these kindred spirits.

to speak our language with great facility. Dun was one of his chief instructors in English. Another friend whom he made at this time, and of whom he always spoke very highly, was the accomplished decorator, designer, and art collector, Daniel Cottier, who died recently, and the sale of whose pictures has been one of the events of the 1892 art season of Paris. Artz declared that this shrewd Aberdonian, with his pawky wit and his keen artistic instincts, was, in his own line, one of the cleverest men he ever met.

The result of these pleasant communings in Paris with so many hearty souled Scotsmen was a visit of Artz to Scotland. This is how he, in a letter to a friend, sums up his impressions of our country: "Leaving London on a wet, dark night, I awoke the next morning in a splendid landscape, with a fast-running stream close to the railway, and beautiful colored hills round me, shining in a bright sun. I shall never forget the impression of that morning after the gloomy day in London, nor shall I forget the kindness with which I was received by all my friends in Glasgow, Aberdeen, and Edinburgh, who made me quite at home." Artz's own temperament was one that naturally called forth kindly feeling towards him in the breasts of all with whom he came in contact.

While Artz was in Paris, his fellow countryman, Alexander Mollinger, was Artz saw Paris in all the flush of its also a dweller there, and the two were splendor and outward-shining glory during constant companions. Has the influence the last years of the Second Empire; he on his brother artists of Mollinger too endured the misery of the siege; he witsoon lost to this world and art - yet been nessed the horrors of the Commune, and appreciated at its proper value? I know his thoughts turned wistfully homewards of two good men who hold him in reverent to his own country of flat meadows, quiet memory, Josef Israels and Sir George canals, and long stretches of yellow sands. Reid, and remember another voice that He had almost taken root in Paris during bore witness to his worth. In my mind's the eight years of his stay, but his first ear I hear again George Paul Chalmers, love for his "ain folk" and their douce, as years ago I heard him, in his Edin- simple ways, so vividly in contrast with burgh studio, grow eloquent in his own the madness and wild delirium of the exemphatic, hurriedly enthusiastic way, in perience he had lately passed through, praise of Mollinger, and of the great came back to him with a persuasiveness promise untimely marred. "The blind not to be resisted. He returned to HolFury with the abhorred shears was even land in 1874, settled at the Hague, married, then lurking ready for Chalmers himself. and spent the remainder of his days in So wags the world away! earnest, honest work at his easel, painting