1

Charles L. Webster & Co.

NEW BOOKS.

The £1,000,000 Bank-Note and Other New Sketches.

By MARK TWAIN. With frontispiece. Small Svo, cloth, $1.00. Stamped leather, $1.50. This volume contains Mark Twain's new story of the "£1,000,000 Bank-Note," together with several other stories, by the same author, which have never before appeared in book form. They include: "Mental Telegraphy," "Playing Courier," "A Letter to Queen Victoria," "About Ships," "The German Chicago," and "A Majestic Litererary Fossil.”

The American Claimant.

By MARK TWAIN. Fully illustrated by Dan Beard. Cloth, 8vo, $1.50. Tenting on the Plains.

By ELIZABETH B. CUSTER, author of "Boots and Saddles." New cheap edition. Illustrated. 12mo, cloth, $1.00.

This edition is printed from new plates, with the original illustrations, and bound in a handsome and appropriate cover. It is one of Mrs. Custer's best books, and can be very favorably compared with her " Boots and Saddles."

Worth Remembering.

Sir: I have seen the different "graphs," 'styles" and Printers, but none of them are practical duplicating apparatus in the hands of busy writers. Mimeographs, Cyclostyles, are too expensive and require continual outlay. Hectograph washing, &c., Is a nuisance. There is an apparatus, reasonable in price, reliable, and considered THE BEST, called "THE EXPRESS DUPLICATOR." It has been highly recommended, but where are the manufacturers?

A. N. ARMSTRONG, Supt. of Schools. The E. D. is manufactured by C. BFNSINGER & CO., NEW YORK, 378 Dey Street (1 door from Broadway). It is excellent, and reproduces any writing, with ease and satisfaction, 100 copies every 20 minutes. It pays to send for particulars.

YOU WANT

THIS

RELIC!

You can have the original illustrations pertaining to

LAWYERS.

We append below a list of leading lawyers in different portions of the United States and Canada.

Legal business, collections, and requests for local information, will meet with prompt attention at their hands:

HENRY C. TERRY, Bullitt Building Philadelphia, Pa.

KEATOR & FREEMAN, Wood B'ld’g., 400 Chestnut St., Phila., Pa. WEED MUNRO, New York Life Building, Minneapolis, Minn. WALTER L. CHURCH 9 Franklin St. Boston, Mass.

SOLON P. ROTHSCHILD, Suite 212, 280 Broadway, New York City.

the War that appeared in "Frank Leslie's Weekly" from I. NEWTON WILLIAMS, Brooklyn Life 1860 to 1865, complete in two elegantly bound volumes. Special Offer.-Sold on installments; $16.50 for five years, delivered complete on the first payment of $2.00, and $2.00 per month until paid for in full. A1 Salesmen wanted. Address for descriptive circu

lars.

Building, 51 Liberty St., N. Y. M. MAJETTE, Columbia, N. C. BAILEY & VOORHEES, Metropolitan Block, Sioux Falls, S. D. WILSON & HINDMAN Block, Aberdeen, S. D.

Excelsior

PRINTING OFFICE 15C B. C. & H. L. CHRISTY, Fifth and Wy

A large font of Type (over 4A) with Figures, Holder, Indelible Ink, Pad, Tweezers, Corkscrew, etc., as shown in out, complete in neat case. Best Linen Marker, Card Printer, etc. Regular Price 500 Sample postpaid for 15c, to introduce, with Catalogue of 1000 new articles. CAT. FREE. INGERSOLL & Bro,65 CortlandtSt. N.Y.City

"The

The Dance of Modern Society. Socrates, 470 B. C., wrote: "Dancing is a fitting recreation, even for a philosopher." Cicero, 106 B. C., wrote: "No man in his senses will dance." Dance of Modern Society," by Prof. William Cleaver Wilkinson, brings the question down to date. An unanswerable magazine of argument. "The most pungent attack on the modern dance we have ever read."-Harper's Magazine. 12mo, cloth. Price, 60 cents, post-free.

Funk & Wagnalls Company, Pub

lisbers, 18 and 20 Astor Place, N. Y.

YOUR SAVINGS, small or large, can be conveniently invested. drawing the highest interest in Goid, consistent with unquestioned safety. The interest begins the very day you send the money. Send for circular, or see our advertisement on last page. Funk & Wagnalls Company.

lio Aves., Pittsburgh, Pa. MORDECAI & GADSDEN, 43, 45, 47

Dyspepsia

HORSFORD'S ACID PHOSPHATE,

Pronounced by Physicians of all schools to be the BEST remedy yet discovered for Dyspepsia.

It reaches various forms of Dyspepsia that no other medicine seems. to touch, assisting the weakened stomach, and making the process of digestion natural and easy.

Dr. W. S. Leonard, Hinsdale, N. H., says: "The best remedy for dyspepsia that has ever come under my notice."

Dr. T. H. Andrews, Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, says: "A wonderful remedy which gave me most gratifying results in the worst forms of dyspepsia."

Descriptive pamphlet free

Rumford Chemical Works, Providence, R. I.

Beware of Substitutes and

Imitations.

Caution:-Be sure the word "Horsford's" is on the label. All others are spurious. Never sold in bulk.

The
Simplex Printer

A new invention for duplicating copies of writings or drawings.

From an original, on ordinary paper with any pen, 100 copies can be made. 50 copies of typewriter manuscripts produced in 15 minutes. Send for circulars and samples. AGENTS WANTED. LAWTON & CO.,

ton, S. C.

Entered at New York Post Office as Second Class Matter.
Published Weekly by the

FUNK & WAGNALLS COMPANY, 18 and 20 Astor Place, New York.
London: 44 Fleet Street.
Toronto: 11 Richmond Street, West.
Subscription price, $3.00 per year. Single Copies, 10 cents.
Renewals.-Two weeks after the receipt of a remittance, the extension of the
subscription will be indicated by the yellow label on the wrapper.

Discontinuances.-The publishers must positively receive notice by letter or postal-card, whenever a subscriber wishes his paper discontinued.

but the Bill as a whole is pronounced better than that of 1886, and is regarded as a triumph of statesmanship, calculated to satisfy Irishmen without prejudice to the interests of Great Britain.

The same general approval is expressed by the two Irish parties, and there is no doubt that, as in the case of the Bill of 1886, they will accept it, with some amendments, as a 'final' settlement of the old feud between Celt and Saxon; but to divine their real sentiments, in contradistinction to their utterances, it would be well to recall the discussion on the first Home-Rule Bill in 'Committee Room 15,' as divulged by Parnell and Healy after the rupture. The Bill,' said Parnell, 'is a Parliamentary chess-move, and nothing more. Will you accept it or not?' The Irish then agreed to accept it pro tanto 'to conciliate English public opinion.' A. similar pro tanto acceptance will be extended by the Irish to the present Bill.

The attitude of the Conservative-Unionists is distinctly antagonistic; they trouble themselves little about the special provisions of the Bill, but distinctly repudiate the assumption that there is any necessity for any Home-Rule Bill whatever. All that is necessary for the better government of Ireland,' they say, ‘is the rigid enforcement of existing laws.' The Liberal-Unionists are not opposed to the principle of Home Rule, but they deprecate the present measure on the ground that it is shorn of safeguards which Gladstone himself formerly recognized as indispensable. It imperils the Union and the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament; 'It affords,' they say, 'no guarantee for the just apportionment of imperial burdens; has no adequate provision for the protection of the minority; no promise of premanency; for the Irish are credited with aspirations after a separate national existence, while the provisions of the Bill are such as would not be tolerated for a day by any one of the great autonomous colonies.'

"The present Bill is distinguished from that of 1886 chiefly by provisions for the protection of the minority-provisions which in the eyes of the Unionists are more than negatived by the fact that the hated minority,' the English garrison'—that is the land-owners -are to be surrendered unconditionally to their enemies, while the Bill of 1886 was supplemented with a Land-Purchase Bill, which would have broken the point of the assault. This change of programme is a great concession to the Irish, who have always regarded the great land-owners as the real barriers to Irish freedom, and who will certainly do their best to be rid of them as early as possible.

'The Bill, after providing for an Upper and Lower Chamber for Ireland with a property qualification for the former, provides further for eighty Irish representatives in the Imperial Parliament. This is in utter antagonism to the principles which prompted Gladstone to the advocacy of Home-Rule measures. He wanted to free the English Parliament from Irish obstruction and intrigue. The Bill of 1886 provided that, on the establishment of the national Parliament in Dublin, Irish representation in the Imperial Parliament should cease. The proposal was, however, strongly opposed; it was characterized by Chamberlain as the first step toward dissolution of the Union; and Gladstone, much against his will, had to submit to public sentiment. The eighty Irish representatives in the British Parliament would frequently be sufficient to decide the issues between the two great contending parties. Gladstone has sought to temper the consequences by providing that the Irish members shall have no part in the discussion of purely British matters; but, in practice, to define the boundary between Imperial and simply British interests will be a problem-to use Gladstone's own expression-surpassing human wit."

As to what must be the opinion of the Bill as a whole, Mr. Gaupp says everything depends upon whether or not Home Rule is an admitted necessity:

"If we do regard it as necessary, we must recognize in the Bill a very ingenious attempt to solve a very difficult problem: an. attempt which will be successful if the Irish really display the moderation and love of justice with which the Gladstone party credits them. At the same time it is impossible to close one's eyes to the fact that the measure, if it become law, will be a first step in the evolution of the British Constitution on Federal lines. Scotland, Wales, and England will all clamor for equal privileges with the sister island in the matter of self-government. The Imperial Parliament will have its functions restricted. Whether this will tend to weaken England in her relations with the outer world, or, on the contrary, constitute the nucleus of a federative union of England and her colonies, the future alone can decide. One thing, however, is certain, namely, that Gladstone with his Home-Rule Bill has inaugurated a new policy constituting an absolute breach in the order of English political evolution in the

J. E. Redmond, M.P., in a paper in the Contemporary Review (London) for March, discusses with approbation the safeguards provided on both sides by the new Bill. He says:

"If the main features of Mr. Gladstone's second Home-Rule Bill had been before the electors last July, the majority in the House of Commons would not to-day be oppressed by the shadow of the House of Lords, which cast its gloom over all the debate upon the first reading. In homely phrase it may be said that the object of the measure is to enable the Irish people to manage their own affairs free from the ignorant and mischievous interference of England."

Mr. Redmond proceeds to say that if in conceding this right to Ireland, the Bill also provides adequate safeguards against. rash, unjust, and oppressive action by the Irish Legislature, and adequate safeguards against wanton and capricious interference with Irish local affairs by the Imperial Parliament and Imperial authority, it is a success. He argues that the measure does fully and amply provide such safeguards. As to the safeguards against improper action by the Irish Parliament he

says:

"Take first the question of physical force. No change is made in the present position. The army, the navy, and even the police for a term of years, remain under the Imperial authority. Ireland Take next will not possess a soldier or a ship of war. the power of Parliament. After Home Rule, as before, it will remain supreme and inalienable. Irishmen have for nearly a century disputed the validity of the Act of Union; by accepting such a scheme as Mr. Gladstone proposes, they will at last surrender this cherished relic of the past, long hugged with pathetic devotion through generations of despair and defeat. The Irish Nationalist, from being a somewhat perverse and impracticable dreamer, will, at one step, become a practical politician. The supremacy of Parliament is a fact, and he will no longer seek to question it. That supremacy will enable the Imperial Parliament to prevent oppressive legislation should it ever be attempted by the Irish Legislature. But it never will be attempted. Mr. Parnell said The supremacy which created our Constitution would remain to take it away again if abused.'

"No Home-Rule Bill, and certainly not this Bill, can destroy the Veto of the Crown. Unjust and oppressive legislation becomes an impossibility in view of the fact that as a last resort the Veto of the Crown can at any time be interposed."

Mr. Redmond mentions in detail two other safeguards—the appeal to the Judicial Committee, and the Second Chamberand continues:

"These, then, are the safeguards:

The physical force

of England undiminished and reinforced by a moral force she never had on her side before, the continued and unimpaired supremacy of Parliament, the Veto of the Crown, the constitutional tribunal to decide questions of ultra vires, and the existence of the Second Chamber; to which may also be added the express reservation from the Irish Legislature of power to deal with religion and kindred matters."

"

Regarding the safeguards for Ireland, Mr. Redmond says: 'As to the Veto, it is expressly provided in the Bill that it is to be exercised on the advice of the Irish Cabinet. This establishes the practice. Of course, some great emergency might arise which would justify the use of the overriding Veto, but I am satisfied that in the every-day life of our Parliament the Veto of the Crown will be exercised, as provided in the Bill, on the advice of the Irish Cabinet, responsible to the popular Assembly. As to the right of concurrent legislation, think, in view of the retention of Irish members, we ought to impose every inoral obligation we can upon Parliaments to come, not to meddle with purely Irish affairs. Given ordinary common sense, fair play, and good faith on both sides, such a compromise as is now proposed might reasonably become the basis of a peaceful settlement founded upon the Imperial unity and national freedom."

IRISH REPRESENTATION AT WESTMINSTER.

I

In the same number of the Contemporary, Mr. Frederic Harrison declares that the new Home-Rule Bill is a far better scheme than that of 1886, that it is in a much stronger position, and may confidently be expected to pass the House of Commons. He devotes himself especially to a discussion of

'Clause Nine" (which provides for Irish representation, in the Imperial Parliament), but incidentally refers to other features. of the Bill. He says:

"The strong point of the Unionist case in 1886 was the exclusion from Westminster of Irish members. Mr. Chamberlain and his friends insist on the same point still. Scotch, Welsh, and some Radical English groups are equally opposed to it. In the face of an opposition so strong. so complicated, and so dangerous, Mr. Gladstone gives way. He had no choice. He was set by public opinion a task impossible to solve without anomalies of one sort or other. The keenest part of the opposite side, the noisiest part of his own side, made the retention of Irish members a sine qua non. The bulk of the Irish party incline to that view for the. present. British opinion in 1886 had been so marked that the exclusion of Irish members had then to be dropped. Mr. Gladstone frankly explains the dilemma; he not obscurely declares his own judgment. But, in face of all that has occurred, and in view of the state of feeling on both sides of the House, it would have been to court defeat, if he had begun by excluding Irish members from Westminster.

But that is only the first difficulty. An equally loud outcry is raised, and again on both sides of the house, that Irishmen ought not to control Irish affairs all to themselves and at the same time to interfere in British affairs as well. The contradictory demands are not unequally balanced, and either of them is strong enough to wreck the Bill. The dilemma is this: The Imperial Parliament, we are told, must and shall remain the supreme legislature throughout the three Kingdoms. Each of the three Kingdoms must and shall be represented in the Imperial ParliaYet the representatives from Ireland must not and shall not legislate for Englishmen and Scotchmen as such.'

ment.

Mr Harrison says that Mr. Gladstone has accepted the inconveniences of this situation, done his best to neutralize and reduce them, stated them fully and frankly, and left the decision to the House and the Nation. Of the opposition he says:

"Unionists oppose Home Rule in any form; we all know that. But they have shown no anomalies in the Bill which are not inherent in the conditions imposed by the state of public opinion. In the end Unionists will vote against it, and Home-Rulers will vote for it, anomalies and all. And the latter have an adequate majority of the United Kingdom."

Mr. Harrison contends that English legislation and practical administration are full of such restrictions as those imposed by the Bill upon Irish members of the Imperial Parliament, and cites in support the limited power of voting in all County Councils, where a particular division is not assessed equally with the rest of the county. He says it is the Irish rather than the English who have cause to complain of burdens imposed by Clause Nine; that it will be very hard for Ireland with her meagre resources to elect three sets of representatives, under three different constituencies, and more or less consisting of three classes of persons.

"Mr. Redmond sees all the difficulties of it; and, perhaps, Mr. Redmond may convince his colleagues. It seems inevitable, that Ireland will be hard put to it to find adequate representatives to attend at Westminster, or else that their attendance will be very perfunctory.

"It can hardly be doubted that sooner or later what will happen is this: Ireland will commission gentlemen with some leisure and plenty of spirit, to represent her in London, just as a foreign newspaper keeps its correspondents here. They would have instructions from Dublin by telegraph, and they would turn up at Westminster and cast a solid Irish vote."

Mr. Harrison suggests that it would be a conservative and desirable amendment to make the Irish Legislative Council of forty-eight ipso facto members of the Imperial Parliament. without any restrictions whatever. A British House of Commons of 567 members, need not," he says, "be thrown into panic by such an addition to its body."

""
AN UNFAVORABLE 'OBJECT-LESSON."

In the March number of the Fortnightly Review (London), T. W. Russell, M.P., in an article entitled "American Sidelights on Home-Rule," argues that while the Canadian Constitution affords no direct guidance in Irish affairs, the sidelights which the Dominion casts upon the Home-Rule proposi

tions for Ireland are numerous and valuable. Among other things he says:`

66

Any one desirous to know what Ireland would probably become under Home Rule ought to study closely the facts of the province of Quebec, a perfect object-lesson in Home Rule. The province has 1,500,000 inhabitants. The overwhelming majority of the people are French agriculturists. The minority consists mainly of Britons engaged in commerce. The education, the wealth, the commerce are in the hands of the English. Here, then, as in Ireland, we have two races, and exactly the same conditions and circumstances. The province has a Lieutenant-Governor, a House of Representatives, and a Senate. So it rejoices in Home Rule. This, or something like it, Ireland would have under Mr. Gladstone's proposals. And, to complete the analogy, the Roman Catholic Church in Quebec is as powerful, as uncompromising, and as dominant as in any part of Europe in the Middle Ages.

"In Quebec the Church rules. I do not mean by this that it is a mere Christian institution. It is the political machine of the province. Writing of the capture of the province by the

Jesuits, Mr. Goldwin Smith says:

“Ultramontanism has come, and in its van the Jesuit. He scornfully repels the idea that the priest is to confine himself to the sacristy, claims for him the right of interfering with elections, the censorship of literature and the public press. Against Protestantism and its pretended rights he proclaims open war; it has no rights, he says; it is merely a triumphant imposture; no religion has any right, or ought to be treated by the State as having any, but that of Rome. Rome is the rightful sovereign of all consciences; and will again, where she can, assert her authority by the same means as before.'

have

"This is a vivid picture of the actual situation by one on the spot. And it becomes really interesting to inquire what Home Rule, plus the domination of the Roman Catholic Church, has done for Quebec, and to see what bearing the facts have upon the Irish problem. The first thing to be said is that this dual Constitution of Home Rule and the Church has not secured purity in politics. I am accustomed to hearing supplications in churches at home for wisdom to be given to our Senators. In America they pray for purity in politics. The prayers not been answered. Boodling,' as it is expressively called, is painfully common. The best men will not touch politics. And this is preeminently the case in the province of Quebec. Things are bad enough when charges are made against a Prime Minister, and his own party unite to drive him from office. The surplus of the peasant goes to the Church. It leaves him little or nothing for the State. He pays little or no taxes. Church property is also everywhere exempt from taxation, and the Englishry, who have no more control over the Government than they have over the planet Mars, pay five-sixths of the provincial taxes. If this is done in Quebec, may it not be done in Ireland? May not Belfast and Ulster be made to pay for the folly, or worse, of Dublin and Connaught?

"Here is a province under the British flag with the identical conditions of Irish life. The Unionist contention is that an Irish Parliament would be controlled by the Roman Catholic Church. This is beyond all question the case in Quebec.

66

'Surely one Quebec is enough for the nineteenth century. Why run the risk of establishing another in Ireland?

THE MINORITY IN IRELAND UNDER HOME RULE.

In the March number of the Catholic World (New York), George McDermot, under the above title, gives his views in regard to the status of the Protestants in Ireland in the event of the passage of Mr. Gladstone's measure. It has been claimed, he says, that it will put them "in the power of a hostile Catholic majority," and continues:

"The other objection, that the establishment of a native legislature would tend to the dismemberment of the Empire, I dismiss. If there be any force in it, it makes the granting of autonomy to Canada and Australia a danger to the Empire.

"We hear it said, that the Catholics are the ancient and irreconcilable enemies' of the Irish Protestants; that they are the party of disorder, robbery, and treason; that when they get power into their hands they will reduce Ulster to the lawless and povertystricken condition of the southern provinces; that they will destroy its industries by taxation; and, finally, that they will establish the Catholic Church.

If they did, the threats of civil war, of non-payment of taxes, and all the other wild utterances of the election campaign, would never have been heard."

Mr. McDermot next mentions some of the names by which this minority has been designated, from the simple term "English," by the earlier historians, to those of "English interest" or "Protestant interest" in the eighteenth century, "English garrison," "imperial race," and "ruling class," in the present century, down to the term "loyal minority" of the present day, and adds:

The result of all this wild talk is that every petty landlord who plundered his tenants, and every emergency-man who made life. unsafe in the name of law, believed that he exercised the right of a superior over a subject race.

66

'Mr. Gladstone's policy means only that there shall be no favored section among the people of Ireland-that all the subjects of the Queen shall stand equal before the law; that the principle of government which made Ireland so often the weakness, so often the danger, and always the disgrace, of England, shall be no longer tolerated.

"Even if there were a danger to the rights of the minority, one would be justified in maintaining that the rights of the Nation at large are of more importance. The interests of classes, however considerable, must give way to the interests of the whole community. But the rights and interests of the minority are compatible with the powers proposed to be given to the Irish people by Mr. Gladstone. He has pointed out over and over again that on the three occasions since the connection of the two countries when the Catholics obtained power in Ireland, they acted with absolute fairness to the Protestants."

Mr. McDermot proceeds with an argument to prove from the history of Ireland, that there is no justice in questioning either the good faith or the generosity of the Catholic majority in that country. He says that when the Catholics had supreme power under Queen Mary, they gave asylum to Protestants who fled from persecution in England; that the Council of Confederate Catholics in 1642, proclaimed religious liberty as one of the canons of their political creed; that when the Catholics declared in favor of James II., in 1688, the Parliament established perfect religious equality in Ireland.

In conclusion he says of the "ruling class," which Mr. Lecky speaks of as 'a Protestant gentry":

"They cling to the mismanagement and neglect of Irish interests under the existing system because it in some degree preserves their power. They see with indifference the taxpayers and earners of one year becoming the paupers of the next, and look on like idiots at their own approaching extinction: for the emigration that is taking away the life and energy and promise of the country bids fair to realize Swift's suggestion that the population henceforth should be confined to a few thousand graziers and their herds, with a guard of twenty thousand English soldiers and their trulls to collect the taxes for their own support and the government of Ireland."

IRISH UNITY REESTABLISHED. Speaking of the introduction of the new Bill, Donahoe's Magazine (Boston) for March says editorially :

"It has practically been the means of forming common ground of agreement between contending Irish Nationalists-a result which is not by any means among the least of its good effects. Nationalists have recognized in the main principles of the measure an honest attempt to keep faith with the people of Ireland, and as such they have welcomed it.

The Bill is then briefly reviewed, for the most part favorably; but as to Clause 9 and its possible effect upon the settlement of the land question, it is said:

"If the settlement

is undertaken within three years by the British Parliament, with the Irish representation reduced to eighty members, Ireland will be seriously handicapped. This is the most serious blot on the Bill as it stands to-day. Mr. Gladstone, however, has not made it a vital portion of the measure, but has left it to the House of Commons to settle. His object, as he has repeatedly declared, is to make the settlement a real and lasting one, and there is every reason to hope that the Irish members will be able to convince him of the injustice to their country of this portion of the Bill, and that he will agree to have the Irish representation undiminished, at least until the land question has been satisfactorily disposed of."