conciliation were in vain. The Phoenix Park murders murders had brought the most shocking consequences in their train. A certain weighty and important member of the Cabinet was seized with a violent attack of physical apprehension. What if Whitehall, what if Westminster, should witness the most appalling crime of all the ages? A new Coercion Bill was the only cure; and a new Coercion Bill speedily passed into law.

It was immediately after the publication of the manifesto just referred to that Mr Parnell did NOT address the following letter to anybody:

"DEAR SIR,--I am not surprised at your friend's anger; but he and you should know that to denounce the murders was the only course open to us. To do that promptly was plainly our best policy. But you can tell him and all others concerned that, though I regret the accident of Lord F. Cavendish's death,

I cannot refuse to admit that Burke got no more than his deserts. You are at liberty to show him this, and others whom you can trust also, but

let not my address be known. He

can write to the House of Commons. Yours very truly,

"CHARLES S. PARNELL."

Pigott was neither an adroit nor a successful spy. He was not a master of the art of forgery. He inserted in the letter a sort of S which Mr Parnell had not made since 1878. But Pigott builded better than he knew. If he could not reproduce Mr Parnell's handwriting, he could at least reproduce his sentiments with literal accuracy. In a dozen lines he puts with point and terseness what Mr

VOL. CLXV.-NO. DCCCCXCIX.

express.

But the sense is exactly identical. That and no other (as we have seen) was Mr Parnell's attitude to Fenianism in all its branches. Only, an "agrarian" outrage in County Kerry or County Cork required no such pretence or affectation of regret for the benefit of the English public as a murder in the heart of the Irish capital. How pleased Lord Spencer must be to reflect that seven years later he shook Mr Parnell by the hand coram publico! How proud Lord Rosebery must feel to remember that it was across his upright and not prostrate body that this amazing act took place!

For the next three years obstruction inside and crime outside the House of Commons went merrily on without much intermission. The two departments of Nationalist activity "helped each other," to use Mr Parnell's memorable phrase. The " messages of peace spatched by Mr Gladstone were as futile as they had ever been. The agitation was not "slowed down." Perhaps the "bhoys -the village ruffians, the cattlemaimers, the women - torturers

de

had got the least little bit out of hand. A "constitutional agitation" of this sort is always more easy to accelerate than to retard when the steam is fairly up. In any event, as a general election. drew near, Mr Parnell became intent upon the parliamentary portion of his duties, the playing off of English politicians and English parties one against another. He assisted in the

K

overthrow of the Liberal Administration in the early summer of 1885. The Conservatives came into power, and he straightway assailed their political virtue through the all too good-natured and complaisant offices of the new Lord Lieutenant. We can never, we confess, look back upon that period in the history of the party without a sense of humiliation. The rank and file were staunch and true as steel. The bulk of the Ministry were proof against the insidious and corrupting taint. We have Sir Michael Hicks-Beach's word for that. But it was melancholy to see a statesman so amiable and so respected as the late Lord Carnarvon proceeding so far upon the road that leads to perdition. We doubt if his lordship realised the nature of the predicament in which he had placed himself, or the gravity of the suspicions to which he became of necessity exposed. But we are satisfied that the "sough" to which his communings with the rebel chief gave rise, coupled with the culpable failure of the Government to renew the expiring Coercion Act, produced a far from pleasant or favourable impression on the mind of the country. It was fated, however, that neither Lord Randolph Churchill nor Mr Chamberlain should be guilty of the great betrayal. That enviable distinction was reserved for Mr Gladstone, on whom, in addition to the two statesmen just named, Mr Parnell had been keeping a specially watch

ful eye.

We shall not pause

to inquire into Mr Gladstone's motives. We observe that the late Lord Selborne saw his way to place a charitable construction upon his old friend's conduct; and, after all, it is of little consequence. It is enough to note the fact that, not very long after delivering a speech in Edinburgh, which, alike to those who heard and to those who read it, could seem nothing save a passionate appeal to the country against Home Rule, he ignominiously capitulated. The Home Rule Bill of 1886 was the third great palpable triumph of Mr Parnell's career.

Times were now changed with a vengeance for the Home Rule members. Instead of being treated as pariahs, they were welcomed by the Gladstonian Liberals, if not always to their hearths and homes, at least to their platforms. The "Union of Hearts" (such was the cant expression) was cemented at public banquets amid much enthusiasm and many libations; while the more impudent and pushing of the crew had no difficulty in effecting an entrance to those capacious houses where a new lion is always welcome, no matter how mangy hide or how excruciating his roar. Mr Parnell was to be tempted into no such genteel and fashionable diversions. What relaxation he required he found in the society of Mrs O'Shea; and he continued to keep his followers in their proper places. Scarce one of them whom he did not treat "like a dog," as the saying goes; not one but came crouching to his

his

cause of any other enemy of England. It was his part of the business to parade before the country the "thoroughly constitutional demand for a subordinate Parliament." It was Mr Parnell's share to see that the chapel-bell was kept a-ringing. They both "helped each other." But presently a new Chief Secretary arose of a vastly different stamp from poor Sir George Trevelyan: a Chief Secretary whom Nationalist sarcasm could not wound, nor Nationalist calumny reduce to tears; a Chief Secretary who desired to attain no end but the discharge of his duty, by vindicating the law of the land, and by assisting to the utmost those officers of the law and that loyal remnant who alone stood between two-thirds of Ireland and anarchy. He carried the most sensible and effective Crimes Act ever passed,-an Act which did not disdain to borrow many a valuable hint from the criminal procedure of North Britain; and he entered with a firm heart upon that desperate and protracted battle against sedition and lawlessness which he carried to so glorious an issue, and which forms by far the most creditable

At one point in this bitter contest it seemed to the supporters of the Union as though all were lost. It would be vain to deny that the most sensational part of the proceedings before the Parnell Commission, and, in a less degree, the report of that respectable and august tribunal, were а severe shock to the expectations of all loyal Englishmen. The affair was incredibly mismanaged by the prosecution. The 'Times' people were outwitted and outmanoeuvred. It is quite true that, in the words of a great poet, the incriminated Irish members were found to have been "traitors to the Queen and rebels to the Crown." But popular interest and attention had been concentrated on the forged letter; and the determination of the Commission was regarded, however illogically, as a verdict of acquittal. The exultation of the disaffected knew no bounds. Mr Parnell was the hero of the hour. took place the "historic handshake" to which we have alluded. It was the very zenith of the rebel's influence and achievement. No surer proof of the predominance of his lucky star could be adduced than the fact that the Radical majority of the Edinburgh Corporation dared to confer upon him the freedom of that city.

Then