Union.' But in the early part of 1800 he had observed that 'the Roman Catholics are joining the standard of opposition,' 2 and he elsewhere declares unreservedly that the Union would be impracticable' but for the vices and oppressions of the existing government. On the other hand, Dr. Ingram has no admissions of this kind to adduce on the part of the Opposition. He makes as much as he can of the complaint of a certain anti-Unionist, that the people had deserted them,' but his authority, Lord Cornwallis, describes the speaker as one of the 'violent' members of the Opposition-that is, one of those who, like O'Donel and others, declared for instant insurrection if the measure passed. The word ‘desertion,' in the mouth of such a speaker, obviously cannot bear Dr. Ingram's interpretation. 4 But Dr. Ingram has himself furnished us with evidence of the feeling of the nation entirely contradictory of his theory. He argues3 that one of the reasons which made the Union desirable was 'the hostility of the Catholic community,' and quotes Wolfe Tone to the effect that in Ireland the name of England and her power' were universally odious.' Now Mr. Gladstone is (superficially at least) in error where he argues, in his reply to Dr. Ingram, that because the 'mass of the people' (according to Cornwallis) were engaged in treasonable conspiracy they must therefore have been anti-Unionists. The corrupt and tyrannous nominee Parliament which represented neither Irish aristocracy, nor property, nor Protestantism, nor any one broad Irish interest, was detested by the United Irishmen; and after vainly trying to reform it they set all their hopes on Separation. Living in daily expectation of a French invasion, most of them cared little about the abolition of their mock Legislature. But they certainly cannot be claimed as friends of the Union, nor is it for this purpose that Dr. Ingram notices them. It would have been unsafe, he considers, for England to leave a people animated by sentiments such as theirs in possession of any kind of national independence. Perhaps it would ; but on which argument does he mean to challenge our verdict that the Union was right because the Irish people cordially approved it, or expedient because they loathed the name of England? For it is not admissible in the court of 1 Corn. Corr., iii. 235, May 18, 1800. 2 Ibid. p. 175. 3 Such as the Tithe Laws (ibid. iii. 56), which, however, were not amended for nearly forty years after the Union. 4 Ingram, p. 108; Corn. Corr. iii. 250. 6 Nineteenth Century, October 1887, p. 455; 5 Ingram, pp. 49, 50 n., Corn. Corr. iii. p. 81. history to plead: 'We deny that we assaulted the deceased; and if we did, we maintain that we did it in self-defence.' No; the Union was carried perhaps with the purest motives, but certainly by the basest means, nor could it then have been carried by any others. Had Pitt spoken truth in the fine Virgilian quotation which he applied to the measurenec Teucris Italos parere jubebo, Nec nova [sic] regna peto; paribus se legibus ambæ with how different a gaze might England at this day look upon her past and her future! But a shameful and calamitous reality lay hid behind those stately lines. Ireland was not invicta, she was conquered. But that is nothing. She was conquered by weapons that have left a malignant poison in the deathless memory of her race. Yet amity between the two peoples is essential to the wellbeing of each, and in time it cannot fail to knit them in closer bonds than those forged by Pitt and Castlereagh. One condition of the growth of this amity is that honourable acknowledgment of the wrongs she has worked in the past which has not been hitherto wanting on the part of England, nor unrecognized on that of Ireland. And one influence that must blast and kill that precious growth would be the shameless denial of any reason for repentance or reparation which this deplorable History of the Union is written to justify and encourage. As to the form which reparation should take, but two alternatives seem to us to exist. The history of the last eighty-seven years has made it clear that Ireland, on a different plane of civilization, and with different racial characteristics, was incapable, whether she desired it or not, of true incorporation with Great Britain. And she is incapable still. A distinct and single-hearted Government, a Government unmoved by the intrigues and fluctuations of English parties— that was her need then, and it is her need now. Whether this end is to be attained by the concession of a National Legislature, or through the disfranchisement of Ireland and the personal rule of some natural king of men, some modern Perrot or Cromwell, this is a question which there is instant need that England should fairly face while deliberate choice is yet within her power. NOTE. Since the foregoing pages were in type, Dr. Ingram's reply to Mr. Gladstone has appeared in the Nineteenth Century for December 1887. That reply has quite the same unhistorical character as the original work. The reader has only to study its treatment of eg. the destruction of evidence mentioned by Ross, or the character of the Unionist petitions, or the refusal of escheatorships by Lord Cornwallis, and compare Dr. Ingram's statements with the references which we have appended to our account of these transactions, in order to convince himself that either Dr. Ingram's study of his authorities has been of a most superficial character, or else that he has made inexcusable use of the resource of suppressio veri. In Memoriam A. J. B. BERESFORD-HOPE. 'WHEREVER Anglican Churchmen are to be found, there will be mourning for the death of Mr. Beresford-Hope.' These words, with which the Times newspaper, in a leading article of October 21, 1887, heralded the announcement of Mr. BeresfordHope's lamented death at Bedgebury Park on the previous day, might fitly be placed as an epitaph on his grave. They would at least be free from the faintest suspicion of exaggeration-not to say mendacity with which epitaphs are too often, and not always unjustly, taxed. For surely all'Anglican Churchmen' are bound to mourn the loss of one who through a long and blameless career marked his sense of the privilege involved in belonging to the Church of England, as a branch of the Holy Catholic Church, by acts of munificence which in the present century are probably without precedent or parallel, and by the still nobler homage of a consistent, 'sober, honest, and religious' life. St. Augustine's, Canterbury, and All Saints', Margaret Street, are memorials of his work and worth which will last throughout all generations.1 It would be foreign to our purpose and incompatible with our 1 In connexion with All Saints', Margaret Street, the honoured name of Tritton, so dear to all Churchmen, must be coupled with that of Mr. Beresford-Hope, as must also that of Mr. Benjamin Lancaster. It must not be forgotten that in these and all his other numerous efforts at church building and church restoration for architecture was the passion of his life-Mr. Beresford-Hope was guided by the cardinal principle, which he shared with his dear friend Benjamin Webb, that public worship was primarily intended, not for the convenience of worshippers, but for the greater glory and honour of the Worshipped-ad majorem Dei gloriam— and that, accordingly, nothing short of the very best and most perfect of its kind, whether in architecture, in music, or in the surroundings generally of the sanctuary, was worthy of being offered to Almighty God. It is to be regretted that this principle of 'paying the Lord the honour due unto His Name' has not in these days of 'shortened services,' a larger number of adherents. space to attempt on the present occasion so much as even a sketch of the life of our departed friend. That life is so bound up with the development of the Church of England, that his biography would assume the proportions of a history. Of such a biography and of such a history, his friends had hoped he might himself have been the author. To one of them he wrote last summer: 'Shall I ever live to complete that history of the Church Revival in its various aspects, including Ecclesiology, which has since my calamity [the death of Lady Mildred] been my day-dream to accomplish?' Some way had been made in the undertaking, but 'completion'—no doubt for wise purposes was denied to him. Is there any chance of that completion being made by other, though, of course, less competent, hands? With Mr. Beresford Hope, we fear, has become extinct a type of layman which was the exclusive possession of the Church of England. Broad with all the breadth of a wide culture, and of warm and generous sympathies, identified with all great Church movements of the time, but losing his identity in none, a Churchman first, and a Conservative afterwards, serving the cause with singleness of purpose, without hope of advancement, or desire for reward, shrinking from no trouble, shirking no duty, shunning no obloquy, so long as it might be the more in his power to promote the welfare of the Church and the glory of God, Mr. Beresford-Hope concealed beneath a debonair, not to say jocular, exterior, a depth of feeling, and an earnestness of purpose, and a seriousness of conviction, and a loyalty of devotion to the Bride of Christ, compared with which the spasmodic feverishness and 'faddism' of a fussy, foolish Ritualist is 'as moonlight unto sunlight, and as water unto wine.' And if from this wider area—' wherever Anglican Churchmen are to be found '—we pass on, as pass we must, to the inner circle of his more immediate friends and fellow-workers and colleagues, we may well exclaim, 'Quis desiderio sit pudor aut modus tam cari capitis?' In the founding of this Review Mr. Beresford-Hope took a leading part. In view of the revived energy of the Anglican Communion in all parts of the world, he felt, as all the co-proprietors felt, the importance of starting a high-class periodical which might set forth the results of real study and reflection on the highest of all subjects, so as to be worthily representative of the teaching and position of the English Church. While he scrupulously abstained from any interference which he thought might not improperly be resented, his wise counsels were ever at the command of those who sought them, and were all the more readily followed because they were never obtruded. The loss of these wise counsels will be sorely missed. But he being dead yet speaketh,' and we trust that those who may hereafter have the responsibility of conducting a Review which was launched under his auspices may never relax that loyal attachment to the Church of England and to that Church's Book of Common Prayer, on behalf of which Mr. Beresford-Hope was ever ready to spend and to be spent, turning neither to the right hand nor to the left, neither yielding to the blandishments of Rome, nor allured by the cheap popularity of a creedless and undogmatic Christianity. SHORT NOTICES. Christ or Ecclesiastes: Sermons preached in St. Paul's Cathedral. By the Rev. H. S. HOLLAND, M.A., Canon and Precentor of St. Paul's. (London: Rivingtons, 1888.) In April of last year we noticed Canon Holland's volume of sermons entitled Creed and Character. Those who have read that book, and therefore, assuredly, have recurred to it with increasing appreciation of its richness and suggestiveness, will gladly welcome a new instalment, though a much smaller one, of the author's preaching committed to printed form. We do not know whether any persons still imagine that this preaching is too 'exuberantly rhetorical,' or too fully charged with religious passion and emotion, to be solidly helpful in the troubles that come with thought. If so, they will do well to read the volume before us. Its title is, perhaps, a little too frappant, but suggests an idea which the preface states, and the last of the five sermons especially draws out, that Christian faith is the true remedy for a joyless 'pessimism,' such as would dwell on 'vanity' without looking on to 'hopes.' Now we do not intend to give any specimens of Mr. Holland's eloquence; whatever he writes must needs glow; he speaks as one who has vision; that goes without saying, and these pages-less than a hundred and fifty-abundantly verify it there is pathos, brilliance, power at every turn. We prefer to show, however briefly, the value of his present contribution to Apology by tracing out the line of thought pursued from the opening of the second sermon to the close of the book. Physical science is introduced to us, objecting to 'miracle' as involving a break, a shock, an exception. But she is reminded that her criteria cannot be of universal application; they must needs avoid some 'regions of nature, omit' some 'sections of man's being;' and, since man is a whole and nature is a whole, methods which isolate parts of either must at some point terminate with a shock,' which is no 'interference' with, or suspension of, nature, but the fitting Divine treatment of a great spiritual crisis. But is it not the mere wondering of ignorance which looks for such crises, or enjoys the miraculous' as so treating them? No, it is our sense of profound spiritual need in the presence of Eternal Goodness. Here is a point of cardinal importance, that 'intellectual perplexities, in the matter of faith, lie very close to our moral and spiritual experience . . . it is in view of us, of our moral situation, that God acts; to measure His methods, we must weigh our own needs; to understand Him, we must understand ourselves (p. 56). But if science grants that the belief in miracle has thus a more respectable origin than mere curiosity' or 'ignorance,' she still suggests that it grows out of an 'infirmity,' and fosters a lower conception of God than that which is supplied by her 'unalterable sequences.' The reply is, that uniformity of order is most absolute where there is least of real life; the higher we mount in the scale, the |