and of that fearful anarchy which must euphemistically be called the English government of Ireland.

We have surely now heard the last of defences of the honour of Mary Stuart. Apart from the ridiculous perverseness of Elizabeth, they would never have been possible. The English queen was, indeed, cruel; but her reckless unkindness was to her friends, not to her chief foe. Mary she spared; it was men like the Regent Murray -men of rare wisdom, splendid disinterestedness, and unsullied honour, whom she left to the chances of war or the dagger of the assassin. No proof of guilt could possibly be clearer than the proof of Mary's share in the murder of Darnley. Elizabeth saw the proofs and recognised their damning force. But she was always occupied with foolish and dishonest "by-practices;" and in spite of the advice of her ministers and her own obligations to the Scottish lords, she would not suffer the evidence to be published, nor a just sentence to be passed.

Hence, and hence only, it became possible for such a book as 'the Bishop of Ross's "Defence" to be written. Plausible assumptions are of little value in the presence of opposing facts; though Mary's ambassador and faithful friend might well argue that it was incredible so noble and gracious a princess could have had even the motive to commit the foul crimes with which she was charged. But what are all hypotheses compared with the Casket letters? As soon as the Bishop of Ross's "Defence" was published, Cecil protested against its one abominable lie-the lie that the English nobility had doubted the guilt of Mary. There was absolutely no doubt on the matter; no hesitation anywhere-not even in the mind of Norfolk, who shivered with horror as he reflected on what pillow he was scheming to lay his head-not a single misgiving except in the imbecility of Elizabeth's character. She could and she could not-she would and she would not-she must and she must not; and the friends of Mary's memory have only rewarded her self-willed folly with insult and infamy.

The Northern rebellion convinced her at last on what hidden fires she was treading. In a large part of her dominions there was a universal discontent. Almost the whole nobility were implicated in treasonable conspiracy. Even Leicester, the mean creature whom alone of all mankind Elizabeth seems really to have loved, was false -false to her and to his country and to himself. The only faithful friends she had were those who, for their very faithfulness, had been in constant danger of her displeasure. Tottering on the very edge of the precipice, she would suffer them to draw her back from ruin ; but the moment she was safe, or thought herself safe, she would go on her old proud, reckless way, even if she hurled them into the abyss. She had to be forced, not gracefully, to permit the execution

of Norfolk; she utterly refused to allow the attainder of Mary. She had her own schemes and expectations: France would help her, or Spain would help her-even the very Pope might help her; at any rate she would not yield. Where was this Queen's grace? She scolded her parliaments, she insulted her ministers, she cursed her friends, she blessed only her enemies.

Her wretched parsimony was often even more mischievous than her paltry vanity. The "government" of Ireland was one long, shameful injustice. She would neither pay for energetic work, nor submit to the only conditions of genuine conciliation. Not even the Spanish Papists were more fiendishly cruel than the English colonists who were to have conquered Ireland by exterminating the Irish. Their only hope, not merely of reward, but of bare subsistence, was not in the liberality of their queen, but in their own cruelty and craft.

Religion owed nothing to Elizabeth, everything to her ministers -the ministers who were always true and never trusted. She would have yielded to the Catholics, and did yield to them, till she was made to understand that such a policy was nothing else than sharpening an axe for her own neck. The Puritans were no doubt premature and embarrassing; but they were the Reformers, the very strongest supports of the Queen's throne; and yet she hated them and thwarted them at every turning. She thought that men who had the moral courage to defy the Pope and cast off the authority of all Christian antiquity, would accept just as much and be content with just as little as a mere girl thought fit to give them. And yet she had enough of shrewdness and knowledge of the world to despise those who were satisfied with her own ecclesiastical system. Others began the great work of Reformation that Elizabeth hindered, and which is not even yet complete.

"Yet I doubt not through the ages one undying purpose runs,

And the thoughts of men are widened with the process of the suns."

No earthly power can stay the progress of human thought and freedom; and under the rule of the eternal God even death itself is but the entrance to a fuller and diviner life.

Mr. Froude's history is a new treasure in English literature, pure and vigorous in style, honest and impartial, in sympathy with all that is good and true; not only a noble record of the beginnings and first-fruits of the Reformation, but itself the sure token that the whole harvest is well-nigh ready for the reapers.

WILLIAM KIRKUS.

RUSSIA AND AMERICA.

THE friendly interchanges between Russia and America are naturally beginning to excite attention by reason of the ingenuity with which occasions for them are discovered, and of their elaborateness. Many attempts on the lives of Emperors have been made, but never before has it occurred to the American Congress to express, in an emphatic resolution, its thankfulness at the escape of one, much less to transmit the same in an ironclad five thousand miles, at an expense of two hundred thousand dollars. There have been various interpretations of this matter in Europe, as is very natural, because the phenomenon itself is the result of a great variety of causes. As yet the interest of Europe in it may be assumed to be purely philosophical, such an interest being invited by demonstrative familiarities between the hardest of absolute monarchies and the most radical of republics. It would be particularly interesting to know what is the predominant Russian idea, and what the American; and whether the two have the same meaning to any extent in this paradoxical friendship. But here we are met with official reserve by both parties. On the American side there are only the egotistical utterances of one Fox, an obscure and inconsiderable personage, who is exhibiting, as a sea-going triumph, an ironclad ship which had to be towed over the Atlantic until it came in sight of the English coast. On the Russian, nothing better than the following from Prince Gortchakof: "This understanding does not rest on geographical proximity. The abyss of seas separates us. No more does it rest on parchment. I do not find the trace of a single parchment in the archives of the ministry entrusted to me. It is instructive; more, I dare to call it PROVIDENTIAL. I felicitate myself on this understanding. I have faith in its duration. In my political situation all my cares will tend to consolidate it. I say cares and not efforts, because no efforts are required when there is a spontaneous and reciprocal attraction." One is tempted to label such a reference to providence as this with the remark of the French Encyclopædists, on refusing an article on the word "God"-La question de Dieu manque d'actualité.

More than a year ago on the Continent, I was accidentally thrown into relations with a Russian, whom I soon discovered to be a man of unusual intelligence, and subsequently found to be a nobleman of very high official position in his own country. He has lately borne a prominent part in the entertainment of the American envoys. In the course of frequent conversations which we had concerning our respective countries, I found him disposed to claim a high degree

of liberality for Russia, especially on the ground of the emancipation of the serfs, a step which had been taken, as he frequently urged, without pressure from any political party. He was proud of the undoubted influence which this act had had on the American mind. He had noted the emphatic references which had been made in Congress to that act by Senator Sumner and other representatives of the Northern States, which had before been silent amid the general friendliness toward Russia expressed in other sections of the Union. There was now, he thought, nothing in the way of a cordial reciprocity of feeling between the two countries, which would probably mature into a very desirable alliance. The reception which had been accorded the officers of the Russian fleet visiting New York the year before had created a wild enthusiasm throughout his country, and there was a strong desire to reciprocate it. Europe hated Russia because Europe was morbid on the subject of nationalities. The populace would carry the "nationality" principle so far as to replace mild governments with cruel ones, provided the former were not, and the latter were exercised by persons immediately belonging to the section of country governed. But America was engaged in fusing nationalities, and had just been crushing, magnificently, an attempt at her own subdivision into what must have become a set of warring and jealous nationalities. She was thus the only nation that could understand a great nation like Russia, and judge her by something better than the European standard, which was that of national egotism. When I inquired whether he thought that an alliance between the two nations would secure any great practical advantage for either or both, the reply was very general, and I almost concluded that he more than anything else valued the prestige which his "muchdenounced" country was getting from the public admiration of the American Republic. There was, however, a vague intimation that in the case of another Crimea, or less happily settled Trent affair, the countries might possibly be of service to each other. My Russian acquaintance has had so many opportunities lately of expressing these views in public, without availing himself of them, that I must reserve his name.

This is the only serious expression of opinion on the part of any one near the Czar, on the relations between the United States and Russia, that I have ever heard from any source. It is, however, important to know how the subject lies in the minds of the wealthy middle class of Russia, and herein, it would seem, Mr. Fox and "Veuve Clicquot" have not been fruitless of results. There were several speeches made at the grand banquet given at Moscow on the 25th of August, which are worthy of attention. Mr. Yakunchikof spoke as follows:-" Gentlemen, as a merchant I rise with peculiar grati

fication to propose a toast having an intimate connection with the success of commerce. Gentlemen, there is a power which is both military and civilising. The development of this power extends, without conquest, the boundaries of nations possessing it; in war serving as the most powerful bulwark of national independence, and in peace as the most effectual means of commercial development. This power is the Navy. This power is recognised by the civilised world, which now must confess that the mightiest naval power of the earth is the great American Republic. The arrival of our honoured guests has shown the depth of their sympathy for us, and solved a great naval problem. This wonder of naval architecture, this vessel unique in its structure, this floating fortress, hitherto considered as only fit for shore defence, the Miantonomah, after sweeping through the vainly-opposing waves of the ocean, and proudly showing its impregnable towers in the Thames and to the shores of France, has come to us and united our Russia and America by a bridge which no artillery can destroy. To our enemies this bridge is inaccessible, for its foundations are hid in the waves of the ocean." An old Muscovite, Mr. Pogodin, also made a remarkable speech. In addressing himself to the reasons for the sympathy between America and Russia, he touched on the resemblance between the institutions of the two. "The United States is a republic, and Russia an absolute power; but here, as on the map, the extremities meet. In the Russian absolute monarchy there is a democratic stream that flows uninterruptedly throughout its history. As regards the forms, all of them have lost much of their precedent meaning." After recalling the sympathy for the Union felt by Russia during the late American war, he spoke of the different feeling which pervaded Europe. "They rather wished there should be two Unions instead of one. They regard with the same eyes the other new world-Russia." This feeling was ascribed to jealousy. The speech closed with a prophecy that the union between Russia and America would ripen from an ideal to an actual one, and both countries have a mighty future. The last noticeable speech was that of Mr. Schipoff, a leading merchant, who dwelt a little on the fact that Russia and America had never had any hostilities, compared their recent policies of emancipation, and then devoted the main body of his address to showing how the two were agreed on the principle of protection.

It should be perhaps mentioned that one of the speakers said that their honoured guests had already discovered "that the Russians, thanks to our gracious Emperor,-who marks a new era in our history, may canvass their ideas and reasons as freely as people do in New York." If the guests had not discovered this at that time, they must have received light on the subject from the denunciation