Puslapio vaizdai
PDF
„ePub“

BOOKS AND AUTHORS.

Dr. L. D. Barnett's "The Golden Town" is his translation of a very small part of Soma-deva's "Ocean of Romance Rivers" written in the latter half of the eleventh century, and adapted from the "Great Romance" written at least five centuries earlier and possibly eight. The volume contains but three tales, "The Golden Town," "Sundura Luna and Mandaravati" and "Mriganka's Quest," but each tale is like a Chinese nest of boxes with other tales enclosed, and with these enclosing yet others. They abound in proverbial sayings and it seems as if the editor spoke truthfully when he wrote that "This little book of fiction may convey to its readers more vividly than learned and veracious treatises the spirit of India in the brave days of old." One certainly gathers many hints as to the manners, customs and ideals of the Hindu, and · English speaking folk cannot know too much of him now, when the daily papers cheerfully confound him with the Mohammedan and quote "a learned Parsi merchant" as authority regarding both. E. P. Dutton & Co.

"The Infamous John Friend," is a title to turn aside all but the most determined of novel readers, for the "infamous" of the twentieth century means something disgusting in more than in mere aberration from righteousness; but the time of the story is about a hundred years ago, and the tale is comparatively clean, touching very little upon anything worse than high treason made possible by persistent falsehood and unscrupulous deceit, spiced with the occasional shedding of blood. John Friend, supposed by Pitt to be his own secret agent, is really a

spy of Bonaparte and at one time also an agent of the French Royalists and their English friends. The author, Mrs. R. S. Garnett, first introduces him in his character of a husband so loving, so tender, and so unselfish that he revives his wife when science has abandoned her to death; so patient and gentle that his adopted daughter worships him; so true in friendship that he is beloved by nearly all who know him and disliked only by one whose hatred is flattery. His wife, with whom piety amounts to genius, is no more than worthy of him in his private character as a husband and she dies from pure inability to endure complete knowledge of his public wickedness. The lovers of the story are but sketched in comparison with these two, but the sketches are adequate, and the adventures of the pair are sufficiently novel to have made an commonly interesting tale had they been unsupported. The chorus, the flock of smugglers, the family groups scattered through Sussex are completely described and definite, and England in a panic is excellently sketched. She is less interesting by necessity than she is at this moment, because steam and electricity did not combine to renew her shivers of affright, and many classes now hysterical with dangerous little learning were ignorantly stolid; but she was interesting at that time with her views of the great enemy across the Channel, and her half-faith in her own great sons, and Mrs. Garnett with few words sets her forth most vividly. If this be a first book it is wonderful; if it has had predecessors, why are they not as famous as this soon must be? Henry Holt & Co.

un

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]

IV.

V.

VI.

Other Kingdom. By E. M. Forster

CORNHILL MAGAZINE 520

Saleh: A Sequel. Chapters XXV, XXVI and XXVII

(Conclusion.) By Hugh Clifford. BLACK WOOD'S MAGAZINE 530 Swinburne's Lyrical Poetry. By Alice Meynell DUBLIN REVIEW 534 The Hotel on the Landscape. By Arnold Bennett

[ocr errors]

PALL MALL MAGAZINE 541
ENGLISH REVIEW 547

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

FOR SIX DOLLARS, remitted directly to the Publishers, THE LIVING AGE will be punctually forwarded for a year, free of postage, to any part of the United States. To Canada the postage is 50 cents per annum.

Remittances should be made by bank draft or check, or by post-office or express money order if possible. If neither of these can be procured, the money should be sent in a registered letter if possible. If neither of these can be procured, the money should be sent in a registered letter. All postmasters are obliged to register letters when requested to do so. Drafts, checks, express and money orders should be made payable to the order of THE LIVING AGE Co.

Single Copies of THE LIVING AGE, 15 cents.

[blocks in formation]

THE LORDS AND THE BUDGET.

The House of Lords will presently be face to face with a dilemma in some respects more serious than any that has confronted it since 1832. More serious, because neither in 1884 nor in 1893 was the action of the Upper House likely to involve it in any real danger. In 1832 such a danger undoubtedly existed. Not only was a constitutional change of the greatest moment proposed, but the passions and the numbers of its supporters were such that, in all probability, a third rejection of the Reform Bill would have led to an outbreak of violence, in which the very existence, or at least the essential powers, of the Second Chamber might have been destroyed. Such a conjunction has not recurred.

The Franchise Bill of 1884 was a measure only second in importance to that of 1832; but the dispute between the two Houses turned, not on the principles of the Bill-which, however reluctantly, were accepted by the Lords-but on the question whether or not it should be linked with a Redistribution Bill, acknowledged by the Liberal leaders to be a necessary accompaniment of the larger measure. Narrowed to this issue, the conflict was not one which was likely to involve very serious consequences for the House of Lords, especially as the Parliament was then in its fourth year, and the position of the Governmentas the next session showed-was by no means secure.

In 1893 the measure proposed was one of a revolutionary nature, but it was put forward by a Government whose tenure of office had always been precarious, and it was carried by a small majority, which obviously failed to represent the opinions of the predominant partner in the State. Moreover, a similar measure had been re

jected, only eight years before, by the House of Commons itself; and this decision had been confirmed, on appeal, by an overwhelming majority of the nation. Lastly, it was clear that a hostile vote in the Upper House would not necessarily involve-as actually it did not involve either the resignation of the Ministry or a dissolution of Parliament. In these circumstances, not only could the Lords reject without anxiety a measure like the second Home Rule Bill, but it was their obvious duty to do so.

Very different are the conditions under which the Finance Bill of 1909 will be presented to the House of Lords. In the first place, whatever may be the defects of the measure, whatever may be its ultimate tendencies, especially those of the land taxation clauses, it would be an exaggeration to call it a revolutionary measure in the sense in which the Reform Bill of 1832, and the Home Rule Bills of 1886 and 1893, were revolutionary; still less does it entail such a revolution as would result from the overthrow of the Upper House or from a serious diminution of its powers. The new land taxes, the heightened income tax and death duties, the enhanced charges on the liquor trade, and other items, are (as we have shown elsewhere) open to the gravest objections, and indicate a class hostility which is much to be deprecated. But, after all, with the possible exception of the taxes on land, they only carry further, if to a dangerous extent, principles applied in previous Budgets. The policy of substituting direct for indirect taxation is no new thing. The selection of particular articles or particular kinds of property for special taxation is a practice which has appeared in many successive Finance Bills; and these special taxes

have frequently been increased. The machinery which places the assessment of the land taxes in the hands of commissioners acting without appeal, and the abolition of those independent General Commissioners who have hitherto formed a court of appeal for aggrieved payers of income tax, are innovations which may possibly be dropped in committee. If not, the Lords would have a good case in demanding the revocation of changes in the law which savor strongly of "tacking," and can fairly be separated from the imposition of taxes, properly so called. At any rate, the Bill which imposes them is an annual Bill; and another year, under another Government, most, if not all, of the objectionable charges may be reduced, the old methods of assessment revived, and the bases of taxation broadened so as to modify, or even remove, the unfairness of their incidence. There seems indeed to be a possibility, if not a probability, that the clauses relating to land may be considerably modified, or even dropped, before the Bill leaves the Lower House. In any case, the mischief done, even if great, will not be wholly irremediable.

In the second place, the Finance Bill of this year resembles the Reform Bill of 1832, and differs from the Home Rule Bill of 1893, in having the support of a large majority of the House of Commons. It is not indeed a freshly-elected House, or a House elected ad hoc, as in 1832; there are signs of a "cave"; and the majorities are not what they were two or three years ago. Recent by-elections and other symptoms may give good ground for the belief that the country no longer supports the Government as it did in 1906, still less as it supported Lord Grey in 1832; but the fact remains, that a very large majority of the popular chamber is in favor of the Bill as a whole.

a

Thirdly, the Bill in question is a Finance Bill, that is, it concerns matter which is recognized to be the special province of the Lower House, and in regard to which the practice of centuries has given that House, if not an entirely unrestricted, yet certainly an enormously preponderant influence. The field, therefore, on which the conflict-if conflict there is to be will be fought out, is one extremely unfavorable to the House of Lords. In the other cases to which we have referred, whatever might be the dictates of expediency, there could be no doubt that, according to the theory and practice of the constitution, the Lords were strictly within their rights in opposing the will of the Commons. In the present case, the constitutional rights of the Upper House are, to say the least, obscure and doubtful.

We have dealt with this question in another article, and need say little more about it here. According to the letter of the law-if the word "law" may be used where there is no statute, and not much applicable precedent -the House of Lords may reject a Finance Bill, as it may reject any other Bill. The consent of both Houses, and of the Crown, is required for any act of legislation. But, as regards financial legislation, the veto of the House of Lords has lapsed for almost, if not quite, as long a time as the veto of the Crown with regard to legislation in general. The precedent of 1860-the rejection of the Bill to repeal the Paper Duty-only served to show the way to a practical extinctiou of the right by the method adopted in 1861, and employed ever since. It was a simple application of the fable of the bundle of sticks. The Lords could break the sticks singly; they could not break the whole faggot. The method itself was an innovation; but it was an innovation which it cannot be denied that the House of Commons had

« AnkstesnisTęsti »