est money-making, money-spending aggregation of humanity in the world? If illimitable forests of timber are rotting and burning every year to an extent greater than the consumption-if the great coast line of fisheries five thousand miles in length are wasting for want of use-if in every direction there is slowness in growth of wealth and development, and all this could be remedied by an obliteration of the customs line between the two peoples that hold the continent in common, what in the name of common sense should stand in the way of such a consummation?

Now, this is the question which has been straightly presented to the Canadian people in the recent Parliamentary Election. It is true that the Tory party in power have sought to make it appear that a political union was being promoted by this proposal of an unrestricted relation between the English-speaking people on this continent. There was never anything farther from the truth. Those who have labored the longest and the most earnestly for an obliteration of the customs barrier between the two peoples, and who had to the largest extent the control of the question, are the most ardent supporters of British connection. Annexation of Canada to the United States, to these, has for years been regarded as unnecessary, undesirable, and in this generation impossible. Whatever may have been the future influences of an assimilation of the two peoples by the operation of commerce and a closer commercial connection, no one can now tell. But that contentment in Canada, prosperity among her people, progress and development of her vast resources could lessen attachment to the throne of Great Britain, seems simply absurd. On the contrary, if the penalty of adherence to British connection be poverty, loss of population, increase of indebtedness, and decline of values, then British connection is imperilled by consequences far more serious than those that would follow the most intimate commercial relation with the United States.

It is true that, in the heat of political contest, Sir John Macdonald, Sir Charles Tupper, and other gentlemen, in default of argument have talked of treason, and shouted loyalty to the British Crown in a fervor of patriotism. But to the people at large this has been the veriest claptrap; and as the mist clears away from

the contest it will be shown how weak and poor has been the subterfuge through which Canada would be held forever isolated, forever shut out from the progress of the rest of the continent, and forever shut up within the marked limitations beyond which it is impossible she should expand.

There are three great parties to the Canadian contention. The first of these are the people of Canada themselves. If material progress is the essential standard of success and happiness, then Canada would be enormously benefited by a free relation with the United States. If the argument in behalf of annexation is that purely of material advantage, he who favors reciprocity, and thereby begets material advantage, completely annihilates the only consideration which would urge a political union. Therefore, so far as Canada is concerned, reciprocity and adherence to British connection go hand in hand, while the advantages that would flow from an unrestricted relation with a country so prosperous as the United States are so palpable as to need no advocacy.

The second party to the question is the United States. Nothing is so much needed in that country as an enlarged market for her manufactures, a supply of free raw material, and cheapened food products for New England and her great manufacturing centres. No contribution from any source could be so complete in these directions as that which Canada could furnish. So far as political considerations are concerned, nothing more disastrous could occur just now to the United States than to double her territory. With twelve thousand bills unacted upon before Congress, with the Government departments taxed beyond human endurance-so that a succession of three Secretaries of the Treasury of the United States have been stricken down at their posts by death-with the vast Negro question rising like a dark cloud upon the southern horizon, the undesirable nature of the immigration, now largely that of Italians and Russian Jews, and numerous other complications staring them in the face, to assume the additional burdens of half a continent would be the extremest folly. Commercially, the United States would be enormously benefited by the obliteration of the customs barrier between the two countries: the obliteration of the political barrier would

be full of the greatest peril and possible disaster, upsetting the calculations and combinations of every politician, and increasing the problems and complications of the hour to an extent unknown.

Great Britain, the third great party to be considered in relation to Canada, could not have anything happen so beneficial to her as the fullest development of her greatest colony. This colony comprises, in area, 40 per cent. of her empire. It has possibilities measured only by what has occurred to the south of her, and yet has had progress so slow as to be second in development to countries as barbarous as Africa, and ruled as despotically as Siberia. If by obliterating the barrier between the two English-speaking peoples of the continent, this 40 per cent. of the British Empire could be enormously developed, and could contribute relatively as much to the world's wealth as the revolted

colonies have done, and yet retain a glad and happy relation with the mother country, what greater event in the history of the Anglo-Saxon race could occur, than thus, by Commerce, to heal the great schism which a century ago was unhappily created?

Brushing aside the trivial personal interests of the hour adversely affected, and contemplating the future of the continent, and of the British Empire, as an economic whole, consisting of territories whose material interests are bound together by indissoluble tics, whose prosperity is wrapped up in each other's progress, what event in the whole category of possible events could be so beneficent as to lift up the barbed wire fence that runs athwart North America, and, making it of uniform height, put it right around the continent? -Contemporary Review.

It is

Ir is one of those unfortunate truths which are not to be gainsaid that a certain amount of humbug is necessary for the conduct of civilized society. Truth doubtless is great, but there are things which are even greater than truth, or rather than the expression of truth, and such are the requirements of social intercourse. told of a certain royal duke who had the unhappy habit of expressing his thoughts aloud that, in a lull in the conversation at a dinner-party, he was heard to say to himself, 66 What a disagreeable lot of people these are! I wish I had not come. It is unquestionable that it was out of the fulness of the heart that his royal highness spoke, and it is equally certain that he uttered the truth, from his point of view; but the effect on the company for the rest of the evening was deplorable. It has probably fallen to the lot of most of us to have met people who, without the excuse of an unconscious habit, have the knack of asserting unpleasant truths, and who value the ungracious practice as a sign of honesty. These are mostly young ladies who have entered the lists at competitive examinations, and who in the magnification of narrow subjects have lost the perspective of life. But

there are others, such as the Quakers of bygone days, who regard every expression which may not be in strict accordance with absolute truth as a sin against their consciences. To such people the idea of subscribing themselves" Yours truly," or of beginning a letter to a casual acquaintance, "Dear So and So," is abhorrent. public opinion has been too strong for them, and we continue, and shall continue so long as society holds together, to address one another in terms of endearment and respect which are by no means required to correspond with our actual senti

ments.

But

Orientals have surpassed us in this regard as much as the brilliant sunshine to which they are accustomed excels the murky atmosphere of Europe. The descriptions of ourselves and of our correspondents pale before the glowing expressions of objective admiration and subjective self-abasement which adorn Eastern epistles. We are content to confine our wishes and compliments to the present life; but such a limit is far too narrow for an Asiatic, who delights in wishing that his friends may live for ever and ever, and that the ancestors of his enemies may be condemned to everlasting disgrace.

We

are satisfied to speak of "I" and "You," but an Oriental loves to heap adjectives of contempt upon himself and of glorification upon his correspondents.

In translating letters from Orientals interpreters are accustomed to write, "After compliments, the writer says, etc." This is cruel, as the expressions thus ignored have probably formed a prominent idea in the mind of the writer, who has in all likelihood carefully weighed the terms used to indicate the relations which he wished to assume with his correspondent. For example, if a Chinaman wishes to be somewhat cold to an absent acquaintance, he begins his letter by saying, For some days we have not met." If, however, he is desirous of showing a regard for his friend, he expands the phrase into"From a distance I have hoped that the blessings of your daily life and the best of good fortune may be such as to gratify you ;" or, "Having been separated from you for some days, I have thought eagerly and deeply of you. He then goes on to the subject of his letter, but in all cases he avoids the use of the personal pronouns. By a system of circumlocution necessitated by this omission, he describes himself as "Your younger brother," the character representing his expression being written small, and partly at the side of the column of words, and he designates himself and others conjointly as "We ants." But the person he is addressing figures as "Your Excellency," "My benevolent elder brother," or "Your honor," literally, "You who are at the steps of the council chamber. His own house is a mean dwelling, or, as the parts of the character signify, a stricken and broken dwelling;" but he is unable to think of his correspondent's habitation as anything but" an honorable," literally "basket-ofpearls palace." In the same spirit of selfabasement he feels obliged to wind up his epistle with the phrase, "Your stupid younger brother, So and So, bows his head to the ground." The character for stupid" is drawn for us by two hieroglyphics, meaning" monkey-hearted," for the Chinese are not like the natives on the West Coast of Africa, who believe that the only reason why monkeys do not talk is that they fear if they do they will be made to work; but regard them as silly creatures, which may fairly be held to represent fools. To bow to his friends is also pic

torially expressed by a collocation of "a head" and "turf," suggesting the act of bowing the head to the earth.

66

If his correspondent proposes to call upon him, he hastens to assure him that at the appointed hour, with bowing hands, he will await the time when His Excellency shall abase himself by driving his chariot to his office. His friend's letter is "the revelation of his hand," and he takes pains to make him aware that holding it with washed hands he had chanted" its contents. The pictorial nature of the Chinese writing supplies an interesting commentary on the ideas and habits of the people on the subjects which they wish to express, and thus the phrase just quoted is represented on paper by water in a ewer over a basin," having reference to the old Eastern custom of cleansing the hands by pouring water over them, and "words bursting forth" as in chant or song. In the same way the symbol for "ants" is made up of two parts, meaning "the righteous" "insects;" a tribute to the orderly habits of the creatures, who recognize among themselves, as the Chinese have observed, the distinctive ranks of prince, ministers, and people. On expressions of thanks particular emphasis is laid by the Chinese, and with true Oriental instinct, in their effort after hyperbole, they are accustomed to give a physical interpretation to their mental feelings. For instance, a correspondent who wishes to say that he is profoundly grateful writes, "Your kindness is very deeply engraved and enveined in my heart. If he hears of the illness of a friend" he cannot help being hung up in " and the symsuspense, bol he uses shows to the eyes the heart of the writer tied up, while at the same time he urges him "to take care of his person as a pearl." And on the receipt of better news he breaks out, How shall I bear the joy and pleasure!" Having finished expressing the object of his letter, he winds up by "availing himself of the opportunity to wish his correspondent all the blessings of the season, and," if he is on the road to honor, "all the promotion he deserves."

Tried by the standard of Western ideas, these and similar expressions have, from their exaggerated phraseology, a ring of insincerity about them. But this is not a bit more the case than when we address a man for whom we do not care a brass

farthing as "My dear sir," and sign ourselves Yours very sincerely" to a correspondent with whom we have not a single thought in common. Further, they may be defended on the ground that they have a humanizing and civilizing effect, and are the counterparts on paper of the physical acts of courtesy which are current in the land. It is said that the habit of raising the joined hands above the head when in the presence of a superior owed its origin to the same cause which makes American highwaymen shout "Hands up" when they stop a coach. A man cannot handle a weapon unseen when he is holding his hands above his head, and in a milder degree the less pronounced acts of courtesy have a marked pacific tendency. A man who is always accustomed to bow low to his acquaintances is less likely in a moment of quarrel to use his fists or his feet that one who is not practised in those gentle exercises. And in the same way the use of courteous expressions makes it difficult for a correspondent to turn from the civil to the ferocious.

But, if not ferocious, a sufficient latitude still remains to a Chinaman for the development of much plain speaking. It is as possible to "slit the thin-spun life" with a stiletto as with a broadsword, and in the most finished periods a Chinaman finds himself quite able to express either withering contempt or remorseless hate. But he has other ways also of giving vent to his ill humors. The very punctilious rules of letter-writing enable him to convey his dislike by omission as well as by commission. Chinese is, it may be explained, written in vertical columns, beginning on the top right-hand corner of the page. In ordinary circumstances each column is completed to the bottom of the page; but long usage has established the custom that, if the name or attributes of the person addressed occurs, the coluinn is cut short, and the characters representing these subjects of honor begin the next column at an elevation of the space of one or two characters, as the case may be, above the general level of the text. The expressions, for example, "Your honorable country, 'My benevolent elder brother," and others, are entitled to stand prominently out at the head of the columns-a position

which gives them the same kind of distinction which capital letters confer among ourselves. It will now be seen what a ready weapon lies to the hand of a Chinese letter-writer. To write "Your Excellency" or the name of the correspondent's country or sovereign in the body of the column is to inflict a dire insult upon him, and is equivalent to the expression of the bitterest contempt in European epistolary style. Occasionally infringements of this rule are made by mistake, and it not unfrequently happens that condign punishment overtakes careless or ignorant officials who forget its application to the titles of the Imperial family. Not long since an Imperial censor presented a memorial to the throne, in which the proper elevation was not given to the name of the Dowager Empress. The result was doubly disastrous to the writer. Not only was the prayer of his memorial rejected, but he was handed over to the Board of Punishments to suffer the consequences of his On foreigners Chinamen used to delight, and still do to a certain extent, in heaping up this and other insults, trusting to the ignorance of their correspondents in the forms and diction of the language. It was their wont to speak of foreigners as

error.

barbarians," or, as the characters depict for us, "Great-bow men," a term applied to savage tribes in Western China. Our knowledge of the language has, however, reached a point when we are able to detect such palpable hits. But being unwilling altogether to give up the privilege they possess, the Celestials are now driven to exercise their ingenuity in conveying covert sneers and impertinences which require the petty and conventional mind of a Chinaman for their detection.

Finally, when the letter is written it is put into an envelope, which is addressed in exactly the opposite form from that used among ourselves. We always descend from the particular to the general; Chinamen, from the general to the particular. Thus, for example, if a Chinaman were to inscribe the equivalent of the address on the envelope which is to contain this article, he would write London, Southampton Street, No. 38, of the Saturday Review, the Editor."-Saturday Review.

66

THE quality of forgiveness in Ireland is not strained. Or rather, we should say, the quantity of it, for its quality is a little doubtful. In the course of the glorious faction-fight that is still furiously raging in the sister-isle, a good many injuries have been inflicted on either side, and the demand for forgiveness might well have been expected to exceed the supply, even in that most Christian country. But no! the supply has been fully equal to the occasion, and as fast as blows are dealt and curses and execrations exchanged, so fast has free forgiveness followed and pardon been professed. The broken head has hardly been tied up before its owner has announced to the world that he freely forgives the misguided shillelagh that broke it; and the forgiveness is hardly out of his mouth before he has returned the blow with interest. It is a pleasing spectacle, for it shows how, even in the very heat and fury of battle, the divine part of man struggles to keep pace with the outburst of his human passions. It would be more pleasing, perhaps, if Irishmen would refrain from trespassing upon each other's coat-tails, and did not offer each other such matter for forgiveness; but too much must not be expected from patriots, and to patriots much must be forgiven. Without offence there can be no forgiveness, and it were a pity that so eminent a virtue should fall into disuse. Still, it is the quality of that forgiveness that troubles us. Really these gentlemen do protest too much. No sooner had the solid phalanx of the Irish Party split into two struggling halves, than each half began to assure the world that there was no division, but that they were all one at heart, in love of each other and of their country in the same breath they uttered curses and blessings; with the same hand they dealt blows and offered friendly salutations. What imports all this anger when it is followed by so much good-will? And what imports this good-wil when it wears such an angry aspect? It is bewildering to any one who is not an Irishman. Whom did Mr. O'Brien bless, and whom did he curse, before the prison swallowed him up and he was heard no more? It is difficult to say, but he departed thither in the very odor of forgiveness. Who is the unhappy

man for whom Mr. Justin McCarthy has no word of reproach, and whom he freely forgives? Surely not Mr. Parnell, upon whose head he has heaped some pretty flowers of rhetoric. Great is the magnanimity of Mr. McCarthy. When enemies. flout him, and former friends deride him, he is not angry; he is only grieved, so grieved, and sorry. He forgives, and hits back again with a vigor that is astonishing in so gentle and forgiving a person. More astonishing still, in another way, is the forgiveness extended by Mr. Timothy Healy to Mr. O'Brien Dalton. He had received at the hands of that gentleman the most cruel bodily injury. Before the latter had expressed a word of contrition, before he had even confessed his offence, and while he was actually supposed to be spreading a cock-and-bull story about a slippery floor and a bed-post, Mr. Healy forgave him. The case is a very monument of magnanimity, and has been fully reported in the newspapers. We wonder whether Mr. Dalton will bring himself to forgive Mr. Healy's forgiveness that would be more magnanimous still. Nor is Mr. Parnell himself to be outdone in the matter of forgiveness. He too received a blow, and in a very painful part of 'his person: he did not return it; he took pity on the striker, forgave him, and, as he says, handed him out in safety to the crowd of his friends. In " Vanity Fair," Thackeray describes good lady who forgives her sister Jane, and adds: "I regard her as a sister, of course. "Which means-?" says the author. "But what does it mean when a lady says that she regards Jane as a sister?" What does it mean, indeed? And what does it mean when Mr. Parnell says that he forgives the man who struck him? Or when Mr. Healy publishes his correspondence of forgiveness in the papers? Or when Mr. McCarthy is filled with sorrowful pity? Or when one and all declare their undying devotion to each other, and their determination to smite each other

hip and thigh? They do, indeed, protest too much. The very essence of forgiveness is its silence ;—that it should be silent under injury and make no sign. An open declaration of pardon is not forgiveness; it is much more like a refined revenge.

Of sham forgiveness there are many