as well as criminal, to do all this, unless we were determined to leave Egypt a happier, a more wisely governed, and a more prosperous land than we found it. That we have made a promising beginning in the direction has been already shown. No intrigues, no unreasonable rivalries must be permitted to interfere with the improvement which is now in progress under the guidance and advice of Englishmen. On the contrary, new and exceptional measures must be devised for securing, on the part of the native administrators, a more respectful attention to the opinion of their English counsellors, and a more prompt execution of English recommendations than have been apparent for some time past. And this must be done not only for the merely selfish interests of England, but for the good of the Egyptians themselves, for the good even of bondholders, the good of Europe, and the cause of civilization.

ART. VIII.-Political Survey of the Quarter.

THE last three months have been a period of excitement, agitation, uncertainty, and unrest. We have no sooner emerged from one crisis than we have been plunged in aanother; rumours of dissolution or ministerial resignation have continually filled the air, and have only been contradicted or dispelled to renew themselves in some other form. The political atmosphere has been surcharged with electricity, and the question has been when and how the storm would burst. This, at least, has been the state of things among the busy political quidnuncs of the metropolis, the habitués of West End clubs, the loungers and gossips in the lobby of the House of Commons. It is open to question whether the conntry generally shares in the excitement. Some significant illustrations of the contrast between the heated feeling of the metropolis and the comparative quiescence of the country relative to Egypt have come under our own observation. We happened to be at Poole during the election there, and expected to have heard some echo of the agitation which prevailed in London at the time. Strange to say, there was hardly a word, except when Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett was brought down to deliver one of his insane tirades in his favourite character of champion of those sacred rights of England which her most distinguished sons are imperilling by their blindness and infatuation. Mr. Harris won the sweet voices of electors-numbers of whom after all stood sulkily aloof

because they were denied the solatium to which they had been accustomed on such occasions-by absurd promises of a duty on foreign manufactured articles, or by judicious hints on the part of his supporters-of their discontent with this beggarly style of election which a Liberal Government had introduced. The affairs of Egypt seemed to interest them as much as a discussion of the binomial theorem.

A still more remarkable instance of the same insensibility about questions which, if we are to believe The Times' and other journals, are agitating the minds of the country to its depths, is supplied in the skirmishing by which the contending parties at Warrington are preparing for the general election. Addresses have been issued on both sides, that of Mr. Crosfield, the Liberal candidate, being characterized by unusual wisdom, put in a very terse and forcible manner. He declines, however, to enter into knotty problems of foreign politics, partly because, being a sensible man, he is willing to place confidence in the acknowledged chief of his party, in whose principles he trusts, and whose judgment is based on information to which we cannot have access, but partly also because the subject finds no prominent place in the address of his Tory opponent. Of course had there been an attack there must have been a defence; but it would seem that in one of the active and spirited constituencies of the North the minds of men are occupied by altogether different subjects from the Multiple Control or the Relief of General Gordon. So far as we are able to judge, and we claim to have some opportunities of forming an opinion, the great desire of the working people is to see our troops safely and honourably out of Egypt. They have doubtless a certain admiration for the chivalry of General Gordon, though it may reasonably be questioned whether his name has the same spell now as it possessed before the erratic nature of his proceedings was understood. It might be possible, we do not think it would be easy, and certaiuly it would be most mischievous, to excite a jealousy about France; but at present there are no indications of it, and apart from that there is no ground for suspecting any strong opposition to the Government policy. The working men are not Jingoes, as was abundantly shown by the election of 1880, and if further proofs were wanted it was furnished by the attitude they took in relation to the Egyptian campaign, for its successes did not dazzle them, and they tolerated the expedition rather from a belief in Mr. Gladstone than from any liking for the war.

In London, however, and especially in the circles from

which journalists derive their impressions, there is a widespread feeling as to the uncertainty of the political situation, which it is very difficult to reconcile with the facts which are apparent to all the world. If we are to have a crisis leading to a change of Ministry, it is clear that the present Opposition must take the place of the Government. Other combinations might be attempted, but the mind would soon be lost in the attempt to conceive of one which would have the chance of enduring for six months. The independent Whigs, who are the cause of so much of the trouble, could not stand alone, and there are no signs of any approach between them and the more moderate Conservatives. What Mr. Foster may be tempted to do it would be rash for any man to pronounce, after the speech which drew down on him the dignified and scathing rebuke of Lord Hartington, and in truth his action does not much matter, for he would be a weakness rather than a strength to any Cabinet of which he was a member. Mr. Goschen is a much more powerful political force, and also much less likely to identify himself with any coalition. He is removed even further in moral sentiment than in political opinion from the men who seem ready to play fast and loose with any principle and any institution for the sake of displacing the Ministry. His present isolation shows that he can sacrifice office to principle, and, if it had not been evident before, his speech on Mr. Woodall's amendment, expressed in unmistakable manner his scorn for accommodating politicians, who adjust their convictions to their party exigencies. We fail to discover, therefore, the materials for the foundation of a Ministry, still less can we conjecture where it would find its supporters in the country. The idea could only suggest itself to those who, like too many, have failed to grasp the actual condition of the political situation. The balanced moderation which found faviour with ten-pounders finds no sympathy in the new democracy. On every side we hear that Lord Randolph Churchill is the favourite representative of Toryism in the constituencies, and his lordship has no word like moderation in his vocabulary. A Whig or Coalition Ministry would be as unacceptable to his friends as it certainly would be to the sturdy Liberalism of the borough constituencies. In truth, such an alternative is not worth discussing. The choice lies and must lie between the present Ministry and the Opposition.

But then the question at once arises as to the character of the Opposition and its fitness for assuming the responsibilities of office. The circumstances under which alone it could come

into power would themselves make its position critical. Ex hupothesi it must defeat the Ministry on a point of foreign policy, and we may go even further and say that it would be one affecting our relations with France. Lord Salisbury may contemplate such a prospect with a lightness of heart equal to that with which M. Ollivier rushed into the Franco-German war, but men of cooler judgments may reasonably be excused if they resolve to look a little deeper and consider more carefully the character of the party to which the helm of State would be intrusted under circumstances of such special difficulty. How serious the change would be may be gathered from a passing sentence in a communication from the Paris correspondent of The Times:' 'A politician need not be profound to see that monarchical Europe is not favourable to the entente cordiale between republican France and England with her Liberal connections and feelings.' Nothing could be more true or suggestive. To some of its teachings we shall return afterwards. At present we note only the serious aspect which it throws around our political conflict. It means that the defeat of the Ministry on such a question would complicate the entire European situation, and would gladden the hearts of reactionaries everywhere; and if this is to be done, it is imperatively necessary that we have an able, vigorous, and united Ministry. We turn to the Opposition to ascertain how far it is likely to meet this demand, and the result is a disappointment whose bitterness is unconcealed by those who hate the Ministry, and yet are afraid of overthrowing it lest some worse thing should come unto them. Prominent among these is 'The Times.' It chafes under a policy the loftiness of whose aims it cannot appreciate, it rails and denounces Mr. Gladstone sometimes with a scurrility which tells more for the bitterness of its hate than the courtesy of its manners, but from time to time it is pulled up by the feeling that it cannot tolerate Lord Salisbury.

His lordship's speeches during his campaign in the West fully justify the most anxious apprehensions of those who would hesitate to commit the reins of power to his hands. They were clever and sparkling, but their cleverness was that of a Saturday Reviewer not of a statesman, still less of a great political leader. If keenness of criticism, biting raillery, unscrupulous invective could make a great Prime Minister, his lordship might earn the distinction. But the country will need something more than the dash of a daring sailor in the captain who is to steer the vessel amid the troubled waters into which a vote that should compromise our

friendly relations with France, and inaugurate an Imperialist policy in Egypt, would certainly launch it. Lord Salisbury does not understand his fellow-countrymen, does not even seem as if he cared to understand them, it may be, has as the result of his lifelong environment, lost the capacity for understanding them. He wanted to please the Wesleyan Methodists of Cornwall, whom his party are trying to cajole out of their Liberalism by means of a Wesleyan Tory from Hull; and so he ventured on a compliment to them, but it was of such a nature as to produce the very opposite effect to that which he intended. He, as a member of the Catholic Church, is ready to speak kindly of the sects, provided they do not show antagonism to his Church; just as he, a leader of the great aristocratic hierarchy, will deal kindly with the masses of the people, provided they will follow him. The man who so utterly fails to get the touch of his own nation that he insults with condescending patronage a people who are almost morbidly independent, and who desire only right, cannot be supposed to possess the subtle tact necessary for handling the delicate questions which any statesman will have to meet who undertakes to settle Egyptian affairs, with an eye solely to English interests.

We are not left to conjecture or speculation on this point. His lordship's deliverances in the West teach us what to expect should he ever attain the object of his ambition.

The Liberal party put forward a claim to be the disciples of peace. When we were in power we told them that we loved peace as well as they did, but that circumstances were stronger than men, and that the paramount interests of the empire would require from time to time that peace should be broken on its borders.

His lordship has done good service by the reminder conveyed in this pregnant sentence. It is not true, indeed, that the Liberal party have ever professed to be advocates of peace at any price, but they certainly would challenge the assertion that there is any paramount necessity which would require us to be continually at war upon our borders. The policy thus enunciated by his lordship may well startle many who are not followers of Sir Wilfred Lawson, or who may even think Mr. Gladstone's care for the maintenance of peace excessive. A statesman who accepts this as a fundamental maxim can hardly fail to embroil us in war. Forewarned is forearmed.' Lord Salisbury tells us plainly that making war is part of the necessary business of an English Minister, and he refers us to the story of the late Government in illustration. There is not a word of sorrow or regret for the disgraceful