and for British interests alone. And when we are told we have been fighting for some other reason we know it cannot be true, for no Minister of England, however powerful, would ever venture to risk a man or a horse in any war that had not British interests, directly or indirectly, as its object.

6

If ordinary Jingoism, that only fights for British interests, be a disease, as we are told, what are we to think of that extraordinary development of Jingoism that insists on fighting the battles of other nations whether they wish it or not? Suppose we could induce our rulers to enter the Palace of Truth,' what a curious contradiction we should hear to many of the official utterances outside. Well, then, now that we are in the 'Palace of Truth,' what was the real cause of the war? Oh, of course, it was the old story-British interests. England had placed Tewfik on the throne, and British interests, British prestige, required that we should keep him there. British interests compelled us to put an end to anarchy in Egypt, British interests compelled us to protect our road to India, and British interests prompted us to look after the pockets of our bondholders, and to prevent any other nation occupying the country. Was there no other cause beyond British interests that tended to hasten on the war in Egypt? Oh, yes; a very important one, but one we don't talk much about outside.

Our kind friends at Birmingham, who keep a constant watch on the pulse of John Bull, told us that he was suffering from an over-dose of humble pie; that the scuttle out of Candahar and the scuttle out of the Transvaal had not been attended with the favourable results that we had anticipated; and that if now we tried to scuttle out of Egypt we should in all probability have to scuttle out of office. Of course, this was very awkward, especially to those amongst us who had made most political capital by denouncing most strongly the almost identical policy of our predecessors: but there was no help for it;

we had to obey the Caucus or throw up the sponge. Naturally we did not hesitate long. We shut our eyes, held our breath, took the plunge, and after a little spluttering and losing one of our number, we came up Jingoes. Of course we were a little uncomfortable at first, but, as

A merciful Providence fashioned us hollow,

On purpose we might our principles swallow,'

we have not suffered so much as many have supposed. In fact, we are inclined to think that, on the whole, we rather like being Jingoes; and certainly our Birmingham friends gave us good advice, for Jingoism has proved the most popular act of our Ministry. Never has a war been so popular with all classes as the present one. Never have returning troops been anywhere received with such acclamations, with such hysterical delight! And why? Not because they have been victorious in a just war, for many of us think that the war was a most unjust one; and not a few heretics firmly believe that if Mr. Gladstone had been in opposition he would have denounced it as such, with his accustomed torrent of rhetoric. It is not because we conquered Arabi and reinstated Tewfik, because, man for man, Arabi is probably throughout the country the most popular of the two. It is not because the Canal and the bondholders' interests are safe, because the truth is the great mass of the nation know little and care less about either Canal or Egyptian stocks. The reason why we are so grateful to Sir Garnet Wolseley and to our soldiers is because we really feel under a deep obligation to them. They have taken a weight off our minds. They have relieved us from the nightmare of repeated military disasters. Heh! presto! quick! vanish! and in a minute, as if by the conjuror's wand, the mournful names of Isandula, Maiwand, Majuba Hill disappear, and are replaced by those of Kassassin and Tel-el-Kebir. There is no denying it, the Egyptian campaign has helped to put the British army on its legs again. Of course we know our

soldiers did not meet foemen worthy of their steel; but
they showed qualities that have convinced the country that
they must be very worthy foemen indeed that can stand
against them. The war is most popular throughout the
country; first, because it has safeguarded British interests;
and, secondly, because it has proved to us that if our
army
is well commanded it can do its work well. But it
has not only put the British army on its legs again: it has
done a somewhat similar good office for the British
Empire. It has relieved the country from the nightmare
of repeated concession, from the dread of Imperial de-
cadence. We have heard political Pharisees so loudly
thanking God they were not like other British Ministers,
we have listened so long to the language of superfine
humanity, to denunciations of the sin of blood-guiltiness,
to the glory of national self-sacrifice, that we really began
to fear there was something in it; that it was the enuncia-
tion of a new national policy, and that henceforth the
Concert of Europe,' not her own strong arm, was to be
the necessary condition of existence of British Empire.
But that is all over now. We see with intense relief that
however fiercely the Radicals may denounce Imperial
interests in opposition, they are willing and even eager to
fight for them in office. If the war in Egypt has done
nothing else, it has proved to the country how ungenerous,
how unreal, how personal, how absolutely valueless, in all
but a party sense, was the greater part of the fierce
opposition to the Imperial policy of the late Government.

√.

A FOOL'S PARADISE.

IF, as Shakspeare tells us, 'it were very gross behaviour' to lead anyone into a fool's paradise, it must, of course, be a praiseworthy act to try and lead anyone out of it. This

Mr. Labouchere, in his article the Coming Democracy,' in the Fortnightly,' has tried to do for the Old Whigs and the dilettante Democrats. His schooling, certainly, is none of the gentlest, and not in the least likely to influence either of the parties it is addressed to; but, nevertheless, it is sound advice, and it puts it out of their power to say when the Democratic wave does break over them that they are taken by surprise, or, in more Gladstonian language, that it has come upon them like a 'revelation.' Virtually, Mr. Labouchere interviews them in this fashion. He says to the philosophical Radical, the dilettante Democrat, with his 50,000l. or 100,000l. a year in the funds, or in stocks, or in trade: You call yourself a Democrat, I believe?' 'Certainly. Then, of course, you are prepared to abolish the House of Lords?' Certainly.' And the Established Church? Certainly.' And vote for electoral districts, and payment of members, and triennial Parliaments?' 'Certainly.' And you will extend the franchise indefinitely?' Certainly.' And you will vote for the Caucus ?'

6

6

6

'Certainly.' And will do your utmost to bring down your social superiors?' Certainly.' In fact, you think that social distinctions should depend rather on merit than on birth and wealth?' 'Most certainly.' And in that case you believe that you will naturally take a very high social position? 'I hope so.' And when Mr. Labouchere hears all this, he exclaims: 'Why, this man must be either a fool or an enthusiast; either he is foolish enough to believe the coming Democracy, that he is doing his best to promote, will leave him in unquestioned possession of his millions, or he is an enthusiast, who is actually anxious to sell all he has and give it to the poor, and take up his cross and follow Messrs. Harrison, Morley, Bradlaugh and me!' So he says: One word more. You know, of course, that all these things that you are so willing to vote for are merely the means to the end; are you sure you are quite prepared for the end? Do you really realise what it is? Are you

prepared for a progressive succession duty ? for a progressive income tax of fifty per cent.? Do you endorse the programme of the payment of all the taxes by the rich? Are you prepared to limit the number of acres owned by persons who do not cultivate them? Do you realise the fact that in the eyes of the true Democrat "wealth” is the enemy, and that we make no difference whether this wealth is in land or money? that monopolists of every kind, whether of money or of land, are to be rooted out? Do you allow that very large fortunes are a positive danger to a Democratic State, and that any income beyond a man's real or acquired wants is surplusage, and should belong to the State? Finally, are you prepared to give up one-half of your property beyond the amount regarded as safe to the State ?' And when the dilettante Democrat hears all this, like the ruler mentioned in the Bible, he is very sorrowful, for he is very rich.' To the Old Whigs Mr. Labouchere virtually says, 'You are, I believe, the party of "family antecedents." You fancy that the mantle of Fox, Althorp, Grey, Macaulay, Russell, Palmerston, Cornewall Lewis has fallen upon you; you think enjoy a prestige in the country for eminent respectability; but you are mistaken. Your Liberalism is only skin-deep; you are waiters on Providence, harmless for good or evil. You are in everything but name Conservatives, and it is only your voracious appetite for office that keeps you from joining them. You only care for the lion's share of the spoil. You think you act as a drag on the Democratic coach, whereas in reality you only quicken its pace. You profess to be the master of the great Radical who rules the country; you are simply his servants. In private you denounce him; in public you support him. You are nothing but emasculating traitors, a damnosa hæreditas that ought to be kicked out of the Liberal camp and handed over to the Tories.' Now, all this is very disagreeable reading, and the extent to which it is disagreeable depends upon the extent to which it is true. I somehow

you