the Great Trial are the only parallel to the personal invective hurled at Lord Beaconsfield by his opponents at the last general election. 'What a wicked man Warren Hastings must be,' was the quiet remark of Warren Hastings to a friend as he listened to Sheridan's great speech. "What wicked men we must all be !' was doubtless the remark of the members of the late Government as they listened to the charges of inhumanity, bloodguiltiness, &c., that were hurled at them by their accusers. Leaving on one side promises and good intentions' let us look actually at results; let us see what constitutes the great difference between the infamous' Government that was swept away by the last general election and that which has succeeded it.

Let us try and know the tree by its fruits: '-1. Irresponsible utterances: Hands off, Austria,' 'evictions are tantamount to death,' 'the Chapel Bell,' &c.; 2. The failure of the commercial treaty with France; 3. The Dulcigno difficulty; 4. The repeal of the Peace Preservation Act; 5. A reign of terror and horrible outrage; 6. The Land Act; 7. Acts of repression the most severe and most sweeping ever known in Ireland; 8. The Kilmainham Treaty; 9. The Arrears Bill; 10. Our crowning disgrace in the Transvaal; 11. The ridiculous squabble with the House of Lords; 12. The bombardment of the forts of Alexandria; 13. The burning of a portion of the city; 14. The break-up of the European Concert; 15. The despatch of 30,000 men to Egypt; 16. The despatch of the Indian Contingent to Egypt; 17. The blood-guiltiness of Tel-el-Kebir, of Obeid, of Trinkitat, of Teb, and Tamanieb; 18. The stamping out the national rising in Egypt; 19. Hoisting Humpty-Dumpty on the wall again; 20. The sham trial of Arabi; 21. The Jingo parade of troops through the streets of London; 22. The Bradlaugh scandal, three times renewed; 23. Consternation amongst the Anglo-Indian community; 24. Increased manufacturing and agricultural depression; 25. The Clôture.

Well, I believe this is a fair catalogue of the political incidents of the last three years. Naturally, those who think everything must be for the best in this best of Governments will see everything to be proud of in it all; but to me, I confess, it appears very commonplace, very unsatisfactory, in no single respect an improvement on the last Government, or any Government preceding it. In spite of all that was promised, of the deafening flourish of Radical trumpets, there has been nothing grand or noble in it. On the contrary, to my understanding, it bears the unmistakable stamp of childishness and petulancy. It appears throughout to have been inspired and directed by two distinct motives—a desire to undo, at any cost, all that the preceding Government had done; and a desire to fulfil the impossible programme of Midlothian. It was childish to insult Austria and apologise the next day; it was childish to use phrases that directly stimulated Irish outrages; it was childish to force a quarrel on the House of Lords, when the House of Lords was right; it was childish to repeal the Peace Preservation Act, when it became necessary almost immediately afterwards to apply to Parliament for two Acts of repression far more stringent; it was childish to expect to advance the prosperity of Ireland by an Act that absolutely arrested the investment of capital in that country, and stopped entirely the sale and distribution of land. It was almost like setting fire to your bed in order to kill a flea' to stake the peace of Europe on the Dulcigno adventure. If it was so right to send 30,000 men to guard the gates of India in Egypt in 1882, why was it so wrong to send 30,000 men to guard the gates of India in Afghanistan in 1879? If it was so patriotic an act to employ Indian troops to prevent the Egyptians holding Egypt in 1882, why was it almost treasonable to employ Indian troops to prevent the Russians taking Constantinople in 1879? The cases are quite different, I am told. It may be so, but the objects were the same; but it is not the difference in the cases

that makes these acts absolutely right in the one case and absolutely wrong in the other. The difference is in the men that did them. What was merely a choleric word in the captain is treated as rank blasphemy in the soldier.

It would be comical, if it were not so serious a matter, to note how swiftly the wings of Nemesis have overtaken those who so fiercely accused the late Government. Scarcely three years have elapsed, and already the very men who charged them with inhumanity, blood-guiltiness, and Jingoism have to explain away the burning of Alexandria, the blood-guiltiness of Tel-el-Kebir, the march through London, whilst one of the most violent of their number actually lectures the inhuman party on the inconvenience of 'indulging in the ill-directed impulses of humanity!' And Jingoism! Ye Gods! Why, the parade of troops through the streets of London was the most startling, not to say slightly vulgar, exhibition of Jingoism this country has ever witnessed. Naturally the people wonder, and some of them say, 'Why, this fellow that did cast out Jingoes has proved to be himself the very Prince of the Jingoes!'

III.

MORAL COURAGE.

WE are not accustomed to look for a higher standard of moral courage in our public than in our private friends; but, for the life of me, I cannot see why we should necessarily expect a lower one. In private life, if a man is better informed than his neighbours, he is expected, when asked, to give the advantages of his superior knowledge to those who are still wandering in error. We should not think much of his moral courage, or, indeed, of his honesty either, if he gave advice contrary to his con

victions, merely because he thought it would be more popular. If we expect a certain amount of moral courage in our private friends, why should we not look for it in our public ones? Why should we not expect our representatives and our governors to give us their honest convictions on social matters, whether they add to their popularity or not? It is very disturbing to feel that the advice that is given us is more often dictated by the influence it will have on our votes than on our welfare.

The question must already have occurred to many of us how long any Government can continue in a course in which squeezability is the rule and moral courage the exception.

I declare that in the four momentous questions that have lately occupied the attention of Parliament and of the country-viz., the Contagious Diseases Act, the Vaccination Act, Local Option, and the Sunday Opening of Museums-there appears to have been a want of moral courage on the part of those who are kind enough to act as our representatives and as our rulers that is positively. alarming. Nobody, of course, is fool enough to expect heroism in such matters, but it certainly is startling to see respected members of Parliament voting against their consciences in order to keep their seats, and honoured members of the Government throwing their principles to the winds in order to keep office.

I am afraid there is no doubt that the principle of that wretched Kilmainham Treaty has come to be recognised as an axiom of Government by the present dominant race of politicians. Compromise in any shape and with anybody is found to be a more effective weapon than firmness. Mr. Parnell is steeped in treason,' says some member of the Government. Sheridan is the organiser of murder and outrage,' says Mr. Forster. No doubt,' says the Government, but Mr. Parnell can command votes, and we want them.' 'Mr. Stansfeld is an enthu

siast,' say most sensible men, the mouthpiece of a noisy fanatical minority.' 'Certainly he is,' says the Government, but Mr. Stansfeld commands votes, and we want them.' 'If Mr. Hopwood's views on vaccination are conceded,' say all the men of science and medical experience in the country, 'the scourge of small-pox will frightfully increase.' 'It appears very probable,' says the Government, but Mr. Hopwood has votes, and we want them.' The museums and galleries ought to be opened to the public on Sundays,' says almost every man of liberal thought and education in the country. Of course they ought,' says the Government, but the Sabbatarians have votes, and we want them.' Allowing for a certain number of honest fanatics, worthy descendants of those poor creatures of old who passed their lives standing on pillars, in walking from place to place with peas in their shoes, or in some other equally useful occupation, is it not a fact that every educated man, Liberal or Conservative, possesses the inward consciousness that the repeal of the Contagious Diseases Act, the trifling with the Vaccination Act, the assent to the principle of Local Option, the refusal to open museums and other places of amusement and instruction on Sundays, is each one a distinct triumph of ignorance, bigotry, and fanaticism, and a distinct slap in the face to reason, justice, humanity, and common sense?

There is a disease more loathsome in itself, and more shocking in its hereditary effects, than any other that human flesh is heir to. By it the sins of the father are visited on the children to the third and fourth generation with an intensity that exists in no other disease; thousands of infants perish miserably of it every year, or grow up blind, or deaf, or crippled, their life poisoned at its very source. 'It is a disease imposed by a merciful Providence as a punishment for vice,' say the fanatics, 'and it is a sin to attempt to diminish it.' It is a vice of civilisation,' says common sense, and it is the duty of