titular leaders of the three political camps. The Duke of Devonshire on behalf of the Liberal Unionists, speaking at Birmingham (Jan. 23), declared himself completely satisfied with the Government and its administration of foreign and colonial affairs. noted with satisfaction that "We alone amongst all the nations of the world" had viewed" with real and active sympathy" the entrance of America into the field of international politics. The recent firm assertion of our rights had brought us into closer relations with Germany and Italy, and "I will not exclude Russia," and even in the case of France the brief crisis would, he believed, lead to a better state of things. He warmly denied the existence of Jingoism in the Cabinet, and closed his speech with an admirable defence of free trade, which drew from Mr. Chamberlain, who spoke afterwards, a declaration of his complete endorsement of the duke's opinions.

Lord Kimberley who, pending the selection of Sir Wm. Harcourt's successor, became titular head of the Liberal Opposition, found an opening for a public speech at the meeting of the Wymondham Liberal Association (Jan. 24). After briefly

expressing his regret at the retirement of Sir Wm. Harcourt and Mr. Morley, and expressing his opinion that the differences between Jingoes and little Englanders had been made too prominent, he reminded his hearers that while Palmerston's firmness had preserved peace, Lord Aberdeen's conciliatory temper had involved us in the Crimean war, and he (Lord Kimberley), as Under Secretary, had always believed that war might have been avoided by a firmer tone at the outset. He was glad that the Fashoda question was settled, and hoped the other questions pending with France might end as satisfactorily. The French Foreign Minister had recently said he was prepared to enter on a friendly discussion, but when he himself was Foreign Secretary under Lord Rosebery they both were anxious for a general settlement, and proposed that all the questions should be discussed together, but very little progress was made. As to the Soudan generally, all were proud of the management of the campaign, and glad at the release of the Soudan from a cruel tyranny, but they were now face to face with a serious responsibility, especially if the Government undertook to reoccupy the whole of the country. No one however had a clearer conception of the dangers of unlimited expansion than Lord Salisbury. As to China, people never quite knew which horse the Government was riding the open door or the sphere of influence. Our interest was to maintain our trade in China, and as far as possible to maintain the good relations with other Powers engaged there, and especially Russia. After a passing reference to the crisis in the Church and an incidental statement that personally he had no dread of Disestablishment, Lord Kimberley turned to the Irish question. He thought that the coming into operation of the Irish Local Government Act had strengthened the Nationalist cause in the towns, and would, he fully expected,

do so in the counties. He did not at all believe it would do away with the demand for Home Rule, and he remained as firmly convinced as ever of the policy of that measure. In conclusion, he said he would like to see the House of Lords reformed, for the Constitution could not work satisfactorily if one House had majorities varying from one party to the other, and the other a permanent division of several hundreds to forty.

Mr. A. J. Balfour, in accordance with his custom, paid a visit to his constituents on the eve of the meeting of Parliament. In his first speech (Jan. 30), he insisted upon the need of the revival of the Liberal party for the good of the nation. "Vast bodies of our fellow-countrymen by tradition belong to that party, and they only await the man and the policy again to become great and important factors in public life. In his opinion the Liberal party, notwithstanding Lord Rosebery's invitation, would not touch the House of Lords, by which body they were saved from the Home Rule Bill. At the same time he anticipated that under the force of circumstances, and the pressure of seventy organised votes, the necessity of advocating Home Rule was paramount. He thought, however, that it would be rather towards Disestablishment that the real efforts of the Liberals would be directed. After touching upon the frequent failure of ministers to understand the foreign nations whose policy they were studying, Mr. Balfour ended with a warm recognition of the fellowship of the English-speaking race, and an earnest hope for its maintenance.

Mr. Balfour's other speeches at Manchester (Jan. 31) were more limited in their scope, one being devoted to Irish university education, and the other to Sir Wm. Harcourt's campaign against the Romanising tendency of certain clergy of the Church of England. On the former subject he carefully explained to his hearers that he was speaking his personal opinion, not that of the Cabinet, and he warmly vindicated his right to express, even against his own interests, views which he conscientiously held. On the university question he declared that he fully understood and appreciated the reasons which prevented Roman Catholics sending their sons to Trinity College, Dublin; and recognising the immense importance of university training, he would wish to see a Roman Catholic university established and endowed in Ireland. He was quite aware of the opposition to such a proposal which would be aroused in his own party, but he felt that his conscience moved him in that direction, and therefore he ought to follow its motioning.

On the other question Mr. Balfour's main thesis was that the bishops should be given a fair chance to restore order in the Church before Parliament was called upon to intervene. He refused to believe that the bishops, having both the will and the power to enforce discipline, would be disloyal to the Church of England. The apathy with which the bishops were upbraided was explained by their want of the assurance of support from

public opinion. On the few occasions in which they had taken action they had been accused of making martyrs, whilst every attempt to extend the episcopal power had been met with hostility by Parliament.

The fact that the country at large was disturbed by the controversy raised by Sir Wm. Harcourt, and maintained in the Press for several months, was fairly shown in the Protestant demonstration held at the Albert Hall (Jan. 31). The building, one of the largest in the kingdom, was closely packed with an audience wholly sympathetic, but no more typical Protestant could be found than Lord Kinnaird, and the only outcome of the meeting was the despatch of a telegram to the Queen, asking her to give the Prime Minister directions to take the necessary steps in the coming session of Parliament for suppressing the Romish practices in vogue in numerous churches.

The object of Sir Wm. Harcourt in promoting a discussion on the " Crisis in the Church was not easily discoverable. Its importance was due to the fact that it had been originated by the one-time leader of the Liberal party in Parliament, but it was difficult to see what political benefits could be derived from a question from which the nonconformists of all denominations held themselves aloof, and the nonconformists had always been the backbone of the Liberal party. The marked unanimity, moreover, with which laymen of any importance refrained from taking part in the discussion was a further indication of the unwillingness of the leaders of opinion and thought to identify themselves with a movement of which the inception was so obscure. From the correspondence which appeared in the columns of the various newspapers, the only feature of the discussion which seemed to be permanent was the wholly antagonistic view of the Reformation taken by the two parties in the Church. To the High Churchmen, Ritualists,. and Anglicans, the Reformation was an isolated act, committed by one of the tyrannous Tudors in order to satisfy his selfish. purposes, but his successors and their advisers had been anxious to preserve as far as possible the continuity of their connection. with the Church of Rome. Their opponents held that the Reformation was merely an incident in the evolution of independent thought and freedom of conscience in religious matters, which had existed in England since the days of Wycliffe, and had with time increased in strength. The events of Henry's reign and the temper of the Tudors gave the Reformers a political standpoint, of which they took full advantage, but did not press their doctrinal views to extremes, and were content for a while to accept formularies and to adopt ceremonies with which they anticipated the public mind would in time dispense, although in a period of transition they might have had their uses. Any attempt at compromise between two schools of thought, tending in absolutely opposite directions, was futile, and the bishops to whom the spread of religious thought and views was pre

sumably the first consideration were attacked on all sides for not repressing Ritualists on the one hand, and on the other not insisting upon Evangelicals conforming with the rubrics.

The publication of the Madagascar blue book so immediately after the withdrawal of Major Marchand from his foothold on the Nile at Fashoda was differently interpreted in this country than in France. To the former, the correspondence showed the danger of allowing questions in dispute to be suspended; whilst to the French it seemed only another instance of British eagerness to provoke a quarrel upon a point of little or no importance. The matter of good faith and unequivocal promise was altogether put aside by French publicists, who for once seemed almost unanimous in supporting their Government in the past and in the present. The principal document in the blue book was a despatch dated July, 1898, in which Lord Salisbury called the attention of the French Foreign Minister to the position into which things had drifted. In 1890 the French Ambassador in London had stated in writing that "it is understood that the establishment of the protectorate [over Madagascar] will not affect any rights or immunities enjoyed by British subjects on the island." These rights were the mostfavoured-nation treatment, and an agreement that the duty upon imports should never exceed an ad valorem duty of 10 per cent. In 1894 and 1895 the French went to war with Madagascar. We took up a friendly attitude, and did not issue a proclamation of neutrality, which would have embarrassed the French, because we were assured that our commercial rights under the protectorate would not be interfered with; M. Berthelot, the Foreign Minister, publicly declaring in the Chamber on November 27, 1895, that the occupation of the island would raise no difficulties, as France would respect the engagements made with foreign Powers. Nevertheless, in June, 1898, a decree was issued greatly increasing the duties on British goods. Against this state of things Lord Salisbury ordered Sir Edward Monson to protest. No reply, however, was given to our remonstrance, and shortly afterwards the Fashoda incident threw every other international question into the background; but up to the close of the year no French Foreign Minister had thought fit to make answer to Sir Edward Monson's protest, or to explain what was apparently a flagrant act of bad faith. In addition to this strange display of international discourtesy, the blue book gave instances of the way in which French officials had attempted to boycott English goods, and to force French goods upon the native population. Threats of imprisonment were made to natives buying English goods, and the French local newspaper published at Tamatave gave publicity to the following speech of a French official to a meeting of natives: "I will not allow any one of you to buy any goods whatever in the shops of Messrs. So-and-So, So-and-So, and So-and-So. Any one caught making the smallest purchase,

or carrying on the slightest business, with the houses I have mentioned will be at once imprisoned, no security being given against heavy penalties." At this un indigène moins moutonneux (sic) protested that "it may so happen that the articles which we need can be only found in the shops which are prohibited to us." To which the official replied: "Well, you must do without them."

The extinction of our trading rights with Madagascar without negotiation or pretext of compensation was an act of highhanded hostility of which our ministers failed to take notice at the time, and Lord Salisbury possibly found some difficulty in reviving a claim which we had failed to press with sufficient insistence at the moment. The simultaneous discussion of the questions of the Nile Valley, Madagascar trade, and the Newfoundland Fisheries seemed a favourable opportunity for the simultaneous settlement of three harassing matters of discord between the two countries; but the disturbed state of politics in France seemed to render any definite arrangement impossible with the constantly changing occupants of the Quai d'Orsai.

The publication of this correspondence almost coincided with that of the convention between the British and Egyptian Governments dealing with the future of the Soudan, an arrangement which provoked a general irritation among French newspaper writers. The convention began by reciting that the Soudan had been reconquered by the joint military and financial efforts of the two Governments. The Soudan was defined to be territories south of the twenty-second parallel of latitude conquered or remaining to be conquered. Throughout these the British and Egyptian flags were to fly side by side, except at Suakin. The Governor-General of the Soudan-appointed by Khedivial decree, but only with British consent, and removable only with the same consent-was to have supreme military and civil control, and to be empowered to rule by proclamation. No Egyptian laws or decrees should apply to the Soudan, and no Europeans have special privileges (the capitulations being thereby ignored). Import duties were to be identical with those on goods entering Egypt, but Egyptian goods would enter the Soudan free. The jurisdiction of the Mixed Tribunals was not to extend into the Soudan, which remained under martial law. No foreign consuls could reside in the territory without the consent of the British Government, and the slave trade was absolutely abolished. The situation created by this document, although the logical outcome of preceding events, could not fail to challenge the notice. of European statesmen, bringing before them, as it did, the inferential intention of Great Britain to remain the practical protector of Egypt, and to hold that position against all comers. On this point it was expedient as well as inevitable for England "to have a conversation with Europe" in order that her de facto position should be morally recognised by the other Powers.

After the first explosion of irritation had passed off, the tone