not come as a claimant of office. Upon him the retort would fall harmless, that he must say what he would do were the present tenants of office displaced to replace him. He replies that he would have nothing to do with place. Office is not for him; but he can show good cause why, at all events, he and his countrymen should be delivered from the present Ministers. Does the present method of government please the people of this country, or does it not?' This was the single issue he raised in that wonderful fortnight. This was the one theme on which he discoursed in every key, from sarcasm to argument, from argument to indignation. On other occasions he has not been slow to show, definitely and particularly, what a British Government should have done in the circumstances of the Eastern Question as they were when Lord Salisbury quitted Constantinople. Little trace will be found in the multitudinous eloquence which streamed forth from Carlisle to Aberfeldy, and from Glasgow to Chester, of a Liberal programme for the past. Not much, though something, will be discovered of a programme for the future. In Scotland, he was no Liberal leader, but first and primarily the Liberal candidate for Midlothian. It was not for him to say how other Ministers might have escaped the blunders of Lord Beaconsfield and Lord Salisbury, or remedied the ruinous consequences. He was a witness against the men in office of the errors and misdeeds by which they had endangered his share in the national fortunes. Aspiring to the post, not of Minister, but of representative, he required the electors of Midlothian to decide whether he spoke their minds as well as his own. He invited them to say whether an apologist or an adversary of the acts of the ruling Ministers would represent them the better.

It is an old tale how the present Government has shifted the national boundaries and readjusted, as it would say, or dislocated, as its opponents believe, the balance of the empire. But the story has been published in numbers. Mr. Gladstone, by the mere act of binding the parts up together, has made them singularly explanatory of one another. British interests were the ministerial watchword. Mr. Gladstone shows how British interests have been violated in Europe and Asia by every act of English foreign policy since Lord Derby resigned the seals. In respect of Africa he goes further back, and denounces the violent annexation of the Transvaal in the face of 6,500 protesters 'out of 8,000 persons in the Republic qualified to vote.' England has thus ' undertaken to transform, by force, Republicans into subjects of a monarchy.' She has made war upon the Zulus, and thereby become responsible for their territory.' She is about to overwhelm the Transvaal's enemy, Secocoeni. She has assumed, jointly with France, the virtual government of Egypt; possibly, as we are to extend, says Sir Bartle Frere, our southern dominions in Africa till we reach the southern frontier of the Portuguese, one of these days we may extend our northern dominions in Africa till we meet the northern dominions of the Portuguese.' In the Mediterranean England has shabbily'

6

she has made herself responsible for the good government not of Asia Minor exclusively, but of the whole of that great space upon the map, including the principal parts of Arabia, which is known geographically as Turkey in Asia.' The engagement comprises a pledge to defend Armenia against Russia. To discharge these pledges British troops have their choice of evils. They must march over hundreds of miles of land and a great mountain chain, or be transported thousands of miles by sea with the task of effecting a landing on hostile territory at the end. In Central Asia England is committed to the coercion of millions of warlike barbarians in a country which the British mission has broken into pieces, and added to the anarchies of the Western world.' In India the financial burdens have been increased and the popular liberties diminished.

6

Mr. Gladstone enumerates all the fresh burdens accumulated on the back of a pre-existing obligation to settle the affairs of nearly a fourth of the entire human race scattered over the world.' He inquires how the added load is to be borne. He thinks it was an unfortunate decision of Germany to annex Alsace and Lorraine. But at any rate Germany reckoned upon proportionate contributions in men and money for the defence of the empire, from the new members of the empire as from the old. Asia Minor, and Egypt, and Cyprus will send no recruits to the British army, or, at all events, no money to pay them. Zululand and the Transvaal will not be outworks to guard the British dominions, but positions themselves needing protection. What is meant by these extensions of the British Empire simply is that Great Britain will have to furnish so much more money, and so many more soldiers. Rely upon it,' the Midlothian electors were warned on November 25, the strength of Great Britain and Ireland is within the United Kingdom. Whatever is to be done in defending and governing these vast colonies with their teeming millions, in protecting that unmeasured commerce, in relation to the enormous responsibilities of India, must be done by the force derived from you and your children; derived from you and your fellow electors in the land; from you and the citizens and people of this country.' The responsibilities which are the British heritage, Great Britain will not repudiate. But they are heavy enough already without insane' additions to the burden by continuing with the limited store of men and funds which these islands can supply to enlarge and extend our responsibilities and our dangers all over the surface of the earth.' Mr. Gladstone demands that 'regard be had to the relation between the work to be done and the strength we possess in order to do it.' The resources to be drawn upon are limited; the encumbrances laid upon them tend, with a Government like the present, to become unlimited. Doubtless the country, as Ministers affirm, is very strong. "Thank God, it is!' But Mr. Gladstone's argument is that, whatever its strength, the annexations made by the Conservative Ministry are no addition to that strength, but a drawback. He asserts that none

6

not come as a claimant of office. Upon him the retort would fall harmless, that he must say what he would do were the present tenants of office displaced to replace him. He replies that he would have nothing to do with place. Office is not for him; but he can show good cause why, at all events, he and his countrymen should be delivered from the present Ministers. Does the present method of government please the people of this country, or does it not?' This was the single issue he raised in that wonderful fortnight. This was the one theme on which he discoursed in every key, from sarcasm to argument, from argument to indignation. On other occasions he has not been slow to show, definitely and particularly, what a British Government should have done in the circumstances of the Eastern Question as they were when Lord Salisbury quitted Constantinople. Little trace will be found in the multitudinous eloquence which streamed forth from Carlisle to Aberfeldy, and from Glasgow to Chester, of a Liberal programme for the past. Not much, though something, will be discovered of a programme for the future. In Scotland, he was no Liberal leader, but first and primarily the Liberal candidate for Midlothian. It was not for him to say how other Ministers might have escaped the blunders of Lord Beaconsfield and Lord Salisbury, or remedied the ruinous consequences. He was a witness against the men in office of the errors and misdeeds by which they had endangered his share in the national fortunes. Aspiring to the post, not of Minister, but of representative, he required the electors of Midlothian to decide whether he spoke their minds as well as his own. He invited them to say whether an apologist or an adversary of the acts of the ruling Ministers would represent them the better.

It is an old tale how the present Government has shifted the national boundaries and readjusted, as it would say, or dislocated, as its opponents believe, the balance of the empire. But the story has been published in numbers. Mr. Gladstone, by the mere act of binding the parts up together, has made them singularly explanatory of one another. British interests were the ministerial watchword. Mr. Gladstone shows how British interests have been violated in Europe and Asia by every act of English foreign policy since Lord Derby resigned the seals. In respect of Africa he goes further back, and denounces the violent annexation of the Transvaal in the face of 6,500 protesters out of 8,000 persons in the Republic qualified to vote.' England has thus 'undertaken to transform, by force, Republicans into subjects of a monarchy.' She has made war upon the Zulus, and thereby become responsible for their territory.' She is about to overwhelm the Transvaal's enemy, Secocoeni. She has assumed, jointly with France, the virtual government of Egypt; possibly, as we are to extend, says Sir Bartle Frere, our southern dominions in Africa till we reach the southern frontier of the Portuguese, one of these days we may extend our northern dominions in Africa till we meet the northern dominions of the Portuguese.' In the Mediterranean England has shabbily'

she has made herself responsible for the good government not of Asia Minor exclusively, but of the whole of that great space upon the map, including the principal parts of Arabia, which is known geographically as Turkey in Asia.' The engagement comprises a pledge to defend Armenia against Russia. To discharge these pledges British troops have their choice of evils. They must march over hundreds of miles of land and a great mountain chain, or be transported thousands of miles by sea with the task of effecting a landing on hostile territory at the end. In Central Asia England is committed to the coercion of millions of warlike barbarians in a country which the British mission has broken into pieces, and added to the anarchies of the Western world.' In India the financial burdens have been increased and the popular liberties diminished. Mr. Gladstone enumerates all the fresh burdens accumulated on the back of a pre-existing obligation to settle the affairs of nearly a fourth of the entire human race scattered over the world.' He inquires how the added load is to be borne. He thinks it was an unfortunate decision of Germany to annex Alsace and Lorraine. But at any rate Germany reckoned upon proportionate contributions in men and money for the defence of the empire, from the new members of the empire as from the old. Asia Minor, and Egypt, and Cyprus will send no recruits to the British army, or, at all events, no money to pay them. Zululand and the Transvaal will not be outworks to guard the British dominions, but positions themselves needing protection. What is meant by these extensions of the British Empire simply is that Great Britain will have to furnish so much more money, and so many more soldiers. Rely upon it,' the Midlothian electors were warned on November 25, the strength of Great Britain and Ireland is within the United Kingdom. Whatever is to be done in defending and governing these vast colonies with their teeming millions, in protecting that unmeasured commerce, in relation to the enormous responsibilities of India, must be done by the force derived from you and your children; derived from you and your fellow electors in the land; from you and the citizens and people of this country.' The responsibilities which are the British heritage, Great Britain will not repudiate. But they are heavy enough already without insane' additions to the burden by continuing with the limited store of men and funds which these islands can supply to enlarge and extend our responsibilities and our dangers all over the surface of the earth.' Mr. Gladstone demands that regard be had to the relation between the work to be done and the strength we possess in order to do it.' The resources to be drawn upon are limited; the encumbrances laid upon them tend, with a Government like the present, to become unlimited. Doubtless the country, as Ministers affirm, is very strong. 'Thank God, it is!' But Mr. Gladstone's argument is that, whatever its strength, the annexations made by the Conservative Ministry are no addition to that strength, but a drawback. He asserts that none

not come as a claimant of office. Upon him the retort would fall harmless, that he must say what he would do were the present tenants of office displaced to replace him. He replies that he would have nothing to do with place. Office is not for him; but he can show good cause why, at all events, he and his countrymen should be delivered from the present Ministers. Does the present method of government please the people of this country, or does it not?' This was the single issue he raised in that wonderful fortnight. This was the one theme on which he discoursed in every key, from sarcasm to argument, from argument to indignation. On other occasions he has not been slow to show, definitely and particularly, what a British Government should have done in the circumstances of the Eastern Question as they were when Lord Salisbury quitted Constantinople. Little trace will be found in the multitudinous eloquence which streamed forth from Carlisle to Aberfeldy, and from Glasgow to Chester, of a Liberal programme for the past. Not much, though something, will be discovered of a programme for the future. In Scotland, he was no Liberal leader, but first and primarily the Liberal candidate for Midlothian. It was not for him to say how other Ministers might have escaped the blunders of Lord Beaconsfield and Lord Salisbury, or remedied the ruinous consequences. He was a witness against the men in office of the errors and misdeeds by which they had endangered his share in the national fortunes. Aspiring to the post, not of Minister, but of representative, he required the electors of Midlothian to decide whether he spoke their minds as well as his own. He invited them to say whether an apologist or an adversary of the acts of the ruling Ministers would represent them the better.

It is an old tale how the present Government has shifted the national boundaries and readjusted, as it would say, or dislocated, as its opponents believe, the balance of the empire. But the story has been published in numbers. Mr. Gladstone, by the mere act of binding the parts up together, has made them singularly explanatory of one another. British interests were the ministerial watchword. Mr. Gladstone shows how British interests have been violated in Europe and Asia by every act of English foreign policy since Lord Derby resigned the seals, In respect of Africa he goes further back, and denounces the violent annexation of the Transvaal in the face of 6,500 protesters 'out of 8,000 persons in the Republic qualified to vote.' England has thus 'undertaken to transform, by force, Republicans into subjects of a monarchy.' She has made war upon the Zulus, and thereby become responsible for their territory.' She is about to overwhelm the Transvaal's enemy, Secocoeni. She has assumed, jointly with France, the virtual government of Egypt; possibly, as we are to extend, says Sir Bartle Frere, our southern dominions in Africa till we reach the southern frontier of the Portuguese, one of these days we may extend our northern dominions in Africa till we meet the northern dominions of the Portuguese.' In the Mediterranean England has shabbily'