Liberal Churchman. Yet even in Edinburgh the Conservative candidate complains that for its four seats there have been elected four Liberals who are all more or less for Disestablishment.' And in Glasgow the Conservative newspaper complains that its seven seats have gone to seven pronounced Disestablishers. But outside both cities there are many Scottish representatives at least as zealous for religious equality, aud as determined to demand it from Parliament. Even the freedom from 'special party relations' which some Scotchmen have thought fit to proclaim, does not mean that they are less Liberal, but rather more. That freedom, as applied to the conduct of this particular question, probably points to a continual option of proceeding either on the lines. of Home Rule-long since conceded in this matter to Scotland by the leaders of Liberalism-or on those deeper principles of equity which find a more instant response in the breasts of Englishmen in general and Nonconformists in particular. But on either line or on both, it is plain that the Scottish party have determined to go straight on with their question in and out of Parliament, taking counsel as to the means of carrying it with their friends alone.

They at least are not likely to make the mistake that to mature a question means to repress it. There is indeed no fear now of repression of this question; and on some aspects of it notably on that Reconstruction through Disestablishment, which the Queen in her Highland Diary anticipates, and which no one has been able even to conceive as coming in any other way-there has hitherto been far too little discussion. In such a discussion both sides of politics may well join but those on one side will always have now the advantage of the history of the eight years during which the matter has been referred to Scottish Liberalism. They know that during all those years no answer has been seriously proposed except one; that in order to prevent that answer being formally given, it was necessary, year after year, to exhaust every device for evading and avoiding the question; and that on each occasion when in spite of such devices the question was really put, it was followed by the same conclusive and inevitable answer.

A. TAYLOR INNES,

159

ART. VIII.-Political Survey of the Quarter.

THE General Election has, of course, been the subject of absorbing interest through the last quarter. Many circumstances combined to invest the contest with unusual interest, and to give it a special significance. There was, in the first place, the uncertainty produced by the new element introduced into the constituencies by the enfranchisement of the agricultural voter. The change was really far more sweeping than that of the Act of 1867. With the householder in the boroughs we had some acquaintance, but poor Hodge, (as his lords, patrons, and teachers choose to call him unless he dons the Queen's uniform, when they honour him with the title of Tommy Atkins) was an absolutely unknown quantity. The problem to be solved was whether he would follow his old guides or assert his independence, and the materials for the formation of a judgment were so scanty that there were all kinds of conjectures as to the result. The entire bouleversement in the constituencies themselves, due to the Redistribution Act, only added to the difficulties of the forecast, and so intensified the anxiety and the consequent interest.

The passionate feeling against Mr. Gladstone and his Ministry, which had been so sedulously fostered during the entire period of its existence, was another element which added to the prevailing excitement. For five years—that is, from the time when the Government was formed until the day of its overthrow-there had been an incessant shriek of petulance and passion against it and all that it did or that it left undone, accompanied by an equally loud declaration that the country was tired of such incapable rulers, and longed for a change. There was no evidence in favour of this view except that it was asserted by The Times,' and echoed by the voices of Clubland and Villadom. The time had at last come when the truth of these statements was to be put to the test, and there was an intense curiosity as to what the verdict of the country would be. The strong declarations of Mr. Chamberlain, made all the more alarming by the extravagant interpretations put upon them by his enemies, had deepened this feeling. Indeed, during the latter stages of the conflict the past offences of Mr. Gladstone were thrown into the shade by the nefarious projects attributed to Mr. Chamberlain. If we add to these exciting influences the attitude assumed by Mr. Parnell, and the gravity of the issues which it raised, it would be superfluous to seek for any other explanation of the

exceptional importance attaching to the election. But as though there were not sufficient elements of difficulty and complication already, the Tory party, with the full sympathy and support of bishops and clergy, raised the cry of the 'Church in danger,' to the needless exacerbation of party feeling, and to the serious disturbance of party relations.

The conditions of the struggle were eminently unfavourable to the liberal party. Spectators are the most impartial judges of the game, and we, looking at the story of the last six months from the outside, are reluctantly forced to the conviction that the party has been badly led. The resignation in June was the initial mistake. It is easy to construct a plausible defence for it, but the more closely it is examined, the less satisfactory does it appear. The Ministry were in a decided majority which might have been rallied, and, under such conditions, resignation ought not to have been contemplated. At all events, an appeal should have been made to the loyalty of the majority before its leaders quietly allowed the administration of affairs to pass into the hands of a party which has never been scrupulous in using the opportunities which office places within its reach. If the Liberal majority had refused to answer, the course of the Ministry would have been clear. A leader cannot lead unless his followers will follow. As it was, a hasty division, taken under circumstances singularly unpropitious, was accepted as conclusive, without the party being allowed an opportunity for the expression of its views. It has proved to be the beginning of troubles, and was objectionable on many grounds.

We refer to this here because the mistake was not only serious of itself, but had in it the germ of even more serious mischief. In the first place, it betrayed an indifference to the opinion of the party which, to say the least, is extremely impolitic, and which we believe to be the source of weakness at the present time. We have no desire to see statesmen who patronize a jumping cat' policy, but we hold that leaders ought to take the wishes of their followers into account before they lay down a definite line of action for the party. In these, as in most other practical questions, it is very difficult to define, with any approach to exactitude, the extent to which leaders should take a party into confidence; but it is certain that any statesman who is to exert authority at all, must learn the secret for himself. We feel equally assured that the point has been strangely overlooked in recent proceedings. The resignation, too, savoured too much of French finesse to be acceptable to

straightforward English politicians, who were unable to follow the clever calculations by which it was made to appear that the rule of a weak Tory Ministry was the best thing which could happen for the interests of true Liberalism. The honest and sturdy friends of the cause listened, probably were silent, but certainly were not convinced. The result was serious discouragement at the very time when it was necessary that everything should be done to sustain the spirits and call forth the energies of the party.

Besides, the Tories did not take the same view of their position as that which was put forward by the Liberals. They might be described as mere caretakers, but it did not follow that they would be content to play this rôle; and it was perfectly certain that men who were content to take office under the conditions, would spare no effort in order to convert their tenancy at least into a long lease. This might have been foreseen, and it is what actually happened. If we are to credit their account of themselves, never was there a Ministry which has accomplished so much in a short time. To talk of the men who have changed the entire aspect of European affairs, restored the damaged prestige of Great Britain and revived her waning influence, humbled the pride of Russia, propitiated the offended sentiment of Germany, and brought order out of the chaos into which the vacillation of their predecessors had thrown affairs in Egypt and elsewhere, as 'caretakers' is of course absurd. As a matter of fact, the Ministry have, so far as the world knows at present, followed in the footsteps of the late Government. Fortunately for themselves, they came into office at a time when some difficult negotiations were practically settled, and, as they had to put the finishing stroke, which in truth was little more than a form, they took to themselves the credit of the whole. To intelligent men all this boasting is absurd, but all the world is not intelligent; and it so happens that there are many who know better who choose to accept this version, and to aid in imposing it upon others. As the result, the Tory party has got a credit which it does not deserve, and which would never have been given to it but for the unfortunate mistake which 'placed it in office. For ourselves we have no liking for the device which seems to find favour with Sir Charles Dilke and some Radical politicians, of keeping a Tory Ministry in office when it has only the support of a minority in Parliament. It is not constitutional, and it is immoral. That it has done great harm in the recent elections cela va sans dire. Everywhere Government influence has been employed. We hear of it in the

distribution of honours which have been scattered broadcast, but this has been trifling as compared with the more subtle and unseen modes in which official patronage has been brought into play. The things done in the green tree are only hints of what has been done in the dry.

If we add to the difficulties thus created for the Liberal party, those arising from the uncertainty of the lead, the victory which it has won is all the more surprising. In 1880 we knew what we were fighting for, and the moral enthusiasm which was awakened by the thrilling appeals of our great leader on behalf of a policy of righteousness put a new soul into the party, suppressed petty divisions within, and bore down opposition everywhere. In the late contest there was nothing of the kind. It was a long time doubtful whether Mr. Gladstone would lead, and when at last he found himself able to assume his old position he had to contend against serious difficulties, threatening a schism in the party, and these evidently told upon his own utterances. His manifesto may have been wise, but it was inspiriting, and if it was intended to be an umbrella under which the party was to find refuge, it was too capacious and too comprehensive. The earlier speeches in Edinburgh were even worse, and chilled the zeal of those who had been his most devoted friends. His brief acknowledgment of the Midlothian victory was in a different strain. It seemed as though he had shaken off the influence of the moderate Liberal clique by which he had been surrounded, and was his true self again. Had he sounded such a note at the beginning of the contest, the result in some quarters might have been different.

There are numbers, of course, who would say that the real difficulty of the party was not the moderation of Mr. Gladstone, but the indiscretion of Mr. Chamberlain. It is easy to give a version of the facts which would lend itself to such an interpretation, but it would be wise to pause before giving it credence. Men who are a little in advance even of their own friends, have always been liable to the criticism of which Mr. Chamberlain is at present the subject. Mr. Bright was at one time assailed with a virulence as savage and abusive as that which now gathers round the head of his younger colleague. This much, at least, is to be said for Mr. Chamberlain. He is the object of intense hatred to every champion of privilege and reaction, from Mr. Bosworth Smith with the rhetoric which, The Times' pronounced brilliant so long as it suited its views, but is now compelled to condemn as redundant, down to Mr. Marriott, whose calumnious abuse ha