as we can hold them, by force if necessary. Lying as she does partially outside the plane of European politics, and revolving not altogether in the same orbit as the other European States, the fall of England would not necessarily overturn the balance of power in Europe. The property of no other nation could be divided without causing protracted quarrels, but the English estate might be peaceably and easily distributed among neighbouring proprietors. Russia could take India; and, Mediterranean roads not being necessary for her, she would not interfere with France, Italy, and Spain, who could divide our possessions and interests in the Mediterranean among themselves. The Channel Islands, the West Indian Islands, and our various coaling stations could be easily shifted from power to power, so as to counterbalance any displacement of weight consequent upon an alteration in the circumstances of Belgium and Holland, or any other of the smaller powers, until a state of nice equilibrium was obtained.

Our food supply, the very bread we eat day by day, depends in time of war and wars have not ceased out of the earth--upon our naval supremacy. Our naval supremacy depends not only upon our ships, but also upon our coaling stations situated in the numerous dependencies and colonies that encircle the globe. Gibraltar, Malta, Aden, Ceylon and India, Australia, New Zealand, the Cape, Vancouver Island, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, Bermuda and the West India Islands form a chain of coaling stations that enables our fleet to traverse every sea. War ships are useless without coal at comparatively short intervals. Other nations might rival us in ships, but no nation, or combination of nations, can rival us in the possession of the one thing without which ships are useless. Upon our colonies and possessions does our supply of bread depend in this sense; and upon them, as being our best customers, depends our earning the money wherewith to buy the bread.

The existence of two-thirds of our population depends upon our retaining our inheritance. Our inheritance is ours as long as we are strong enough to hold it. The possibility of our being called upon to fight for it depends upon our resources. Without crushing army estimates or conscription, and the withdrawal of many thousands of breadwinners from profitable employment, we cannot attempt to compete with the great military powers of the Continent. The United Kingdom is strong; but the empire united, not only by the bonds of race and language, but by the bonds of interest also, is immeasurably stronger even now. If the British Empire holds together, and learns that unity is essential to the welfare of every part, it will require no huge standing army for its defence. The word of England will carry the weight due to inexhaustible resources and overwhelming strength.

The estimate formed by Radicals of the importance of our colonies, and their contracted view of the present condition of the British people

-a view bounded by the narrow limits of Great Britain-will not only arrest the growth of the English nation, but will doom it to premature and unnecessary decay. Their theories on the subject of land will be detrimental to the country, for they are contrary to natural laws, and aim at preventing the land of England from being utilised in the most profitable way. In trade matters they will be equally wrong if they refuse even to consider whether something cannot be done to give us free and fair trade, and whether free trade throughout the British Empire is not better than no free trade at all. Universal free trade or none at all' may be a very fine sentiment; but 'free trade throughout the world as soon as possible, and free trade in our own dominions in the meantime,' is a more practical one.

The foreign policy of late governments has been somewhat spasmodic in its action, and, in so far as it has departed from Liberal traditions and is affected by Radical notions, it has not been satisfactory. It has consisted too largely of concessions which were hurtful to this country, and which might have been avoided by greater firmness. Such a policy is sure to result sooner or later in war. From a mere party point of view it may be commended, seeing that the war may fall upon the opposite side. But, having regard to the interests of the nation, it is indefensible. In Eastern affairs Liberal policy has been one-sided. A kind of crusade has been preached, and the great Liberal principle of respect for the rights of nationalities, and impartiality as to race and creed, has been denied to the Mussulman and Turk. It may be prudent to make friends with the heir and turn a cold shoulder to the sick man; but it would be more honourable to carry out our engagements with impartiality, or to ask to be relieved of them.

At home Radical doctrines must cause a condition of constant unrest; they require frequent class legislation resulting from a feverish desire to counteract the effect of Nature's laws by human. contrivances, and, as they run counter to and endeavour to thwart economic laws, they must produce evil results. The goodly tree of English society should not be unnecessarily interfered with; it should be left free to grow and expand in its own way; it does not require to be everlastingly lopped, and pruned, and supported. England wants to keep what she has got, and what other nations greatly envy -namely, her ships, colonies, and commerce;' she should have but few entanglements abroad, but she should honourably fulfil her engagements. She should respect and give all moral support to nationalities independently of race or creed. What we want is no entanglement abroad, no mere class legislation at home, union of the Empire, individual liberty, free trade, and free land. Radicalism will never give us these blessings, though no doubt many honest Radicals believe that it will. If they had time to think out their theories to their logical deductions, they would alter their opinions. It is not

likely, however, that they will see the end if not the object of Radicalism until it is practically demonstrated in some unmistakable way.

Though there are many points of difference between the Radical and the moderate Liberal, yet there are also well-defined differences between the Liberal and the Tory. The foreign policy of the late Government was not altogether fascinating for its straightforwardness, and there are many domestic measures about which Liberals of all shades may agree, but which may be unacceptable to the Tory party. The differences between moderate Liberals and Tories may be less than the differences which may some day arise between the Radical and the moderate Liberal; but the latter have not come to the front, and the former will not be reconciled until they do. When that time comes, moderate Liberal opinion may make itself felt. It is not likely that it would sanction any violent revolutionary measure. At present it is in reserve; it has no nucleus, no head, no party, no organisation of any kind. The moderate men have ceased to exist as a party. But as units they exist, and the shock of any great Radical change would cause them to concentrate into some definite shape. Liberalism has no organisation, no way of making its voice heard or its power felt. The voters of Great Britain are organised either by the rusty antediluvian machinery of the Tory party, or by the new-fashioned powerful instrument imported direct from the United States duty-free.

Political organisation is good, but the caucus is not a healthy form of political organisation. It rules with a rod of iron. It governs despotically. In America it has succeeded in destroying individual freedom of thought, it has practically disfranchised the people, and has usurped all but the executive functions of government. The caucus can never attain the same proportions in this country as in the United States, owing to the relatively small amount of patronage in the gift of political parties in this country. But the caucus may attain sufficient authority, if the people of England do not mind what they are about, to undermine the independence and habits of free thought among voters, and to deter good men from devoting themselves to public life. It may have the effect of lowering the national character and the character of politicians, and of increasing class differences by forcing men of energy and talent to devote themselves to the pursuit of wealth rather than the service of their country. The American people have some advantages over the English people in national characteristics and in their social system, but in one respect they are far behind us. In the United States the people enjoy less individual liberty than we do, and money has a power there unknown in these islands. The advantages which a rich man possesses over a poor man are much more apparent there than here, and our cousins across the Atlantic labour under a despotism of

caucuses, rings, corporations, companies, and officials, far heavier than anything that oppresses us.

The Quarterly is, however, perfectly right in saying that the caucus can only be fought with the caucus. Even now half the battle is won by whichever party has the most perfect organisation, and as the number of voters increases, organisation becomes more and more necessary.

There is fortunately no reason why an organisation to be perfect need be detrimental to the national character. The caucus might be all-sufficient as a political machine without exercising despotic power. But the wage-earners must remember that the prevention is in their hands. They may be free and independent voters, or the slaves of local demagogues, as they please. If they allow themselves to be led by the nose, and suffer themselves to be controlled by wirepullers and petty despots, they will find men of every party willing to take advantage of their weakness.

The article in the Quarterly closes with the assertion that the issue before us is 'whether the present Constitution of England shall be retained or destroyed,' and with an eloquent appeal for hearty co-operation from 'all who desire to preserve the ancient laws and government of England, whether they call themselves Conservatives, Whigs, or moderate Liberals.' When the British Constitution is in danger and the English system of government is threatened with destruction, no doubt moderate and orderly men of all parties will unite against the rapid advance of the anarchists.' But till then, and as long as there are wise Liberal measures to be passed, Liberals cannot be expected to join Tories. The advance should be from the other side. Liberals see no sense in giving up what is good in Liberalism merely because a revolutionary party exists in England, nor do they probably think it wise tactics to fight a pitched battle too soon, or in a weak position. Neither can they be expected to share the alarm of the Quarterly; for while the Tory distrusts the people, dreads the future, and, like Lot's wife, looks back with regret, the Liberal has great confidence in the sterling qualities of the English nation, looks hopefully forward, and seeks to shape a better future out of the experiences of the past.

DUNRAVEN.

THE COMING OF AGE OF THE

VOLUNTEERS.

It is related of the wife of Carlyle, that when, after long years, the world at length began to appreciate and admire her husband, and it was told to her, she gave a little scornful laugh, and said, 'They tell me things now, as though they were new, which I found out years ago.' There are many among us who have known the Volunteer force intimately for long years, and who have been all along alive to its high qualities, who are being told things about it now, as though they were new, which we found out long ago. What, I will ask, are the things which the public has discovered concerning the Volunteers which place them so much higher in the estimation of their countrymen now than formerly?

It is not easy to give a distinct answer to this question, or to say what has most contributed to this change in public feeling; for the Volunteers appear to an ordinary observer to be very much the same to-day as they have been for many years past. What mainly constitutes the difference between the Volunteers of 1881 and those of 1860 is a difference, not of kind, but of growth; and this gradual change, which those who are well acquainted with the force have long watched with interest, the public also have at length recognised and appreciated. They now realise that we possess in our Volunteer force, not merely some thousands of armed men whom a pressing emergency called into being; not merely detached bodies of irregular troops scattered over the country, and likened sometimes to the Francs Tireurs of 1870; but a great national army-national in the truest sense of the word, as being the spontaneous product of a national impulse, which instinctively discerned a danger, discovered a remedy, and found means to give it effect far more efficiently than could have been done by any organised scheme promulgated from head-quarters.

6

The coming of age' of the Volunteer force is no mere form of words. The nation feels that it is no longer dealing with a child. whose very existence was at one time precarious, and who required to be nursed and petted, nor with an untrained youth, of eager but vague aspirations, and sometimes impatient of discipline. The Volunteer