fair to acknowledge that the Anglo-French agreement more than justifies the policy which Lord Cromer has persistently pursued during the long period throughout which he has had in his charge the interests of England in Egypt. I have been told by an AngloEgyptian friend of mine that during the critical period when the British Government insisted upon the compulsory evacuation of the Soudan he had occasion to complain to Lord Cromer, then Major Baring, of the many difficulties thrown in the way of the reorganisation of Egypt under the British occupation by the latent hostility of the French officials employed in the departments of the State subjected to international administration. In reply to my informant's complaints our Consul-General did not dispute their substantial justice, but remarked that we were in possession of Egypt, and that we had only to remain quiet, to avoid raising all questions which might convert latent into overt hostility, to leave anomalies to settle themselves, and that then some fine morning the world would wake up to the knowledge that our occupation of Egypt had become permanent instead of provisional, and the world would thereupon accept our Protectorate as being in the natural order of events. As I only know the statement by hearsay, I cannot vouch for its verbal accuracy. But I do not hesitate to say that the policy Lord Cromer has pursued in Egypt was accurately foreshadowed by the remarks attributed to his lordship. If so, it is he, more than anyone, who has prepared the way for the AngloFrench agreement, recognising as it does the paramount authority of England in Egypt.

In dealing with this agreement it is only fair also to acknowledge the singular ability with which Lord Lansdowne has conducted the diplomatic negotiations which have led up to this most fortunate result. As Minister of War his lordship had failed to increase his political reputation-or, at any rate, was thought to have been a failure-and his transfer to the Secretaryship of State for Foreign Affairs was bitterly assailed by the Opposition as showing a disregard on the part of the Premier for public interests as compared with personal influences. These attacks tended to increase popular distrust in the efficiency of the Government. The discovery, however, that Lord Lansdowne, as Foreign Minister, is emphatically the right man in the right place has had a marked influence on popular opinion, and has led the public to doubt whether, after all, the new men who had been appointed to the vacant posts in the Ministry caused by the schism in the Unionist party might not justify the opinion the Premier had formed of their eligibility for the important positions they were called upon to occupy.

Apart from the Anglo-French agreement the Government has been able within the last few weeks to report good progress in the

work of administration. It is too early yet to say how far the drastic reform of the army suggested by the Esher Commission, and adopted by the Ministry as their military programme, will fulfil the expectations formed by its supporters. It is obvious, however, that the scheme of army reconstruction is a bold one and a well-thoughtout attempt to place our army on a sound footing, not only as a second line of defence for the Mother Country, but as the basis of an Imperial Army not unequal to the exigencies of our Imperial position. To carry out the scheme successfully will require a strong man, not susceptible to class influences and indifferent to professional, as compared with public, interests. Judging by our present experiences such a man has been found in Mr. ArnoldForster, and the public now has good ground for believing that the new system, whether it succeeds or not in the end, will have a fair trial, and be administered by men who are determined to make it a success, if success be possible. More than this cannot be fairly said. This much, however, may be affirmed that the possibility of the reorganisation of the army being transferred from the hands of the present Minister for War to other hands (say, for choice, those of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman) would not nowadays commend itself to the British public.

Till the other day the Liberals were confident the introduction of the Budget would prove fatal to the continuance in office of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if not to that of the Ministry itself. Circumstances seemed to favour this supposition. There was a large deficit to be faced, caused to no small extent by the action of the Government in allowing Mr. Ritchie to repeal the shilling duty imposed on foreign-grown corn. The trade of the country was declining; there was a general suspension of business activity, and the prospects of any early revival were by no means promising. In these circumstances it was thought that the situation would require a Chancellor of exceptional financial ability to devise means of raising the funds necessary to meet the expenses of the coming year, and we were assured there was no reason to anticipate that the present Chancellor would prove equal to the task. Indeed, on the occasion of his first important appearance in the House as the successor of Sir Michael Hicks-Beach he had not created a favourable impression on his friends, while his shortcomings had been exaggerated by his opponents in odium tertii, the third party being his father and the champion of Tariff Reform. The introduction, however, of the Budget, far from damaging the Government or Mr. Austen Chamberlain, has enhanced their reputations. The Budget, as finally produced, has displayed an unswerving determination on the part of its authors to uphold the credit of England, to resort to no artificial expedients for meeting

a grave deficit, to throw the liability for abnormal expenditure upon the shoulders of the generation by whom that liability had been incurred, and to distribute the charge equally between the payers of direct and indirect taxation. The Budget, in fact, was an honest balance-sheet of our national assets and liabilities, and when explained—as it has been-upon business principles by a man personally acquainted with business, has commended itself to the good sense of the British public. In consequence we have no more talk nowadays of the Government being defeated upon the Budget, or of Mr. Austen Chamberlain being declared an unfit exponent of finance.

The Licensing Bill has so far made good progress. The measure introduced by Sir Akers Douglas will clearly satisfy neither the partisans of Local Option nor the licensed victuallers, but to the public at large it appears a reasonable compromise between two conflicting interests. The vast majority of Englishmen hold firm to the opinion that men engaged in a legal trade, who have conducted their business at their own cost and risk in accordance with the regulations imposed upon them by their licences, ought not to be deprived, without compensation, of the means by which they have hitherto earned an honest livelihood, owing to the disapproval with which the sale of beer and spirits is viewed by a small section of the community. On the other hand, the British public, though they wish to keep good faith with the licensed victuallers, as with any other class of tradesmen earning their bread honestly by their own industry, would be glad to see the consumption of ardent spirits diminished, and the number of taverns decreased, so as to afford no unnecessary incentive to the gratification of our national thirst. These somewhat inconsistent requirements are satisfied, in as far as they are capable of satisfaction, by the measure now submitted to the consideration of Parliament. It is generally admitted that the Local Optionists on one side, and the publicans on the other, would be well advised in their own interests to accept a solution which, if it does not give either party all they demand, gives each of them more than they are ever likely to obtain under a less fair-minded and intelligent administration than that which now governs the country.

For the moment, therefore, the immediate difficulties which seemed a short time ago to threaten the maintenance of the Unionist Government in office have disappeared. Supposing the Ministry are not defeated on any important question before Whitsuntide, the probabilities are they will be able to retain their seats till the year is over. If the Unionist party continue to act with the same vigour and sound common-sense which they have displayed since Mr. Balfour's return, there is no reason why they should not recover the public

confidence they have till recently enjoyed. In consequence all speculations as to who is to be the next Liberal Premier, or as to the policy his colleagues may adopt in the event of their carrying the day on a hypothetical appeal to the constituencies, may for the remainder of the year be safely dismissed from consideration as hardly coming within the range of practical politics.

EDWARD DICEY.

The Editor of THE NINETEENTH CENTURY cannot undertake
to return unaccepted MSS.

We believe that Pope Pius X., in the course of a recent conversation with a well-known prelate to whom he had given audience, declared that no amount of opposition to his recent edict concerning ecclesiastical music would cause him to abandon or even modify its tenor.

His Holiness was probably very well aware that, however much Roman Catholics, both clerical and lay, might disapprove of his determination to limit the musical répertoire of the Church to the Gregorian form of composition, there would not and could not be any open opposition to his decree.

From the moment his intention became known, protests were not wanting; but the v te-paper basket at the Vatican is capacious. It has expanded with

centuries.

It is by no means our purpose to examine from the point of view of a musical expert the surprising edict lately formulated by the Head of the Roman Church. Want of space, and, we frankly admit, lack of technical knowledge, alike forbid us to do so. We are aware

VOL, LV-No. 328

3 M