Of course, Lord Sandon attacked Mr. Gladstone,— first, for not
caring about foreign politics ; next, for caring wrongly about foreign politics; then, for thinking more of the welfare of the Christian subjects of the Porte than of the welfare of the Mahommedan subjects of the Porte,—which is like attacking the Court of Chancery for interfering more with a guardian who makes his ward miserable, than with a guardian who perfectly satisfies his ward. Then, he attacked Mr. Gladstone for the Crimean war; and then -for letting the 'Alabama' escape, during the Ministry of Lord Palmerston, when Mr. Glad- stone was at the Exchequer, and had about as much to do with the 'Alabama' as Lord Russell had with the Budget. Then he attacked him for modifying, in 1871, the Treaty of 1856, so far as it crippled Russia in the Black Sea; and finally, he assured his audience that in spite of their Conservatism, they had "the sympathy of all the best Liberals in the civilised. world." Only the Russian Government and the Turkish Pashas would vote for Mr. Gladstone. We might reply, with. more force, that only General Kaufmann, the Sultan, the Khedive, and the Egyptian Bondholders would, vote for Lord Beaco-nsfield. But judged by his own standard, Lord Sandon's speech was cowardly. He spoke of the Tory policy BS a great policy, and did not venture to take direct credit for anything achieved,—from that great "joke of the century," Cyprus, to the collapse of the "scientific frontier" amidst the blOody horrors of Afghanistan.