NEWS OF THE WEEK.

N GL AN D and Russia still wait. All kinds of rumours are, of course, circulated ; and on Wednesday there was something like a panic in the City. The Berlin dealers had begun to sell Russian Stock ; it was imagined that Count Herbert Bismarck had taken home from England a conviction that there would be war ; and all Russian securities dropped in London 3 per cent. It was added that Russia was marching troops in the direction of Herat from three quarters, and that the Russian frontier posts had been again advanced. On the other hand, reports have been spread that the German Emperor is most adverse to the commencement of any war, and has strongly advised the Czar to make concessions. There is little dependence to be placed on these stories, some of which are not free from the stock-jobbing taint; the obvious fact being that the Russian Government has not as yet arrived at a final deoision. When it has, it will be quite strong enough to campel obedience on its frontiers. Yesterday, in reply to Mr. Richard, Mr. Gladstone said that on the subject of the frontier negotiations were still proceeding, but that it had been agreed betvieen England and Russia that pending the negotiations, no further advance should be made on either side. The strain cannot now last long, as not only the Russian finances, but the Russian paper currency, are feeling its effects. We may still hope for peace.

Lord Hartington on Tuesday moved the Army Estimates, iu a speech full of solid information as to the Egyptian campaign. He denied absolutely the absurd reports as to expenditure, showing that up to March 31 about £1,300,000 would have been spent upon the Nile Expedition. He asked for a Supplementary Estimate for 3,000 men now ; but stated that next year it would be necessary to ask for 15,000 men more, required not to increase the Army, but to supply all gaps at home and abroad. The force sent to Snakim would consist of 12,000 men ; and it was absolutely required to disperse Osman Digna's army, which not only impeded the construction of the railway, but threatened Lord Wolseley's flank, and made the continuous holding of the Nile

• positions impossible. Even if the Snakim Expedition never went to Berber, it mull hold the needful position in Osman Digna's country. A railway had been ordered from Suakim to Berber, and its construction as a strictly military measure intended to, facilitate transport was indispensable, the camels otherwise used perishing, as Lord Wolseley reports, at the rate of 5 per cent. for every march of 100 miles,—a statement, as private observers report, beneath the truth. Out of 7,000 camels purchased, only 700 are fit for duty, and 4,000 are dead. Every mile of the railway would' relieve the camels, and make the advance so much the niore easy.

The Estimates were, of course, voted,-173 to 50,—but the House exhibited some of its usual imbecility as a Council of

War. Lord Hartington, not being a member of the Privy Council of the Almighty, had spoken with reasonable caution of a " probable " advance to Khartoum ; and the critics of the Estimates fastened upon that, and insisted upon some certainty. Mr. Chaplin—who, if be will forgive us, is showing himself exceptionally stupid—especially denounced " the policy of ultimate probabilities," and all Tories " wanted to know" what Government was going to do. As the Government does not know, and cannot know, what it will do—though it knows what it intends to do if the circumstances do not change—they got no satisfactory reply. Nevertheless, the official policy is absolutely clear. The Mandi is to be smashed. Consequently, if he will not yield beforehand, and if he does not advance Northwards, a British corps d'armee will advance to Khartoum and destroy his army there. It is conceivable, however, that he may negotiate, it is probable that he may advance Northward, and it is not outside calculation that he may go Southward, making for the Red Sea by Kassala and Massowah, and so falling on the Italians. In these events we should not advance to Khartoum, as also we should not if the country changed its mind, or if the necessities of a war with Russia imposed a long pause. Under those circumstances her Majesty's Ministers, while clearly defining their intentions, distinctly decline to give pledges which it might be impcssible or ridiculous to fulfil; and they are right.

West Gloucestershire, where a seat has been vacated by Colonel Kingscote, who has accepted the office of a Commissioner of Woods and Forests, returned on Wednesday a Conservative Member (Mr. Ackers) in Colonel' Kingscote's place, by a majority of 411, a larger majority than the Conservatives obtained even in 1874. As compared with 1880, when the Liberals obtained both seats, the election shows a much 'diminished poll. The successful Tory, Mr. Ackers, polled 4,837, as against only 4,640 given for Mr. Randall Plunkett in 1880, an increase of 197 votes. The unsuccessful Liberal on Wednesday obtained only 4,426 votes, as against 5,316 obtained by Colonel Kingscote in 1880, a falling-off of 890 votes. To some extent this is due to the desertion of Lord Fitzhardinge, caused, it is said, by the Liberal candidate, Sir William Marling, declaring that the land of the country is in too few hands, and ought to be more widely distributed. But no doubt the result is chiefly due to the dislike of the farmers for the County Franchise Act, and a desire to give one final kick to the Government which passed it.

It is given-out that the Parnellite Party in Ireland have received instructions, signed by Mr. Parnell, to treat the visit of the Prince and Princess of Wales to Ireland " with respectful neutrality." In other words, they are neither to make demonstrations of delight nor demonstrations of dislike during the Roy al party's progress through the island. We should have supposed that this order would be just the most difficult order to carryout which Mr. Parnell could have given, and the way in which the people obey it will be a good test of the extent of his influence. We do not say that the Irish are incapable of affecting a sullen indifference; but a sullen indifference is not a " respectful neutrality." Whether they are capable of looking-on without either loyalty or disloyalty, but with kindly indifference, is a very different question. We should suppose that a volatile and impulsive people like the Irish would be hardly capable of steering so nice a middle course. They would, we should think, either scowl on the Royal party or smile on them ; and whichever they do, if they do either, they will certainly not display a "respectful neutrality."

Count Herbert Bismarck has gone back content, and there is again amity between Germany and England. It is understood that the disputes about boundaries in West Africa and New Guinea, which Prince Bismarck says are the origin of his annoyance, have bean settled by mutual concessions ; and the adoption of dividing line., in fixing which we shall, if we may judge from a hint dropped by Mr. Gladstone on Thursday, lose something in Africa and gain something in New Guinea. The personal grievance alleged by the Chancellor has also been smoothed away, Lord Granville having read in the House of Lords on Monday night a paper—nominally a speech—in which he regretted that he had not used "a better phrase " in describing Prince Bismarck's advice to take Egypt, and explained that he had not quoted the confidential conversation between the Prince and the British Ambassador, but subsequent and public declarations. Lord Granville, in words which will be found elsewhere, utterly repudiated any idea of attacking " the great German statesman," and expressed his deep sense of the high position which Germany has attained among the nations. The Chancellor has in return expressed himself perfectly content.

On Monday, moreover, the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs read aloud in the House of Commons a letter from Lord Granville expressly denying that the despatch of May 5th, announcing the decision of Germany to seek Colonies, bad ever been read to him. He had until recently never so much as heard of it. This statement was confirmed on Thursday by Mr. Gladstone, who stated that Prince Bismarck, in making his assertion in the Reichstag, had been " mistaken." Mr. Gladstone regretted the non-delivery of this despatch, which had been, he thought, the origin of the misunderstanding; and, though denying that "the friendship of any country in the world was necessary to England, or ever had been necessary," declared in eloquent terms his sincere pleasure at finding that Germany was entering upon the career of colonisation, and so "carrying the light of civilisation to the backward and less significant regions of the world." England had no opposition to make, though she was bound to consider her own rights, the rights of aborigines, and the rights of Colonists who have been established in the Pacific for generations, "and have founded there communities which it is not too much to say will be the domivant communities in those parts

of the world." The " friction " is stated to be at an end, and if the history of the incident has been truly told, it certainly compels one to doubt whether the elective rulers of to-day are much safer than the hereditary rulers of previous centuries. Louis XIV. could not have embarrassed Europe for the sake of his personal dignity more readily than Prince Bismarck. But then has its history been truly told?

The French operations in Indo-China succeed without succeeding. All details are concealed ; but it appears that while General Briere de l'Isle was taking Langson, a second Chinese Army entered Tonquin from Yunnan and besieged Tuyen Quen. The garrison defended themselves gallantly for eighteen days; but General Briere de Hale was compelled to make a forced march backwards, and fight a battle to raise the siege. In that engagement, which lasted two days, he lost, by his own account, 453 officers and men killed and wounded. The Chinese loss is not given ; and, indeed, it would be useless to give it, as that Power could lose 10,000 men a month, and not know that they had been lost. As fast as General Brire de l'Isle advances, another army will he behind him ; and he does not mention his losses from invaliding. Admiral Courbet, again, having stopped the reinforcements for Tonquin, has again attacked Kelung, in Formosa, and, after five days' fighting, has carried the hill positions,—losing, however, 200 men in killed and wounded. In carrying the positions, however, he will get little, as the hillmen he is fighting will not submit ; and he controls only the ground he stands on. The Chinese Government, it is clear, are accepting General Gordon's advice,— avoiding strategy, disregarding defeat, and relying on their ability to expend 100 men in the slaughter of one invader.

There have been two long debates since our last issue on the separate representation of the Universities, which Mr. Bryce yesterday week proposed to suppress, arguing that it is injurious to the academical character of the Universities to mix them up with politics, and that, as a matter of fact, the academical issues at Oxford have been seriously impaired by the splittingup of the University into Conservative and Liberal camps. Moreover, the University Members did not really represent University residents, the resident teachers being outvoted at elections by the country clergy. The Tories, of course, took-up eagerly the cause of the Universities, Sir J. Mowbray (one of the Members for Oxford University), showing that the Univertity vote was becoming mere and more every year a layman's. vote. In 1845, of 3,000 voters, 2,195 were clerical, and 803 laymen; in 1869, of 4,400 voters, 3,060 were clerical, and 1,340 laymen ; and in 1883, of 5,300 voters, 3,008 were clerical, and 2,292 were laymen, Mr. Albert Grey, following out his favourite crotchet, held that University representation was a slight concession in the direction of proportional representation, and gave intellect rather more weight than it would otherwise command, and he quoted Mr. John Etuart Mill and Mr. Bagehot in favour of University constituencies ; and Sir Lyon Playfair maintained. that while so much less is spent on the higher education in England than is spent on it abroad, the University Members• are greatly needed in the House.

On the resumption of the debate on Tuesday, the Parnellite Members made a dead-set at the University of Dublin as a Protestant, not a National, University, returning two Members of the Irish minority, and not in any sense identified with the culture of the Irish people, Sir Patrick O'Brien replying tothem in an amusing and eloquent panegyric on the University, which had never grudged its honours to Roman Catholics, and diverging from his argument to remark that, urged by his constituents, he had voted against Mr. Gladstone's Irish University Bill in 1873, but that now he did not hesitate to assert that it was a bad day for Ireland when the Irish prelates refused to accept that Bill. In the end Mr. Bryce's amendment suppressing. University constituencies was negatived by a majority of 181 (260 to 79). Sir Charles Dilke, while opposing any interference with the party arrangement, expressed his personal concurrence with Mr. Bryce's amendment.

Mr. Arnold's amendment was then considered, an amendment intended to obtain the twelve additional seats wanted for Scotland without increasing the number of the House, which he proposed to do by further merging in the counties all boroughs in England and Wales with a less population (in 1881) than 20,000, and all boroughs in Scotland and Ireland with a less population than 15,000. But Sir Charles Dilke, in the name of the Government, opposed any further disfranchisement, and remarked that in many of the boroughs which Mr. *mold proposed to disenfranchise, there was now a rapidly increasing, instead of a stationary or diminishing, population, which is a strong reason against extinguishing them as boroughs. So the amendment was rejected by 213 votes against 21,—majority, 192. Subsequently, Viscount Crichton's amendment, which proposed to except from disfranchisement all the Irish boroughs with a population of 10,000 or over, was similarly rejected by a majority of 57 (105 against 48). The amendment was, of course,. resisted by the Parnellites, who regard themselves as the supporters of the counties against the boroughs, and still more, of course, of the large populations against the small.

On Wednesday Mr. Mulholland, who, like all the Irish Conservatives, looks with great dislike on the county electorates, moved an amendment intended to introduce the grouping system into Ireland for the purpose of getting the requisite borough electorates out of groups of boroughs analogous to the Scotch and Welsh groups. Sir Charles Dilke replied that the Government, though anxious to respect prescriptive rights, does not think the grouping, principle a sound one, holding that there is usually no sufficient community of interest among the different members of the groups, to result in anything better than a political happy family. He could not approve of the development of the grouping principle, as he was anxious rather to restrict it, and he certainly would not assent to its extension to Ireland. Eventually, the amendment was rejected by 183 to 93, majority 90. All these amendments have been a mere waste of time. In every case the result was a foregone conclusion.

Mr. Goschen's address to the Eighty Club, on Tuesday, was a very skilful performance, both in form and in matter. In form there was some occasion for skill, for Mr. Goschen has made himself to some extent justly unpopular among Liberals by his recent speech and vote ; and there are some Liberals wlo are such bigots that they cannot listen to a man they disagree with without relieving their consciences by unseemly interruptions. Nevertheless, Mr. Goschen's imperturbable good-humour, and the liveliness of his illustrations, triumphed over the interruptions of the malcontents. He reviewed the recent changes in the temper of the House of Commons; remarked that we now " went in for very little freedom in making con1, tracts, but for much freedom in breaking them.;" that Members

of Parliament had taken up quite a new attitude towards all sorts of wild proposals ; they proposed gravely to consider them all, whether diametrically opposed to the old political economy or not. " He was not quite sure whether the domain of the old political economy was not in a very similar position to Egypt, where we had destroyed the old authorities without having set-up new ones in their places. The orthodox tyrants of political economy were no longer allowed to wield the political kourbasb." And there was no accepted economical tribunal to replace them. History had shown " that when there had been a dethronement of religious belief, it had generally been followed by the appearance of a number of fanatics and false prophets ; and he ventured to think that the dethronement of orthodox political economy might also be followed by the appearance of a swarm of quacks, and the inauguration of what might be called the Salvation Army of politics." Mr. Goschen was strong on the need for carefully criticising all these novelties ; and we are quite sure that the need is very great.

The most important news from Egypt is that the Suakim Expedition has now all arrived, and that General Graham, who has been crippled by an abscess in his foot, has reached that port. Action is, therefore, expected to commence at once, all the more because Osman Digna, whose force has been swelled to 15,000 men, has grown audacious, and now kills scattered British sentries every night. He has recovered his confidence with the fall of Khartoum, and will, it is believed and hoped, risk a decisive engagement. Pending this, Lord Wolseley is stationing his troops along the Nile from Old Dongola to Merawi; and in a General Order warmly thanking them for Their courage and devotion to duty, has warned them that there may he a time of comparative rest till autumn. The time will be utilised in " preparations," including the extension of the Soudan Railway some thirty miles further up the Nile, the despatch of fresh steamers, and the collection of a multitude of camels. We again warn Lord Hartington—if he wishes to avoid the massacre of these animals, reported to him by Lord Wolseley —to engage Beloochee camel-drivers. The beasts are obviously badly managed.

All Europe seems to be rising upon the Anarchists. They are, of course, being hunted-down in Russia, Austria, and Germany; and now they are ordered to quit France. Twenty Continental Anarchists have, it is said, been recently conveyed to the frontier ; and on Thursday three Fenians were arrested, including, we are surprised to see, Stephens, the old HeadCentre, who has always in public disapproved of dynamite. Nearly a hundred arrests, moreover, are said to have been made in Switzerland, where the fanatics have had the inconceivable folly to threaten the destruction of the Federal Palace, Berne. None of the smaller countries dare harbour the expelled men ; and they will gradually be driven into England, America, and Spain. It is impossible to sympathise with men who threaten assassination ; but we are not satisfied as to the ultimate results of these proscriptions. They weed-out the timid and halfhearted, and leave a dangerous residuum of men who only burrow deeper and strike harder. We should much prefer a law, to be adopted everywhere, making the profession of the dynamite faith and initiation into a dynamite society grave offences, but leaving to the accused a fair trial. It is true we struck down Thuggee by arrest and secret interrogatian ; but then Thugs never lied, or uttered false denunciations, and the Europeans being exempt from attack by Thuggee law, as unclean sacrifices to Bhowanee, made the most impartial and considerate of Judges. European Courts have a tendency to confuse Socialism with Dynamitism too mach.

The sympathies of caste are world-wide. After at least thirty years of discussion and deliberation, Lord Lytton, in 1877, ordered an inquiry into the grievances of the Bengal peasantry, who complain that they have gradually been deprived of their ancient fixity of tenure. The Commission reported that great evils existed, and in 1881 Lord Ripon's Government introduced a Bill to remedy them. That Bill has been discussed, amended, altered, and softened daring four . years, until at last, on Wednesday, the Legislative Council, after seven days' debate, passed the Bill. Neither House of Parliament knows in what form it has been passed, nor does the India Office, yet on Thursday Peers and Commoners were found to protest that the measure had been rushed through Council in order that Lord Dufferin might go to Simla. The truth is the

landlords, though knowing nothing of the Bill, have discerned that it is a Tenants Bill, and so conclude that it is a bad BillLord Wemyss even ventured to say that it was a Bill upon the lines of the Irish Land Act, though be must have known that the one domestic question upon which Lord Dufferin could not see eye to eye with Mr. Gladstone was the Irish Land Act, and that any prejudices he has are upon the other side.

On Tuesday last, in the largest and noisiest Convocation which has been held for many years at Oxford, the advocates of Vivisection obtained an immense majority, and this in spite of two powerful speeches delivered by Dr. Liddon and the Bishop of Oxford on the side of the minority—speeches for which we can hardly be too grateful, but which, like all the others, were hardly heard above the cries of the undergraduates. The vote showed 412 in favour of the unrestricted money-grant, while 214 opposed it, desiring a formal restriction on the practice of vivisection within the University. We deeply regret to observe that Professor Dicey defended the unrestricted. grant, which Professor Freemau, of course, strenuously opposed. If the Times' report may be trusted, Mr. Dicey appears to have said that if restrictions were to be enforced on vivisection by the University," the position of a Professor would be rendered almost intolerable." Is it then "almost intolerable" that professors should .be required by the morality of the community,—and especially required in a great focus of youthful society,—to drop all methods of investigation which involve the infliction of severe pain on animals, though this would be required by morality for precisely the same reasons for which the law requires not only professors but all men to refrain from all methods of investigation which would involve the infliction of severe pain on men ?

Sir Henry Acland,—plansiblest of men,—of course, made one of his smooth speeches, in which he eulogised Professor Burdon Sanderson up to the skies,—nor do we doubt for a moment that, subject to what he insists on as the absolute claim of science to victimise any sensitive animal in existence with " sufficient cause " shown, Professor Sanderson is as humane as any one with such a creed can be, and detests the infliction of "needless" cruelty. Sir Henry represented the true question before the University as this,—Whether they should trifle with a great University Professor by first inviting him to the University, and then casting him aside ? No one knew better than Sir Henry Acland that it has never been proposed to cast Professor Burdon Sanderson aside, but only to grant the money subject to a decree prohibiting painful experiments on living animals within the University. When it is the cue of the physiologists, no one can insist more eloquently on the extremely limited character of the need for any painful vivisection than Sir Henry Acland and his friends. Yet, when it is their cue to represent any such limitation as "checking the advance of medical knowledge," no one can expatiate so eloquently on the iniquity of doing so. Which is the truth ? Would the prohibition of all painful experiments paralyse Professor Burdon Sanderson's usefulness ? If so, there is to be a great deal of painful experimentation. Or would it hardly paralyse him at all ? If so, the limitation proposed would be a most reasonable concession to the decencies of moral example.

Mr. Ecroyd, M.P., in an address delivered on Thursday in the Cannon-Street Hotel, formulated the demands he makes in the name of "Fair-trade." They are,—an absolutely free admission of all imports from the Colonies,—whether they alter their tariffs for us or not.—a small duty on wheat, flour, and dried fruits produced in foreign countries,—the duty on wheat to be 3s. 9d. a quarter,—and a duty of 10 per cent. on all completed articles of foreign manufacture. And his chief argument for this wonderful proposal is that these duties would make so very little difference to the consumer. Well, but what would they make to the consumer who is also a producer ? What, for example, is the scientific difference between completed and uncompleted manufactures ? Are what are called uncompleted manufactures at all more u,ed by our manufacturers in further

manufacture than many complete manufactures, — scientific instruments, for example, essential to manufacturing processes ?

Mr. Ecroyd does not know in the least what he would be at. He is a blind man leading the blind into the ditch of Fair:trade.