SOME MAGAZINES.

IN the general interest and opportuneness of its articles, the Fortnightly Review of this month is considerably ahead of the other magazines. It leads off with two articles on the Egyptian and Suez-Canal policy of the Government. The first is by M. Leon Say, a Frenchman of liberal and enlightened opinions, and a warm supporter of the Anglo-French alliance. If Lord Salisbury and Sir Stafford Northcote will read his paper, they will no longer wonder that anybody should imagine that negotia- tions affecting the Suez Canal and M. de Lesseps can have any connection with questions of high policy. " M. Ferdinand de Lesseps," says M. Leon Say, " is one of the glories of France. The country knows that the total value of the nation is augmented by the fact that she counts him among her sons. He has shared his personal renown with his fatherland, and every one in France feels that whatever happens to him attains the proportions of a national event. In thinking of him, men spontaneously repeat the saying of Terence : Naught that affects him is indifferent to us.'" And this "national affec- tion" for the man, M. Leon Say proceeds to explain, is due to the fact that his great achievement has been on Egyptian soil. An equally great, or even greater, achievement elsewhere—on the Isthmus of Panama, for example—would not have roused the same national interest. " And the reason is that Egypt has always filled, and still fills, every imagination in France ; and that the traditions of France, ever revived by new events, incessantly carry her thoughts back to the banks of

the Nile. Thus, when M. de Lesseps was seen planting upon this spot the banner of his noble enterprise, he was deemed to be France herself, in one phase of her natural evolution." So that " nothing could efface from the French mind the conviction that there is a national dignity to be upheld in all that affects the great work to which M. de Lesseps has bound his name." This is not written by a vapouring Chauvinist, but by a cool and clear-headed French economist, who knows England well, and respects and esteems her. M. Leon Say, however, admits that by deserting England in the crisis of the Egyptian com-

plications France forfeited her right to an equal voice with England in Egyptian affairs. But this very consciousness makes her all the more jealous in respect of whatever moral influence still remains to her. So long as the Suez Canal remains substantially French, the amour-propre of France, M. Leon Say thinks, will be satisfied. She asks no more than that France in Egypt, whether she " be the guest of the Khedive or of the Empress of India, has a right to be treated with the con- sideration due to an old ally and friend." Not that M. Say would at all object to equitable concessions to the legi- timate and reasonable demands of the British shipowners. All that lie bargains for is that the Canal should remain essentially French. He enters into speculations as to the possibility of France requiting this concession on the part of England by redressing the balance in the matter of silver currency in India. " Having the same currency as India, she can bring back, vid, Suez, to Europe all that might escape by way of America and California." Another consideration is that " Europe will more and more have its granaries beyond its boundaries. Where shall we place them ? With the help of France, and by means of the highway of the Suez Canal, Eng- land can place them in India," which, in M. Leon Say's opinion, is capable of supplying the needs of Europe iu that commodity. Practically, M. Leon Say's article in the Fort- nightly is a conclusive reply to Mr. Edward Dicey's on the same subject in the Nineteenth Century. Mr. Dicey's proposal is based on "the good old rule, the simple plan" of substituting might for right. He affirms dogmatically that M. de Lesseps's "monopoly has no existence in fact ; that even if it did exist," "the rescission of the monopoly is demanded on grounds of general utility, in the interest of the world's trade, of which England is the chief representative ;" and, lastly," that the posi- tion of England as master of India and occupier of Egypt makes the possession of the Canal of such importance to her, as to justify her in in sisti og u pon the water highway to the East being placed under her control." The Khedive is assumed to be so much of a puppet in our hands, that any opposition on his part is left out of the reckoning. But the Sultan ? He must be bribed into acquiescence, replies Mr. Dicey ; and if that should not suffice. "the sanction of the Porte can be still more easily dispensed with." What would Mr. Dicey say of such political morality, if he found it applied by a Russian publicist to the acquisition of Constantinople by the Czar ? But what about France ? Mr- Dicey reminds us that M. VITaddingtou, when in England six years ago, assured all our leading statesmen that " the feeling iu France about Egypt is so intense, that any attempt to dislodge her will give rise to a bitterness of resentment against England which will render any co-operation between the two countries impossible for years to come." Mr. Dicey patronis- ingly vouches for the "good faith of M. Wadd;ngton ;" but Mr. Dicey knows Frenchmen better. " Englishmen, as I believe, make a mistake in supposing that Frenchmen regard the Suez Canal with the same feeling as a similar work would be re- garded by us, if it had been constructed by this country. The self-concentration which constitutes the strength of France renders her almost incredibly indifferent to all interests which lie outside her own area." Let Mr. Dicey rend M. Leon Say's article, and then tell us whether he thinks he understands Frenchmen better than M. Leon Say. Mr. Dicey does not recommend us to appropriate the Suez Canal without any compensation to M. de Lesseps'e Company ; but he suggests that the British Government should give the Company £30,000,000, " exclusive of the amount paid for the Khedive's shares in 1875," and then appropriate their property. Setting aside the morality of this advice, the wonder is that any sane man should have succeeded in persuad- ing himself that it is practicable. Mr. Waterfield's paper, on "The Negotiations with M., de Lesseps," is a temperate discus- sion of the subject in a sense hostile to M. de Lesseps' claims. But the reader should read with it Mr. Reid's very able paper on " The Suez-Canal Question " in the Contemporary Review.

Next to the Suez-Canal question in present interest is Dr. Creighton's paper in the Fortnightly Review on "The Importa- tion of Disease." Dr. Creighton makes out a strong case for thinking that pleuro-pneumonia among cattle is not a conta- gions disease, spreading from animal to animal like small-pox, but may, on the contrary, break out spontaneously from a variety of causes. Dr. Creighton, therefore, inclines to the belief—and he cites the high authority of the eminent Professor Virchow on his side—that stringent rules against the importation of foreign cattle are of no avail, at least as regards plenro- pneumonia. Aud of still less avail, in his opinion, are quaran- tines and cordons eanitairee as precautions against cholera. He gives some striking statistics and facts, which go far to show that all such precautions are positively mischievous, and really intensify and propagate the disease.

Both the Fortnightly Review and the Nineteenth Century have articles on Mr. Jeaffreson's " Real Lord Byron," the former by Mr. Gilbert Venables, the latter by Mr. Fronde. In both articles Mr. Jeaffreson is chastised severely ; but Mr. Fronde's punishment is likely to leave its mark not only on the literary reputation of Mr. Jeaffreson, but still more on the memory of Lord Byron. Some of the insinuations of Mr. Jeaffreson were calculated to stain the memory of Shelley with infamy. Sir Percy Shelley was thus constrained to place in Mr. Fronde's hands documents which clear the memory of his relative, the poet, but which also convict Byron of meanness and untruthfulness amounting to dishonour. Mr. Venables has fallen into several inaccuracies, as be will see by reading Mr. Fronde's article, and the article on the same subject in the Quarterly Review. Lord Lytton's second article in the Fort- nightly, on " The Stage in Relation to Literature," is very in- teresting and suggestive ; and there is a great deal of informa- tion, with occasional inaccuracies, in Captain Conder's paper on "France and Syria." Sir Julius Vogel, as might be expected, takes the colonial view of the annexation of New Guinea; and Mr. Clark takes, as naturally perhaps, the Boer view of the Transvaal question. Both papers, however, are well worth reading. We have dealt elsewhere with Mr. Macrea's article on " Criminal Jurisdiction over Englishmen in India," and need only say hero that it is the most succinct and lucid exposition of the principles and facts of Mr. Ilbert's Bill which has yet appeared in England. Mr. Macrea is himself an English barrister practising in India, and therefore speaks from personal knowledge and experience. He is thoroughly in favour of the Bill, for reasons of policy as well as justice.—The writer of the two previous articles on the Radical party returns to the sub- ject in this month's Fortnightly, and sets himself to explain the machinery on which the Radical programme must be carried out. This consists of manhood suffrage, redistribution of seats based on scrutin de lisle, and payment of Members. He meets the objection that this last article of the Radical creed would be likely to " vulgarise the people's House, and would deteriorate its social qualities," with the question whether the demeanour of men like Earl Percy and Lord Folkestone, or that of Mr. Broadhurst and Mr. Burt, is more likely to deteriorate the man- ners and social amenities of Parliament. Such a question, how- ever, only shows that a selection of names can be so made as to tell in favour of the proposed change as well as against it. No man in his senses would deny this ; but that does not show that the raising up of a great class of purely professione, politicians would not injure the British Parliament. The present article is to be followed next month by an article "containing a comprehensive scheme of legislative action, which, in subsequent numbers, will be examined and explained in detail." The review of "Home and Foreign Politics" is able and fair. Altogether, Mr. Escott has furnished his readers this month with an interesting and admirably selected bill of fare.

There are several articles in the NineteenthCenturybesides those on which we have already commented which will be found to be of interest, such as Miss Nightingale's, on " Our Indian Steward- ship," "The German and British Armies," by Captain Hozier, "The Cholera and our Water Supply," by Dr. Frankland, and "France and the Slave-trade in Madagascar," by Mr. Goodrich.

Mr. Holyoake's "American and Canadian Notes" are both

interesting and instructive. But, on the whole, the Nine- teenth Century this month contains nothing striking, either

in its subjects or in their treatment. Mr. Pearson's speculations on "After Death" we may, perhaps, discuss separately, but must add here that he altogether misstates both " the doctrine of Churchmen" and of the early Christians on that subject. Like many others, Mr. Pearson confounds the eschatology of his- torical and ecclesiastical Christianity with the repulsive escha- tology of Calvin.

The Contemporary Review of this month is hardly up to the mark. We have already noticed Mr. Reid's valuable article on

"The Suez Canal Question." Besides this and one other, there is no article on topics of the day. Mr. Fronde is always worth reading, whether we agree with him or not, and his pen has lost none of its cunning in his second article on Luther. Mr. Michael

Davitt contributes an interesting and suggestive article on "Penal Servitude," written with great moderation, good sense, and knowledge of the subject. Mr. Lilly's " Saints of Islam" will interest students of that politico-religions system ; and Mr. Llewelyn Davies criticises with acuteness and ability M. Renan's most egotistical and interesting autobiography. Mr. Haggard's article, on " Europeans and Natives in India," should be read in conjunction with Mr. Macrea's in the Fortnightly Review. It is an able defence of Mr. Ilbert's Bill.

It evidently takes a long time to awaken the " dormant talent " of the Tory party, at least in the pages of the National Review.

There is not an article in this number which rises above medio- crity—few which reach it—nor is there one which discusses any of the subjects of the day, except Mr. St. George Mivart's on " National Education." Tory writers of name appear to prefer the pages of other magazines for their contributions, at least this month, a fact which may be accounted for by a generous desire to leave the National Review as a field for the resurgent energies of the "dormant talents." Nor will poverty of subjects and of treatment be held, even in Conservative minds, to be atoned for by rabid violence of language towards political opponents. Mr. Ilbert's Bill is described as "negotiations with Brahminical disloyalty." The Suez Canal " provisional scheme" was " an idiotically bad bargain for English merchants and shipowners." If Mr. Gladstone " got his deserts, he would be driven from public life." "He does not know what love of country means." " He is not a patriot "—a super- fluous piece of information, one would think, after the previous sentence ; " all the resources of his nature, and all the expedients of his intelligence "— which are not included, apparently, among " all the resources of his nature "—are not employed " for the advantage of England, but for the indulgence of a colossal self-love." He is "the curse of his country." In short, the Cabinet does not contain one statesman, and Mr. Gladstone " and his colleagues have no real touch of the reason and serious wishes of their countrymen." But it is no wonder that writers who are too angry to master the details of political events passing before their eyes should fail to gauge the minds

and characters or understand the policy of their opponents. The editors talk repeatedly of M. de Lesseps's claim to " an absolute and eternal monopoly" in piercing the Isthmus of Suez, the eternity in question being, in fact, bounded by a term of ninety-nine years. The metaphors, too, of the dual editorship are as confused as their reasoning and facts. "The Govern- ment," we are told, "are reaping distinct benefit from the variety and multiplicity of their blunders." The public thus become as " much embarrassed and baffled as a man finds himself to be who tries to drive half-a-dozen cows out of a field into which they have all broken at the same time." We are thus left to conclude that the " baffled " man in question, failing to drive out the intruders, suddenly changes his mind, and persuades himself that the presence of the cows in his field is a "distinct benefit." It is from no ill-will to the National Review that we make these observations. On the contrary, we should welcome with pleasure a magazine which should discuss contemporary politics with temper and ability from a Tory point of view. But wild and insensate vituperation is not discussion.

There is a good deal of pleasant and some profitable reading to bo got out of the cheaper Magazines this month, although the languid quarter has begun. Blackwood is mixed ; its political article, " Liberal Subservience to France and its Results," is not very violent, while it is more than commonly doll ; so that our old friend fails to amuse us so much as usual. On the other hand, we find a capital paper on the late Sing Mt6sa, of Uganda, an African potentate who has never ceased to interest Europeans since he was introduced to them by Captain Spcke more than twenty years ago; also a curious description of the Belka Arabs. Most authentic accounts of the Desert tribes are disenchanting; this one is no exception. The dignified Sheik, who, after lavish- ing lofty sentiments upon the travellers, decamps with their pewter teapot in his saddle-bag, disappoints us as much as Mr. Sala's noble Indian chief. A criticism of three recent French novels and Coppee's " Vingt Coates Nouveaux " is an exceed- ingly common-place production, strangely below the usual standard of similar articles in Blackwood.

So vast an amount of nonsense has of late been talked and written about actors and dramatic matters generally, that it is refreshing to read in Macmillan the cool and discriminating remarks of Mr. Mowbray Morris, "On Some Recent Theatrical

Criticisms," and to find him protesting against the ridiculous exaggeration which surrounds our most popular modern actors with a destructive atmosphere of adulation, and would persuade the world that interpreters of Shakespeare are almost the poet's peers. The writer puts the moral of his clever essay into one telling little paragraph, as follows :—" He who clearly under- stands how vast the gap which separates, and must ever separate the actor from such a poet as Shakespeare, will have done far more to lessen the gap, than he who claims for himself a place with the poet on the farther side." " A Review of the Month," admirably done—as comprehensive as the " Quinzaine " of the Revue des Deux Mendes, and more crisp—is an attractive feature of Macmillan, which also contains a very pleasant article culled " Ranche Life in the Far West." The new series of Cornhill does not remove by the second number the dubious impression that the first created. We fail to see the reason. ableness of the change of a magazine whose chief raison d'etre was a refined and elevated choice of literary articles—for we presume any magazine could have procured a similar class of action by paying at the same rate for it—into a sixpenny collec- tion of stories and papers in nowise superior to the Argosy, which had already " the sixpenny public " for its clientele. The old Cornhill has decidedly left a gap; we do not think the new Cornhill has found one. The best paper in number two is the first, a vivid and sympathetic description of scenes at a veterinary college, under the title of " Some Sick Poor."

In Time, we find an interesting account, by Mr. Dutton Cook, of two notorious criminals, Wainewright the poisoner (" Janus Weathercock "), and Madame Lafarge. It is strange that in the case of the first, the writer makes no reference to the well-known and horrible story of Wainewright's threat to the dying man whom he attended in the prison infirmary at Hobart Town ; and in the case of the second, he seems to be unaware of the ulti- mate fate of the criminal. Madame Lafarge was liberated from the modified imprisonment which her state of health had pro- cured for her, by Louis Napoleon, when he became President of the Republic, and died very shortly afterwards, in an obscure French town, tended by an old servant. No member of her family visited her or attended her funeral, and her relatives forbade any inscription to be placed upon the slanting cross which marks, but does not indicate, her grave. If the memoirs of M. Lachand are ever given to the world, we shall, no doubt, learn much that will be interesting about the cause celebre which was such a stepping-stone to fame for the afterwards great advocate. Otherwise, Time is rubbishy.

Belgravia is, as usual, strong in fiction, having the begin- ning of a story by Mr. Charles Gibbon, and the continua- tion of one by Mr. Justin M`Carthy, with two clever, short stories, and a " dialogue " by Ouida, besides. Mr. Phil. Robin- son on feline creatures, or, as he puts it, "The Heptarchy of the Cats," is as felicitous and quaint as usual. A would-be historical article, called " How the Comte de Chambord's Crown was Lost," is " weakness indeed." Its style is that of a school- girl's essay, and the accuracy of the writer's knowledge may be tested by the fact that she is unaware of the existence of any member of the " elder branch" of the Bourbon family, except the Comte de Chambord. The recent dissensions of the pretended movement of the Legitimist party on behalf of Don Jaime might have corrected her history to that extent.

The two Roman Catholic magazines, The Month and Merry England, are fairly up to their respective standards. We note a very fine etching, by Mr. Tristram Ellis, of the principal entrance to the New Law Courts, as the attractive frontispiece of Merry England.

Aunt Judy is thoroughly delightful. We are glad to see the zeal, spirit, and variety with which this periodical, so valuable to the young, is kept up. The stories are very good, and the competition questions interesting and attractive. This depart- ment of Aunt ,Italy's Magazine is of solid educational value.