THE MAGAZINES.

DIE Fortnightly Review deserves the first notice this month, because it gives especial prominence to the questions of the hour. Of ten papers, four—" The Convention with Turkey," by Mr. Laing ; "Greece at the Congress of Berlin," by Mr. Shaw- Lefevre ; the last of the remarkable series on "The Political Adventures of Lord Beaconsfield," and "Home and Foreign Affairs "—are devoted to " counterworking the purpose" of

Lord Beaoonsfield in his foreign policy. The opinions of Mr. Laing and of Mr. Lefevre on the questions on which they have

shown they can speak with authority are well known, from what they have already said in Parliament. In the Fortnightly these opinions are stated clearly and quietly,—perhaps too quietly ; and as the pleadings of careful "juniors," the one against the Anglo- Turkish Convention, the other in favour of Greece, are worthy of attention. Mr. Laing's personal reminiscences are perhaps of more importance at the present time than his arguments, and so these sentences are especially worth quoting :— "When I went as Finance Minister to India, in 1860, and first met Lord Canning, he used these words, thich made an indelible impression on me :—' Danger for danger, I would rather govern India with 40,00t European soldiers without the income-tax, than with 80,000 with it.' And again, when we were reducing the Native Army from 300,000 to 120,00G men, and discussing how the disbanded soldiers were to be absorbed, Lord Canning said, We must teach them to turn their swords into ploughshares.' In other words, the maxims of our Indian Government must be to reduce our army to a. minimum, in order to diminish taxation ; and to let the military spirit of the warlike races die out, under a re:ginte of peace and prosperity."

The "most fruitful sentence," to uie a loose Americanism that is becoming popular here, in Mr. Lefevre's article is this,—" That Cyprus should pass under British rule, and that Crete should remain under Mussulman rule, is a contrast which will not stand the test of public opinion in Europe, or of future experience." The critic of Lord Beaconsfield—why does he not give his name, seeing that his articles are of the nature not of personalities, but of political psychology ?—crushes the last quarter of a century of the Premier's life into one paper. This is business- like, no doubt, and the paper is eminently readable ; but it is just this last quarter of a century of the career of our " Cagliostro - Chatham," the "grotesque foreign accident in our English political history," that deserves to be most carefully examined, as showing how Conservatism has, under his manipulation, developed into the Jingoism, at once ridiculous and dangerous, of the day. The paper abounds, however, in happy quotations and trenchant descriptions. Lord Beaconsfield is compared to Lord Carteret, one of his "political heroes." "What is it to me," said Carteret, when some one came to him about business which he thought beneath him, "who is a Judge, or who is a Bishop ? It is my business to make kings and emperors, and to maintain the balance of Europe." This seems to be Lord Beaconsfield's idea of a Prime Minister's office. Then, again, how true are such statements as these !—

" Lord Beaconsfield is probably never so sincere as when he is talk- ing nonsense, conscious that there is some nonsense in what he is say- ing, but believing that there is at bottom a great deal more truth.

He has known how to appeal to the blatant and blustering Chauvinism of the coarsest and least-educated part of every class in the community, from the highest to the lowest. The noisiest and vial- gareat noblemen and the noisiest and vulgarest mobsmen have been

upon his side M Jourdain, habited as the great Mamamouchi, was not more ridiculously accoutred than this sober and historic nation now is with Eastern robe and diadem."

Of the other papers, none is especially remarkable, except Mr. A. J. Wilson's, on "The Position of English Joint-Stock Banks." It is especially worth reading, at a time when so many of us seem ready to substitute the show for the substance of national pro- sperity; nor is it any the less to be read, that there is an under- current of pessimism in it. Mr. Wilson sees a storm ahead for the joint-stock and private banks ; for the one he has some, for the other very little hope. M. E. de Laveleye has a good paper on Belgian politics, but the subject is rather stale ; and an account of Ireland by Mr. Anthony Trollope is slight. "Henry Murger is overdone now-a-days. Mr. Saintabury does not add much to our knowledge of the man, in a rather tame and not very coherent article, relieved by judiciously selected quotations from Mnrger's works. Much more interesting is Mr. B. F. Hartshorne's. " A Chapter of Buddhist Folk-Lore." The controversy between Mr. Morley and Mr. Greg on the subject of capital and labour, to which Mr. Greg contributes" Rectifications," it would be prema- ture to speak of as yet.

The Nineteenth Century is not positively heavy, but it is heavily informatory and historical. Lord Stratford de Red- cliffe's "Recollections of the Revival of Greek Independence" and Mr. Rownell's " Malta " are especially of this character ; and even an article by Mr. Grant Duff on "Senior's Conversations" is valuable mainly as a guide to and comment on a now well- known work by a most competent hand. There is a little of the doctrinaire in Mr. Grant Duff when he surveys the field of diplomacy, but especially when be deals with M. Thiers in his earlier years of power, it is a case of one doctrinaire diplomatist meeting another ; there is this, however, to be said, that there is no Chauvinism about the Member for the Elgin Burghs. Mr. E. D. J. Wilson's "The Fr;- ids of the Foreigner Seventy Years Ago" is the article in the leteenth Century most appropriate to the times. As regards contents, it is clear in expression and moderate in tone, and Mr. Wilson has spared no pains to show, from historical authorities, what was the opinion and what were the doings of the Whig leaders—whom he calls the "friends of the foreigner" —daring the Napoleon wars. He points his moral gently enough ; he simply warns the Liberals of to-day against copying the Whigs of the first days of the Edinburgh Review and of the Peninsular war ; although he occasionally uses such phrases as "captious," "factious," and 44 carping criticism." Yet it strikes us that in the main Mr. Wilson is beating the air. It may freely be admitted that the Whig leaders, such as Howick and Brougham, were wrong seventy years ago in opposing the Peninsular war ; but it does not follow that Lord Hartington and Mr. Gladstone are wrong in denouncing the Anglo-Turkish Convention as an "insane conven- tion." One of the ablest of the earlier advocates of Toryism in this century—De Quincey—contended that foreign policy does not enter into the dispute as between Whig and Tory at all, and that sometimes the one party may be in the right and sometimes the other. Allowing Mr. Wilson to be right in his statement as to the "anti-national" policy of Brougham and the rest, it is nevertheless in no degree the more likely that the policy of the Liberals of to-day is anti-national. Mr. Wilson's historical investigation does not go farther back than the time when the reins of power fell from the hands of the dying Fox. Can he or anybody else deny that if the early Fox policy, in regard to the French Revolution, bad been adopted, we should have been saved Napoleon and the Napoleon wars? In criticising the mistakes of Fox's followers—all Liberals gladly give up Brougham —Mr. Wilson allows that Sheridan maintained indirectly that Fox would, if alive, have been absolutely opposed to Bonaparte, as the enemy of the liberties of Europe. In other words, Fox was, in spite of his too generous leaning to Bonaparte, whose real in- tentions he could not perceive before he died, not the "friend of the foreigner," but the friend of freedom, wherever it was to be found. But Mr. Wilson, although he hints at, does not prove a historical parallel. The Opposition seventy years ago may have blundered in not seeing that Bonaparte was the enemy of Euro- pean liberties, and certainly was wrong in not declaring decidedly against Bonaparte, when he avowed his intention of crushing England. But Russia never has sought to play the part that France took seventy years ago. That question Mr. Wilson apparently declines to deal with, and so, as we have already said, he beats the air. Had Russia threatened our liberties, or even our "interests," in any sense worthy of the name, the parallel between the Opposition of to-day and the Opposition of seventy years ago might have been maintainable. But Russia has not been proved to have done anything of the kind. Certainly Mr. Wilson declines to give proof. The truth is, that although in our opinion the Liberal leaders have made some mistakes, the Opposition, especially in the debate of last week, took up its proper attitude, not of "the friend of the foreigner," but the supporter of the Constitution, threatened by prerogative, the friend of oppressed and " sold " nationalities, and the enemy of a monstrous scheme for increasing our respon- sibilities, and inducing us at some future time to spend our money and our blood for the sake, not of freedom, but of em- pire. We should gladly, but for considerations of space, speak at length of the other articles in the Nineteenth Century, such as Mrs. Fawcett's spirited answer to Mrs. Orr, on "The Future of English Women." A word of warning should, however, be given to Mr. Matlock, who gives us "A Familiar Colloquy on Re- cent Art." it is supposed to give the tittle-tattle of some "fashionable" and superficially cultured ladies and gentlemen on Mr. Burin Jones, Mr. Alma Tadema, and Mr. Swinburne. The article is devoid of "body," and the only piquancy in it is given, as in ' the author's "Modern Paul and Virginia," by something bearing Ia strong resemblance to prurience. If, "in Mrs. Roland's house in Bruton Street," a " gentleman " tells two " ladies " interested in a famous French novel that its style is "just the sort of art of which we should be witnesses, if we saw Belial dancing the can- can in the spangles of a Parisian ballet-girl," and if one of the " ladies" is correctly described as "the beautiful Violet Staunton, with the perfect face and the imperfect reputation," then we can hardly help asking, in these days of "Imperial instincts," if we are not confronted with the Lower, or at least the Third Empire ?

There is a little too much of Scotland in the Contemporary Review. Professor Blackie treats of "The Scot," and Professor Lindsay, a friend and supporter of Mr. Robertson Smith, of The Critical Movement in the Free Church of Scotland." Pro- fessor Blackie's article is rather a " patriotic " after-dinner speech, than anything else. It is healthily objective, but beyond that the theme is common-place,--and the Professor even condescends to repeat the threadbare joke that whoever reaches the North Pole will find a Scotehman established there. Indeed, but for a few lines to prove that Scotchmen have humour, and three sonnets in honour of Burns, which flow easily enough, we should say that Professor Blackie's paper is superfluous. Nobody has been abusing "the Scot," so far as we are aware ; and Professor Blackie's un- necessary defence of that " conquering hero" reminds us of nothing so much as of Mrs. Micawber's impassioned declaration that she "never would desert Mr. Micawber, never !" at a time when nobody accused her of any such intention. Professor Lindsay's paper, obviously sincere as it is, is emphatically thin. He wishes to repudiate, on the part of the Scotch theological critics for whom he speaks, any fellowship with Broad-Churchism, and to show that "critical freedom may coexist with dogmatic orthodoxy." His success is hardly commensurate with his efforts. Take, for instance, this, which is supposed to describe Mr. Robertson Smith's triumph at the late Free-Church Assembly :— " The Assembly practically agreed with Dr. Wilson that any literary form legitimate in ordinary writing may be used by the Spirit of God to convey his revelation. Every Protestant theolo- gian must admit this, or else the Bible becomes an absolutely unique arcanum not understood on the analogy of ordinary speak- ing and reading, and so must require an infallible interpreter." If this is not Broad-Churchism appearing in the realm of Biblical criticism, what is ? The best papers in the Contemporary, which is hardly so good as it was last month, are Professor Max Miiller's on "Julius Mohl," and Mr. Walter James's on "The Parochial Charities of the City of London." Mr. It. S. Poole has a good, instructive paper on Cyprus,—not so fresh, however, as Mr. Lang's, in Macmillan. The Abbe Martin asks, "What hinders the Ritualists from becoming Roman Catholics ?" and he deserves an answer. The papers on "Contemporary Life and Thought— in Italy, in Russia," are interesting, but the shorter essays known as "Contemporary Essays and Comments" are not up to the mark of their predecessors.

There is no article in the present number of Fraser which can be considered of outstanding excellence or interest, although the contents are, taken as a whole, very varied reading. The most curious is an account, from original documents, of "Trial of Two Quakers, in the Time of Oliver Cromwell," by Mr. A. H. Hamil- ton. These unfortunate men seem to have been very badly treated. They were accused of saying evil things of one Brooks, a ship-chaplain, and, declining to take the oath in court, were sent to prison, first in Plymouth and then in Exeter. It was while they were in durance that the pamphlets from which Mr. Hamilton obtained the details of the trial were written, by them- selves and their friends. Brooks, who had quarrelled with the men over theology, seems to have been a good-for-nothing creature, the captain of the ship in which he acted as clerk testifying, "1 found him to be very idle and continually drunk, which once made me to put a quarter can about his neck." One of the most interesting of the extracts is a letter from the Mayor of Plymouth to General Desborough, the well-known lieutenant of Cromwell. Nothing could better show the terror, and even servility, inspired by the Ironsides. Subjects of the present day are adequately treated by Mr. McCoan, in a weighty paper on "'The Races of Asiatic Turkey," and "M. B.-E.," in a lively one on "The Social Aspects of the Paris Exhibition." Mr. McCoan shows in a very striking manner the serious character of the responsibilities to which Lord Beaconsfield has pledged the present generation of Englishmen, and would, if he could, pledge posterity. "A. K. H. B." gives us one of his rambling articles

—rather too rambling, in the present instance—under the title of "June Fancies." There is not much in it. We are informed that the author has more sympathy with retiring natures like Thomas Aird, than with pushing ones like George Moore. " Pushers " and " puffers " he dislikes, and " bagman-clergy " he has little patience with. A paper with the title of "Facts and Fallacies of Pauper Education," and which is a defence of the workhouse-school system, has rather a "got-up "look. The only other article that strikes us as deserving special mention is the second of the picturesque series "Among the Burmese," for a paper signed "Edmund Gurney," on "The Controversy of Life," and intended to be a criticism of Mr. Mallock, is rather juvenile. The most notable thing in "Ivy Leaves" is a vigorous and thoroughly justified onslaught on the Gautier school in France and their English admirers. We must protest, however, once more against such fragments as these,—" The grandest truths cannot be proved,—nor even stated." Why not tell us oracularly next month that " Honesty is the best policy ?" or that "Truth is great, and will prevail," &c.

The account—a very valuable one—of Cyprus by Mr. Lang, the late consul there, is the leading paper in this month's Macmillan, but the daily journals have already made it public property. In "Imaginary Portraits," we are evidently to have a work in some- what too exquisite English from the pen of Mr. Pater ; the first of the series—" The Child in the House "—must be read when one is half-asleep to be wholly enjoyed. We have criticised its more serious drift elsewhere. Mr. Knatch- bull-Hugessen contributes a paper on "Business of the House of Commons," which, though deficient in verve and otherwise common-place, is useful, as giving a fair sum- mary of what has been done by the House to mend its own manners. Mr. Laing Meason gives his inferences from four years' experience in the Turkish service, and six years living in or near the Lebanon. He is very hard on the Christians there. With the exception of those who are under the teaching of European or American pastors, he "would not trust them with power, any more than he would the most untamed savage on the wildest of savage lands—or any more than the Christians would trust each other." Mr. Justin McCarthy writes eulogistically of Mr. Hueffer's "Troubadours." The poetry is above the average. Miss Keary's story, "Doubting Heart," is pleasant reading. We might, however, be spared some conversations about dress, and such descriptions as "clear-cut, cameo-like head." Altogether, there is a very agreeable variety in the contents of this month's Macmillan.

The Conthill is rather dull this month, and even the continued works of fiction, "For Percival" and " 1Vithin the Precincts," bang fire. The most remarkable paper, "The Origin of Fruits," we have already noticed. The most readable is a careful estimate of "The First Edinburgh Reviewers," in the "Hours in a Library" series. The writer reviews Jeffrey, Brougham, Smith, and Homer in an impartial spirit, and places them on their proper pedestals, which are, of course, not as high as those given them by their contemporaries. This on IIorner is true,—" His death pro- bably deprived us of a most exemplary statesman and first-rate Chancellor of the Exchequer, but it can hardly have been a great loss to literature." The whole of the Edinburgh Review Liberalism is well summed up in,—" The truth is, that it is a mistake to suppose that the eighteenth century ended with the year 1800. It lasted, in the upper currents of opinion, till at least 1832." A bright paper on "Malay Life in the Philippines," by Mr. W. G. Palgrave, is spoiled by a good deal of fine-writing, which is not worthy of the author, and looks like a bad mixture of Mr. William Black and Mr. Ruskin. We come too frequently also on such painful sentences as this,—" A Malay may be a pro- fligate, a gambler, a thief, a robber, a murderer ; he is never a 'cad,' that type, as well as the 'rough '—the death-bed abhor- rence of the great Queen of England's Renaissance—is a develop- ment of the higher,' that is, of the more muscular, more energetic, more pushing, more complicated races ; and his absence from amid the equable diffusion of courtesy and self-restraint that stamp the average Turanian is alone no small compensation for the inferiority, if inferiority there be, of the gentler, calmer, less aggressive, also less progressive tribes." A careful estimate of Leasing is the only other paper in the Cornhill deserving of notice.

The best article in Blackwood that has a juvenile look is a gos- sippy one on Prince Bismarck, by a countryman ; it is a good col- lection of anecdotes regarding the colossal personality that domi- nates Germany at the present moment. We have an intelligent —we cannot use a stronger word—comparison of "Englishmen • and Frenchmen," based on the latest works of Mr. Smiles and Mr. FIamerton ; a breezy, rattling paper on "Summer in the Hills " ; and a rather ambitious and affected poem—streaked here and there with power—entitled "Half-way to Arcady." Maya celebrates the Treaty of Berlin, both in prose and verse. The prose is as dull and apologetic as the Premier's own speech at the Mansion-House dinner. The writer of "Sheathing the Sword" is not lively enough to become the Laureate of the Jingoes. This will not do for the music-halls :— " To him our hearty offering let us yield,

Praise, Honour, Gratitude, to Beaconsfield !"

The University Magazine holds vigorously on its new career. We prefer, however, the slight to the serious papers. Mr. Conder, who preaches on "Christianity in the Face of the Nineteenth Century," is gifted with a command of that kind of eloquence which Macaulay attributed to Mr. Gladstone. But some of the late Mr. Harrison's "Reminiscences "—a photograph only too true to fact—of "Music Halls," and a paper on "Alphonse Karr," will suit the "general reader." The University man will not find much but a little gossip in the University Magazine.

Belgravia is, out of sight, the brightest of the lighter magazines, and for the two works of fiction running their course in it—Mr. Wilkie Collins's "Haunted Hotel" and Mr. Hardy's "The Return of the Native "—would alone be worth perusal. Eustacia Vye, Diggory Venn, the " reddleman," and Clym Yeobright, the " native " himself, are as curious studies as any of Mr. Hardy's characters. We confess, however, that we do not see how the author is to bring his story to a happy conclusion, and yet for the sake of the characters we should wish that conclusion to be happy. Mr. Proctor's article on "The Moon's Myriad Small Craters" is worthy of its predecessors from the same pen ; and there are some vigorous lines in Mr. Lang's "Portrait of '83."

A second-rate number of Temple Bar. A slashing attack orb Miss Martineau and her " Memorials " errs in vehemence. A paper on " Betterton " is interesting because it is gossipy, and "Russian Court Life in the Eighteenth Century" contains facts but is feebly written. None of the other papers need be mentioned. The Gentleman's Magazine is too full of padding, such as papers on "Alfred de Musset," "Albert Diirer," and "Sir Benjamio Backbite." Mr. MacColl gives his opinions, with his usual force of style, on "The Congress and its Results ;" and we have a good account of Giles's "Travels in Central Australia," by Mr. F. A. Edwards, who both reads with care and writes with knowledge. Mr. Grant Allen's paper, too, on "Hellas and Civilisation," though not very profound, is good writing of the popular-lecture sort. Mr. Whyte-Melville's novel, " Roy's Wife," ends happily. Either Mr. Melville's style or the society he paints is greatly deteriorating.