Many of us have expected Mr. Gladstone to retire when each of these bloody episodes in Egypt has begun. His retention of power may be explained as an old man’s insane appetite for office, or as the surrender of a statesman to the logic of a situation. The first explanation we respect Mr. Gladstone too much to accept; the second is embarrassed by the absence of a clearly defined policy. We should understand Disraeli; but he would help us to understand him by making distinct proclamation of his purpose to govern and bless the Moslem world. He would have butchered less, but he would have planted an imperial stake on every battle-field. We should have known that he meant conquest and dominion. There would have been no meaningless carnage. A humanitarian war is a difficult conception; but it is not impossible to conceive of wars that produce beneficent results. We could conceive of the subjugation of Islam to British sway, and rejoice to see the Soudan like India, slowly but surely rising into civilization under English rule. But an army thrusting down no imperial stakes, going home after each slaughter to be paid, promoted and fêted, is not doing work which opens any vistas of smiling peace and advancing light. It is only a bloody carnival. No petty cabinet differences, no outcry of public opinion, no Jingoism in the army or the royal family, no temporary exigencies of party, no domestic dangers nor foreign rivalries can explain and justify the responsible man’s conduct. Mr. Gladstone’s garments are dripping with Moslem blood, and the world can not find an explanation which explains.