debating - hall; and they are blessings of good administration, but to train the Egyptians to take a gradually increasing share in their own government." far better kept apart. But when the debating-hall does encroach, we are struck most forcibly by the abject folly of its discussions. Those who conduct them have as little subtlety as understanding of human nature. They seem to hope that a packet of phrases will make men "better," and that nothing is wanted to change the whole earth save zeal and a good intention. For Mr Shaw's part in this book there is less excuse than for M. Brieux'. The preacher, if misguided, is in earnest. Mr Shaw considers his duty as a preface-maker so lightly, that he gives a sketch of the French drama which is inaccurate in every particular, and talks glibly of "Parisian stupidity," though it is evident that he has no more than a tripper's knowledge of Paris. Sir Eldon Gorst's report of the progress made in Egypt during 1910 is a bewildering document. It justifies, with considerable emphasis, the comment we made upon the policy of our Government a year ago. We suggested then, and we repeat with increased justification, that the doctrines of Tom Paine are peculiarly out of place in Egypt. The represenThe representative of the British Government is still persuaded that democratic institutions are fit for all emergencies and all climates. "The British policy in Egypt," he writes, "is, as has been repeated ad nauseam, not merely to give Egypt the If this be our policy, it has, by the confession of Sir Eldon Gorst, failed lamentably. The Egyptians violently refuse to learn the lessons which seem so easy and pleasant to the pedants of radicalism. Every concession that has been made has been attributed by them to nothing else than the weakness of Great Britain. They cannot and will not understand that his Majesty's Government is content to diminish its authority with any good motive. The smallest complaisance on our part is interpreted as a sign of immediate retirement. The Legislative Council and the General Assembly, which were intended to give a measure of what Mill falsely called "liberty" to the Egyptians, have used their powers for the mere purpose of fomenting disloyalty. Sir Eldon Gorst admits that " our efforts in this direction did not meet with the success they deserved." The Legislative Council and also the General Assembly "displayed in 1909 and the first half of 1910 a steadilyincreasing tendency to become mere instruments of the Nationalist agitation against the Occupation. Their repeated demands for full constitutional government, the acrimonious attacks on the Government in connection with the Budget and the Soudan, and the unreasonable hostility and sus picion displayed in the discussion of the Suez Canal scheme, were in their essence manifestations of Anglophobia stirred up by the Nationalist party." This party still, as heretofore, devotes itself to the constant abuse of officials, to heaping insults upon all Egyptians who do not oppose British control; and it has found its warmest auxiliaries in the Council and Assembly, which were framed by the sanguine apostles of popular government to confer the inestimable boon of "freedom' upon those who wilfully misunderstand it. It would be difficult to find a clearer and more concise condemnation of inapposite democracy than is here set forth. But Sir Eldon Gorst does not follow his admissions to their logical conclusion. Though he is of opinion that "institutions really representative of the people are obviously impossible in a country in which, out of a population of 11,000,000, only 600,000 can read and write," he still thinks that the Egyptians have "intellectually reached a stage when they should be quite capable of utilising with advantage the facilities accorded to them for co-operating in the administration of the country." And then in the next line he confesses that the experiment even in unreal representation has been a complete failure. Surely we might have pected from his Majesty's representative some clearer guidance than this. ex If Sir Eldon Gorst's report means anything, then, it means that the Government clings ardently and willingly to failure. The first step in democracy has met with no success. Long live democracy! In other words, there is something good of itself in popular control. This is a heresy which has done more harm to the world than any other. Democracy is a form of government, and nothing more. It must be tried on its merits and by its results. There is no virtue in it which may not reside also in monarchy or oligarchy. Each of these forms has its special dangers, its special hardships. And to press democracy in a country like Egypt, which has no understanding of it, is to subordinate good government to pedantry, to shirk an honest responsibility at the bidding of an ignorant electorate. For democracy has one infirmity which inheres in no other system. It is a confession of failure. It means that those who resort to it have not the wisdom to govern, and are driven by sheer helplessness to the hazard of a tossed coin or to the still greater hazard of counting heads. Even in the higher civilisations of the West democracy has seldom brought with it peace or security. How, then, shall we justify the most modest experiment in a country where only 600,000 out of 11,000,000 can read or write, and where the smallest indulgence is misinterpreted for weakness? That our government of Egypt should incur a risk risk platitudes.' For this very for the sake of democratic reason we regret our poor expedantry all wise men would periment in democracy, a form deplore. Englishmen have of government which took its every right to be proud of rise in copy-books, and which what has been accomplished has never relied for support for the Egyptians in the way upon anything sounder than of justice and prosperity. They platitudes. Nor can we believe should not stint their gratitude that it is any part of the duty for the splendid work which of his Majesty's Agent and has been accomplished by Lord Council-General "to carry out Cromer, Sir Eldon Gorst, and the wishes of the British people their devoted colleagues. All in Egypt." in Egypt." Rather is it his the critics of the régime will agree with Sir Eldon that "the task of one race controlling the destinies of another race of entirely different qualities is one of extreme delicacy and complexity, and cannot unfortunately be solved by copy-book maxims and high-sounding duty to govern Egypt for its own happiness and prosperity. For though the British people may have many virtues, it knows not where Egypt is, and would rather echo a piece of empty rhetoric than control with wisdom and justice the Empire in the world. THE TWO BILLS. can tax the resources of statesmanship to a single chamber. You bow down to a Second Chamber in theory, to impose on one section of the public, and ignore it in practice to propitiate another. The Liberals rely, and apparently not without reason, on the public apathy and indifference for this impudent piece of political legerdemain escaping detection; and really it would seem to be of little use to protest against this or any other Ministerial trick while this apathy remains undissipated. LORD LANSDOWNE intro- and most arduous task which duced his Bill for the Reform of the House of Lords on the 8th of last month. If the House of Lords, as at present constituted, is not strong enough to discharge the duties for which a Second Chamber is principally required, and if it has become necessary to strengthen it by the infusion. of new elements, the Bill, perhaps, offers as fair a scheme for the attainment of that object as we are likely to get. The independence of the House is in a measure secured by the retention of the hereditary principle; and it did not come within the scope of the Bill to touch on the retention of its powers. But perhaps the chief immediate value of this particular measure consists in the proof which it affords that the House of Lords is thoroughly in earnest, and in the challenge which it throws down to their opponents to show they are in earnest too. We are ready to come to terms, the Bill declares. Here is our contribution towards a settlement. Where is yours? You have been preaching reform of the Lords all over the country, yet when the question is raised in a practical shape you run away from it. You asserted all along that a Second Chamber was an essential part of the constitution,-essential, therefore, to all healthy legislation of the first class; yet in the teeth of these professions you would intrust the most serious The Unionist leaders are not blind to what is the urgent necessity of the moment. Speaking at the Primrose League on the 11th May, Mr Balfour said, "No subject can well be more grave, and yet I am not sure that the issues are really apprehended even by those who take an active part in politics, or that it is thoroughly understood, from one end of the island to the other, how much is at stake at the presen, moment." Mr Balfour may be sure that he is right. Too many people, we are certain, look on the struggle merely as a squabble between the two Houses of Parliament, one of those faction fights of which they are growing tired, and turn away from in disgust. That voters of this class, whose name is legion, should not care to know what the quarrel is Where then would be our boasted self-government and the wholesome education which the transaction of local business affords to all who take part in it? An illustration of what we mean has lately been afforded in the law courts. Particulars demanded by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue have been declared by one of his Majesty's judges to be what they have no right to make, and that nobody could be punished for refusing to comply with them. Good! But what do you suppose will happen if you sit only twirling your thumbs, without doing anything to prevent it? The judges and magistrates will be appointed on political grounds, so the Socialists have willed it, and under the coming system no judge will ever deliver another judgment against the Crown like Sir Thomas Warrington's. about, should not wish to your door with his rapacious be troubled troubled with with thinking and impertinent demands? about what, as they think, concerns them not, is only natural. But what if it does concern them deeply and terribly? Can they be taught for a moment to think seriously of what is coming upon them, if they allow themselves to indulge in this political indolence? The enemy does not come now like a thief in the night. He walks in broad noonday, boasting of the mischief he can do. Mr Balfour explains once more with the greatest perspicuity and precision what is the nature of the Government policy. May we supplement his great speech by asking the people directly if, that policy being successful, they have thought on what is to follow Disestablishment of the Church, the divorce of religion from education, the plunder of property, capital, and all vested interests, and the spread of a vexatious bureaucracy over the whole face of the country? We would say to them, Do you wish to see yourselves or your neighbours who have invested their all in a perfectly lawful and honourable trade robbed of their property? Do you wish to see local administration confined exclusively to Government officials, with a vexatious inquisitor in every small town or every village, who would pry into your affairs with all the petty tyranny of beadledom, and be for ever at Do you wish to see the old county families driven from their estates by an iniquitous impost levied for that very purpose, and their places taken by urban capitalists, strangers to the land, strangers to the peasantry, strangers to all those traditions and associations which have hitherto sweetened the relations between landlord and tenant?1 Are all the laws and institutions, all the principles and beliefs, all the customs and prescriptions under which you 1 See a very interesting discussion held at the Farmers' Club in November and December last, |