English Liberal-Unionists

The recent speech of Mr. Chaplin, President of the English Local Government Board, and therefore a member of the present Coalition Cabinet, has elicited wide attention and comment. Mr. Chaplin is only one of many Conservatives who have become anxious on account of their ante-election pledge to pass an old-age pension law through Parliament, and on account of their failure so far in fulfilling that promise. His speech is, in substance, an appeal to return to protectionism, and it is hardly to be supposed that a Cabinet member has spoken as merely reflecting his own mind; probably he has the sym

pathy of several of his colleagues.

They add that, even if it were decided to impose such a duty, it would have to be imposed on colonial as well as on foreign. grain. No matter if the tax on the former were only half as much as on the latter, it might strain the loyalty of Australia and Canada. Hence, if the protectionist Conservatives should decide to redeem their old-age pension pledge, and get the money for it by the imposition of a duty on grain, the Liberal-Unionists would probably secede, and this would very probably bring about a Conservative defeat at the next general election.

asks the English people to count the cost of embarking upon a scheme of old-age pension, and declares that the minimum expense is so great as to demand an enlargement of the area of taxation. In this he is supported by Mr. Lecky, the historian, who says that the cost would probably be more than fifty million dollars a year to start with, and that the annual charge would be an increasing one. Mr. Lecky also declares that in order to maintain these new conditions a wider basis of taxation would become necessary, and that the burden would be felt directly as well as indirectly by all. In order to meet this burden, Mr. Chaplin favors a revival of the registration duty on wheat, a duty levied for some years after the Corn Laws were repealed. The small proportion of agriculturists among English voters, however smaller now than during the Corn Laws agitation-would hardly be able to carry such a measure as against the will of the majority, belonging to other departments of industry, let Conservative landowners do what they would. The immediate effect of Mr. Chaplin's speech has been to bring forth a number of protests from Liberal-Unionists, who are all free-traders. These seem disposed even to return to an ultimate allegiance with the Gladstonian Liberals rather than to consent to protectionism. They ask, directly, What right has Parliament to put the whole burden of defraying the cost of an old-age pension scheme on the shoulders of a single class? Furthermore, they declare that the proposed duty would not cover the cost of the pension plan; that the cost has been grossly underestimated,

Him Crown the
Work

The careful student of public opinion in America cannot fail to observe two currents which appear to be flowing in opposite directions but which really proceed from the same source and interpret one and the same sentiment.

There is a distinct decadence of the so-called anti-imperialistic feeling. When the war with Spain first broke out, it was bitterly opposed; now it is not easy to find prominent men who condemn it. When it was begun, the Senate came dangerously near decreeing the independence of Cuba by an official recognition of the socalled Cuban Republic. Now we do not recall any newspaper or public man of note who desires to see us immediately withdraw from Cuba and leave it to its fate. Immediately after Dewey's victory in Manila Bay, there was an audible demand that, having destroyed the Spanish fleet, he sail away and leave the island to itself. To-day it would be hard to find any intelligent American who would seriously criticise him for not having done so. When destiny and duty compelled America to take a place among the nations of the earth and abandon her policy of continental exclusiveness, it is not at all strange that a great many Americans could not readily adjust themselves to the radical change of National policy which such a course involved. The Monroe Doctrine and Washington's Farewell Address, or, to speak more accurately, a single paragraph in it, were made to do duty in defense of that spirit of traditionalism which is no

better in politics than in theology.

only men of prophetic vision, who sought guidance from fundamental principles rather than from tradition, saw that the spirit of Washington demanded an abandonment of a policy wise in his day but not in ours. And their perception of this would probably have been unavailing had not commercialism somewhat, militarism more, and the spirit of humanity most of all, re-enforced their interpretations of

current events.

But the American people think quickly, and by this time the entire American people have adjusted themselves to the new conditions. All arguments against expansion are shattered by collision with the fact that we are expanded. The proposal to haul down our flag, sail away from the Philippines, confess ourselves at fault, and acknowledge the independence of the Filipinos, that is, leave the inhabitants of the islands to such a government as one tribe is able to exercise over the others, finds to-day few consistent advocates, and, were it definitely formulated and proposed, would be voted down by an overwhelming majority. We do not believe it would carry a single State in the Union; we doubt whether it would carry a single considerable city.

But, on the other hand, it is not to be doubted that there is an increasing dissatisfaction with the inconsequential campaigning in the island of Luzon. That dissatisfaction is intensified by an impression-we are inclined to think that it is groundless, but we are certain that it is widespread that diplomatic tact might have avoided a war in which neither profit nor glory can be won; by the contrast between the resultless skirmishes on land and the brilliant and decisive victory won by Admiral Dewey on the water; by the seemingly needless and impolitic press censorship; by the absence of any reports of such civic reform in Manila as in Havana, Matanzas, and Santiago has justly excited our pride and enthusiasm. Whether General Otis has been interfered with by orders from Washington, or has been given a double duty of military campaigning and civil administration which no one man can do, or has not the capacity to throw responsibility upon others and so allows himself to be crushed by multifarious details, we do not know, and we

The time when Admiral Dewey must retire from the navy on account of age is near at hand. And yet he is at his best, full of a splendid life and a patriotic ambition. If the President would appoint him Military Governor of the Philippines, with practically autocratic powers, and would associate with him such a field offi cer as he might select to conduct the campaign, if a further campaign were not rendered unnecessary, and if Admiral Dewey would accept the office, the effect would, we believe, be electrical. It would afford as nothing else could assurance to the Filipinos that they would have absolutely just and generous treatment under the American flag. It would convince those who have arms in their hands, on the one hand, that they had nothing worth fighting for which they could not get without fighting, and, on the other hand, that it would be hopeless to continue the fight. And it would be welcomed by the whole country, North and South, East and West, Democrat and Republican, as an evidence that no resource of friendly diplomacy and just and wise administration would be wanting to re-establish friendly relations between the Americans and the Tagals, and no resource of military vigor to secure the supremacy of law by force wherever obedience to law could not be secured without force.

In the kingdom of God the reward of a great service is the opportunity to render a still greater service. The noblest honor this country could render to Admiral Dewey would be to offer to him the office of Governor-General of the archipelago, that he might by his just and pacific policy complete that work of libera

tion which his brilliant victory has made possible. President McKinley could do no act so wise and at the same time so politic as to offer him that office.

were no enthusiasm in America eager to pay "honor to whom honor is due," we might well despair for the Republic. Make full allowance for the irrational desire of men to get together in crowds for the mere inexplicable pleasure of

Crude, not to say childish, seems Haman's plan, in the story of Queen Esther, for showing honor to him whom the king delighted to honor: "Let royal apparel be brought which the king useth to wear, and the horse that the king rideth upon, and the crown royal which is set upon his head; and let the apparel and the horse be delivered to the hand of one of the king's most noble princes, that they may array the man withal whom the king delighteth to honor, and cause him to ride on horseback through the street of the city, and proclaim before him, Thus shall it be done to the man whom the king delighteth to honor." Many centuries have passed since then, but we in America. today adopt essentially the same method of honoring him whom the people delight to honor. We put Admiral Dewey in a carriage instead of on horseback; he is driven instead of led; a great procession follows him; and he passes under some temporary arches which may not long outlast the bunting which lines the street. But essentially the plan is the same: we conduct our hero through the streets of the great city, and, in place of a single courier, all the people by their huzzas proclaim," Thus shall it be done to the man whom the Republic delighteth to honor."

Nevertheless, the cynic who sneers at this popular demonstration is only one degree less shallow than he who, with illconcealed envy, sneers at the achievement which has excited all this enthusiasm and admiration. The heroism of that sail through the darkness into Manila Bay is justly welcomed with the applause which the world always awards to bravery-applause the more heartfelt because the event demonstrates that the heroism which has made memorable in human history Marathon and Trafalgar and Bunker Hill and Gettysburg has not died out from human hearts. The spirit of commercialism has neither destroyed heroism nor popular admiration for the hero. If there

alted though entirely healthful pleasure in a great parade, with its glittering uniforms, its military order, its sirring music, and its brilliant fireworks; nevertheless, underneath it all and expressed by it all is a genuine and unaffected if not altogether profound admiration for the qualities in man which made the achievement at Manila Bay possible. The demonstration of this lies in the fact that the interest of the whole day centered, not in the great bands of music, nor in the splend dly equipped guards, nor in the evening pyrotechnic display, but in the modest man who rode at the h ad of the procession. Nor can we doubt that if it had been possible that there should have followed him a contingent of the Spanish sailors who stood by the side of their bursting guns till all was over, they, too, would have come in for their share of public honor, and would have been received, not with jeers, but with cheers. For bravery is honored whatever uniform it wears, whatever language it speaks, in whatever cause it serves.

Such a welcome as America is giving to Admiral Dewey manifests in Americans a spirit which constitutes the hope of the Nation. Capacity for admiration is altogether admirable, as incapacity for admiration is altogether despicable. America has not lost its capacity for admiration, though we are tempted at times to think that it has. Democracy is a leveler. It develops neither reverence nor humility; for humility is reverence looking down, and reverence is humility looking up. It develops self-conceit, and that cynicism which is bred of self-conceit. Our public men are not heroes set up for us to honor, but targets set up for us to shoot at. The newspaper imagines that it criticises when it only snarls, and forgets that discrimination requires praise for merit no less than condemnation of wrong. The reader of the average daily journal might well imagine that either America had no great and good men, or had lost the capacity to appreciate them. It is, therefore,

eminently well that America should sometimes say to herself and to others, as she said last week by her Dewey celebration, that she has great and good men, and that she knows how to do them honor. It would be well if she would do this oftener. The simple doing of it would more than compensate for the sometimes infelicitous effusiveness of over-rhetorical writers and orators, or the less pardonable display of a weak vanity endeavoring to shine in the light of another's glory, which invariably constitutes the blemish of such a celebration.

We make no attempt here to repeat the dramatic story of Admiral Dewey's achievement, nor to defend him from those who have attempted to belittle it. America has justly passed by such envious detractors with contemptuous silence. Admiral Dewey needs neither eulogy nor defense. The Outlook could conceive no better way of showing its own participation in the universal admiration for the hero of Manila Bay than by employing both pen and camera to bring to the celebration those of our readers who could not come in person, and to furnish a reminder of an ever-memorable event to those who were so fortunate as to witness and in some sense participate in it. The impressive celebration ought not to pass without leaving some permanent memorial. The strikingly beautiful triumphal arch should be reproduced in marble, as a memorial not only of Manila but of Santiago, and of the courage, patriotism, and self-sacrifice evoked by the Spanish war.

Inheritance Taxes

The passing of the Vanderbilt estate to the heirs has recalled public attention to an important feature of the war-revenue law. That law introduced into our National budget a tax which modern democracy has developed into great importance in most of the countries of western Europe, and into still greater importance in some of the selfgoverning States of Switzerland and of Australasia. It provides that all personal estates in excess of $10,000 should be taxed, according to their amount, at rates ranging from three-quarters of one per cent. to two and a quarter per cent. when inherited by children or parents, and rates

ranging from five to fifteen per cent. when inherited by very distant relatives, "strangers in blood," or corporations. Some disappointment was felt when the revenue from these taxes during the first year aggregated only a few hundred thousand dollars, whereas Mr. Dingley's estimate was in the neighborhood of ten millions. This disappointment, however, was only due to the fact that administrators of estates nearly everywhere took advantage of the full time allowed them before making the settlements required. The inheritances of personal property of citizens who died last year must, as a rule, be distributed this year, and the distribution is illegal unless the taxes are paid. There is reason to believe that the revenue collected this year will even exceed Mr. Dingley's estimates.

The amount of personal property in the country aggregates about $40,000,000,000, and as the death-rate among propertyowners is one in every thirty-six, about $1,000,000,000 must become subject to the duty yearly. As the ordinary rate of duty is nearly one and a half per cent., our Government, like the Eng ish, may expect nearly $15,000,000 a year from this source. If peace is re-established, next year may find this coun ry nearly as independent of customs revenue as Great Britain. Last year the Nation's receipts from internal revenue were $273,000,000, or just about its ordinary expenditure each year from 1872 till 1890. Our revenues from customs duties were but $206,000,000, and the restoration of normal peace expenditures would make half this sum-or exactly the English customs revenue-sufficient. Of course it is not certain that the Nation will choose to reduce its customs duties rather than the new internal taxes, but the alternative will be presented. The new inheritance tax seems especially likely to remain, as nearly all classes accept its justice-save toward bequests to educational and philanthropic institutions. The prospective share of the public in the Vanderbilt estate is something we are unable to figure upon. The Gould estate of $72,000,000, which was divided five or six years ago, yielded the State of New York $700,000, and would have yielded the National Government $1,500,000 had the new Federal law been in force.

Pastoral Letters

"I Believe in the Holy Ghost" To the Editors of The Outlook:

In a recent sermon by the Rev. Dr. Briggs I find this utterance: "I believe in the Holy Ghost, who spake by the prophets, who, with His divine energy, entered into men and women, took possession of them, enlightened their minds so as to give them insight into sacred truths, grasp to comprehend the great things of God, and foresight to precast issues of events, and who then assured them of the truth of God, gave them certainty of their prophetic call." I am in no captious mood, am old enough to be sobered by years, have had educational advantages, have no desire to corner any one, but I do want some "ruler in Israel" to make an explanation here, and I have noticed that The Outlook is generally helpful and obliging to earnest inquirers. I want the editor to say if, in his belief, there is a human experience of a character that warrants Dr. Briggs or any other man in assigning it to the Holy Ghost or to any agency outside of man's natural endowments. I cannot avoid the conclusion that this doctrine of the Holy Ghost is unsupported by any facts or experience of sufficient weight to support its pretensions. How is it possible for a man to know that a Person of the Godhead has taken possession of his organization, overruled his faculties, and spoken through his lips? He may declare that he knows this to be true; such a declaration may be good evidence of his sincerity, but very inadequate ground for accepting his assertion. It may be urged that human powers, unaided by divine possession and special guidance, are not equal to the utterances of Apostles and prophets that are preserved in the Jewish and Christian Scriptures, and perhaps other scriptures. By what means can we test the capacity of human powers, and how shall we determine their natural limits? Until we can do both we are not upheld by reason in assigning any human effort to another invading and overmastering personality. Because Plato drops the intellectual plummet into profounder depths than other mortals, because Jesus spake as never man spake before, because Shakespeare wrote as never man wrote before, must we decline to believe in their pure humanity, and call in a special divine personality to explain their unusual performances?

When the ultima thule of human possibili

ties has been reached, when the human endowments have been tested, then will be time enough to call in another factor to account for the words and works of men. If this is not sound reasoning, I will be ready to examine its defects, and receive any light that is now turned away from me.

Brookfield, N. S.

R. R. MCLEOD.

There is a conception of nature as governed by certain great laws and operated by certain great forces which act

automatically and independently, but can be, at least in thought, traced back to a Great First Cause, which created them, keeps them in operation, regulates them, and sometimes interposes and sets them aside. Such an interposition is called a miracle, or sometimes, if it is less remark able, a special providence. This oldtime conception is, however, giving way in philosophy to one which is well formulated in a phrase of Herbert Spencer's which has often been quoted in The Outlook: "We are ever in the presence of an Infinite and Eternal Energy from which all things proceed." This later conception assumes that there are no forces, there is only one Infinite and Eternal Force; that there are no laws, there is only one Infinite and Eternal Will; that there is neither one Great First Cause nor a number of secondary and measurably independent causes, but one everpresent and underlying Cause, always operative, and thus continuously and in finitely creative.

So in the spiritual realm there is an old-time conception of man as possessing a life in himself, with an endowment of faculties adequate for all the ordinary exigencies of life, which enable him to live and act independently of any power outside himself; and of God as One who, having made man, occasionally intervenes to direct, aid, or rebuke him when he is going wrong. He is pictured to the imagination as a school-teacher who leaves his pupils to do the best they can without help from him, but occasionally intervenes that he may help them over hard places, call them to account for neglect or carelessness, or punish them for disobedience or stubbornness. In the spiritual realm this conception also is giving way to a more modern one, which is expressed in the formula of Matthew in The Outlook: "There is a Power not Arnold's which has also been often quoted ourselves which makes for righteousness.” According to this conception God is immanent in men as in nature; in him we live and move and have our being; apart from him we could not exist; all our life is derived from him, his gift, his impartation; he is the air we breathe, the sunlight on which all our energy depends. The pupil at first imagines that the teacher only helps him over the hard places when