Macdonnell has used in condemning this ill-judged and dangerous experiment. I ask leave to quote them :—

"The principle which, in his opinion, ought to direct and control our policy in India was this-the maintenance of complete and absolute control in the hands of a small body of picked officers of the Empire who formed the Government of India, and, subject to that control, the fullest measure of local government in the provinces that each province

was fit to administer. He believed they could not find in India a single individual who would be able to give valuable advice and assistance to the Governor-General in Council. He was also certain that they could not appoint a Mahomedan to that Council without also appointing a Hindu ; and if they did appoint such an officer, and he were not of the class against whom the legislation of which they had heard was directed, he would command no influence whatever amongst his co-religionists."Lord Macdonnell, House of Lords, Dec. 18, 1908.

THESE BE YOUR

1

AT the end of the first session of this Parliament the present writer endeavoured, in the pages of 'Maga,' to call attention to some features in the composition and in the evident purposes of the dominant party in that Assembly which had scarcely received that notice and consideration from the more thoughtful part of the nation which, in our opinion, they deserved. The ordinary citizen had been somewhat wayward during the crisis of the General Election, and, in view of the disasters which it brought, found himself stunned and apathetic. Such a vast change of the political atmosphere must, he fancied, have had, at least, some solid basis. It must, no doubt, justify itself by some definite scheme of political regeneration; and with a sublime faith in the commonsense of his countrymen, he trusted that such a scheme would work itself out on sound lines, and be guided by the constitutional principles evolved out of our national history. He was content to wait patiently for its further evolution.

We tried then to show that his trust was somewhat misplaced, and that his confidence had no sure foundation. We pointed out that the history, even of that first session, showed elements at work that were scarcely noted by the nation at large. They could only be dis

GODS, O ISRAEL!

cerned by that comparatively small contingent of the Opposition which deemed constant Parliamentary attendance to be a duty; and that contingent we estimated at scarcely more than thirty or forty members. The curtailment of Parliamentary reports, even in 'The Times'; the absurd travesty of reporting in the other London daily papers; and the substitution for any faithful report of the debates of the ill-informed and superficial "descriptive' gossip of the Press gallery,all these have been serious hindrances to any proper appreciation by the intelligent part of the public of the real danger to the State which arises from a House of Commons composed like the present.

The truth of our estimate of two years ago has since been amply proved. The knowledge of that danger has now filtered from a small group of Unionist members into the consciousness of the nation as a whole. Few now remain ignorant of the general character of the notions that do duty for political principles in the breasts of a large section of the Ministerial party. The bye-elections, little as they have affected the numerical preponderance of the present majority, give abundant evidence that the nation is alarmed. But has it yet realised the full danger to national character, to national

prosperity, to social order, and to the influence of this country abroad, which is threatened by the tyranny of a reckless and heterogeneous majority?

We are not now concerned with criticism of the measures which have been brought before Parliament. Such criticism has already condemned them. We desire rather to call attention to the composition of that majority; to the personal element which reveals itself only to the careful daily observer who notes its characteristics in all their deformity; and to the small title to respect which is possessed by some of the leaders whom the strange and passing current of political feeling has brought to the surface.

To the close observer, one of the most curious symptoms of the political arena is the readiness with which its strangest transformations are accepted,

in

an extraordinarily short space of time, as everyday matters which need excite no surprise. New men, who but yesterday were irresponsible privates, and seemed scarcely warranted in indulging in dreams of non-commissioned rank, suddenly are found to be swaggering as generals. Such transformations must always occur when a new political entity emerges from the chrysalis state. But as a rule, the discipline either of inherited tradition or of personal training, precedes the assumption of authority; and even if outstanding genius commands a speedy recognition, and passes at a bound over the interven

ing steps, yet such talent has, usually, already made itself visible on a larger stage than that of St Stephen's, and the nation recognises in its new ruler one whom a large body of public opinion had designated as an outstanding personality.

We desire to attach no undue importance to such personal accidents as these. We are ready to believe-if so it must be that the last three years have seen the evolution of such a crop of political Eminences as has never before been produced in the same space of time. We do not for a moment grudge them a rapidity of elevation that might make the strongest brains to reel. We accept, on trust, the distinguished talents that have opened the doors of that Upper House, to which a tribute of alternating vituperation and adulation is paid, to a host whose names, not previously distinguished, have now become permanently lost in a bewildering variety of new titles. We doubt not that the wisdom of the Privy Council is vastly enhanced by the generous quota of its recent recruits: and we are even ready to believe that some of the most important positions in the Cabinet are filled, with distinction, by men not one of whom was known, three years ago, beyond the floor of the House, and the circle of his own acquaintance. But until we find some adequate ground for complete confidence, it seems not unreasonable to examine the ingredients which are eddying about in the tur

bulent cauldron of the present political majority, and see whether they are not of a kind well fitted to throw some strange flotsam and jetsam to the surface.

When the huge and unwieldy majority first came together in 1906, it was difficult to discern its real character. Some symptoms, however, were perfectly clear. It was dumbfoundered at its own success; boundless in its self-confidence; undisciplined, and therefore, naturally, ill-mannered in the extreme. Of Parliamentary tradition it was, on the whole, as ignorant as it was of constitutional principle. Some members of it were conspicuous exceptions to the general rule. By degrees, these have made their weight felt throughout the House; but they have done so warily, and as a rule they are not the men who would be picked out by the gossips of the Press gallery. The bulk of the party was, and still remains, a seething mass, heterogeneous in its aims, and united only in the buoyancy of insolence.

As we pointed out two years ago, it was soon apparent that Sir Henry Campbell - Bannerman—partly, it may be, from sympathy, still more from indifference, and, to an even greater extent, from motives of opportunism-had made up his mind to favour the extreme section of every wing of his party. In the past he had been galled by the Liberal Imperialists and with very considerable astuteness, he resolved to make himself safe

against any such cabals in the future. Firmer discipline might have developed, even in the motley ranks of his huge majority, some sense of responsibility, and some appreciation of constitutional principle. But it would have damped the ardour of those to whom the late Prime Minister looked as a make weight against his more halting, or more prudent, colleagues.

As a consequence of this encouragement, the extremist element crystallised their aims, and became bolder in their assertion. Fortunately, in one important sphere they have not been allowed to triumph. In the sphere of foreign policy they have happily not been able to grasp the helm. Signs were not wanting that even here a prolonged tenure of office might have given to Sir Henry Campbell - Bannerman the opportunity of exercising a sinister influence. His journalistic incursions into the domain of foreign politics, and his discussion of armaments, gave rise to a serious danger. But it was fortunately checked by other circumstances. The traditions of the Conservative party forbade the Opposition to make these questions the subject of party attack, and the eager partisanship of the Ministerial majority had therefore to find other spheres for party triumph. Besides this, very few members of that majority had such acquaintance with foreign politics as would have enabled them to evolve a foreign policy of their own. In that domain, therefore, their