Man proposes and destiny disposes. In the very midst. of England's political crisis, while every thinking person was speculating on the attitude of the crown, wondering whether the king would resist the liberals in their campaign against the Lords or give them his aid, death suddenly and tragically removed King Edward from the scene. The shock to the nation was great and deep, and the whole outside world was startled and bewildered for a time. King Edward had not been seriously ill, and when reports of his "grave condition" appeared he was within twenty-four hours of death. The effect of that sad event, and of the appearance of a new occupant of the throne, was bound to be great. How great, and in what way, time alone can determine.

Edward was a great king. He understood our democratic time, he accepted the conditions of modern kingship, and he scrupulously observed the constitutional and unwritten restrictions that progress had thrown about him. But while he "reigned without governing," acted under the advice of his ministers, ignored party strife, and obeyed the mandates of the electorate, he found many channels for the exercise of his moral and royal power. He played a prominent and active part in diplomatic and foregn affairs. He originated and paved the way for important alliances and understandings with other powers. He is credited with the present position of England in world diplomacy, a position due to the alliance with Japan, the very close under

standing with France, almost amounting to an alliance, and the agreement with Russia concerning Persia, the Far East and other matters. Edward, indeed, had found England in a state of what some called splendid isolation and others described as helpless, dangerous isolation and loss of prestige. He left her strong, well protected diplomatically, and confident of the future, save in so far as jingoes, reactionary tories and sensational newspapers choose to regard her as exposed to the peril of German invasion and offensive German attack. He has been praised as essentially pacific and enlightened in his policies, and he never encouraged the violent agitation against Germany as England's alleged bitter enemy and arrogant rival. In domestic affairs he displayed discretion and insight, and all ministers who have served him have testified to his earnest devotion to duty and painstaking efforts to secure complete and accurate information on every question that involved, or might involve, the crown and its prerogatives. What he would have done in connection with the budget and Lords' veto issues, must remain an unsettled question, but no one doubts that he would have acted deliberately, not hastily, and in harmony with the spirit of the age.

George V, the new king, was to a surprising degree an unknown quantity when destiny summoned him to ascend the throne. As Prince of Wales he had made public appearances for some years on ceremonial occasions or at dedications of libraries and hospitals, but he had not made a very definite impression. He had been trained in and for the navy, had acquired the simple and democratic habits of seamen, had traveled and visited the British colonies, and had paid considerable attention to governmental questions and the course of political events. Few, however, knew what his sentiments and sympathies were, and some of the labor and radical leaders openly expressed the apprehension that he was inclined to the tory view of things and might support the peers in the contest over their future status and function in legislation.

Even at this writing King George's political position remains absolutely undetermined. He has shown a certain degree of independence in limiting the period of public mourning over his father and a degree of tolerance and breadth in objecting to the anti-Catholic, anti-papal references of the king's declaration to parliament, references which have for years been considered distinctly anachronistic, illiberal and needless. He has shown industry and patience in dealing with matters of routine. With regard to the grave and momentous problems of the day, however, propriety is supposed to forbid importunity and to demand a truce between the tories and the liberal-labor-nationalist combination, a reasonable delay and a temporary compromise, in order that the king might carefully decide upon his duty and policy. Of course, the struggle must go on, and the issues that are "up" for settlement must be settled "right," or in a way which shall satisfy the majority of the nation and insure the execution of the will of the electorate. Even a new king's influence and pressure would not seriously retard the democratic and equitable reform for which England is ripe. Still, if the new ruler holds tory views, the difficulties of the liberal government and party will be increased for the time being. If, on the other hand, he is progressive and truly democratic, the peers will be compelled either to surrender to the commons and accept the Asquith program of veto-limitation, or else to present a much better alternative plan of upper-house reconstruction and modernization than that embodied in the vague Rosebery resolutions.

Mr. Roosevelt's Peace Plans and the Peace Movement

As the recipient of one of the Nobel prizes for peace promotion and propaganda, Mr. Roosevelt delivered an address at Christiania on the question of arbitration and further steps toward preventing and limiting war among the civilized nations. The question was treated by the former

president from a "practical point of view," yet there were suggestions in the address that seem radical and quite "idealistic" to many of the friends of international peace and amity. In brief, Mr. Roosevelt proposed or indorsed as within the bounds of possibility these several measures or steps:

The increase of arbitration treaties.

The development of a world court at The Hague whose position in the federation of the world should resemble that of our Supreme Court in this federation of states.

A check on "the growth of armaments, especially naval armaments, by international agreement."

A league of peace which the great powers that are honestly bent on peace should form "not only to keep the peace themselves but to prevent, by force if necessary, its being broken by others."

It is the last proposal that is plainly distinguished as bold and progressive. Of course, it is not likely to find immediate favor, and its realization would encounter great difficulties. The nations are not even ready to discuss limitation of armaments or naval budgets, while, as regards a world court, it must be recognized that the acceptance by several of the powers of Mr. Knox's scheme for converting the prize court at The Hague into a general and permanent court of arbitration (which acceptance, one gladly notes, is now probable) would constitute a remarkable stride forward.

Still, it is well to look ahead and advocate the league of peace idea. A resolution committing Congress to this idea in a somewhat different form, introduced by Representative Barthold of Missouri, has been warmly advocated by many eminent men. The resolution provides for the appointment of a committee to coöperate with similar committees of other parliaments and confer on the organization of a federation or league of peace, as well as of a sort of international naval police to enforce the decisions of an arbitral tribunal. If this resolution should pass, invitations might be extended to other nations to send representatives to a conference charged with the discussion of the plan. The discussion