England, of France, and of Russia, may and should be carried out by the Governments of London, Paris, St Petersburg; but why, by the side of the official p cedure of Ministers, should not individual action plays own supplementary part in the sphere of foreign politics! We see nowadays all sorts of international associations established for the study and elucidation of the greatest variety of problems, scientific, commercial, and industrial. Why should not an Anglo-Franco-Russian association be formed, with the main object of making the foreign policy of the Triple Entente as effective as possible? It should be composed of Englishmen, Frenchmen, and Russians who possess a recognised competence in external politics, combined with a personal influence over the principal newspapers of the three countries, or, in other words, on public opinion.

An Anglo-Franco-Russian committee of this sort, constituted on an independent basis so as not to embarras official action, would put itself directly into touch with the Slav groups of Austro-Hungary and of the Balkans, and with the interesting races of allied blood in the Ottoman Empire. The co-operation and the goodwill it would meet with would speedily grow both wider and stronger; for all parties would be rejoiced to find in London, Paris, and St Petersburg a permanent and efficient support in the dangers which threaten both them and ourselves. By means of such an organisation, which it would be a simple matter to carry out-for, as quality is worth more than quantity, it need not have many members-it would be possible, in the first place, to prevent the rise and growth of any motive for disagreement between England, France, and Russia; in the next place, to establish standing relations with all countries having common interests with ourselves; and lastly. to create on all grave European questions a current of opinion so powerful as to be generally able to enforce on the chief Power of Central Europe the attitude of pacific reserve, which we should like to see maintained. In this wise we may see the practical accomplishment, in a concrete shape, of the function of the Triple Entente-Peace, but Peace with Honour.

ANDRÉ CHERADAME

Art. 12.-THE NEW RADICALISM.

NEITHER party in the State is likely to dispute the proposition that the present Parliament, and especially the sessions which have passed since the resignation of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, indicate a new parting of the ways in our political development. The fact has been made a subject of self-gratulation by Radical leaders, and a charge against them by Unionists. The late chief of the Radical party was, by disposition and associations, far more inclined to extreme political views than his successor; and yet it is undeniable that it was not until Mr Asquith became Prime Minister that the uneasily dormant forces of Radicalism and Socialism broke out with unrestrained violence. The explanation of this apparent paradox is simple enough. The extreme wing of the Radical majority had a strong liking for Sir Henry, and, making generous allowance for his growing infirmities and domestic trials, gave him as little trouble as was consistent with their revolutionary visions. For his successor they entertained the esteem which he deserved, but no affection; there was even a suppressed antipathy, and they cared less than nothing whether they gave him trouble or not. If he was content to be a figure-head driven forward like that of a steamer by a screw at the stern, and steered from any point abaft the bridge, it was well; if he declined this prominent but not dominant position, there were plenty of others ready to jump at it. Mr Asquith acquiesced, and, in the reconstitution of the Ministry, he gave an earnest of his acquiescence.

Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman, it will be remembered, formed his Administration before the support of the country, already sufficiently foreshadowed, had been actually accorded. Within the so-called Liberal party itself there were, down to the very eve of the last general election, two sections divided by lines of demarcation at least as sharply defined as those which served to differentiate Whigs and Tories during the greater part of the long reign of Queen Victoria. The relative strength of these subdivisions was an unknown quantity, but their existence and importance were fully recognised

by their respective leaders; and it was this recognition that determined the composition of Sir Henry's first and only Cabinet. Roughly speaking, these subdivisions might be described as consisting of 'Little Englanders' on the one side, and of 'Not-Little-Englanders'-they could hardly be called 'Big Englanders '-on the other. On the lines of this division the Ministry was constituted. The Prime Minister himself was the High Priest of one tabernacle; Mr Asquith was the chief officiator in the other. Only a few months previously, the respective devotees had indulged in an ostentatious war of feasts, at which the rival hierarchs were 'toasted' as the adherents of Arius and Athanasius might have fêted their leaders in the name of united Christendom; and naturally, when reconciliation, real or apparent, became the indis pensable condition of a decisive victory, the spoils of which were to be distributed before battle was joined, an Arian was paired-off against an Athanasian in the award of the sweets of office. Sir Henry was an Arian. and he took the Premiership; Mr Asquith, popularly but erroneously regarded as a stout Athanasian, was made second in command as a set-off. The rest of the Administration was arranged on the principle which governs 'pick-up' sides in a school-match. Respective captains toss for first choice, and then select alternately one player or another till the elevens are made up. Oddly enough, the Arian captain acted upon the doctrines of Athanasius, and the Athanasian captain was forced to swallow the heresies of Arius.

These antecedent facts have to be borne in mind in considering the astounding performances of the session not yet concluded. It is quite true that we had, in the time of Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman, a foretaste of the demagogic feast which was being prepared. Trade Unionists and by that time the Trade Union Congress was saturated with Socialism-were elevated to the rank of a privileged class, enjoying immunities and advantages akin, mutatis mutandis, to those of the privileged classes in France on the eve of the Revolu tion. Abortive attempts were made to undermine the Church in England and the Union in Ireland; and, singularly enough, Mr Birrell was the engineer of both these futile mines. Moreover, it was Mr Birrell who,

n almost his first official pronouncement, gave utterance o the words which were to serve as text for the subsequent revolutionary programme of the Ministry-'It is the fate of minorities to suffer.'

It is true that Mr Birrell's colleagues have amplified 'minorities' to cover all such classes of the community as, in their uncontrolled discretion, they think fit thus to designate. The first presumed minority consisted of all persons of every religious denomination who held that, if their children were compelled by statute to attend elementary schools, they should at least enjoy facilities for instruction in the creed of their parents. Comprising, as this class did, all Catholics, at least nineteen-twentieths of earnest Anglicans, and a not inconsiderable fraction of Nonconformists, it is exceedingly probable that this minority, selected for suffering, was in reality a large majority. The House of Lords blunted the sharpness of the weapon, ostensibly aimed at denominational schools, but in reality forged to inflict a deadly wound upon the Established Church; and the Government, in chagrin, threw away a weapon which they deemed useless when it was condemned by the Free Church leaders as not being sufficiently poisonous.

Next in order came an undoubted minority, consisting of those engaged in the manufacture or sale of alcoholic beverages. An assault upon this minority had the double attraction of inflicting injury upon a class which, in anticipation of coming events, had become so vicious as to defend itself when attacked, and also of appealing to the unctuous rectitude of those allopathic moralists who saw no harm in the hogshead, but detected death in the homeopathic pot. This attempt was repulsed by the House of Lords in the open field.

Smarting under these defeats, and goaded on by the now dominant Radical-Socialist contingent, the Government approached its fourth and most critical session of Parliament. By-election after by-election had warned them of their growing unpopularity. They recognised the effect; they mistook the cause. They seemed to have taken as their example the Irishman in a hackneyed story who, awaking in the morning with the parched mouth which follows an evening of intoxication, observed that, if

he had known that he should be so thirsty in the ing, he would have drunk more overnight. They appear to have persuaded themselves that the country was s of their legislative experiments, not because they we too radical, but because they were not radical enough They had gained office on the respectable old cry of 'Peace, retrenchment, and reform.' They said to themselves, 'Let us try class war, bloated expenditure, and revolution.' And they did. The whole history of this protracted session is the story of the execution of this desperate resolve.

Take, for instance, the case of Ireland. If we stood in need of a proof of the statement with which this article opened, namely, that the present session is one of the most momentous in our parliamentary annals, the Irish question would more than confirm it. Mr Gladstone in his later days used to say that Ireland holds the field. So in a sense it does to-day; but so crowded is the field with desperate conflicts deliberately provoked by this reckless Government, that separate engagements of really supreme importance in this or that corner are apt to escape attention. It recalls the mise en scène of a battle-field in Shakespeare, say, for instance, the fifth Act of the First Part of Henry IV. First we have 'The King's camp near Shrewsbury' and a good deal of talking. Scene II is 'The rebel camp near Shrewsbury. This is followed by Scene III, 'Between the camps; excur sions, and parties fighting; alarum to the battle.' Scene IV is 'Another part of the field; alarums, excursions'; while Scene V, which winds up the Act and the play, is 'Another part of the field; the trumpets sound.' In anything like an ordinary session, the Irish Land Bill introduced by Mr Birrell would have held the whole field or monopolised the whole stage throughout the conventional five Acts. In this anarchical and chaotic session, the Land Bill is relegated to an insignificant Scene in the last Act, with the general explanation, 'Another part of the field; an Irish sham-fight; enter Birrell and Redmond.'

Even the phrase 'sham-fight,' however, is misleading. In this part of the field' we are only invited to witness the formal ratification of a corrupt bargain concluded