is strongly urged, and which is signed by eminent men who cannot be suspected of a leaning towards collectivism. Their action may be caused by a doubt whether private enterprise is capable of dealing successfully with the immense possibilities that lie before the nation; but in view of our history it is difficult to see what reason there can be for such a doubt. It is to private energy and enterprise that the British Empire owes its position in the world of trade, and this success was achieved not only without the active assistance of the Government, but in spite of its indifference and neglect. What ground can there be for the fear that the spirit which has served the country so well in the past will fail to inspire our people in the great future that now lies before the Empire?

Another reason for a tendency to advocate State control by persons who are not Socialists is the success with which the Government has organised the production of munitions and the provision of military requirements. But this success was only made possible by the self-sacrifice and energy of individuals inspired by patriotism, and forms no criterion by which to judge of the prospects of State enterprise in peace time. To assume that the same energy shown in the service of the State during the war will continue when peace returns, and to act upon this assumption by continuing State control of industries and State trading after the war, would be to adopt the same fallacy that makes Socialism an unattainable ideal. No doubt there are many people (and the fact is of happy augury for the future) who would work with as much energy and goodwill for the good of the community as for themselves, but as yet they are only an insignificant minority, even in this country. As the world now is, there is in normal times no effective substitute for self-interest as a spur to exertion, except the lash.

In these days when social conditions have become so complex, and when as the result of increasing civilisation the feeling of collective responsibility has grown so active, it is futile to think that the functions of the State can be restricted within the narrow limits only possible in an ideal community, in which indeed all government would be superfluous. Utopia is not yet in sight, and as things now are there are many ways in which social progress may be safely assisted by the State, but only so long as it is recognised that an indispensable condition

of real advance is individual liberty. But whilst it is essential that the liberty of the individual should be jealously safeguarded by the State, it is equally necessary that individuals should fulfil their duty to the State and to their fellow-citizens, and should so use their liberty of action as to further the progress and the well-being of the community.

At present, democracy is fully occupied with its fight for existence, and it will not be until the conflict is over, and the external danger at an end, that the test of democracy as a possible system of government will begin. Existing circumstances are perhaps more favourable for popular rule than have ever before existed, and there is good ground for the hope that democracy may falsify the predictions of failure so frequently made, and prove to be a practical success. If this hope should be realised, humanity will have made a great step forward. The principal reason for feeling doubtful about the realisation of this hope is the fear that the belief of democracy in the omnipotence of the State may lead to the gradual establishment of an all-powerful bureaucracy and a consequent gradual destruction of liberty. If this should happen, the fate of democracy as a stable form of government at the present time would be sealed.

In the foregoing pages an attempt has been made to show that this danger exists, and to indicate the form it is likely to assume. Freedom once lost is very difficult to regain-far more so under a democratic than under an autocratic government-and it would indeed be a lamentable result of the war if after all our huge sacrifices of life and treasure in the cause of liberty we should end by following the example of the enemy, and should substitute Status for Contract-the thraldom of the State for the liberty of the individualas the basis of our constitution.

ARTHUR CLAY.

THE LETTS

I. Russland, Polen und Livland bis ins 17. Jhrdt. Von THEODOR SCHIEMANN. Berlin. 1886-1887.

2. Gutsherr und Bauer in Livland im 17. u. 18. Jhrdt. Von A. v. TRANSCHE-ROSENECK. Strassburg. 1890.

3. Latvju Dainas. Edited by KR. BARONS and H. WISSENDORFF. Mitau and Petrograd. 1894, in progress. (In Lettish.)

4. Livländische Geschichte. Von ERNST SERAPHIM. Reval. 1897-1904.

5. Die Lettische Revolution. Berlin. 1906-1907.

6. Baltische Landeskunde. Von K. R. KUPFFER. Riga. 1911. 7. Die Agrargesetzgebung Livlands im 19. Jhrdt. Von A. TOBIEN Riga. 1899-1911.

8. Die Baltenländer u. Litauen. Von OrгO KESSLER. Berlin. 1916.

9. Esthonians and Letts. Edited by M. REUSSNER. Moscow. 1916. (In Russian.)

VERY little had been heard in England about the Letts before 1915. It was towards the end of that year that they began to be mentioned frequently in dispatches. The splendid Lettish Rifle Battalions, recruited and officered exclusively from the race whose name they bear, have brought into prominence a people who have too often been confounded with the Lithuanians. These volunteer battalions have recalled by their prowess and deeds of valour the legendary heroism of their ancestors, and have deservedly been praised by the Russian General Staff. It is important that the western public of Europe, when reading of the achievements of these descendants of generations of fighters, should learn to distinguish between them and the Lithuanians.

The Letts are Aryans. Their language is Indo-European, and constitutes, with the Lithuanian and Old Prussian, the Baltic family. Only two living languages belonging to this family have been handed down-the Lithuanian and the Lettish. The Old Prussians are Germanised' in their language, and the Germans have robbed them of all, even of their name,

and have covered it with shame before mankind. However, the memory of the glory of the Old Prussians has not died in the hearts of the sons of the Old Prussian stock, and many manifestations show that the soul of this race is still alive, that their consciousness has awakened, and that they have nothing in common with the Germans. In 1837 Pott demonstrated that the Letto-Lithuanic languages form an independent group the Baltic family—which should be placed next to the Slavonic and Germanic families in regard to independence, and in front of them in regard to antiquity. Later philologists, without exception, have confirmed this view. A. Meillet, for instance, confirms the simple truth that no Slav could understand a word of Lettish or Lithuanian. Nevertheless, certain politicians have not hesitated to proclaim the Letts and the Lithuanians to be Slavs.

The Letts inhabit at present the southern part of Livonia (Vidzeme-Midland): for instance, the districts of Riga, Wenden (Cēsis), Wolmar (Valmeera) and Walk (Valka), all Courland (Kurzeme), a small border in the provinces of Pskov and Kovno, and three districts of the province of Vitebsk (Daugavpils, Ludze, Rēzekne), and also the Baltic coast-land Prussia. The Letts are, moreover, scattered throughout in Russia. They are found in the provinces of Novgorod, Moghilev, Kuban, as well as in the two capitals, Moscow and Petrograd. Large numbers of Letts live in foreign countries, principally in the United States and in Brazil. In normal times Lettish emigration has always been considerable, but the Revolution of 1905 gave it an additional impetus:

It is very difficult to give an approximately accurate estimate of Lettish population, because official statistics frequently reckon Letts as Russians, Poles, or Germans, and because very many live abroad. The most moderate estimate gives their number at a little over 2,000,000, of whom some 1,500,000 are Protestants, nearly 500,000 Roman Catholics, and about 150,000 Greek Catholics. In Livonia there are, according to the official estimates of 1907, 624,000 Letts; in Courland 560,000; in the province of Vitebsk 320,000; in the province of Pskov 13,000; in the province of Kovno 30,000; in Petrograd and Moscow about 20,000 each.

Several types are found in the Lettish nation; but the fundamental difference between the Letts on the one side, and

Russians or Germans on the other, is clearly defined. The fair race of the North holds the most prominent place, and is represented by 30 per cent. of the population; whilst in Russia proper this fair race is represented by but 7 per cent., and in Northern Germany by 20 per cent., Southern Germany possessing no more than 3 per cent. We could also cite passages from the well-known ethnologists, Vacher de Lapouge and Latham, in corroboration of this statement. Latham shows that the Letts, Scandinavians, and English are the most Aryan of the races of Europe. The great fair dolichocephalic race, alluded to above, is closely followed by cross-breeds of various degrees and in a rapidly diminishing progression-the pure brachycephalic being extremely rare. Generally, the pure dolichocephalic type is also the oldest and the most Lettish. Of this type Latham (1854) wrote:

'The extent to which the Letts and Lithuanians are, at the present moment, fragments of larger populations, is seen from the history of the Prussians and the Yatwings; for the Prussians and the Yatwings were populations of comparative importance. I hold, however, as the result of a considerable amount of neither impatient nor one-sided investigation, that all the acts of all the Old Prussians, and all the acts of all the Yatwings, put together are as nothing to the prehistoric actions of certain earlier members of this important and interesting stock.'

Latham further maintained that they were the first conquerors in the East, and the first seafarers in the North.

History finds the Letts in their present country, namely, Livonia, Courland, and Latgale (the Lettish part of the province of Vitebsk), in the sixth to the eighth centuries, in developed organisations. The German Knights, who conquered the country in the twelfth century, fell upon the Letts when peacefully engaged in agriculture, cattle-breeding, bee-keeping, etc. They did not live in villages, but on separate farms. They were nevertheless keen soldiers and versed in the military arts, traded with other countries and had their own fleet. Their political institutions were as far advanced as those of any of their neighbours, and they had lords and rulers of their own.

After the conquest of the country by the Germans, many of the Lettish nobility were' Germanised,' and a great number were received into the German aristocracy; but the majority