ex

Commons, and was sent up to the House of Lords. The Peers received it with the sad acquiescence of men who had been mesmerised. Lord Selborne murmured furtively a few words about "unanimous universal approval"-idle words truly, since the nation, which was at war, had not been consulted, and had indeed pressed no clear opinion, about the matter at all. What is certain is that the House of Lords, of which Lord Selborne is a member, was not unanimous. The Lord Chancellor spoke strongly against the vote for women. Lord Peel, who had charge of the Bill in the Peers' House, cast a vote on neither side. And Lord Curzon, having delivered a closely-reasoned attack upon the Bill, did not raise a hand to delay its passage. He spoke with unction of "a vast, incalculable, and catastrophic change.' 'Vast and catastrophic," indeed, it was. "Incalculable "-no, not to the youngest student of politics. Its consequence so far could be measured almost to a man, and worse things will follow than we can see at present. 'They were opening the floodgates "-again it is Lord Curzon who speaks to something much more than a tidal river: they would be opening them to a flood which they could not stop, which might presently overspread this country and submerge many landmarks." So much Lord Curzon perceived and did not hinder, and justice will be done if he be

66

one of the first landmarks that is submerged.

When, therefore, we hear cunning politicians, who still call themselves Conservatives, complaining that the British Empire will presently be handed over to a gang of Socialists and Internationalists, we cannot but regret that six years ago they did not show a stouter loyalty, a clearer foresight. By a plain lack of principle they did the devil's work, and now affect surprise that it has not been without result. For their past levity we all must suffer. We can ensure security in the future only by driving out of the Party those who, for the sake of vanity or of a false magnanimity, have betrayed the cause which they have been elected to uphold. Many years ago a young Conservative, who had expressed the opinions of his Party with zeal and energy, was given a word of warning by an experienced opponent. "Young man," said the worldly old demagogue, "do not waste your sincerity in this house. You will live to regret it. You will sit up late and get up early to defend what you believe the righteous cause, and at last you will see your own friends pass such a measure of surrender as we, your opponents, would never dare to propose.' And that is what comes always to a Party which, to repeat Disraeli's wise words, treats institutions as we do our pheasants-they preserve only to destroy them."

So we owe it to the mis

and solid under the leadership of Mr Baldwin, is still the largest party in the State. But Mr Ramsay MacDonald is bent on being Prime Minister for a while, even though he can be but a caretaker. Why he and his friends should be so fierce in their desire to govern the British Empire we do not do not know. Yet they have not been able to hide for an hour their anxiety, lest something should come between the cup and their lip. Though they number some sixty less than Mr Baldwin's followers, they took it for granted, at the very start, that it was their destiny to govern. They do not love the British Empire; and why should men aspire to govern what they do not love? They have sworn allegiance to a polyglot international body which meets in Germany, and which holds the English delegates in proper subjection, and they have promised, on oath, to keep the flag of class-warfare flying. A pretty situation, truly! With the best intentions in the world, a man cannot serve God and Mammon; and Messrs MacDonald and Webb will find it the hardest thing in the world to go to sea in a ship which has a rudder at each end, and not to run upon the rocks.

Not only are Mr MacDonald's sympathies international at this present hour, but in the war he was frankly on the side of our enemies. His writings were regarded by the Boche as the most valuable of propaVOL. CCXV.—NO. MCCC.

ganda, and few were more consistently "defeatist" than was he. Why, then, should he be at the pains to take part in the government of England? Or why, indeed, holding the views which he has expressed, should he want to interfere in the government of anything? He and his friends have very often shown a contempt for government, since government means law and order, and law is as little to the mind of the Socialist as is order. We cannot forget that Mr MacDonald, our Prime Minister-elect, hastened to propose that Soldiers' and Workmen's Councils should be established in England, in flattering imitation of Kerensky's infamy, though he should have known that their establishment meant our defeat and Germany's triumph. Again, we cannot forget that the Socialist leaders once upon a time threatened a general strike, which meant revolution, on a mere question of foreign policy; and again we ask, how are such men fitted to govern others, or why should they attempt to impose upon themselves the restraint which the task of government demands?

Nevertheless, that the accession of Mr MacDonald and his friends to office should fill some misguided persons with panic we confess surprises us. A country which has suffered from the ignorance and recklessness of Mr Lloyd George need not fear the incompetence, however great it may be, of

L

Mr MacDonald. We have felt the scorpion before the whip. In truth, we almost have it in our heart to pity him. He is essaying a task which is beyond his powers, and for which he has had no training. He lacks the tradition which alone can make a statesman. He cannot rely upon his followers, who fondly believe that one man is as good as another, or rather better, and who want, every one of them, to lead the Party. It is his intention, we believe, to be his own Foreign Secretary, and to assume the office which, above all, needs long and patient training. He has never been an under-secretary; he has no experience in diplomacy; and how should he hope to possess the knowledge and the tact which are necessary to adjust the difficulties which may daily, even hourly, interrupt the relations of ourselves with foreign countries These difficulties may not be overcome by rhetoric. And we know not what other weapon than rhetoric is to be found in Mr MacDonald's armoury.

And the worst danger wherewith Mr MacDonald is confronted is the consciousness of the vast promises which he has made in the past, and which no ingenuity will enable him to fulfil. He will be a caretaker, a minister on sufferance, with a majority opposing him, wise and resolute, and how shall he satisfy all the hungry men who clamour behind him? None of his supporters will ever set eyes on the new heavens and

the new earths which his sanguine mind has sketched for them. But at any rate if he cannot create new heavens, he can, or he thinks he can, create a new hell for those who do not support him. He cannot abolish poverty,-that is beyond the power of man; and if he could, what would he have to talk about in the future? But he has a firm hope that he can decrease wealth, and if the decrease of wealth brings hardship with it even to his own friends, at least the envy and jealousy which seem to animate the Socialists will be assuaged.

a

Mr Clynes, in the very moderate speech which he made in the House of Commons speech which does not suggest that he ever in his life uttered the words Direct Action,— made it quite clear that he and his colleagues mean, if they can, to attack the institution of private property. He declared that "in the main those who were in the full possession of riches did not enjoy their property as the result of any persistent personal endeavour." We believe that statement to be untrue; we believe that the most of those who are the masters of wealth have acquired that wealth by their own skill and their own thrift. In any case, the statement is wholly irrelevant. Despite the nonsense that has been talked by Socialists in the past, there is no crime in ownership. A man has not to excuse himself

because he inherits money. There are, as a statesman said many years ago, "other and less reputable ways of acquiring money than by inheritance." But Mr Clynes and his colleagues have long been preaching the gospel of confiscation. As Sir Martin Conway said in the House of Commons, "the purpose of the Socialist Party was to take from the rich and give to the poor, even though the poor might not deserve it; and though the rich man might, by his thrift and industry and by his personal abilities, be entitled to the full enjoyment of all he possessed." But it is an attractive policy to rob Peter and enrich Paul, especially if you keep a hand upon your own possessions. And there is no cry like the cry of spoliation to keep alive envy and class-hatred. worst of it is that in the end all men suffer for it-the robbers and the robbed. The Bolsheviks in Russia proved how easy a job it was to make millions poorer than they were. They did not enrich by the process any but a handful of political and financial exploiters.

The

Some years since Mr and Mrs Webb, who are in the close confidence of Mr MacDonald, sketched for our guidance "a constitution for the Socialist commonwealth." From that astounding document we can gather the gloomy destiny which might await us. There is to be an end of all freedom, all individuality, all character. The inhabitants of Great Britain

will be asked rather commanded-to toe the line drawn by the pedantic hands of Mr and Mrs Webb. There is to be no money, and a complete reform of morals and manners. "The continued existence of the functionless rich," say these half-baked philosophers, of persons who deliberately live by owning instead of by working, and whose futile occupations, often licentious pleasures and inherently insolent manners, undermine the intellectual and moral standards of the community, adds insult to injury." Did you ever read such nonsense in your life? We do not know where these futile and licentious ones are to be found; as little do we know why they should not live, even deliberately, if they can and choose by owning instead of by working. If they do thus live, they will but imitate the example, doubtless admirable, set them by Mr and Mrs Webb. We have been told by a friend of these philosophers who have kindly consented to remodel the world for us, that their idea of dissipation is to engage another private secretary-a dissipation no less futile, we are sure, nor less licentious than those which they impute to others. But we would check neither their futility nor their licentiousness, and we ask of them in exchange only that we should have an equal freedom to choose our pleasures for ourselves.

Mr and Mrs Webb evidently believe themselves to be the