shows that whether democracy in dangerous or not, at any rate it is not dead. In ancient cities and near to beautiful surroundings there are "slums" that have not yet been improved off the face of the earth and there are many problems to be faced by the central government and particular municipalities. A friend who is a competent business man with large commercial interests, an active patriotic citizen, who was feeling at the time the demands made by the Insurance Bill and the effects of strikes upon his business, gave me his deliberate opinion that things had never been in a better condition for the great mass of the people. That I think would be the opinion of any impartial observer who knows the life and history of the country during the last century. Whatever government is in power, the movement must go slowly forward and the political questions give way more and more to the distinctively economic and social problems.

But there are great political questions still to be dealt with; the position of the Second Chamber is one of the most difficult of these. If the present government lives out its full term the Home Rule Bill, the Welsh Disestablishment Bill and others will be passed, under the terms of the Parliament Act, in spite of the opposition of the House of Lords. The Conservatives, in case of a victory, would then begin their official career by deciding whether they would attempt to repeal measures that they had bitterly opposed. The British tradition is, as a rule, to accept facts and work upon the basis of what has already been done and it will be interesting in the event of a Liberal defeat to watch the statesmenship of Lord Lansdowne and Mr. Bonar Law when they are sobered by the responsibilities of office. This question of the House of Lords seems to be the key to the whole situation, though there are so many other sensational features. The complaint of the Liberals was that according to the working of the Constitution as it then existed only one party in the State could be sure of carrying its capital measures; in this contention they have been supported by the Irish and Labour members. The power of the House of Lords has therefore been limited though it is still very great, but the question of its permanent constitution remains to be faced. If this could have been got out of the way probably the final stages over the Irish question might

have been handled more calmly. The fact is that although the present government stands where it does as a result of three consecutive elections, the Conservatives do not loyally accept the Parliament Bill. Further, they claim that Ulster will be justified in resisting the Imperial Parliament by force of arms unless another election is held and perhaps even then. In other words, if the Liberals are defeated at the polls the will of the majority can be carried out but if the Conservatives are defeated a fourth time the administration will be in the hands of the Liberals but on vital questions where the House of Lords cares to interpose its power the defeated party is still dominant. The position of the Upper House has the support of tradition and is a matter of hereditary privilege for which, no doubt, a national defence could be given but when the power thus inherited has come to be used practically for the benefit of one party in the State it is questionable whether it will be much longer tolerated. One Unionist member has recently suggested that the House of Lords can evade the Parliament Act by not absolutely rejecting bills but postponing them from month to month. That may be a clever suggestion if what was desired was to bring the House of Lords into contempt but otherwise it seems only childish. It will take some time to settle this central question and until the position of the second chamber rests upon a permanent basis all other questions must be complicated by the friction at this point. In the meantime the Liberal party is carrying on the administration under great difficulties, annoyed by the attacks of militant suffragettes which are both serious and ridiculous, unable even to please the advanced Radicals in the matter of foreign policy and expenditure for defence, losing bye-elections because of the independence of the Labour party, and faced with the threat of armed resistance in the North of Ireland.

Even those who differ wholly or in part with Mr. Asquith's political views will admit that he has maintained his position with strength and coolness and dignity during a very stormy period. One thing is perfectly clear, viz., that if the Conservatives were in power they would recognize the fact that the first duty of any government is to maintain order and they would claim that the party in power has a right to follow

the decision of Parliament and decide, from its own point of view, when an election should be held. Sir Edward Grey, who may be expected to be "diplomatic," tells the members of the Opposition that the door has been standing open for a long time but they have contented themselves by shouting through the window. Let us hope then that "the suggestion stage" has really arrived and that all parties will co-operate in the attempt to find a constitutional solution of a problem that has vexed the souls of statesmen for generations. The Liberal party has paid too dearly for its adherence to the principle of Home Rule to be expected to desert it now and the Unionists have an opportunity of showing their statesmanship by helping to discover the liberty and self-respect of their followers in Ulster. The days of religious wars and persecution should by this time be banished in countries where the law gives equal liberties to all without respect of creed. And it should be possible to devise constitutional safeguards against any definite injustice.

The present writer remembers taking part in a meeting held in the Dartford division of Kent in favour of Home Rule, more than a quarter of a century ago. The platform was a farmer's waggon, and the meeting was held in the open air as there was no public room available for such a purpose in that parish. Our efforts were in vain for not until the great reaction of 1906 did this constituency gain a Liberal victory. There were many who thought even then that Gladstone's generous offer might create an atmosphere in which men of all parties might co-operate to produce a reasonable settlement. When Bright, Chamberlain, Dale, to mention only Nonconformists, revolted there was little hope of that. The split meant a long lease of power for the Conservative party and many things have happened since then. But even in quarters where there is not much enthusiasm there seems to be a scattered conviction that the sooner a settlement is reached the better. The fear of Home Rule does not play the same part in British elections as it did twenty years ago and it may be better for the Conservatives to cease to rely upon that and put their trust in their own positive policy, especially as after the passage of this Bill the number of Irish members will be much smaller and will probably be more

evenly divided between the two parties than they are now. The Conservative leaders have certainly gone as far as possible in the direction of threatening resistance so that "The Nation" can ask the question, "Do Lord Lansdowne and his friends meditate a White Revolution, in which the officers may go one way and the soldiers another? Are they to have a special army drawn from the forces of the Crown to maintain a resistance to the laws passed by the democracy? Now, this is not a mere question of a riot or a street affray. It is a definite and deliberate attempt to overpower by force a Constitution that has been set up by law. They have given at least a fair indication to the British public of the degree of their respect for law and order, and of their own opinion of the conditions on which allegiance is due from the forces of the Crown." It is probable that there are many within the Conservative party who see that the doctrine preached by some of their leaders is both illogical and dangerous. The appeal to brute force can scarcely be repressed in the case of the militants and Mr. Larkin and tolerated in the case of Lord Lansdowne and Mr. Larkin.

Even those of us who are far away have read with interest and sorrow of the terrible industrial struggle in Dublin. What has been brought to light is not simply the suffering growing out of this particular strike, but the generally wretched condition of the poor in that city and the need for a reformation or rather a revolution in the housing conditions of the lower class of worker, similar to that which has been effected in Liverpool and other English industrial centres. "Bishop Gore, who is rapidly becoming the chief tribune of the poor, has remarked, very justly, that if it had not been for Mr. Larkin the world would never have heard of the uncivilised life of Dublin."-(The Nation). The conditions were certainly known before, reported by private observers, and referred to by high judicial authorities, but the horrors of this labour work and the fierce oratory of this new agitation cast a lurid light upon these social problems which we trust will lead men of all classes to realize that these conditions are a disgrace both to Church and State. The Roman Catholic Church has been attacked for its want of sympathy for the poor. Caustic remarks have been made by Mr. Bernard

Shaw and others because in contradiction to noble utterances of the Popes on such subjects, it has left the struggling poor to the mercy of "gentlemen like Mr. Murphy." It is said that the Church was very careful about the orthodoxy of her children, but quite careless as to their real welfare. Outsiders cannot deal with the merits of this question but we can see that a new chapter is being written in the great book of the sorrows and struggles of the poor. "It took something like an earthquake to warn the Irish Government of the state of housing in Dublin." It may be that after all God is in the earthquake and that while there have been a few patient toilers there are many who need to be shaken out of their selfish self-complacancy. A writer in "The Nation" on "The Message, 'Jim Larkin,'" says, "It was not, we suspect, a mere sense for the excitement of the hour that prompted the "Manchester Guardian" to publish a verbatim report of Mr. Larkin's speech last Sunday. Those who conduct that great newspaper saw that the style, the manner, no less than the substance of Mr. Larkin's oratory was of vital significance to those who want to understand the social history of our day." "As oratory it has a special character, as a message to England, it has all the importance of a message from an unknown world." After speaking of the traditions and classic style of English Parliamentary oratory, the writer makes the following just remarks concerning those in England who may be supposed to stand nearest to the Irish agitator. "Now, the speaking of the politicians of the Labour movement is also formed in a school, the school of the man of the religious organizations which took the place of politics in the life of the working-classes when they were forbidden to interest themselves in politics. These men come to the House of Commons, not from the street, but from the chapel, the friendly society, the trades union, and perhaps the town council, or the Board of Guardians. They have been through the mill; they have an inherited or acquired outlook, their speaking follows certain forms; they have long been accustomed to the atmosphere of the discussion of business or the preaching of doctrines." Those of us who have been familiar with English political life know how true this is, and we could easily give illustrations from the lives of men whom we have known personally or by repute. "Now, Mr. Larkin's speech at Man