brilliant raid. It came the following year, with the result that all the world knows. Of the further progress of the war-the counter-expedition to Lisbon in 1589, the sack of Cadiz in 1596, the numerous voyages of adventure and plunder-it is unnecessary to speak. It suited Elizabeth's finance to wage the war' on the cheap.' She had no wish to worry her Parliament for money, and Parliament was well contented to hear of Spanish ports raided, Spanish vessels destroyed, Spanish treasure seized, without being called on to pay for it. It was not the best conceivable way of conducting a war, but it was not ineffective, and was slowly bleeding the Spanish Government to death, when a change of sovereigns, fortunate from their point of view, put them in a totally different position, and enabled them to make a not altogether unsatisfactory peace. Beyond that, the internal government and condition of the country would call for scant notice, were it not for the growing strength of the House of Commons, which, apparently, was waiting but for the death of the Queen to assert itself. Elizabeth was quick to read the signs of the times; and proud as she was, her later speeches to Parliament are in interesting contrast with those of her successor. To this, epigram might have lent itself, as it did to the Spanish war: Tandis qu'Elisabeth fût roi, which, in its English equivalent, runs: When glorious Bess was England's king, Now that Queen Jamie rules the State. ART. XI. THE POLITICAL PREDICAMENT. 1. Speech of the Right Hon. Arthur Balfour, M.P., at Nottingham. November 17, 1910. 2. Speech of the Prime Minister at Hull. November 25, 1910. 3. Speech of the Marquis of Lansdowne at Glasgow. November 25, 1910. 4. Speech of the Right Hon. Arthur Balfour, M.P., at the Albert Hall. November 29, 1910. IN N another fortnight the first Parliament of King George V will assemble at Westminster. It will meet under conditions of even greater importance than must necessarily always belong to the first gathering of the Estates of the Realm under a new monarch. In our constitutional system Parliament (King, Lords, and Commons) is and has always been absolute sovereign, supreme over the Executive Government and over legislation. No written Constitution has ever limited its power or its functions. Parliament can constitutionally alter the succession to the throne, can reform or reconstruct either House of Parliament, can determine what authority is to belong to its own component parts. No court of law or extraneous power can question the constitutionality of an Act of Parliament-its claim to the obedience of British subjects; for Parliament is recognised as the embodiment of the nation itself, to dispute whose supremacy is rebellion. It is natural therefore that British citizens should watch with some anxiety the conduct and demeanour of the new Parliament, its sense of responsibility for the exercise of the mighty prerogatives and uncontrolled power that belong to it. They know well that in this country power and responsibility go hand in hand; that if the Constitution is to work, neither King nor House of Lords nor House of Commons can act with sole regard to the wish, the whim, or the passion of the moment. In modern times the main security for the responsible action of our public men has been its publicity. The advisers of the King are known men; so are the Peers; so are members of Parliament. They cannot veil their political action under a secret ballot. In public they have to give account, and do give account, of their own conduct. And they are judged accordingly. When things go well, or when things go ill, the public knows, or at least thinks it knows, on whom to bestow praise, or on whose shoulders to place the blame, The elections are over. In the serious task that lies before Parliament, the country, it need scarcely be said, looks to leading statesmen on both sides of politics for a more prudent and responsible treatment of great constitutional questions than was apparent in the partisan electioneering harangues with which from the platform or the press the country was deluged during the month before Christmas. It is useless to deplore the developements which in recent years the methods of political controversy have undergone. Even Ministers high in service of the Crown are not ashamed to drop for a time the character of statesmen and to vie with the spouters of Hyde Park and Trafalgar Square in abundance of ill-conditioned clap-trap and in language of violent denunciation. Whilst at least the present and the ex-Prime Minister remain the leaders of the two great parties, there is no fear that the honourable traditions, the dignity, and the courtesy that have hitherto marked political controversy will be entirely lost sight of; but even with regard to Mr. Asquith and Mr. Balfour, though the amenities of discussion are not forgotten, the great national debate suffers not a little in character from the supposed necessity throughout the course course of a General Election of a daily speech or 'manifesto' or public letter from either leader, each striving to score some electioneering point against the other, whilst both, it would seem, are studiously anxious to avoid any complete disclosure of the political ends they really have in view. What to-day Mr. Asquith means by Home Rule' is as much a mystery to the public as what to-day Mr. Balfour means by Tariff Reform' or the 'Referendum.' From the merely electioneering standpoint both, in adhering to these tactics, are doubtless wise. 'Home Rule' and ' Tariff Reform may be good cries so long as they are not explained in specific measures for dissolving the national unity or imposing taxation on our bread-and-butter. The cries please the respective caucuses; and yet they have brought division and disaster to the parties that have adopted them. For after all, and in the long run, a party wins the enduring confidence of the public by the fact that its policy is a practical one, suited to the conditions of the time. If in the past twenty years Liberals can boast of any good work done, it has had no connexion whatever with the policy of Home Rule. If, as we hope, in the coming years Unionists accomplish great things for the country, it will have little connexion with the policy of Protection. Political discussion will now be transferred from the platform to the floor of the House of Commons, where statesmen will meet each other face to face, where they will be forced to listen to and answer each other's arguments, and where they will be expected to take account of the consequences which may be expected to follow immediately or ultimately upon the action that is taken. We shall be greatly surprised if, in the critical situation that has been now reached, public men do not show to far greater advantage in Parliament than when addressing party gatherings of their own supporters with the object principally of pouring scorn upon their political opponents. During a General Election the immediate object of electioneerers, and at such a time all are electioneerers, is, of course, party victory. The interests that are greater than those of party are temporarily lost to view. So it has always been, and the British public quite understands and discounts the exaggerations and excesses of the party platform. It is tolerant, perhaps too tolerant, of foolish, ill-conditioned, violent language. What is said is one thing, but what is done is a very different matter. Whilst speeches are forgotten, the effect of blunders remains. For political misdeeds, for mistakes in action, statesmen will be held strictly to account. Let us remember, however, that since 1831 the Liberal party has always been accused of revolutionary intentions, and for much of the time that has since elapsed that party has been in power. Nevertheless, the Statute-book-that record of the work done-has shown little of the spirit of revolution. Is all this to be changed? It seems certain that further steps in conformity with the growth of modern democratic sentiment will be taken. With this it is well that men should lay their account. But we see no reason to believe that the British people will now any more than in former times tolerate anything in the nature of 'revolution,' of 'confiscation,' of 'socialism,' in the sense in which those words are ordinarily understood; or will be willing to make, in reforming their constitutional arrangements, a complete breach with the past. The Prime Minister's action in dissolving a Parliament some ten months old, in which he was supported by a huge and unbroken majority of the House of Commons, and in which he had received no check from the House of Lords, was an entirely novel proceeding. True, his majority was not a homogeneous one, and depended on the cordial alliance of three groups; but nothing had as yet happened seriously to disturb their harmony, and there seemed to be almost no prospect of a purely Liberal majority being returned which would render him independent of the Nationalist and Labour parties. A dissolution was declared to be necessary because the private 'Conference' of Liberal land Conservative leaders over the VOL. CCXIII. NO. CCCCXXXV. S constitutional question' had failed to arrive at an agreement as to the solution that they would recommend to Parliament. So urgent, indeed, was the necessity for immediate dissolution declared to be, that it was impossible to postpone it for a few days to enable the new electoral register to come into operation. Hence the virtual disfranchisement of tens of thousands of electors. From the large number of sittings of the 'Conference it was argued, probably correctly, that for a long time the Radical and Conservative leaders hoped that agreement was possible. What were the views of the statesmen conferring, the public has not been told. About what points it appeared that agreement was possible, or not possible, we have no information. Indeed, we have not even been told that amongst themselves agreement was impossible; but merely (what is a very different thing) that they had not discovered a solution which would meet with complete party approval. Hence they adjourned, apparently on excellent terms with each other, sine die, and a brand-new Parliament, which had done nothing either good or evil, was at once sent about its business! The Conference' sprang out of the best of motives, and though it failed as regards its immediate object, it is very probable that indirectly good results may yet follow from the friendly interchange of views between opposing and rival statesmen. The death of King Edward and the accession of a new king had made all men last summer desire (if it were possible) to avoid, or to postpone, a great constitutional party struggle. A way of doing this was provided by the Conference," whose negotiations for a time compelled the most militant politicians to rest on their arms. In this way a welcome period of comparative peace was obtained. But it soon appeared that people were expecting from the 'Conference' a great deal more than it was possible for it to achieve. It resembled in no respect those gatherings of the representatives of different States who have met together to frame in private, and then submit for the approval of those States, a plan for uniting them. That the Conference would really hit upon some plan which would please everybody, which would propose vast changes, and pass both Houses of Parliament with universal applause was highly improbable; but the hope nevertheless was indulged in. It is not in that way that amongst us previous reforms have been carried. After they have been threshed out in Parliament; after public debate has made people understand the principal points in controversy; after irreconcileable differences appear to threaten positive deadlock, then, indeed, in the past has often come the time for compromise, when responsible and cool-headed |