one of its clauses. Moreover, Mr. Balfour is a dreamer rather than a worker. He takes to politics as he might take to any other form of occupation which amused him for the time. He cannot throw his soul into the details of dull and commonplace schemes of legislation. He is a philosophic doubter about everything, and especially about the House of Commons and parliamentary eloquence. I heard him once say that he had no high opinion whatever of mere oratory. He admitted that John Bright was undoubtedly a great parliamentary orator, but said that he should not care in the least to make speeches like those of John Bright. Now, if a man wants to succeed in any line of life almost the first condition is that he must greatly desire success in it. A man must give himself wholly to the House of Commons and its work or he cannot become a great parliamentary leader. Mr. Balfour never did give himself wholly up to the work of the House of Commons. His one great anxiety always seemed to be to get away from the House of Commons as often as he could and to go and do something else. He never, I am told, indeed I think he has said so himself, reads the newspapers. Now a man might be a great scholar who never read the newspapers; he might be a great power in literature without ever reading the newspapers. I may go a little farther and say that in some fields of literature a man might be a better worker because he never read the newspapers. But the man who undertakes to lead the House of Commons and to conduct the affairs of a great administration without reading the newspapers is like a man who undertakes to steer a ship without taking any account of winds and waves and stars and weather. When Mr. Balfour came to discuss the Education Bill he soon showed that he was out of touch with everybody, even including the members of his own Cabinet. He is a very clever and graceful parliamentary debater; he is, taken all around, one of the best debaters in the House of Commons, now that the one supreme debater has quitted the parliamentary field. But he showed to very poor effect in the debates on the Education Bill. What was the result? The result was that after weeks of precious time had been wasted in hopeless discussion, Mr. Balfour had to throw up the sponge and withdraw the bill. With all his great majority he could not force the bill upon the House of Commons. Had he persevered in trying to do so, a considerable number of his own men would have openly revolted against

him. He did not fall in battle. He merely quitted the field. No failure so utterly ignominious to a ministry has ever occurred in my time. More than half the session was occupied in fruitless, futile debate on this measure which was to have been the great triumph of the government, and which had to be unconditionally surrendered at the last.

The programme of the session was crammed full of measures, everyone of which was to have proved to the country what practical administrators the Tory statesmen were and what good they could do for England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales now that Mr. Gladstone and his Home Rule policy were out of the way. What now is to come of all these promises? There is no time left to give a chance to any substantial part of the legislation which the government announced that it was its business to carry to success. The one great declaration of the Tory statesmen when they took office was that they were going to do substantial good for the people of Great Britain and Ireland and not to waste any time in absurd and impossible schemes of Home Rule for Ireland. Ireland they were going to satisfy by a great measure of landtenure reform. England they were going to satisfy by an Education Bill and various other measures of an equally practical nature. Scotland was to have something all to herself, and Wales some peculiar measures of propitiation. Each and every measure was to be of the practical and not the visionary order. Now I think the most disputatious mind will admit that the first business of practical statesmanship is to be practical. It is of little use calling one's self a practical statesman if one brings in measures which cannot be carried into law. But this is exactly the condition of the present Tory government. Whatever anyone may say of Mr. Gladstone's Home Rule Bill, it must be admitted that he carried it through the House of Commons and that it was rejected only by the House of Lords. Whatever may be thought of Mr. Balfour's Education Bill, it must be admitted that it had to be withdrawn from the House of Commons. There is actually no time left in the present session during which to carry any substantial measures through Parliament. The Tory members are almost all of them gentlemen who are given up to the moors at the regular season, and whom the stoutest cartropes could not hold in their places at Westminster after the 12th of August. Most of the government measures will be withdrawn

just as the Educational Bill was withdrawn. Nobody cares about the Irish Land Tenure Bill, except a few Irish landlords, and these do not care about it in its original form, and only stick to it in the hope that it may be so much improved in their sense as to give them some direct advantages. Therefore there is no rashness in the assumption that the session of 1896 is an absolutely wasted session. In truth, the huge majority of the Tories was, in one sense, a disadvantage to them. It made them too confident and cocksure.

Then the government was singularly unfortunate in its foreign policy. Some of the misfortunes were due to the policy itself; others came from events and causes over which the government had no control. The country saw with amazement a new Egyptian campaign started, about which the government could not or would not give any explanation whatever. The events in South Africa, and especially Dr. Jameson's raid, told heavily against the Tory statesmen, although it cannot be denied that Mr. Chamberlain showed great courage and skill in his manner of dealing with a very serious and unexpected crisis. All this, however, was distinctly damaging to the government in public opinion. What the outer public saw was that the Tory government had brought us into nothing but trouble abroad, and was able to do nothing whatever for us at home. On one or two occasions of great moment lately the government majority suddenly shrank to little more than half its ordinary number. One man was lax in his attendance because he did not like what the government had been doing in one way; another man stayed at home because the government had refused to oblige him in some other way; a third man did not see why he should tie himself to the House of Commons for the sake of a set of ministers who were forever wrangling among themselves; a fourth man was sulky because he did not see why "Joe Chamberlain" should be allowed to boss the whole show-and so on. It is very possible that if the government had had but a small majority these troubles would never have assumed so serious a magnitude. Men would have swallowed their private or personal grievances and felt bound to stand by their leaders all the same. But, as the condition of things was, it became quite easy for Jack to say to himself that there was no reason for his sticking to the House, inasmuch as Tom, Dick and Harry were certain to be in close attendance there, and therefore

he went off with a light heart and not the slightest compunction of conscience.

Now of course we all know that where there is a great majority that majority will not under ordinary conditions dwindle all of a sudden. It would take several sessions to bring the Tory majority to vanishing point, unless something very unexpected were to happen. But then in that wide field of foreign policy which the Tory statesmen have lately entered with so light a heart, there is no telling what news any day may bring. Nothing so much discredits a government in England as any real and striking reverses in its foreign policy. The Liberals are always complaining of the present government because of its vast expenditure for the increase of the strength of the navy. A great many devoted Tories on the other hand insist that the government is not doing half enough for the navy. A disaster in Egypt would shatter the strength of any administration which could not feel it had the whole support of the country behind its policy. The present government could not possibly feel that it had any such support, because it never condescended to take the country into its confidence, and, as I have already said, either could not tell or would not tell what the new war movement was all about. A sense of utter insecurity was thus generated which may not have a very practical effect if everything goes right, but may have a very practical effect, indeed, if anything should go wrong. If Mr. Balfour were less of a philosopher and an amateur, I should think he must feel very anxious about the present crisis. But I dare say he will console himself with divine philosophy. To him it possibly seems that, to use the once familiar saying, "there's nothing new, and there's nothing true, and it don't signify." No one can doubt that the government has got into serious trouble even amongst its own followers and adherents by the singular feebleness of its policy in regard to the Armenian massacres. England had much better have let the Armenians alone if she had not made up her mind to take a firm stand on their behalf. The Tory government, by threatening Turkey without having any intention of putting the threats into force, did only harm to the unfortunate Armenians. The Tory threats offended the Sultan and the Turkish ruling populations, and exasperated them more than ever against the deserted Armenians. Religious hatred and racial hatred flamed out with ten times keener

force when England intervened, and above all when it came to be gradually made clear that England's threatened intervention meant nothing at all. We all remember what happened in the sudden intervention of the immortal Don Quixote. Don Quixote saw a man scourging his unfortunate apprentice. Don Quixote intervened and insisted that the apprentice must be scourged no more. Then he mounted his horse again and went his way. The moment his heroic figure disappeared below the horizon the man tied up his apprentice again and scourged him worse than ever. This was exactly what happened with regard to the English intervention for the protection of Armenia. I am not by any means inclined to class Lord Salisbury with any manner of Don Quixote. I am not inclined to admit that the Tory government had really much of the chivalrous, and heroic purpose which belonged to Cervantes's deathless hero. But the effect was much the same. As soon as the Porte got to know that nothing serious was to come of England's intervention, the Turkish pashas tied up the Armenian apprentice over again and scourged him more cruelly than ever. Now I have been in Turkey and I know something about the ruling classes there. I am perfectly convinced that a strong, stern word from Lord Salisbury would have settled the whole trouble in Armenia. There is an old story about a brief exchange of despatches between two chieftains in the far-off legendary days of my own country. One chieftain wrote to the other, "Pay me my tribute, or else." The other chieftain concisely replied, "I owe you no tribute and if -." I wish we could have had some such exchange of correspondence in regard to the Armenian troubles. I wish England had written, "Let the Armenians alone or else -," and that Turkey could have had the nerve to reply," I'll not let the Armenians alone, and if —.” Then we should have found ourselves face to face with the whole difficulty. But I am afraid that even in that case Lord Salisbury would have accepted the ultimatum and caved in. No man in his senses, I think, could believe that Turkey would have dared to resist in arms the power of England. But then, of course, I should be told that there was the question about the attitude of Russia. Russia would support Turkey, Russia would bring France along with her, Russia would do this, that and the other. I do not believe that Russia would have ventured to prevent England from acting on the rights given to her by a special clause in