effect throughout India, where, be it remembered, the Hindu is in an overwhelming majority everywhere.

The Real Cause of Indian Unrest.

If His Majesty could announce that every case of assault or act of violence committed by AngloIndians on natives should be specially reported to him in order that he might lay the return of such crimes on the table of Parliament, he would do much to remove an impression which is doing not a little to undermine the foundations of his Empire in India. I notice elsewhere a remarkable article by Mr. S. M. Mitra in the current number of the Fortnightly Review, in which he roundly asserts that the real cause of Indian unrest is the fact that Indians are habitually kicked, beaten, and maltreated without any redress. Lord Morley just before he left office had this matter under his serious consideration, and whether the King announces it or not, it is obviously necessary that Parliament should receive a full return of all cases in which natives have been violently assaulted by white men and the punishment accorded for the crime. Mr. Mitra would have us believe that among a certain class of whites in India killing is regarded as no murder when the victim is a native. The King can do much to put a stop to this pestilent heresy. He might, for instance, exclude from all royal functions in India the representatives of papers like the Morning Post of Delhi, which, according to Mr. Mitra's quotation, recently declared that it is a mark of degeneracy on the part of a Briton to ask that Englishmen who murder natives should be hanged just as if they had murdered white men.

The Duke of Connaught.

It is an interesting comment upon the alleged Republican tendency of English Radicals that the present Government, which is the most Radical on record, seems disposed to make more use of the Monarchy than any of its predecessors. Royalty and Radicalism go very well together. Without the Crown the Radicals would be helpless against the Peers. The Crown also gave them invaluable help in carrying out the pacification of South Africa. The City did well to recognise in the usual way its satisfaction at the part played by the Duke of Connaught in that great work of conciliation and of peace. The Lord Mayor, in proposing the toast of the Duke's health, was guilty of no exaggeration in the eloquent eulogy, full of high political wisdom, which he pronounced upon the work of his guest. It was officially announced on the morning of the

banquet that the Duke will succeed Lord Grey as Governor-General of Canada. Well and good. But when the Home Rule Bill is passed he is marked out, from even before his birth, as the first Viceroy of the self-governed Erin.

Towards Home Rule.

a

The first step towards Home Rule is, of course, the destruction of the Peers' veto. But after that? Nothing can be done this Session at Westminster beyond carrying a resolution affirming the need for Home Rule. But a great deal can be done in Ireland if to that resolution affirming the principle of Home Rule a rider were attached declaring that as an indispensable preliminary to any legislation at Westminster for establishing a Parliament in College Green the Irish people themselves must meet in national convention in Dublin to decide what kind of Parliament they desire to have and how the relations between Dublin and Westminster are to be managed in the future. The King when he visits Ireland could issue the proclamation which would summon a National Convention, including all the existing representatives of Ireland in both Houses, to whom should be added, whether by Royal nomination or by co-optation, an equal number of other notable Irishmen. This Convention could profitably employ itself in thrashing out many vexed questions, notably the question as to whether Ireland is to be financially independent of Great Britain or whether she desires to have a hand in the joint purse. As an Englishman I protest against any English, Scotch, and Welsh

Cabinet assuming the right to frame a Home Rule Bill for Ireland. It is for the Irish people to frame their own Bill. We shall accept it, if we can, without detriment to the interests of the other partners and without altering a comma. The initiative lies with the Irish, not with Great Britain.

The beflance of

the Peers.

Lord Derby and Mr. Austen Chamberlain are threatening that the Lords will not pass the Veto Bill. This is good news - too good news, I fear, to be true. What Ministers desire, and the Liberal Party at their back, is to be afforded a legitimate excuse for creating such a number of Liberal Peers as would give them a majority in both Houses of Parliament. We cannot do it unless we are provoked, but, as a Cabinet Minister said the other day, we shall very easily be provoked. There are five hundred good men and true who would be delighted to accept peerages, on the understanding that the right, of succession was vested in, say, the Earl of Crewe, and his heirs after him. We are forbidden to make Life peerages in form, but we have a free hand to make Life peerages in fact by making each new Peer's patent specify Lord Crewe as the next in succession. The prerogative of the Crown is absolute in this matter. The Tory Law Lords in the discussion on the Wensleydale peerage were very emphatic in asserting, first, that any peerage conferring a right to a seat in the House must be hereditary, and, secondly, that the right of succession may be vested in anyone the Crown chooses to select. Hence, we have only to make Lord Crewe, or any other noble lord, heir to the whole five hundred new Peers and the only difficulty is surmounted. Then, for the first time in our history, the Liberals will have a majority in both Houses, and they could proceed to make hay while the sun shone.

The Preamble to

the Veto Bill.

A

There is much dissatisfaction on the Liberal side of the House at the refusal of Ministers to strike out the Preamble of the Veto Bill -the declaration as to the Ministerial intention with regard to the reform of the Second Chamber. Preamble ought to be strictly limited to the reasons for, and the intents of, the Bill to which it is prefixed. To interpolate into the Preamble of one Bill a statement of its author's intentions with regard to another Bill not yet in existence is as preposterous as it is unprecedented. It is contended that the promise on the part of the King to see the Veto Bill through is conditioned by the retention of that Preamble, and that if the reference to a reform of the

House of Lords is cut out the King will refuse to make Peers. I don't believe it for a moment. The words in the Preamble have no legislative value. All that they amount to is a statement of intentions. Ministers, if they must formally tabulate their intentions, can do so in many ways more effective and less embarrassing than by inserting them in the Preamble of the Veto Bill. The naive innocence which argues that the Lords will not make the Bill include a scheme of reform because the Preamble says that such a scheme cannot be framed now, leaves out of account that the Lords will demonstrate the impossibility of this by holding up the Bill until they have introduced their scheme of reform by way of amendment. Then when the Preamble comes on for consideration they will cut the Preamble to fit the Bill. The Preamble as it stands is a direct challenge to obstruction in both Houses.

The Slander

on

the King.

Last year, in the July number of this magazine, I had the honour and the privilege of being the first, and up to that time the only, man in the Empire who set himself to refute the odious slanders circulated far and wide against the character of the King. The immediate success which followed that initiative silenced all those who questioned the wisdom of paying such calumnies even the compli ment of a refutation. Apparently encouraged by the proof thus afforded of the success with which even the most widespread libel can be disposed of without thereby multiplying the circulation of the slanders complained of, the Home Secretary, acting of course with sympathy and encouragement from the highest quarter, ordered the prosecution of Mr. Mylius. This man, who appears to be an enthusiast for the universal Republic, had been caught publishing the libel as to the alleged Maltese marriage of the King by distributing a small printed sheet called by the imposing name of the Liberator, whose gigantic mission was to overthrow monarchy throughout the world. The wisdom of raising so great an issue by the prosecution of so insignificant and ludicrous an offender was gravely doubted by most people. But Mr. Winston Churchill has the courage of his convictions. The King is never a man to shrink from necessary risks, so the trial before the Lord Chief Justice came off to-day (February 1). The Attorney-General, Sir Rufus Isaacs, performed his task with consummate dignity and skill. The baselessness of the slander was conclusively demonstrated. The libeller Mylius did not even attempt to establish the truth of his

please on their own territory. But the freedom of the navigation of the Scheldt is guaranteed by all the Powers who signed the Treaty of April, 1839. It seems almost incredible to us nowadays, but three hundred years ago there was nothing the Dutch desired more than to close the mouth of the Scheldt so as to prevent any ships proceeding to Antwerp. From 1609 to 1793 this splendid watergate of the Continent was barred by the Dutch, who ruined Antwerp in order that Amsterdam might flourish.

nothing can be done. Such at least is the view of the Temps, which I take leave to question. For if this be the case, what is the value of the guarantee of neutrality if Belgium were to be invaded by one of the guarantors? Yet this was the contingency which the guarantee was intended to provide against.

Nonsense about

the Baghdad Railway.

complain that the

An infinite deal of nonsense is being written about the Baghdad Railway. Much of it justifies the accusation of our critics who British lion has been memor

phosed into a regular dog in the manger. A wail is going up from all the Jingo journals concerning the Russo-German agreement as to a possible connection between the Russian railway in Northern Persia and the German line through Asia Minor. Instead of making themselves ridiculous by their hysterical outcries, it would be much more sensible to imitate the Russian example and make an agreement with Germany as to the Persian Gulf end of the line. What we want is a guarantee that there shall be no tampering with the open door, no raising of preferential tariff walls, no differential railway rates. It is to our interest as a commercial and civilising Power to have Asia Minor spanned by a railway. We don't want to build it ourselves. The Germans are hungering and thirsting to do so. Why, in the name of common sense, should we stand in their way? It ought not to be difficult to arrange for the freedom of the port of terminus on the Persian Gulf. If our business men would but wake up and show something of the enterprise of their German rivals, they would clamour for the completion of the railway instead of sitting still and letting the newspapers scream about it. If the Germans are our enemies, they will not strengthen their power of harming us by entangling themselves in Turkish politics, and even if they had a port on the Persian Gulf it would only be one more hostage given to the paramount naval Power. The dream of Professor Delbrück that Germany will be able to find compensation for the lack of colonies by commercial expansion in the Ottoman Empire is only a mirage in the desert. She is much more likely to get the Turk upon her back.

Entente.

Ought we, as a civilised nation, to

The Russo-German say nothing of our Christian professions, to regard it as part of our national duty to set our neighbours by the ears? It is, I know, a deep-rooted conviction in Austria and Germany that this has been the constant undeviating object of British policy. To read much that has been written concerning the Potsdam interview between the Kaiser and the Tsar, it is regarded in some quarters as an alarming danger to the British Empire that Russia and Germany should be on better terms with each other than they were twelve months since. This assumption, if it were really acted upon by our Foriegn Office, would go far to justify the Anglophobist belief that John Bull is hostis humani generis. If there be any truth in the saying "Blessed are the peace-makers," we might do much more for ourselves and for the world at large if we diligently set ourselves to try and compose the quarrels of our neighbours instead of always trying to fan any spark of a misunderstanding into a raging furnace of national hatred. It is not to our interest that France and Germany or Russia and Austria should be at loggerheads. Depend upon it, there is more horse sense and good business in the Golden Rule than the Old Adam is disposed to recognise.

The

The discussion, or rather the raging, tearing agitation that the Rights of Neutrals. Jingoes are conducting against the Declaration of London is a signal instance of the inability of some people to realise the facts of the present international situation or the trend of mankind towards the international world

[C. Bulla, St. Petersburg.

state. In former times, when war was regarded as almost the normal state of nations, the rights of neutrals were ruthlessly trampled under foot. But when mankind began to realise that nine-tenths of the Governments of the world were always neutral or at peace, the majority began to restrict the operations of belligerents within limits. If you must fight, fight, but don't tread on our toes! The formerly despised neutral has become more and more alive to the fact that he is in a permanent majority; and hence a wise and resolute determination on his part to impose rules upon combatants which would confine their operations within a ring fence. The Declaration of Paris, which laid down the law that the neutral flag protects the enemy's goods from seizure at sea, was the first great landmark in the progressive resolve of the neutral majority to protect its own interests. The Declaration of London marks a second stage in the path of progress. It does not interfere with the right of belligerents to do the maximum amount of injury to each other, but it does increase the severity of the provisions necessary to prevent them interfering with the property or damaging the interests of the neutral. The right of blockade is preserved intact, and so also is the seizure of private property of the enemy under the enemy's flag. But it limits the right to search and to seize contraband of war under a neutral flag, and it provides an international court of justice to enforce its provisions. This is all to the good. For it not only protects the neutral, but it diminishes the risk which every belligerent runs of irritating the neutrals and bringing them into the war on the other side. We brought the American War of 1812 upon ourselves by ignoring the rights of neutrals. future, if any belligerent inadvertently transgresses the provisions of the new code of naval war, he has the right of appeal to a court in which the judges of the neutral Governments will always be in a majority. As I deal with the whole question in another place I need not enter into it further beyond saying that all who really care for the progress of mankind to a state of law, administered by international courts, should damp down the agitation against the Declaration of London as speedily as possible.

Reciprocity

between Canada and the United States.

In

The negotiations at Washington which have led to the conclusion of an arrangement for reciprocal free trade in the natural products of the soil between the Dominion and the Republic

are a great forward step in civilisation. They have demolished the last crumbling ruin of the Tariff Reform fortress in Great Britain, and they have practically obliterated the boundary line between the two great English-speaking communities on the American continent. Eighteen years ago, speaking at Toronto, I told Canadian loyalists that the greatest service they could do to the Empire was to get rid of the tariff between themselves and their neighbours, for no political arrangement stood on a firm foundation when it inflicted mutual economic disadvantages upon neighbours who were separated solely by a geographical line drawn across the map. The frontier between Canada and the United States is no real frontier at all in a military sense. The people living on either side are one people in everything but the flag. No mistake could be greater from the Imperialist point of view than to make the Empire spell either dearer food for the old folks at home or less profit for our kinsfolk abroad. It is true that the Custom Houses will still

remain. But for the products of the soil they will in future have no terrors. As for the fear that if they do more business with their American neighbours they will be less attached to the Mother Country, it is much more probable that the closer union with Canada will make the United States more British than that it will make the Canadians less loyal.

Does Prohibition Prohibit?

The extraordinary decrease in the consumption of alcoholic liquors in Great Britain in the last few years is paralleled by an extraordinary increase in the consumption of strong drink in the United States. In this country even Local Optionists have subsided into a state of lethargic indifference, and we drink less and less every year. In America a great wave of prohibition has swept over the South and the Middle West, and the consumption of drink goes up with leaps and bounds. According to the American correspondent of the National Review,

the consumption of liquor appears to have increased about 30 per cent. in the last ten years, or from 95,000,000 gallons of domestic spirits in 1900 to 128,000,000 in 1910. In the same time imports of spirits have increased from 1,700,000 gallons to 4,200,000. Fermented liquors increased from 39,000,000 barrels in 1900 to 59,000,000 in 1910, or 50 per cent. There has been an increase of population, no doubt, in that period, but nothing commensurate with the increase in the sale of strong drink.

Mrs. Eddy's Body.

I have been taken to task by a representative of Christian Science in this country for accepting too readily the newspaper stories as to the alleged belief of the Christian Scientists in the