War Office and in the Admir alty, and the creation of a Defence Committee of the Cabinet, which, as we all know, dragged on a languishing existence, until fifteen years later it was galvanised into life by the report of Lord Esher's Committee on the War Office. Only one member of the Commission appended a dissent, not considering the proposals of the Commissioners an adequate remedy for the "undoubted evils" and "dangerous condition of affairs" which they admitted, and not convinced that both Departments could not be brought together under one Minister, responsible for a "combined plan of operations for the Defence of the Empire," and who should act as arbitrator between the two Departments, and being of opinion that the two Departments would not unite for "one duty and one combined work" unless they were, for that special purpose, controlled by one authority. As we have already said, much has happened since 1889. It may be, and we sincerely trust it is the case, that the Defence Committee of the Cabinet has been found able to do all that is necessary in bringing the Services into cooperation for "one duty and one combined work." Only one thing is certain, and that is, that while both Naval and Military Estimates have greatly increased, there is a widespread feeling of doubt as to the sufficiency of the national defences by sea and land. At least we think we have shown that the idea attributed to Mr Winston Churchill of bringing both Services under one control is not one which is unworthy of discussion. MR BALFOUR'S RESIGNATION. THE resignation of Mr Balfour from the leadership of the Unionist Party, if not wholly unexpected, came as a shock to all patriotio Englishmen. It was hastened by no dissensions, it was impelled by no malign influence within the party. It was the sad and logical outcome of changed conditions. Mr Balfour boasts such a record of service as no other statesman in our annals may boast. For five-andtwenty continuous years, either as Minister or Leader of the Opposition, he has devoted himself to the welfare of his country. He led his party for twenty years; for ten years he led the whole House, -a longer period of unbroken leadership than has fallen to the lot of any Minister since the death of William Pitt. Faithfully has he served his country; honourably has he earned the the rest which he claims. Had the demagogues who to-day hold the reins of office not contrived a revolution, he might once more have led us to victory. Now his retirement from the leadership is final and irreparable. He will not come back as Pitt came back when Addington failed, or as Mr Gladstone came back, after he had laid upon Lord Hartington the heavy burden of opposition. Happily he will remain to adorn and advise the House of Commons. The duty of command has passed to other hands, and there is none, save his immediate adversaries, who will not regret the passage. As Mr Balfour said in the eloquent and affecting speech which he made to his constituents, the strain of leadership increases year by year. A Government which demands that the House should sit ten or eleven months out of twelve, the growing exactions of a democracy which insists upon seeing and hearing its representatives in its own conventicles, have rendered the craft of politics almost unbearable. In the future, relays of politicians will be required to achieve what was once the work of one man. At any rate, we are not likely to be governed any longer by that wise and patriotic class which freely gave to the country the fruits of its training and experience in the arts of statesmanship. "You will more and more find it difficult," Mr Balfour told the voters of the City of London, "to get at the same time men of adequate leisure, adequate position, prepared to undergo the great toils which inevitably attach now to political life." We shall be forced to fall back upon the professional politician, who studies the party machine far more profoundly than he studies the interests of the country, and whose ultimate supremacy is assured by Mr Asquith's reckless bribe of £400 a year. How should Mr Balfour, our destinies to deal with a trained in in another school, situation which he had never place himself in competition with such men as these? The reason which Mr Balfour gave for his resignation is characteristic in its modesty and unselfishness. He cannot bear even the slightest suspicion, which none would attach to him, of clinging to office. "I desire to leave the position of heavy responsibility which I have held," he said, "before I can be suspected of suffering from the most insidious of all diseases-the disease which comes upon those who, without losing their health or their intellect, nevertheless get somewhat petrified in the old courses which they have pursued, whose authority grows because they have been long in the public service. . . but who cannot deal with the great problems which in this changing world are perpetually arising, with freshness and elasticity." If no man knows when that moment has come, all men know that it has not come to Mr Balfour. Yet Mr Balfour sees clearly enough that if the Empire is to be saved, it can be saved only after a bitter conflict. He thinks it right that he should resign before that conflict is engaged. Next session we may be in the throes of a General Election. "And what chance has my unfortunate successor?" asks Mr Balfour, "if he has no time to get into his saddle; if he is given no interval before the stress of fight comes on us; and if he is suddenly left in the very crisis of been able to survey or to contemplate?" The question can receive but one answer, and it redounds vastly to Mr Balfour's credit that he should put it. He at any rate does not accept the comfortable doctrine of his opponents: after me the Deluge. Nor does he retire from the leadership when the fortunes of the party are beset by storms. He is not one to leave a sinking ship. He has fair hopes of a favouring breeze and a prosperous voyage. One of his reasons for choosing this moment for resignation is that he sees before Unionism prospect of growing influence. "This Government," said he, in a passage of eloquent truth, "have lived on electoral bribes for six years. They have been floating helplessly down the revolutionary stream, which they have not controlled or guided in any way, snatching now at one electoral advantage and now at another electoral advantage. They have attacked the Crown, they have attacked the Second Chamber, they have bound the representative Chamber hand and foot; and, having finished their bribes, they are now lapsing into the old Radical practice of destroying Churches, passing what they conceive to be judicious Reform Bills from the gerrymandering point of view, and generally comporting themselves as a Radical Party in difficulties does comport itself. I do not believe the country will stand it much longer." All students of politics will share Mr Balfour's hope and belief, and when the hour of victory comes, as it assuredly will come, the due honours of the triumph will be paid to the valiant leader, whose sedulous energy and high courage have made it possible. House of Lords has been suppressed, the House of Commons has been throttled, not for the sake of a principle, but for the sake of convenience. Mr Asquith has callously and cynically upset the Constitution, in order that he may keep a bargain with Mr Redmond and give Home Rule to Ireland, in open violation of pledges given and accepted in the past. Revolution may be met only by counter - revolution. The Mr Balfour's resignation marks a deep step in the decline of English politics. He belongs to the old and sane tradition of his craft. He has always taken the aristocratic view of public service-the day is past for quiet arguview of Pitt and Castlereagh, ment and disciplined debate. of Melbourne and Palmerston, Mr Asquith, no doubt profitof Disraeli and Lord Salisbury. ably to himself, has made them Trained in affairs by his great impossible. If the Empire is predecessor in the leadership to be saved, it must be saved of the Tory party, he has sacri- by methods corresponding in ficed none of the lofty ideals of violence to the methods of the the past. He has fought his present Cabinet. No opporopponents as though they were tunity must be lost of censure men, like himself, eager for the and attack. Now that the prosperity and advancement of Second Chamber, which has England. This amenity of con- stood between the country and test is no longer possible, and the Coalition, has been stripped it may be that Mr Balfour does of its power, all the resources not feel inclined to change the of obstruction must be emmethods which have obtained ployed by the Unionist Party. throughout his long career. The old restraints of ParliaThe Tory Party is faced to-day mentary life must be forgotten, not by political opponents but and the Opposition must reby national enemies. Until member that it is fighting not Mr Gladstone discovered the for the triumph of a policy, supreme virtue of marble halls but for the very existence of and noisy audiences, both par- the Empire. In other words, ties were inspired by the same the time has come to part ambition-to respect the Crown from the ancient ways, to and to preserve the Consti- ignore the ancient traditions tution. Messrs Asquith and of amenity; and doubtless Lloyd George have vastly im- Mr Balfour preferred to reproved upon Mr Gladstone's tire from the leadership beexample, and we are in the fore he was forced to unmidst of a stealthily contrived learn the lofty lessons of his revolution. All the conditions craft. of public life are changed. The Mr Balfour is no longer leader. Happily for us he still remains an honoured member of Parliament, with, we hope, many years of valuable service before him. If one chapter of his career is closed, another is opening, of equal distinction. Freed from the onerous duties of leadership, he will intervene with all his old authority in the debates of Parliament. If the House of Commons can still listen to the words of justice and reason, it may profit by his knowledge and experience. As amicus curice, he may yet influence the House which once he led. And, outside the House, may he not speak for England with the voice of sanity and moderation? It is, therefore, not the time to sketch the great services which he has done to his country. Something may be said of the eminent gifts which he brought that task of leadership which he has renounced. He was, in the first place, the most distinguished member of the House of Commons of his day and generation. It was at Westminster that he most clearly showed his supremacy. He treated the House with the loyalty and respect of one who had spent the larger part of his life within its precinots. He did his best to conceal, even from himself, the sorry truth that it had fallen into evil ways, and had forgotten the lessons of a salutary tradition. He understood its humours and swayed its passions as did no other statesman of his time. And the House responded easily to his lightest word, as though it were sensitive to his in to fluence. He alone among his The democracy |