of Great familiarity with the working and construction of modern battleships, and his little book, 'In a Conning-Tower,' proved that his foresight was equal to his knowledge. A little story, lately told in 'The Times,' is the best indication of ArnoldForster's method that we know. "During one of the flying visits of the Emperor William "-thus runs the story opinions. The oppression of the Land League and the disloyalty of W. E. Forster's colleagues in the Cabinet made it impossible that Arnold-Forster should cling to the Liberalism of his youth. In these early days two passions dominated him the Union Britain and Ireland, and the Federation of our Colonies. The Union is, we believe, assured, and the sense of Imperi- "when Arnold-Forster had alism has become so acute that just become Secretary to the no responsible Minister would Admiralty, the two met on board dare to-day to put a slight the Royal yacht in the Solent, upon the Colonies. These ad- and at once began to talk ships mirable results owe not a little and guns. to the tireless energy and implacable spirit of ArnoldForster, than whom our Colonies, especially, had never more loyal and eloquent champion. The Kaiser asked many questions, and expressed, after his fashion, many frank opinions about the vessels lying at anchor before them; till presently Arnold-Forster turned the tables by some shrewd remarks about the machinery and armaments of various German battleships. The Kaiser listened with astonishment, and asked, 'How do you come to know so much about the German fleet?' 'Oh,' replied Arnold - Forster, 'I have been down the stoke-hold of every battleship in your Majesty's navy.' That is eminently characteristic of Arnold-Forster and his thoroughness. He was always his own intelligence department, and knew the importance of checking by observation the reports of his staff. Above all, Arnold - Forster loved the battle and turmoil of politics. The love of combat was in his blood, and when in 1892 he became member for West Belfast, he represented a constituency perfectly suited to his militant temper. In fighting the battle of the Union he asked and gave no quarter. He detested the spirit of compromise, and he was resolved to fight for his side to the bitter end. Meanwhile, as the cause of Home Rule declined, Arnold - Forster found leisure for a profound study of the Navy and Army. The fighting It was at the Admiralty as services had always attracted Parliamentary Secretary that him, and he spared nothing he did his best work. in extending and deepening his carried thither something more knowledge. He watched with than habits of industry and a unceasing care the military zeal for the public service. manœuvres of foreign govern- In dealing with Naval affairs ments. He had a mechanician's he was strengthened by the He knowledge of a lifetime. The speeches which he made in the House of Commons during his tenure of this office remain his best contribution to the statesmanship of his day. The years which he spent at the War Office were less fruitful, and this through no fault of ArnoldForster's. The War Office is almost as fierce a destroyer of reputations as Ireland herself, and though Arnold-Forster left it with his reputation unimpaired, he left it also with his schemes unachieved, and his was the mortification to see a plan which he despised and utterly condemned carried on the tide of his successor's suave eloquence to something which looked like accomplishment. That Arnold - Forster's plan, in which its author had so devout a faith, is the best plan for our country, we cannot believe in the face of our Government's latest confession. It was too rigid, too sternly inflexible. It took for granted that in no circumstances could England be invaded; and leaving the Navy to guard our shores, it pro own vided for an efficient force which could strike outside the shores of England wherever a blow was necessary. Once having adopted his plan, he fought for it with all his vigour and all his conviction. With the same vigour and the same conviction he fought against the scheme of his successor, which he rightly thought left England without the power of offence. A brief week before his death he delivered one of his liveliest, most persuasive speeches, and he died with an unfinished letter lying upon his desk. If ever a patriot died upon the field of battle it was Arnold-Forster. His policy was not successful. Perhaps it did not deserve to succeed. But it had no other end than the service of the country, and it was conceived without thought of self, without any other hope than the welfare of England. The future may hold in store for us Ministers more prudent than Arnold-Forster. It will never give us one more patiently zealous, more unselfishly patriotic, more highly honourable. BREACHING THE BUREAUCRACY. BY SIR CHARLES CROSTHWAITE, K.C.S.I. SINCE this subject was brought before the readers of 'Maga' in February, we have come to closer quarters with the proposals of the Secretary of State. He has introduced a Bill, and it has passed through the House of Lords, not without scathing criticism, and with the loss of a clause (clause 3) by which Lord Morley sets great store. The Bill may be described as a purely enabling Bill, a Bill for empowering the Government of India, with the sanction of the Secretary of State, to do as they like. A A "blank cheque," as it it was termed, which will allow elective and (so-called) popular institutions to be pushed to the extreme, right up to the line in fact of representative government. On the 24th February Lord Morley moved the second reading of the Indian Councils Bill. On the 25th the debate was resumed. On the 3rd of March the House went into Committee on the Bill. Lord MacDonnell led a vigorous attack on clause 3, which gave the Governor-General in Council, with the approval of the Secretary of State, power by proclamation to create a Council in any province under a Lieutenant-Governor for the purpose of assisting the Lieutenant-Governor in the Executive Government of the province. The clause was omitted by a majority of forty-one to eighteen votes. On the 10th of March, on the order for the report stage being read, Lord Morley moved an amendment to restore this clause. To excuse this unusual proceeding he read a remarkable telegram from the Government of India. This incident will be dealt with further on. The House, however, did not divide on the motion, and the Bill passed the third reading. In India the scheme has been received with a great display of enthusiasm by the Hindu politicians. It is as well not to take this display too seriously. Naturally they regard the concessions as a triumph for themselves and for the Congress especially. They are to have majorities in the Provincial Councils, they are almost certain to gain a seat in the Executive Council of the Governor-General, and in all the other councils which may be extended or established. They had never dreamt in their wildest moments of getting all these concessions along with the institution of a system of popular election, which is only "popular" in so far as it hands over the interests of the peoples of India to the keeping of a small clique of "Nationalist" politicians. What more could have been done for them at present? or what could have been done to lead more surely to further concessions in the future? Already they are girding their loins for fresh action. It is idle to speak of these demonstrations as if they were the outcome of gratitude for a for a great national benefit, or to plume our selves on a wonderful coup of brilliant and unselfish statesmanship. A cabman who expects a shilling may touch his hat if you give him halfa-crown. If he shall exhibit effusive joy, you will not proceed to thank God that you have a generous heart and an open hand. There has been no such rejoicing amongst the Muhammedans. The leaders and the educated portion of their community have been much alarmed at the prospect of being subordinated to the majority. On this point, however, Lord Morley has been compelled to give way. An assurance has been given to them that they shall be allowed to form separate Muhammedan constituencies and to elect their own representatives-the number of whom is not to be based on merely numerical proportion. Next to the question of the methods of election, they attach importance to having a Muhammedan in the GovernorGeneral's Council, if a Hindu is appointed. On this point the Secretary of State is firm. So also it is believed are the Muhammedan leaders. They place great, perhaps too much, value on it. They will not be satisfied and will not think themselves fairly dealt with unless they get it. We venture to think that in this matter Lord Morley has committed a grave mistake. The question has been raised gratuitously, for no one can allege that there are Indian gentlemen manifestly fitted to take a leading part in the Government of India standing about idle in the market-place. If an eminent Indian has risen, like his English confrères, through the ranks of the Civil Service and has shown himself fitted for this promotion, he ought undoubtedly to get it. But to appoint him mainly because of his birth and race is a perversion of the intention of the proclamation which the Government desire to fulfil. Everything possible has been said by Lords Lansdowne, Curzon, and MacDonnell to warn the Secretary of State of the danger awaiting him. Even Mr Gokhale, who does not labour under the disadvantage of being on the opposite side in home politics, and whose advice therefore may be looked upon with less suspicion, advocates the appointment of "two Indians to the Executive Council of the Viceroy." It would be wrong, for many reasons, to appoint two. But why has Lord Morley created this dilemma? POPULAR ELECTION IN INDIA. The Secretary of State has no reason to complain of the general reception of his proposals by the House of Lords. Nearly every one connected, or who has been connected, with Indian administration admits that as the country progresses It is and grows the Government and also the fact that they must grow to meet it. only a question of degree. Because the child has grown out of the garb of babyhood we do not wish to make him ridiculous in a tail-coat and top hat. The critics in Parliament and out say, "Do not go too fast and too far." And chief amongst the matters in which it is thought that the present proposals go too fast and too far, is the scheme of popular election. To those who know India as it is away from the influences of the Presidency towns, the notion of establishing popular elections in a large degree appears wildly utopian. Hitherto certain constituencies, more or less artificial, perhaps, have been allowed to recommend candidates for the Legislative Councils subject to nomination by the head of the Government. The present idea is to frame, in a manner as yet undefined, constituencies for different races, religions, and classes such as landholders, Muhammedans, merchants and traders, and so on. These constituencies are to be free to elect whomsoever they choose, subject, it is presumed, to some rules of qualification or disqualification yet to be laid down. It is urged that no form of popular election is suited to Indian conditions. Take the opinion of Lord Cromer, who is certainly not imbued with anti-democratic prejudices. On the second reading of the Bill (February 25) he said: "If they considered the immense diversity of race, religion, and language in India, would be endeavouring to transplant to India a plant entirely of exotic growth and placing it in very uncongenial soil, he must confess, for his own part, that he should be very much surprised if the legislative experiment did succeed." That is the view of a foremost Liberal statesman, intimately acquainted with Oriental populations and sympathetic with Lord Morley's designs. Lord Lansdowne, Lord Curzon, and others of comparatively recent Indian experience, spoke in the same sense. Most men who know the conditions existing feel sure that any scheme of popular election that can be devised will place the power in the hands of a Hindu majority, a Brahmin majority, and in all likelihood a majority of aspiring lawyers. That is why the Muhammedans have been so active and strenuous, beyond their wont in political matters, in resisting the scheme propounded in the Secretary of State's dispatch. Hitherto they have believed in the impartiality and strict justice of the British Government in India to protect the minorities, and they have abstained from embarrassing that Government by joining the agitators. When they realised that an autocratic Radical Secretary of State was forcing a scheme of popular election on India, they found it necessary to move. There are other minorities who have not the same power of cohesion who will be left to the mercy of the majority. Some will make themselves heard. |