which their want of experience and self-esteem have brought their own organisation, and then will return to Stamboul not forgetful of the fact that statesmanship requires just a little something more than the assurance and energy of youth. every illusion that reaction realise the difficulties into had triumphed. In the second, Shevket Pasha, the Commander of the gates of the capital, announced that he was not acting for any political party: that the sole object of the military movement was to uphold the Constitution and ensure its stability beyond the caprice of a few mutinous soldiers and misguided priests. He admitted that the responsible leaders of the Committee of Union and Progress were working with the same intention, but that he held no brief for them or for any other political party. On these lines he was able to negotiate with Nazim and the new Government in the capital, and it will be seen that upon these lines the Government of the country will be be reconstructed. Beyond this at the time of writing it is impossible to probe with any degree of accuracy into the future. The leaders of the Committee of Union and Progress are naturally at the present moment inflamed against the influences which have hurled them from power. But we believe that au fond the leaders are patriots. If they be not patriotic, then without a doubt they have it in their power to invite many varieties of disorders in the Ottoman Empire, -disorders that must eventually call for European intervention. But if the leaders be still inspired by the same spirit of patriotism which called forth the eulogium of Europe six months ago, they will accept the position which the military dictatorship is evidently preparing for them. They will Later events which unfortunately occurred in Constantinople on 24th and 25th April clearly indicate that the forces of ignorant religious reaction against the Constitutionalists were even stronger than anticipated. That a portion of the Constantinople garrison, including some of Macedonia's own Chasseurs, should have made armed resistance to the overwhelming forces of the Constitutional party, must be considered the most unfortunate circumstance in the whole of this unhappy sequel to last summer's success. For at least a generation the fanatical masses will not forget that the garrison of Constantinople without its officers fought for Caliphate and Sheriat against the innova tions of infidels. The incoherent reports of the situation that have arrived as we go to press, however, make one point clear. Shevket Pasha holds Constantinople in the capacity of military dictator, and in his first pronouncement has definitely decreed that while there will be no return to reaction, there will also be no continuance of those parliamentary abuses which were responsible for the mutiny. For the second time in nine months the Macedonian army has saved Turkey. THE PARLIAMENTARY SITUATION. THE Parliamentary situation at the present moment is without a parallel in our history. We say this in full consciousness of the retort that will be hurled at us, and in the full confidence of proving its irrelevance. It was announced before Easter that a great national demonstration was to be organised after the holidays to protest against the naval misconduct of the Government -and it is proposed in this article to touch briefly on the causes which have made so grave a neglect of duty possible, and may make it so again unless the public comes forward and undertakes to do what the House of Commons is neither able nor willing to effect. The proposed demonstration was dependent, of course, on the attitude of the Government. If Ministers continued obdurate, as from Mr Asquith's Glasgow speech seems only too probable, and refused any guarantee that the necessary additions to our naval strength should be made without an hour's delay, then the nation must be roused to action, and an emphatic veto delivered in the name of a united people. If, however, Government should surrender at the last moment and give trustworthy assurances that the required number of ships shall be laid down at once, there would be no immediate necessity for this informal vote of censure. The prospect of it, combined with the memory of VOL. CLXXXV.-NO. MCXXIII. other recent public meetings, the speech of Mr Balfour at the Guildhall and the speech of Lord Milner at Nottingham and again at Worksop, would have done its work. As it is, we must wait for the Budget to see what the effect has been. It is no doubt a mortifying thing to haul down your colours after having nailed them to the mast, and whether Mr Asquith and his colleagues will submit to this indignity remains to be seen. We will ask such readers as may honour us with their attention to bear in mind two things: one, that our argument proceeds on practical considerations only; another, that in assuming the Government to have lost the confidence of the country, we are simply accepting what is commonly believed not only by Conservatives but by a great many Liberals as well, and what we have every reason to conclude is the opinion of the Government themselves. Mr Gladstone's description of the pre-Reform Parliament, to be found in the first volume of his 'Gleanings,' may not have been read by all to whom this article appeals, and by some who have read it may have been forgotten. It is worth while to recall the reasons which he gives for the downfall of the ancient régime. It was not condemned, he says, for its "working demerits," but for the anomalies and inequalities, "amounting to caricature,' which it presented. The Reform Bill of 1832 removed the abuses 3 D here referred to, but it is doubt ful if those which it cast out were worse than those which subsequently entered in. They did not appear all at once. Many causes contributed to retard the natural results of that sweeping but ill-digested measure; and it is unhappily too true that measures intended to improve upon it have not borne the fruit which was expected of them. Mr Herbert Spencer has gone so far as to assert that the Act of 1867 did actually restore under another form the very mischief which the Act of 1832 was supposed to have destroyed; and certainly whatever mischief was done by Lord Derby's Act was not repaired by Mr Gladstone's. Mr Spencer's idea seems to be that as before 1832 the middle classes were swamped by the aristocracy, now in turn both the aristocracy and the middle classes are swamped by a third class more numerous and powerful than either. Hence what he terms the revival of class legislation. The fact, however, if it be one, is not due exclusively to the extension of the suffrage. The forces which once gave property, intelligence, and political experience some means of controlling the tyranny of mere numbers have been greatly weakened in other ways, and by those who should have known better. And as one result we now see a House of Commons with a commanding majority on one side, which is at the same time no adequate reflection of the various national interests which it is the true end and aim of representative Government to consult. Our own constitution is supposed to work on a series of general understandings dependent on the good sense and moderation of the British people, rather than on any positive enactments, such as prevail elsewhere. Before the democratic element became allpowerful in the electorate, this theory seemed sufficient to maintain the constitutional balance. But it is doubtful how far it is prudent to rely on it any longer. Things are changed now. Democracy, like a woman, is a creature of impulse. It is not necessarily revolutionary. But this temper comes in its turn, and then the party hostile to the national institutions and the existing fabric of society take advantage of it to attack both. If, however, as is commonly believed, and as the Government apparently believe also, the present Administration has forfeited public confidence, we may hope that the good sense and moderation of the people will again assert themselves. But meantime what is the outlook we have before us? A Government in office against the will of the nation, with a majority so enormous that no ordinary defections or bye-blows can reduce it below a working strength, at liberty to remain in power, if they choose, for another three years, and work their will on a helpless nation and a threatened empire! There is no constitutional machinery for getting rid of them, except one which we are forbidden to name. No similar situation can be pointed out at any period of our Parliamentary history since the Revolution. It is but the culmination of all that restless legislation which has been tending in the same direction for the last forty years. It is madness to shut our eyes to its true tendencies, even if we see no immediate prospect of arresting their progress. But the nation at least may be roused to take care that, if anything is left worth preserving after the reign of ruin has run its course, nothing of the kind shall ever happen again. But events, for eight years. as Several Governments, already stated, have remained in office after losing what the present Government perhaps never had; but the decline has usually set in only towards the end of their career. In the present case, it began with the beginning. Whether we take Lord Melbourne's Government from 1835 to 1841, or Mr Gladstone's from 1869 to 1874, or Mr Disraeli's from 1879 to 1880, or Mr Balfour's from 1900 to 1905, we shall see that in each case the change in public feeling only became visible during the last two years; and a Government, so to speak, in its dotage, if it does no good can do little harm. It was true of the last years of the Melbourne Ministry, and equally so of the final stages of the other three. But here we have a Government in the very prime of life, full of vigour and energy, with a practically undiminished majority in Parliament, and, as Mr Asquith now assures us, looking forward to a long course of revolutionary legislation in the future. They are only, he says, just in the middle of it. We shall be told, of course, that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander: that Mr Balfour remained in office under the same conditions, that he had a majority of the House of Commons, besides the House of Lords, at his back, and that there was no more possibility of getting rid of him than there is of deposing Mr Asquith. Granted. It is obvious that every Government defeated at a General Election must have lost the confidence of the country before that event took place. But how long before? That is the question. How long did Mr Balfour continue in office after the decline set in? Did any of his measures provoke such manifest outbursts of popular dissatisfaction as Mr Asquith's have done? Did he lose as many seats as Mr Asquith has lost in as short a space of time without gaining one? No! Mr Balfour lost the support of the country gradually, rather because he was in office so long than because he had really given offence. He re- "The Adventure of the Bear and Fiddle tained its confidence, at all It is true that affairs which have reached this stage have a knack of sticking there. Begins, but breaks off in the middle." Who is the bear and who is the fiddle in the present Cabinet it would be rude to inquire. But Mr Asquith's speech, coming so soon after Mr Churchill's, is very suggestive. However, we However, we won't anticipate. Let us suppose them still carried forward on their wild career. Who is to stop them? The House of Lords? Yes; but only at the cost of a crisis, of a violent political convulsion, which they may not care to provoke. Be this as it may, who can contemplate without the deepest anxiety the continuance in office of a Government which lost the confidence of the people in the first year of its existence? Even supposing it possible that the House of Lords should be able to prevent some of their most mischievous designs, a standing antagonism between the two Houses is not what the constitution ever contemplated. It would show that the constitution itself had broken down, and would probably be the forerunner of further changes involving a long period of political turmoil and confusion. Existing electoral conditions are favourable to the return of those "huge turnover majorities" of which Lord Courtney once in the House of Commons expressed the strongest disapproval. It may be said, of course, that they are as fair for one side as the other. And if we regard our two political parties-for there still are two, however subdivided into groups simply as two gamecocks, of course it is so. The situation in which Mr Asquith finds himself to-day may be Mr Balfour's to-mor row. But our contention is that the nation cannot be limited to this point of view. Parties exist not for their own sakes, but for the sake of great principles, which are, to earnest men, matters of life and death. Conservatives are the trustees of great interests, and are bound to press to the uttermost every advantage which circumstances may give them over their assailants. And they could hardly remain long in power after the general public had ceased to trust them. There is no one conservative class large enough or powerful enough to shout down all the rest or impose themselves on the world as "the people." There is another danger lurking in these overgrown majorities which, so far from always representing national opinion, may often override or smother it. It is this: that the see-saw, if frequently repeated, must end in a catastrophe. As each party in turn enjoys the same irresponsible lease of office as Mr Asquith now possesses, and continues to push forward legislation unpopular with the people at large, so will the reaction, when it comes, be violent in proportion. The swing of the pendulum will continue with increasing gravity and velocity till at last it breaks the machinery and stops the clock; and this is a real danger ahead which all parties alike should try to realise. The party system will not stand the strain of these repeated shocks. Suppose the House of Lords out of the way, how long would the system of quinquennial dictatorship |