tially from their predecessors. It may be possible to win an election by the advocacy of a 'complete reversal of our fiscal policy.' It is contrary to all experience to suppose that such a programme by itself will lastingly appeal to the conservative sentiment of the country, or that the conservative sentiment can long be successfully ignored by party politicians.

If, then, political parties are to be truly representative of the political opinions and aspirations of the people, one of them must place in the forefront of its claim to popular support the advocacy of Conservatism. We may go further and say that Conservatism is so strong a force in this country that sooner or later a Conservative party will come into existence; and, if the Unionist party continue to belittle and ignore conservative opinion, a new party or group will form itself to discharge the duty which at present the official Unionists blindly neglect. To avoid such a disaster, the leaders must recognise that Conservatism does not consist in a pale imitation of Radicalism leavened by Tariff Reform. It must have a definite policy of its own, designed primarily to preserve order and restore confidence in all classes of society, and also to carry out such changes as are proved to be necessary with as little friction and disturbance as possible.

This is not the place to attempt a detailed exposition of a political programme. But an example or two may be given to show how the principles on which we have insisted may be practically applied.

With regard to the constitutional question, it is not denied that some change in the constitution of the two Houses has become necessary. On the other hand, the Radical doctrine of the absolutism of the House of Commons, that is, of the Government of the day, must be utterly rejected. From a conservative standpoint, the chief reason for constitutional reform is not that our present Second Chamber is too strong, but that it is too weak. It operates as a fairly effective check on Liberal legislation. It is no defence at all against the sporadic Radicalism of the Unionists. The House of Lords should, therefore, be reformed so as to make it equally vigilant to check rash legislation, by whichever party it be proposed. To prevent the new Second Chamber from acting tyranically and obstructing legislation genuinely

desired by the electorate, the present method of consulting the latter by general election should be simplified. Provision should be made whereby, in case of irreconcilable difference of opinion between the two Houses, the dispute should be directly referred to the decision of the voters without a dissolution of Parliament. Apart from other advantages, such an alteration would increase the sense of responsibility of the democracy and would diminish political log-rolling, that fruitful source of undesired and undesirable legislation. At the same time, such reforms should be introduced into the procedure of the House of Commons and the method of its election as would secure to it some degree of freedom of discussion and restore if possible the ancient independence of its members.

So, too, with the great industrial and social problems. The unrest of labour is a formidable fact, of which all politicians must take account. Nor need conservatives hesitate to admit that there are grounds for suspicion as to the fairness of the present distribution of the profits of industry. To attempt to set that right by robbing the rich in order to give doles to the poor will injure the one class without benefiting the other. Indeed, by introducing a sense of insecurity, it may easily accentuate the evil, just as laws against usury raise the rate of interest for needy borrowers. If the profits of industry are to be better divided, it must be by the adoption of some form of co-partnership, which will give practical effect to the essential unity of the interests of capital and labour. That is a matter which must be mainly left to private initiative. But such encouragement and assistance as can be afforded by Government example and otherwise should be given; and, if there are any hindrances to co-partnership in the present condition of our company laws, they should be removed. It must be conceded that no such re-organisation of industry will deal with the other great Labour grievance, namely, the idleness of the rich. No one defends idleness; and it is particularly indefensible in the case of a man who by State protection is enabled to enjoy considerable wealth, and who uses it not only to exempt himself from labour, but also to employ others in ministering to his idle pleasures. But to attempt to remedy this evil by despoiling idle and

industrious alike is neither fair nor politic. The cure of idleness, as of most human vices, must be left chiefly to other agencies. All that the State can usefully do is by taxing amusements and other instruments of idleness, to secure that it shall at any rate receive a percentage of the money which would be otherwise altogether wasted.

On other topics which are exciting public attention, on education, on reform of the Poor Law, on State Insurance, on Tariff Reform itself, and even on Woman Suffrage, there is no difficulty in pointing out the line which conservative statesmanship should take. In some cases mistakes already committed require to be put right; in others the growth of education and of public sentiment necessitate new legislation. There is also a great field for reform of a strictly conservative character in our public offices, in our judicial system, and in other administrative matters urgently demanding attention. But it cannot be too often repeated that the main function of a Government is not to change the law but to administer it, and, if it be driven to change it, to take care that the alterations are as moderate and conciliatory as possible. In the years that are upon us, the international and Imperial difficulties of the country are not likely to diminish. They can only be successfully encountered by a united and contented people. Experience shows that it is by Conservatism alone that national unity and content can be achieved; for Radicalism lives on discontent, which must be artificially created if it does not naturally exist. It is to the Unionists that the tradition of conservative statecraft belongs; and it is to them that the country is looking for that policy of courageous moderation which in the hands of their greatest predecessors brought to England power abroad and prosperity at home.

Art. 10.-GLADSTONE ON THE RELATIONS OF CHURCH AND STATE.

1. The Correspondence of William Ewart Gladstone on Church and Religion. Selected and arranged by D. C. Lathbury. Two vols. London: Murray, 1910.

2. The State in its relations with the Church. By W. E. Gladstone. London: Murray, 1838.

3. Gleanings of Past Years.

By W. E. Gladstone.

Seven

vols. (Vols. 5, 6: Ecclesiastical). London: Murray, 1879. 4. The Life of William Ewart Gladstone. By John Morley. Three vols. London: Macmillan, 1903.

5. Mr Gladstone. By D. C. Lathbury. London: Mowbray, 1907.

6. Report of the Commissioners appointed to enquire into the constitution and working of the Ecclesiastical Courts. London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1883.

7. Report of the Royal Commission on Ecclesiastical Discipline. London: Wyman, 1906.

And other works.

It has been pointed out by Lord Morley that the fundamental fact of Mr Gladstone's history was that all its various activities centred in religion. Political life was only part of his religious life. It was religion that prompted his literary life. It was religious motive that, through a thousand avenues and channels, stirred him and guided him in his whole conception of active social duty.' During a life prolonged almost to the ninetieth year and vigorous to the last, Mr Gladstone expressed himself upon most of the religious and ecclesiastical problems which came up for discussion between 1833, when he first entered Parliament, and 1898, when he died; and what he found to say, whether in the field of biblical criticism, or in defence of orthodoxy, or in such special studies as those upon Bishop Butler, begun as early as 1845 and resumed when he finally retired from public life, was always interesting as the product of a mind as penetrating as it was devout. In some cases, it must be admitted, the learning, though considerable for a layman, was not adequate; in others, the position so jealously defended has proved indefensible.

But there is one province of ecclesiastical theory, that of the relations of Church and State, to which Mr Gladstone made large and lasting contributions. To a consideration of the problem as he viewed it at the opening of his career he contributed his first and most elaborate essay; and he returned to the subject, in one or other of its historical or legal associations, by pamphlets and speeches, almost to the end of his life. Still more important is the fact that it fell to him as a statesman to take a leading part in modifying those relations, in response to the pressure, on the one side, of the new democratic spirit, and, on the other, of an awakened self-consciousness in the Church. Hence a study of the changes through which his conceptions passed as his mind developed or circumstances urged, cannot fail to be of interest; and it is that which is attempted in this article. The task has become possible through the labours of Lord Morley, who, throughout his masterly biography, has paid sympathetic attention to the theological side of the statesman's activities; and it has been facilitated by the zeal of Mr D. C. Lathbury, who has both written a sketch of Mr Gladstone's career as a leader of the Church,' and has edited his religious and ecclesiastical correspondence with a running commentary. It is no disparagement to the skill of either man of letters to say that the point of view in each case is so much his own that the reader needs to be on his guard against the inevitable prepossessions of an interpreter.

As set forth in the treatise of 1838, The State in its relations with the Church,' the case for Establishment is based upon two fundamental principles; the first of which is that the State has a conscience, 'representing the result of the general belief of the people.' Inasmuch as all government implies moral responsibility, which is not only that of the individual governors but belongs to the nation as a whole, the establishment of religion, upon which moral responsibility rests as its only sure ground, becomes a natural and legitimate consequence of the fact of government. When this principle is accepted, the author has no difficulty in showing the advantages that a religious establishment confers upon a nation. In the first place it brings the sanction of a ruling institution to the principles of Christianity. As he remarks (p. 51)—