on these old, ancient, antiquated cries,' and to support it through thick and thin because it was making a courageous stand against the principles of State Socialism.

We understand this way of looking at the general situation. It is quite possible to believe that the next General Election will produce a new parliament in which Labour will have, if not a majority, at least a controlling power. For it was shown repeatedly in the days of the old Liberal Governments before the war that the Irish party could, in a house where the two great parties were almost evenly balanced, turn majorities into minorities at their good pleasure. A large block of independent members working for their own ends can bend cabinets to their will. The holders of this pessimistic view look forward with dread to a new parliament in which no single party will have a definite majority, and in which both Labour and the Asquithian Liberals will secure a much heavier representation than they own at present. If the Coalition breaks up, those Liberals who have hitherto followed Mr Lloyd George may combine with their old comrades of the Asquithian persuasion —there is nothing to prevent it save the personal antagonism between their chiefs, and the elder chief is no longer a factor who counts for much. Hence may arise a Liberal-Labour combination, in which Labour would have the controlling voice, and might push a nominally Liberal cabinet into all manner of wild Socialistic legislation. It is impossible to foresee the lengths to which such a minority might go-individual Liberals have talked ere now of the reasonableness of discussing a Capital Levy, the nationalisation of mines and transport, or the abolition of all taxes save the Income Tax, as problems worth considering. The Labour party behind them might push them to still more ruinous experiments.

It is well to bear in mind the fact that it is forebodings of this kind which make many members who were elected as Unionists lend their support to measures which are in direct opposition to the old Unionist creed. Yet one would suppose that even persons of these views would draw the line somewhere in their subservience to the vagaries of Mr Lloyd George's ever-changing policy of mere opportunism. There are limits-or one will find

oneself lapsing into the anarchic morality of 'doing evil that good may come.'

Having explained why many Coalition Unionists still give their support to the Government on all, or almost all, occasions, we fail to understand the mentality of the persistent abstainers of whom we spoke in an earlier paragraph-the people who have got so far in discontent that they refuse to vote for the Government, except on matters indifferent, yet refuse equally to vote against it. Either it is their duty to act according to their principles, and resist measures inconsistent with their creed, by going into the lobby against them: or else, if they think that Mr Lloyd George's policy is, after all, a necessary evil, they should make up their minds to support it, as do the class of Pessimists of whom we have spoken above. The middle course of a sulky refusal to vote one way or the other does not free the abstainer from his moral responsibility for what is going on. For though he himself may not be helping to pass measures which he considers pernicious, he is permitting other people to pass them.

We consider that the most deplorable feature of this habitual and deliberate abstention on the part of a great body of Unionist members is that, if they would only assert themselves, there is little doubt that the Cabinet would show itself amenable to their influence. It has been sufficiently proved during the last nine months that avowed resistance by a powerful body of Coalitionist members to a Government edict may lead to that edict being modified or withdrawn. We need only quote the case of the threatened General Election of last spring, which was undoubtedly intended to take place, and as undoubtedly called off after the objections of Sir George Younger and his friends had been formulated. The reason why the 'Die-Hard' party, which represents the real old Conservative creed, has no practical power at present, is that it can only produce some fifty votes on a division. If the abstentionists would lend it their support instead of their barren sympathy, if opposition to Government extravagance, or Government experiments in bargaining with the enemies of the State, or Government tamperings with the integrity of the Empire, were represented by 200 Unionist 'Noes' in a division, we should soon

get either a permanent revision of the policy of the Cabinet in a more satisfactory direction, or else (what some think less probable) a resignation of office by the Prime Minister and a General Election.

We invite both the large class of 'abstentionists,' the smaller number of votaries of 'strict party loyalty,' and all the doubters who can see no salvation for the future save in Coalitionism, to consider whither events are trending at present. From the point of view of morality are they justified in supporting, either by their votes or by their abstentions, a policy which (as we think that we have shown above) is inconsistent with the fundamental principles of Conservatism? From the point of view of practical politics are they not keeping in office a Government which grows yearly more unpopular with the conscientious members of each of the two parties from which it is drawn? The longer it stays in power the more unpopular will it become, and the greater will be the slaughter of its adherents at the moment when the inevitable General Election materialises. The most effective way of losing seats is so to disgust your own original supporters that they are reduced to apathy and discontent. This consideration is as true for Liberal Coalitionist members as for Unionist-Coalition members. Let the Unionist stand as a Unionist-the Liberal as a Liberal, and face the consequences. This is the only honest solution of the situation-and we believe that, now as always, 'Honesty is the Best Policy.'

INDEX

TO THE

TWO HUNDRED AND THIRTY-EIGHTH VOLUME OF THE

QUARTERLY REVIEW.

[Titles of Articles are printed in heavier type.
articles are printed in italics.]