centripetal. Even a modern Conservative would reject a system which would have been necessary to keep up an Empire in the only sense intelligible to our forefathers. We are not entitled to blame Cobden for inability to foresee the gigantic changes which have taken place in the last half-century. Nobody foresaw or could have foreseen them. But the miscalculation, natural or inevitable, suggests a moral. We ought to be able to prophesy after the event. When things happen which we did not foresee, we should not infer though it is very tempting to infer that they were miraculous. The modern Liberal who denounces 'militarism,' and describes it as a 'recrudescence' of barbarism, seems to regard it as something monstrous and anomalous-a spasmodic intrusion of Satanic power, or a pouring out of one of the apocalyptic vials. Now that it has happened, we ought to admit that it happened naturally; that we could have foretold it had we rightly interpreted the symptoms, though interpretation might have been beyond ordinary intelligence. We are told sometimes that the mistake of the Cobdenites was that they regarded mankind as a set of 'moneymaking units;' that they attributed too much influence to the purely commercial instincts. I cannot myself see that the growth of Imperialism implies any error in that respect. It is pretty closely connected with fears for British trade, and we are still Adam Smith's 'shopkeeping nation,' surveying mankind every morning from China to Peru, and trembling at every event from Wei-hah-wei to Uganda` which threatens our commercial position. The material interests of mankind always have been, I take it, and always will be, a dominant factor in determining the course of history. It might equally well be said that Cobden rather took too exalted a view of the influence of common-sense, and even held that international relations would be more or less affected by the ethical doctrines of Christianity. But, whatever the right description, the miscalculation is now plain enough. Nations have been brought into close contact before they were sufficiently civilised to trust each other. If the ultimate result of approximation may be a development of mutual confidence, the immediate effect of sudden confrontation has been an outburst of jealousy and hostility. Cobden hoped that nations would see that protection was injurious to the protected. The same argument shows it to be injurious to those against whom it is directed. So long as we are not all free traders, even free traders may have to fight to keep the open door because others fight to keep it shut. The growth of an empire, again, even in the loosest sense of the word, does not imply the possibility of securing cohesion without coercion. If the interests which grow up on the side of union are opposed to others which make for separation, a difficulty arises. Does true Liberalism imply that the minority should accept the decision of the majority? Then it may be right for Englishmen, as it was for Americans, to

suppress secession by force of arms; and, if the Empire be a unit, to suppress it even though the separatists are the majority in one of the constituent communities. If this be denied, the connection becomes a mere rope of sand capable of being broken at any moment, and the Empire simply a system of alliances which may be dissolved as soon as it is disapproved by any of the parties concerned. The most obvious opinion, at least, is that the old Liberals would have pronounced in favour of dissolubility, and are correctly represented by pro-Boers and Home Rulers.

It

It is true, indeed, that some Radicals anticipated a permanent connection with the colonies. That, as Mrs. Fawcett has reminded us, was true of Sir W. Molesworth. The question, however, for me is whether he could have held that view consistently with the other principles to which he adhered; and especially whether he could have held that the union, if it ceased to be thoroughly spontaneous, could be rightfully enforced by coercion. Could a philosophical Radical be an Imperialist in the stricter sense of the words? certainly seems to me that he is in a difficulty which shows itself in all recent discussions. When the modern Radical denounces 'Jingoism' I can heartily sympathise. He is attacking an evil principle, and insisting upon dangers to which no thinking man can be blind. If Imperialism means extension of the Empire at all hazards, the construction of a body whose interests are antagonistic to the interests of all other nations, it is no doubt both hateful and immoral. But the difficulty is that the Liberal either takes a view which fairly exposes him to the charge of 'Little Englandism' or implies a cowardly abnegation of national duties; or, while still appealing to his principles, accepts in every particular case the policy which is based upon the opposite theory. The Jingo profits because his opponent either shocks the legitimate patriotic instincts or covers an abandonment of his creed by hypocritical professions of transparent inconsistency. What is required, again, is not that the old creed should be forcibly combined with politics of the antagonistic creed, but that a more comprehensive theory should embody the undeniable truth contained in the old dogma. I cannot see that modern Liberals have yet achieved that result. Their theories would justify an empire if the name be appended to a friendly league, resulting from a 'union of hearts'; but it is hard to see how they could justify an empire held together by a sovereign power. The old creed requires to be profoundly modified before the new doctrine can be really incorporated without violence. And, in this as in other cases, the difficulty seems to be that the old doctrine failed to make allowance for the growth of complex political and social ties which takes place independently of the constitutional theory.

If I am right, the old Liberal was justified in claiming that he inherited doctrines which had been developed in the historical struggles

for 'liberty.' He was right, too, in holding that they contained vitally important truths. They had been serviceable in suppressing the gross abuses which had grown up under the old system. They had supplied him with arguments against Sidmouth and Eldon, against rotten boroughs and sinecures and class legislation and religious intolerance. They had enabled him to expose the fallacies involved in protection and in all manner of antiquated and suicidal methods of State superintendence. They were an embodiment of principles of undeniable importance, especially the principle that rulers should be responsible to the nation, and that every individual should be responsible for the efficient discharge of his duties. These truths, however, were embodied in the form suggested by contemporary events; and when the Radicals claimed to be also 'philosophical,' what they really did was to try to find a theoretical justification for popular watchwords, and consequently to convert one-sided and temporary theories into absolute and eternal truths. They supposed that they had definitely triumphed when the democratic demands had been accepted and we had fairly shot the Falls of Niagara. They then had to discover that our new rulers had a great many demands which were by no means sufficiently summed up by the old formulæ about 'liberty,' and in the next place, it was to become evident that in point of fact those formulæ did not meet the real necessities of the case. As the social structure has become rapidly more complex, and the mechanical changes have led to the formation of new social relations, the simple political theory fails to meet the problems which are everywhere arising. To go on fighting with the old war-cry is like continuing to use the old weapons in warfare. It is to suppose that the evils of to-day can be met by arguments which were sufficient to expose the wrongs from which our grandfathers suffered. The old Liberal creed belonged to the system under which political theory in general was thought to be deducible from some assumption of absolute right. If students of political science have not yet reached any agreement among themselves or even laid the base of a satisfactory constructive theory, they are at least ready to admit that any such method must be imperfect. The science, if ever put together, must be based upon a scientific observation of the modes of development of the whole social structure, in which the political side is only one, though an essential part. It is to be feared that active politicians will be slow in accepting that conclusion. The agitator naturally desires a simple and absolute formula. As Birdofredum Sawin observed, when he desired to be called 'Old Timbertoes,'

That's wut the people likes,

Sutthin' combinin' morril truths with phrases such as strikes.

It may not be clear that 'old Timbertoes' satisfied the condition; but it applies to such a formula as one man one vote,' which has an

appearance of appealing at once to morality and to logic. Yet a philosopher must admit that it is simply a mode of begging the question. We are sometimes invited to regret the insensibility of Englishmen to 'ideas.' The regret may be softened by the reflection that in politics an idea means a device for saving thought. It enables you to act upon a little formula without taking the trouble to ask whether it be or be not relevant to the particular case. Whether a political cry masks itself as a truth of reason, or admits itself to be simply the expression of an immediate want, it is equally the utterance of the popular instinct, which may be right at the moment, but which only coincides by accident with a simple philosophical system. For obvious reasons, it is probable enough that such formulæ will long be accepted. While that is the case politicians will generally assume half-truths as ultimate, and we shall worry on, as of old, by a succession of blunders, exchanging the errors of Conservatism for the errors of Radicalism. It is, however, to be wished that even practical politicians would sometimes consider the logical merits of their creed, and endeavour to find formula which may be at once popular and more in accordance with a rational system. But, there, I must be content to hand over the problem to better qualified persons.

LESLIE STEPHEN.

THE EDUCATION PROBLEM

THIS irrepressible topic bids fair again to arouse much discussion, and to challenge the attention of Parliament during the coming

session.

To any one who cares earnestly about the future of English education, and who watches with interest the attempts now being made to organise and amend the machinery employed in it, the first thing necessary will seem to be to keep steadily in view the main purposes which a national system of education ought to fulfil. Among these purposes the most prominent are improved methods of instruction; higher qualifications of teachers; security for thoroughness in the work of imparting knowledge; a juster sense of the relative claims of those disciplinary studies which bear on industry and on the getting of a living, and of those which tend to form the character of the learner and enable him to live nobly and to think wisely; full opportunity for the recognition and encouragement of merit in the case of scholars of all ranks in life; such a method of public administration as may recognise the best forces the nation possesses-imperial, municipal, religious, and philanthropic and co-ordinate them in the great task of social progress; and, above all, loftier national ideals, and stronger convictions on the part of the public respecting the value of intellectual power as a national asset, and as the chief factor in the future honour and prosperity of the race.

Of these desiderata the chief are to be supplied, if at all, by other ways than by legislation, mainly indeed by the gradual growth of a still more enlightened and watchful public opinion than that which prevails at present. It is, after all, only to a small extent that any change in codes or Acts of Parliament can bring about the results which are most to be desired.

Yet it is with administrative reforms such as may affect the distribution of public funds and the constitution of local authorities that the minds of our statesmen are now for the moment principally concerned. These are the matters which loom large and are apt to be seen out of their true proportions in the imagination of politica and religious parties, and which therefore attract the chief attention of the general public. It is permissible, therefore, for one who is