party will throw overboard all its socialistic follies, such as Protection, Subsidies, Trade Facility Credits, and the like, there appears to be no reason why it should not continue in office for an indefinite period. For, when it has carried out that clearance of its decks, it will really represent the bulk of opinion in the country. It is certain moreover that a Conservative party, thus based upon Conservative principles, will offer no facilities for the survival of a corrupt group in the party, for there will then no longer be any temptation to those people who go into politics with a view to using political influence to gain unfair industrial advantages for themselves or for those who put them in parliament. The position of a Conservative party must always be precarious so long as it contains any group that is persistently playing for its private interests. The existence of such a section of the party justifies a tu quoque from the Socialists when their own weakest point is attacked, and constitutes a terrible danger to a party whose ultimate political philosophy is platonic aristocracy.

So far therefore as the next General Election is concerned, it appears that, unless the Conservatives go to the country with the mill-stone of protection hung round their necks once more, they can be fairly confident of retaining a clear working majority, though one much smaller than that which they now possess. They have still nearly two years in which to get rid of subsidies and the pauper vote, and thus to win the confidence of the unattached elector. Moreover, the industries of the country are at length beginning to feel the benefit of the victory of the colliery owners over the government and the Miners' Federation in 1926. Deliberate suicide alone can prevent the Conservative party from forming the next government.

It will probably be agreed that, so long as the Liberal party remains the private property of Mr. Lloyd George, a Liberal revival is practically impossible, since all real Liberals will abstain from voting, or will support the Conservative candidate whenever the personal qualifications and character of the latter make such a course reasonable. It may be interesting therefore to consider the state of affairs which might arise if, by some happy chance or by the intervention of a beneficent providence, that incubus of the party were taken off its chest. In that event, no matter who might be the nominal Liberal chief, the people of Great Britain would, I think, insist upon regarding Lord Grey of

Fallodon as the leader of the Liberal party. This would probably result in a startling but thoroughly salutary awakening of interest in political matters. For we should then have two great parties in the State, both under the leadership of men who are trusted, and as I believe rightly trusted, by their fellow-countrymen. The powerful intellectual batteries of Sir John Simon and of Mr. Walter Runciman would be unmasked; and the ensuing battle, whatever its result, would give the country a government which it could respect.

The Socialists are split up into raucous factions fighting among themselves. They have no idea whether they want State Socialism or Syndicalism. Indeed, the only thing which they are really certain that they want is office, with its possibilities of perquisites and patronage. Let us free our minds from cant about the Socialist party. There was, many years ago, a certain idealism among those who preached the faith of Socialism. But that idealism died out long ago, and Socialist politicians of the present day show clearly that the love of money is the root of Socialism as of all other evil. Personal ambition, together with an openly expressed determination to carry political corruption further than has ever before been attempted, mark the unworthy successors of the martyrs of whom Socialism, in spite of all its false theories, could once boast. One by one the leaders of Labour retire from active life upon the substantial competence which service to the under-dog seems always to produce.

Deep cleavages in the Socialist party, such as the one between the State Socialists and the Syndicalists, are likely to damage its organization very seriously. It seems possible indeed that the more intelligent and honest members of that party will be expelled. Mr. Snowden, for example, is unlikely to be pardoned for the criminal and reckless excursion into truth which he recently made when he stated bluntly that our experiments in socialism may easily end in the creation of a Pauper State rather than of a Co-operative Commonwealth. Nor will the loss of such a member be compensated by the addition of idle rich young men, whose characters and abilities were rated so low by the other parties to which they have from time to time belonged, that they have become victims of an inferiority complex which causes them to join the Labour party, hoping (perhaps, not without reason) that their money and their high social connections

VOL. 247. NO. 503.

D

will pave the way to the realization of their somewhat exaggerated personal ambitions.

It is difficult to calculate the chances of electoral success for the Socialist party in the absence of a revival of Liberalism. The Socialists may possibly be helped by the political levy clause of the Trade Union Act of 1927. For that clause may appear to many non-party voters in the light of an attempt by the Conservatives to use their parliamentary majority to queer the pitch" for their opponents. There was previously a feeling that the methods employed for extorting money from trade unionists for party purposes were distinctly unfair, and doubtless many votes have in the past been cast against Socialist candidates on that account. But now the beam seems to be tilted the other way, and personally I think it possible that a certain number of electors will transfer their votes accordingly. But it is only right to add that this opinion is not shared by many acute political observers, and time alone can show whether it is well or ill-founded.

Another factor which makes it dangerous to attempt electoral prophecy is the impending addition of large numbers of women to the register. In individual constituencies this factor may have a very disturbing effect. But, spread over the whole country, the effect is hardly likely to be very profound, since there is no reason to suppose that the new voters will do otherwise than separate themselves out more or less in the same proportions as those which divide the existing electorate. It may perhaps be found that the further addition to the feminine vote will produce a state of affairs in which, when there is danger that extremists may hurry the country into wild socialistic schemes, more moderate candidates will be favoured; while, when matters are moving quietly and prosperously, the women will vote for those who wish to speed things up somewhat. I am inclined to think, therefore, that there is no good cause for panic on the part of those who desire sane government; and, if the statute which enfranchises the young women also disenfranchises the paupers, then indeed we may look forward to our political future with more hope than has been justified for many years past. It may even happen that we shall be able to stop the political corruption which is killing democracy and to preserve political liberty in Great Britain when it has perished in every other country in the

world.

Having now pointed out, to the best of my ability, what appear to be the weaknesses of the three parties as they exist to-day, I would ask the reader to imagine what would be the selectoral fate of a real Liberal party, if such a body were to come into existence. It must be admitted that, at first sight, this seems to be a very remote contingency. Yet, sooner or later, the public demand for such a party will bring it to birth-though perhaps it will appear under the name of Conservative instead of Liberal, since the activities of Mr. Lloyd George and Sir H. Samuel may well make it necessary to erase the word "Liberal" from our political vocabulary except as a term of opprobrium. But let us for the moment suppose that Liberalism need not necessarily be regarded as a synonym for everything that is rotten in politics; and let us consider what Liberal principles (now, alas! little more than a catch-word) used to be.

Liberalism has an advantage over other political creeds in being far more easily and more clearly defined. A Liberal is one who believes that political liberty, in the form of a democratic constitution, is desirable. Furthermore, he believes that such a constitution can only be preserved if the State is prevented from interfering with the economic life of the people. The latter principle is what is usually called "Free Trade." Degenerate modern Liberals regard Free Trade merely as a matter of free imports, having completely forgotten that the absence of a tariff is but a small part of the whole principle. Nor do they perceive that the real vice of Protection is far less economic than political. For an autocrat of ideal wisdom and justice could frame a tariff which would be so perfectly balanced that no one in the country would be either helped or injured by it, and nothing but a certain inflation of the currency would be perceptible. Wages and prices could rise together in exact proportion, leaving everyone's standard of living unaltered. But a democratically elected parliament would never achieve this, and experience has shown that Protection is one of the most fruitful causes of the fatal corruption which destroys democracy. For it makes political influence the path to wealth for those who have no scruple in following it, and honesty in politics then becomes a rare thing indeed.

Let us then keep clear in our minds the fact that the policy of free imports is but a small part of the Free Trade principle, since the latter involves a conception of the State which forbids

any form of Socialism. That is to say, a real Liberal believes that the State is not competent to decide which industries shall be stifled, and which industries shall be artificially stimulated. He holds that the democratic State must inevitably perish, if it attempts to fill any rôle beyond that of a policeman. Its sole functions are to enforce the observance of bargains, to protect the nation from foreign aggression, and to ensure that economic power shall not be used brutally against the weak.

In the past, the weakness of Liberalism lay in certain inconsistencies which must be entirely eliminated if it is to become once more a living political faith. For example, Liberals formerly made themselves conspicuous by their opposition to the trade union movement in its early stages, though it is obvious that no one who really loves liberty can justly deny to men the right to combine together voluntarily with a view to improving their standard of living. Certainly the Industrial Revolution would have been a far less cruel process than in fact it was, if this elementary principle of Liberalism had been admitted by the old Liberals. The accumulation of capital, which has been the basis of the improved condition of an immensely increased population, might have been slower. But an infinitude of misery and discontent would have been avoided, if that process of accumulation had been softened by reasonable trade union action.

Again, the State as policeman is acting well within its proper scope in preventing the employment of unorganized women and children under conditions obviously prejudicial to their health and safety. Yet many of the old Liberals opposed this action most bitterly, not realizing that the Factory Acts aided the State in performing legitimate police duties.

The Liberal party has also continually shown itself inconsistent in another important matter: it has always had an inclination to reduce our naval forces and to grudge all expenditure upon them. Yet a moment's honest consideration must make it manifest that, if an island nation allows free imports, it must have a navy strong enough to keep open its trade routes in time of war. A consistent Free Trader must of necessity be an advocate of a strong navy. Free Trade and the command of the seas are complementary, and it is the merest humbug to pretend that a weak navy combined with free imports can lead to anything but disaster to our country.