party leader when in office ought, no doubt, to have great powers, but they must be the powers of a constitutional monarch rather than of an autocrat or despot. Now, in order to keep the proper balance between the powers of the leader and his dependence on his followers, the Prime Minister should draw his strength from a homogeneous party: a party, not necessarily with only one thought in it, but a party in which there is the maximum of agreement; a party with common aspirations on the great affairs of State; and, still more, a party which feels an absolute trust in its leader's honor and character. The rank and file must feel, not only that their leader will never dream of deserting them, but that he cannot desert them because there is nowhere else. for him to go. The leader must have burned his boats, and pledged himself as absolutely as a man can to sink or swim with his party. It is this feeling of solidarity and of mutual loyalty between the leader and the led which is one of the great antiseptics of the party system. It is this, indeed, which makes the party system work, which renders it tolerable in times of peace, in times when men are not prepared to say, 'We will do everything and give up everything, and forget all differences in the immediate work of preventing the vessel going under.'

These are truths which, though in one sense very old and very obvious, are only just being discovered by the general public, and especially by the members of the Unionist Party - that is, the larger section of those who support the present Coalition. The country and still more the House of Comis in a state of dangerous political malaise, and has been so for many months; and now it is beginning to realize that the cause of this malaise and discontent is that we are being ruled by a coalition after the need for

mons

a coalition has passed, and therefore being badly ruled, or, to be quite fair, let us say, ruled in a way which does not satisfy the nation. The cause of this breakdown in the work of government is becoming clear. The Coalition Ministry is not supported by a homogeneous party, but by a confused, incoherent, and therefore irresponsible concourse of political atoms. It is becoming evident that, to get the things we want out of Parliament and out of the administration, the chief directing brain must be that of a man who has become an integral part of the organism to which he looks for support, a man who has cast aside all other political allegiances and all thoughts, hopes, and ambitions which he does not share with his followers. While demanding great sacrifices from those he leads, he must be himself willing to make comparable sacrifices. He must forgo the right to pick up power how he can and when he can, and to manipulate and negotiate with special groups of the House of Commons. His strength must be drawn solely or, at any rate, habitually, from those who placed him in power.

To put the matter quite specifically, the time is coming — and may indeed come very soon when Mr. Lloyd George will be told that he must take his choice and become, not the head of a coalition, but the head of a true party. At a day's notice a political crisis may arise in which, whatever the apparent cause, this will be the real and dominant issue.

Mr. Lloyd George is not, of course, going to be crudely told that he must become a Unionist or else look out for another situation in another party. No one will treat him, or wants to see him treated, in that way. The larger section of his present mixed bag of followers would be quite willing to obtain the homogeneity which they are beginning

to see is essential, by what would nominally be the foundation of a new party, though in reality it would be the old Unionist Party under another name. In theory the Unionist Party possesses a very good name, even though we all hope that its Irish implication may soon be unnecessary. Unionism has another meaning. It means a union, or political combination, for securing certain political ends. In spite, however, of this fact, if homogeneity and mutual trust could be better secured under another name, and if the path of Mr. Lloyd George and his Liberal supporters could be made more easy and more consistent with their personal feelings and dignity by a change of name, then by all means let us have such a change.

The difficulty of finding a new name, whether for a house, a street, a limited liability company, or a newspaper, always seems very great till the point is settled. As soon as it is settled, the difficulties vanish, and people are astonished that there was ever so much anxiety and trouble about so simple a matter. In our opinion, the only thing that is of real importance in choosing a new name is that it should be made quite clear that the party is essentially democratic, and not reactionary, in its nature and principles. It must proclaim its entire willingness to bow to the Will of the Majority. It must refuse to allow interested persons to plaster the untrue and unmeaning label of 'reactionary' upon its back. It is the party organizations which are tainted with the new Jacobinism of the Labor Party or the Bolshevism of the Communists that are the reactionaries. It is they who deny the right of the people to govern themselves, who try to impose on them the new aristocracy of organized labor, who want to arm that oligarchic party with the weapon of physical force who want to found supreme power in the State on what they

term 'direct action,' instead of on the votes of the people fairly and justly given at the polling booths. It is therefore of importance, if we are to have a new name, that the new party should be pledged by its name to true democracy. Except that it would perhaps be thought by some to have an unfortunate previous history in Europe, the name 'Constitutional Democratic Party' would be good. It represents the fact that we are democrats as well as constitutionalists. This is a claim which cannot be made truthfully by any other party in the State.

A constitutional party will, we are confident, soon insist that the right of popular veto, the necessary corrective to the possibility of non-democratic legislation, shall be established as one of our public institutions, and so shall give our political life a stability which is badly needed. The trouble with us is, not that we have too much, but too little democracy. That, however, is a side issue. What we have to consider now is the reformation of the Coalition into a homogeneous party with a leader pledged, not, of course, to mere servility to his party, but to common political ideals.

Who rules o'er freemen must himself be free.

But our leader must not always be looking over his shoulder at other political groups, and wondering whether he would not do better by including Soand-so and his group.

If this putting of Mr. Lloyd George to his election in regard to his source of power is coming, and, as we are perfectly sure, it is coming quickly, the best minds in the party should clearly be directed to providing for the possibility that Mr. Lloyd George may be overcome with fright or shyness when told that he must 'range himself ' politically. We must be prepared with a plan of action, should Mr. Lloyd

George make a sudden bid for a renewal of that independence and that extra-party position which, we must in fairness admit, is a very attractive one to a prime minister. We do not want his colleagues to do anything which may seem to humiliate him, or to forget his past services, or to coerce him in any way. To make the pressure which they must exercise effective, they must, however, know what steps they can take, and be ready to take them in the case of a complete refusal to adopt their policy. In other words, they must make certain of acceptance by having an alternative ready.

If they do not do this, that is, if they do not take the initiative in the matter of ending the Coalition, they run the very great risk of Mr. Lloyd George himself taking it - that is, of his suddenly demanding a general election. The result of a general election at the present moment would almost certainly be the formation of a quantity of groups. Out of these Mr. Lloyd George might well think he could pick up a new and even more personal coalition. Such a result would be most injurious to the Unionist Party, and therefore, we believe, to the country as a whole. It would probably `shatter what is still the greatest force for good in our politics, the Unionist Party, and leave the Ship of State wanting in the only machinery yet found efficient for carrying on the representative system.

The Spectator, when its history is remembered, will not be accused of being a slavish or even a passive party organ, anxious to exalt party above patriotism. It is common knowledge, indeed, that the Spectator is loathed by the whips of four parties. Yet we have no hesitation in saying that a strong Unionist Party is essential at this moment, in order to prevent the nation falling into the hands of some weak and temporary set of ministers, who may be tempted to

adopt policies and courses of action. such as we know so well from the pages of history are the precursors of revolution.

There is no danger whatever of revolution from the popular will. There is further no danger of it coming from distress, misery, and even economic ruin, such as we may be doomed to endure if the Government continues to rack the country by mad taxation and delirious administration. It is one of the most pathetic of social and political facts that misery, even starvation, does not produce revolution. People instinctively realize that civil commotion will only make their sufferings worse. Revolution comes only from the paralysis and breakdown of the government. Once get those conditions, and it may come with lightning suddenness and force. The revolutionaries themselves, who think out these matters a great deal more than their opponents, have fully realized this. Anyone who reads the famous Marxian manifesto of 1847, and who studies the other preliminaries of the Revolution of 1848, or, again, those of the Russian revolution, will see how the revolutionaries always aim at the undermining and destruction of the fabric of government. 'Get the Government down and under and incapable, no matter how!' is always their watchword. 'Get the rider out of the saddle, and then jump into his place yourself, and you may ride the horse of State to Hell or anywhere else you like.'

sound government. But the maintenance of sound government can be secured in a representative system only by the formation of a sound party system. Therefore, what we have got to work for is a homogeneous party and a homogeneous set of leaders. This we can have and we must have; but when we have got it, we have no desire that it should hold a monopoly of power. That, indeed, would be its ultimate ruin. The next step, and one that will follow automatically, will be that another party will arise in the State, which will have learned the lesson we have been urging. It will realize that it can get its share of power only by being homogeneous and by relying upon sound measures and sound men, and not upon wild personal ambitions. An excellent corrective to an over-strong constitutional democratic party would be a homogeneous and reasonable Labor

At a moment when the manifest limitations of industrial action in face of the present adverse economic conditions have compelled trade-unionists to turn their attention increasingly to the prospects of political action, the Government has presented them with a series of magnificent propagandist openings. It is true that, well as these openings may promise for the future political success of Labor, they arise out of events which involve misery and discomfort for large masses of the people. It could hardly be otherwise, for what is taking place to-day is that the chickens of the Coalition are at last coming home to roost, and revealing themselves as the unhallowed brood that they are.

First, there is the scandal of agriculture. The Government is not only abolishing the Agricultural Wages

Board: it is manifestly abandoning all

II

Party. This we hope and believe we shall get, if we first show that party a good model. If, instead, we teach others the dire lessons of the group system and of personal saviors of society like Napoleon III, - Mr. Lloyd George in certain moods apparently hankers after the personal-savior idea, we shall bring ourselves to ruin.

We have no desire to throw Mr. Lloyd George over, or to be unfair to him in any way; but he has got to be told that the time has come when he must keep within, not outside, the traces. He can no longer be allowed to flourish about by the side of the team, or act as a fifth horse to our four-inhand. No doubt he did good service as fifth horse on Bellona's Hill; but we are over that now and want the drag and a good hold-back, not a spirited example to the wheelers and leaders to put their backs into it.

pretense of possessing a rural policy at all, and this in face of the obvious need for increased agricultural production. It is easy to see how uneasy ministers are at the course which they are pursuing, and to penetrate the obvious disingenuousness of the arguments which they employ. They know that the course they are steering is dangerous, both for the country and for themselves; but they know also that, as they are placed and on their assumptions, there is no alternative open to them. They cannot at the same time indulge in military adventures in Ireland and Mesopotamia, refuse to take any step, by such means as a capital levy, to liquidate the war debt, and have money to spare for even the most urgent measures of internal reconstruction.

Exactly the same dilemma confronts the Government in respect of its hous

ing programme. Under our straitened conditions extravagance in one direction must mean double economy in another, and must involve the scrapping even of plans which can be proved to be vital to national security and welfare. As shamefacedly as one minister had to announce the abandonment of the Government's rural programme, and another that of many of the most important provisions of the Education Act of 1918, the Minister of Health has now been called upon to throw housing to the wolves.

These volte-faces are so sensational that it is impossible to cover them up by any subterfuge. It is possible only to plead economy, economy, economy,' in the hope of catching the business and Anti-Waste' vote, which has been cast for 'independent' candidates in recent by-elections. One form after another of useful and reproductive expenditure is being flung away in the hope of placating the 'Anti-Wasters.' But the real causes of waste, which lie in the sphere of international policy, remain untouched; and the most furious Anti-Wasters seem to vote, when they are returned to the House of Commons, in favor of the most reckless forms of expenditure.

How soon a general election will come, no one knows; but almost everyone seems to believe that it is approaching. When it does come, manifestly the central struggle will be between two bodies of professed economizers.' The Government, probably reconciled with its Anti-Waste critics, will go to the country with the claim that, by eating its own tail, that is, by annulling its own agricultural, housing, and educational policy, it has saved the taxpayers countless millions. Under cover of these 'economies' it will seek to persuade the electors to give it a free hand to waste even more millions than ever in other ways, and will do its

best to represent the parties opposed to it as the 'Wasters.'

Labor, on its side, will be pressing for increased expenditure in just those directions in which the Government is making the greatest retrenchments. The Labor leaders realize that the social legislation which they urge is 'practical politics' only if it is accompanied by stringent economies and readjustments elsewhere. The improvement of the standard of life in the country, and even the prevention of a real degradation of it, depends not only on direct economies on military and kindred expenditure, but even more on the adoption of a policy which will bring real peace to a shattered world, and so make possible an effective opening of national and international markets. It depends also on the taking of drastic financial and industrial measures at home, with a view both to the liquidation of the burden of debt, and to the squeezing of the waste out of private as well as public expenditure, and out of privately owned industry as well as from the public services.

The leaders of the Labor Party realize that this policy will not be altogether easy to explain to the electorate, and that Mr. Lloyd George's policy of the moment gives him to some extent an advantage in appeals to the people. If it is simply a question of Mr. Lloyd George saying, 'See how economical I am,' while the Labor Party appeals to the town electors by promising a million houses, and to the countryside by promising a rural minimum wage, it is quite uncertain which way the struggle will go, although clearly no party can expect a political victory as sweeping as that which Mr. Lloyd George won in 1918. The Coalition has indeed made the Opposition parties a present of very cogent arguments and illustrations for use against itself; but, even so, their victory cannot be regarded as certain.