The question of the proper salary for the Governor-General of

Australia, which had become one of importance, has, we fancy, been settled by a speech from Lord Tennyson, who is now acting in that capacity. He has declared that E10,000 a year is ample to maintain the fitting dignity of the great post, though not, of course, sufficient to keep up a Court of Oriental magnificence. This is the compromise which we have defended, and which is, we believe, approved in Australia itself. There is nothing gained that we can see by great allowances such as Lord Linlithgow recommended, which are regarded by those who pay them as exorbitant, and invariably lead to such ex- penditure that only rich men can accept the posts. It may happen, no doubt, that a great Colonial Governor may decline the Viceroyalty lest it should tax his private resources ; but the contingency will not be frequent, and the loss is not to be compared with that which arises from too violent a social separation between the Viceroy and the people. The Australians, like the Canadians and the South Africans, wish the head of their world to be a great gentleman not intent on petty economies; but they have little reverence for a splendour which any millionaire can, if he pleases, outdo. In South Africa £10,000 a year is barely sufficient, owing to the pre- posterons price of everything, but that will pass away. The only expense in the free Colonies which should not be thrown on the Governors or Viceroys is the keeping up of their residences, which should be stately, and remain the property of the Colonies.

The joint meeting of the Convocations of Canterbury and York with the Houses of Laymen of both Provinces in Com- mittee was held on Thursday and Friday week in the Great Hall of the Church House, Westminster, under the joint presidency of the Archbishops. This meeting, as was pointed out by the Archbishop of Canterbury in his opening address, had no Con- stitutional authority whatever, and had no claim to exercise legal powers, but it was of great importance as preparing the way for a regular opportunity for the Church to express itself with one voice upon any subject which at the hour was of real moment. The first day was occupied with a debate upon the desirableness of calling together a representative Council of the Church of England. The meeting decidedthatthe creation of such a Council was desirable, but that" the question of obtaining legal constitution and authority for such a Council be reserved for consideration until after the Council has, upon a voluntary basis, come into working order " ; that in order to provide the lay element the Archbishops "should continue to

On Saturday, July 11th, the Archbishops received in the Library of Lambeth Palace a deputation representing the signatories to the recent clerical "Declaration on Ritual." The Archbishop of Canterbury in a wise and statesmanlike speech acknowledged that the great body of High Churchmen are "absolutely loyal to our Church's system and authority and rule." He went on to point out that in 1865 there was added to Canon XXXVI. the words "except so far as shall be ordered by lawful authority." He welcomed those words because they indicated "that some living authority should be able to sanction the necessary elasticity required for minor matters in our Church's order and system, that living authority being the Bishop of each diocese." With respect to the inter- pretation of the Ornaments Rubric, he pleaded that the opinions of great legal thinkers like Lord Selborne, Lord Hatherley, and Lord Cairns must carry very great weight. The fact that they spoke in the Privy Council could not affect their unrivalled power of interpretation, and the case could only be reopened on the basis of "additional knowledge" unknown to those lawyers,—a basis that could probably be established. The Archbishop then paid a tribute to the present Bench of Bishops. His insistence on their capacity, watchfulness, and loyalty was the keynote of this politic, speech. The greatest tribute to the Bishops is, however, the fact of the "Declaration."

Though the London Education Bill passed the Report stage on Wednesday, and on Thursday Mr. Brodrick made the statement that the permanent garrison in South Africa is to be raised to twenty-five thousand, partly for local reasons and partly to provide Indian reinforcements if necessary, the chief event of the week in the Commons must be pronounced to be the excited scene produced by Mr. Balfour's refusal to allow any debate on Mr. Chamber- lain's proposals except in the form of a vote of censure. Mr. Henry Hobhouse, one of the leading Free-trade Unionists, put down a Motion which would have enabled a full and free discussion to have taken place, without, however, leading to any hostile vote. The Free-trade Unionists would, that is, have been able under it to secure discussion without threatening the position of the Government. Sir Michael Hicks-Beach asked the Prime Minister to give facilities for such a discussion in order that the House of Commons "might aid the country in that inquiry and discussion to which it has

been invited by his Majesty's Ministers." Mr. Balfour, as we have said, refused, and on the ground that no useful purpose could be served by the discussion desired. But, added Mr. Balfour, in response to the Leader of the Opposition, he would give facilities for a regular vote of censure. Though Mr. Hobhouse pointed out that it was unfair for the Prime Minister to ask his supporters to propose a vote of censure, especially when he had himself said that the question was not to be made the test of party loyalty, Mr. Balfour would not yield. The episode as a whole is dealt with by us elsewhere, but we must say here that if Mr. Balfour thinks that suppression of argument in the Commons makes for unity in his party he is very greatly mistaken.

We are glad to be able to record that the Unionists who oppose Mr. Chamberlain's projects have formed a Unionist Free-Food League, and mean to organise their forces throughout the country. Sir Michael Hicks Beach is acting as the leader of the new organisation, and no better leader could be desired than the man whose experience in the Commons, as a Cabinet Minister and as a Conservative leader, is greater than that of any man now in active political life. Above all, Sir Michael has the mens aequa in arduis. He will not fail or flinch, though at the same time no rashness of action or extravagance of speech need be feared in him. He knows how to lead, and he will not be afraid to lead. As we have said elsewhere, the chief difficulty of the Free-trade Unionists is the difficulty of getting in touch with each other. In the course of the next few days Conservative Free-traders, and also Liberal Unionist Free-traders, throughout the constituencies should therefore put themselves in communication with the secretary of the Unionist Free-Food League, 15 Victoria Street, Westminster, S.W. They will help the cause by registering their names without delay. It is greatly to be hoped that they will never be required to take action, but it is the prime duty of Free-trade Unionists to get in touch without delay with the central organisation. The name of the League is well chosen. Its aim is to keep the food of the people free from all taxation of a Protective character. Its essential principle is taxation for revenue only. If it succeeds in its work, it will have saved the Empire from a policy which would have shaken to its foundations the principle upon which the Imperial fabric rests,—the principle of non-interference with the fiscal independence of the com- ponent parts of the Empire.

A curious feature of the immediate political situation is the continued efforts that are being made to induce Mr. Chamber- lain to give up the taxation of food, in spite of his declaration, "If you are to give a preference to the Colonies you must put a tax on food," and his assertion that he is prepared to go into any mechanic's house and show him that such a tax would be beneficial. With great pluck and persistency the Daily Mail every day insists that Mr. Chamberlain must give up this part of his scheme, and the public is beginning to watch the struggle between the statesman and the newspaper with the interest that anything in the shape of a single combat always causes among Englishmen. Why will not Mr. Gould give us a revised version of his famous caricature of Mr. Chamberlain and the Kruger Parrot ? Mr. Chamberlain must be on the perch this time, and the Daily Mail must be vehemently admonishing him,—" Say 'Free Food ' !" "You shall say Free Food ' ! " Naturally, we are as anxious as the Daily Mail that Mr. Chamberlain should say "Free Food," but we have very little hope that he will. He does not belong to the type of statesman to whom it is easy to dictate.

The bitter letter from General Louis Botha which appears in the Times of Wednesday is a fierce attack on the adminis- tration of the Transvaal Colony. He declares that Mr. Chamberlain's visit was a dismal failure ; that an unprece- dented War Debt was placed on the Colony against the express declarations of the burgher representatives ; that the burgher population is absolutely unrepresented on the Legislative Council ; that the municipal franchise is withheld alike from the coloured British subject and the white alien,— though Lord Miler's advocacy of the latter was the cause of the war ; that the work of the Repatriation Department is a complete and dismal failure, and that Lord Miler's

despatches about the "huge success of this Department are nothing more than a fairy tale " ; that the new educational system is a cruel attempt to Anglicise (and perhaps Romanise) the Boer children, and is alienating the two peoples ; that the importation of cheap Chinese labour will reinforce the black population and " degrade South Africa for ever" ; and that the government of the country is almost absolutely dictated by the mining magnates. The General goes on to say that to the burghers the present policy is "still the same policy which drove their forefathers from the Cape, and which has drenched South Africa in blood and tears." On the other hand, he tells us that "in this common adversity English and Boer are being drawn together," and that "there is a wonderful calm everywhere observable." All the energies of the Beers" are engaged in the work of rebuilding their homes and repairing the losses of the war." It is a clever as well as a bitter docu- ment. Whether there is any truth in it remains to be seen, but unless we are greatly mistaken, it is about as far from the essentials of the situation as would have been an account of Scotland written by a Highland chief a year after the '45.

Mr. W. E. Henley, at one time widely known as the editor of the Scots Observer, but still better as a literary critic, and best of all as a poet of great force and originality, died on Saturday last. The end was sudden, but for several years past Mr. Henley had suffered greatly. The courage with which he bore a painful malady was most remarkable. Not only did it never break his spirit, but it did not even dim his poetic vision. His last poem, "A Song of Speed," had a rapture and vitality in it which made it seem more like the work of a youth than of a middle-aged invalid,—so complete is the triumph of the true poetic inspiration over personality and circumstance. To our mind, Mr. Henley was a far greater poet than he was a critic. His criticism was always marked by understanding as well as learning, but it too often was marred by its fierce and distorted egoism, and by its lack of proportion. Mr. Henley not only used a bludgeon, but used it without dis- crimination. When he was on the warpath his motto was, "Wherever you see a head, hit it." When he put on his singing robes it was different. In spite of the affectation of robustious- ness which sometimes deformed his verse, he was a true poet. His power over metre and phrase was extraordinary, especially in the case of the unrhymed measures in which he delighted, and with which he enriched our language.

The Parliamentary Paper issued on Monday dealing with the commercial relations of the British Empire and Germany since May, 1897, is of much interest at the present juncture The despatches of the last few months are, indeed, of the firsl moment, as they clearly indicate the emphatic position adopteC by Lord Lansdowne. On April 15th Baron von Richthofen informed Sir Frank Laseelles that it was doubtful if his Government would be able to prolong the law granting us " most- favoured-nation " treatment "if Germany is differentiated against in important parts of the British Empire, and if, in particular, the report is confirmed that German goods will in the future be less favourably treated than British, not only in Canada, but also in British South Africa." Lord Lansdowne in his despatch of June 20th intimated that persistence in such an attitude would raise "a very wide and serious issue " ; and in his further despatch of July 8th refused to allow Baron von Richthofen's despatch to be explained away, since it is regarded by our Government "as not lightly given and not to be lightly received." It, in fact, was a threat that if any more of our Colonies accorded preferential treatment to British imports Germany might refuse Great Britain herself the treatment we are entitled to expect upon the most ordinary ground of reciprocity. Lord Lansdowne firmly intimated that such retaliation would not be justifiable in itself, and that our Government have "no intention of drawing a distinction between their own interests and those of the self-governing Colonies." Lord Lansdowne's tone was ex- cellent, but the German threats must not be exaggerated. Even if they withdrew the " most-favoured-nation " clause, they would not greatly injure us or the Colonies, though they would, of course, fine their own consumers.

Bank Rate, 3 per cent.

Consols (21 per cent.) were on Friday 921.

TOPICS OF THE DAY.

MR. BALFOUR AND THE UNIONIST FREE- TRADERS. THAT Mr. Balfour is sincerely anxious to maintain the unity of the Unionist party we do not doubt for a moment. He has no desire, that is, to proclaim that adhe- sion to the Protectionist doctrines as preached by Mr. Cham- berlain and his supporters is necessary for all loyal party men. On the contrary, he has declared in the most solemn and formal way that agreement with Mr. Chamberlain's pro- posals must not be considered as the test of party loyalty. In other words, the Prime Minister has laid it down that a Unionist is not to be considered a bad party man because • he continues to be a Free-trader. But though Mr. Balfour has at heart no desire to drive the Unionist Free-traders out of the party or into a position of isolation or revolt, he has, unfortunately, done a great deal to produce the very result which we all so greatly desire to avoid. Mr. Balfour's refusal to give any answer but one of peremptory denial to the very moderate and reasonable request of so faithful a member of the Unionist party as the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, the senior Member of the House of Commons and the most loyal and devoted of Conservative leaders, cannot, however good the intention, but act as a force tending towards disruption. The Free-trade Unionists see Mr. Chamberlain insisting on the need of discussion— he stated only a few weeks ago : "It is because it is of immense importance that I ask the House to join eagerly in the discussion to which I invite them " (Mr. Chamber- lain, May 28th)—and find that it is perpetually thrown in their teeth by the Protectionists that they are afraid of discussion. Yet when they ask for discussion, and ask for it in the place where discussion is specially appropriate—i.e., in that great deliberative assembly, the House of Commons —they are told by Mr. Balfour that "no useful purpose" would be served thereby. They are told also, no doubt, that if they will propose a direct vote of censure they can have a discussion, but such a vote of censure they naturally cannot agree to help and further. They do not want to take up the position that no one who shares Mr. Chamberlain's views has any right to remain in the Unionist party, as a vote of censure supported by them would imply. They merely claimed the right to make clear their own position, and to hear from the other side a statement of theirs. Such a claim is not an act of war, but rather of party loyalty, and deserved to be, and should have been, treated with consideration.

Mr. Winston Churchill's letter to Thursday's Times brings out well the false position in which Parliament as well as the Unionist party is placed by the refusal of Mr. Balfour to allow any discussion which did not take the form of a pitched party battle. He points out how specially unfair it is to the Unionist Free-traders to forbid them the use of Parliamentary debate. "It is easy," he urges, "to see why Mr. Chamberlain does not desire a debate, and why the Free-traders seek one. In Parliament they meet the Protectionists on even terms. Information can be demanded, figures can be challenged, facts can be examined and com- pared. Argument in the House of Commons costs no money, requires no machinery. It is an equal battle, fought under fair rules in a twenty-foot ring. In the autumn it is expected that these advantages will disappear. Vast wealth is always at the disposal of Protectionist leaders. Political organisation is the child of wealth. Mr. Chamber- lain's speeches are read by every one. Few among the Unionist Free-traders have access to the public at all except from the platform of the House of Commons and the notice which is taken of its debates. Stave off debate by any means, in spite of pledges, appeals, or taunts,' till the Session be over, and, the cause of Pro- tection will have escaped its most dangerous peril." The absurdity, nay, the humiliation, involved in ac- cepting this view is well hit off by Mr. Churchill. "The great question of the day may be argued in the Palace and in the coal-hole. Every chamber of commerce may debate it. Every public body may pass a resolution. It is on the agenda of the Eton Debating Society. It is in order in the Parliament of Peckham. But there is one place in the British Empire where it is taboo.' The Housenf Commons, most interested, most concerned, most responsible, is to be gagged and smothered by a cynical and ingenious abuse of its own procedure." That is the literal fact. For the first time in our history Parliament is not allowed to discuss what the whole nation is busy debating, and what fills every newspaper !

It is, however, useless to regret Mr. Balfour's decision. He has pronounced his judgment on the appeal made to him, and we can only hope that he has not also pronounced the doom of the Unionist party. It remains to consider what the Unionist Free-traders should now do in order to prevent the break up of the party, and to make the nation understand that there is no reason why a man should not be both a Unionist and a Free-trader, and that those Unionists who are doubtful as to the wisdom of Mr. Cham- berlain's projects need not assume that they must either leave their party and join the Liberals, or else submit unwillingly to the Colonial Secretary. The Free-trade Unionists must insist with all their might that Free-traders have every right to remain in the party, and that they intend to do so. Nothing will further this object better than organisation, and we are therefore delighted to note that under the leadership of Sir Michael Hicks Beach the Free-trade Unionists have formed themselves into a body to be known as the Unionist Free-Food League, and that they intend to organise their section of the party through- out the constituencies. The offices of the Free-Food League are at 15 Victoria Street, S.W., and we have no doubt that before long some general announcement of policy will be made to the pblic. Meantime we hope that all Unionists who are also Free-traders will communicate with the secretary of the League in order that he may be able to get into touch with Free-trade Unionists throughout the nation. The Free-trade Unionists constitute' a far larger portion of the party than is generally supposed, but to make their influence on the party felt it is essential that they should be in communication with each other. No doubt the activity of the Free-Food League must to some extent tend to widen the breach in the party, but the blame for that must rest with Mr. Balfour rather than with Sir Michael Hicks Beach and his colleagues. If their mouths are closed in Parliament, they have nothing left but to appeal to the country.

Before we leave the subject we must not forget to point out one fact of great importance. It need not be supposed that Mr. Balfour's refusal to allow the Unionist Free- traders the open discussion they asked for is a proof that he has gone over entirely to Mr. Chamberlain. We think that instead the reverse is true. If Mr. Balfour had become a convinced convert, he would know that the split could no longer be avoided, and he would have declared himself at once. If, however, he has not been converted, and still believes it possible to induce Mr. Chamberlain to abandon his project or part of it, we can understand, though we still should not be able to agree with, his desire for silence. We have always believed, and still believe, that when the final split comes, it is quite conceivable that Mr. Balfour will not be found in agreement with Mr. Chamberlain. Of course we may be completely wrong, but we shall not believe in Mr. Balfour assenting to Mi.. Chamberlain's policy, and to the consequent disruption of the Unionist party, until the event occurs. He made, we believe, a huge mistake on Wednesday when he refused to allow discussion ; but though wrong in fact, we believe, as we have said at the beginning of this article, that his desire was, and is, to avoid a rupture in the Unionist party.

PAPAL ELECTIONS. TWO things distinguish a Papal election in a marked way from any other election by a Committee. There must be a majority of two-thirds in favour of the selected candidate, and, from the moment that majority is secured the Committee as a Committee loses its powers. The first rule, which is considered absolute, though it has once, according to Mr. Cartwright, been waived in theory, is the cause of the long delay, and the numerous "intrigues "—or shall we say efforts at combination P—which usually mark the election of a Pope. The Roman Catholic Church looks to the outsider the most unanimous in the world; but there are deep 'cleavages between the tendencies of its various parties, direct collisions of political opinion, and, of course. Personal likings and enmities, which are the stronger because the groups that ultimately govern the Church are almost exclusively of the Latin race. A majority of the Cardinals are Italians, and Italians can hate and love each other very hard. It is nearly impossible to find a Cardinal whom two-thirds of his colleagues think worthy of the Pontifical throne, and to induce the requisite number of opponents to give way during the legal interregnum of nine days established to prevent a snap vote demands some caution, much persuasion, and management, which last, the managers being Italians, sometimes degenerates from policy into cunning. Often the only way to terminate what might otherwise be an endless struggle is to set aside all the candidates at first thought of, and accept the Cardinal who divides the Conclave least, a method which tends to make of the ultimate choice a surprise, and, we fancy, deepens the idea among Roman Catholics that the Holy Spirit at each election overrules the electors. In the present instance there are at least two strong parties in the Conclave —those who would concede something to the spirit of the time, and whom we may call the -Liberals, though the word is a little out of place, and those who would meet all evils by inflexible resistance to innovation, the ecclesiastical Tories, in fact—and probably a third, best defined as diploma- tists, who are thinking first of all of their own countries, and a fourth, whom we would class with the deepest respect as the saints. Saintly men are as frequent in the Roman Communion as in any other Christian Church, and they do occasionally rise to its first places. Those divisions are quite sufficient under the two-thirds rule to give second-rate men a chance, even if the Conclave can evade, or dare defy, the three " Vetos " which they acknowledge to be valid—the fourth, that of Portugal, is disputed—and which if used at all—a doubtful point —would of course be directed only against strong per- sonalities.

The second peculiarity of each Conclave, the lonely position in which election leaves the elected, is not com- pletely recognised by English Protestants. They cannot, with their training, get rid of the notion that the Pope is a man under direction from the groups of great ecclesi- astics around him. They fancy that there is a Council which goes on always, and is the true directing force. That is not wholly true. The Pope is, of course, advised, and as the human memory is limited, has con- stantly to seek information as to what his predecessors • have done, inasmuch as if he decreed anything opposed to their previous decrees, that wortld throw doubt on the con- tinuity of the divine guidance; but there is no restraint upon his decision exercised by persons. The mystical section of his prerogatives cannot be shared, or abandoned, or dele- gated. In the last resort, it is the Pope's mind and the Pope's voice that must decide. This is as true of the weakest Popes as of the strongest; it has become more pressingly true since the acceptance of the Dogma of Infallibility, and it is the first cause of the immense importance attach- ing to the election, which otherwise would merely be that of the Chairman of a Council. The Pope is no Doge, but a great living force to which in the last resort his advisers must yield, as the American Cabinet must yield to the President of the United. States. The Papacy is a real Monarchy, and may one day betray some of the weaknesses to which Monarchy is liable. We believe this is true even of the Pope's political action, for though in such action he does not claim to be "inspired," he can at once remove a recal- citrant Secretary of State, and no Council has the slightest legal right of control. Leo XIII., for instance, is believed to have accepted the French Republic amid a chorus of opinion within the Vatican that it was imprudent thus to discourage, and in a way alienate, the Monarchical parties in France.

It sometimes seems a little difficult for Protestants to wish for a perfect Pope. The lurking desire in the Christian world, amid the tumult of jarring ideas, for a Supreme Referee is very strong, and a Pope who throughout a long reign always showed himself at once saintly and impartial, and at the same time a man of high intellectual force, would exercise an influence on opinion which the competing Churches would not altogether approve. A Dean Church, for instance, on the Pontifical throne, who cared nothing for the loss of the temporal power, or treated it as a passing cloud in the sky of Christianity, a mere regrettable event like the storm of Rome by the Constable, but who under- stood all modern controversies, and could inflexibly censure all moral evils, would probably become the most powerful person in the world, and would certainly awaken a reverence such as no man in our days has attained. We doubt whether he could much help the cause either of reaction or democracy, for his opponents would say, and believe, that he was travelling outside his delegated powers ; and it is the mystical element in his claims, the doubt whether he may not on moral subjects be a funnel for wisdom higher than his own, which really gives him his foothold ; but a thoughtful saint in his position would alter the whole impression made by his Church, and induce millions to regard it as an acceptable refuge from mental doubt and worry. There is, however, little chance of such a phenomenon. The Cardinals, though in theory their choice is free, and they can elect "a baptised negro from the banks of the Congo," will not step outside their own circle, or, indeed, outside the Italian section of that circle, and within it they will hardly find a Pope of the requisite largeness of intellect and impartiality of outlook. The life of great ecclesiastics, though it often develops some special powers and virtues, does not enfranchise the mind. Moreover, they will not choose a man who is above care for the temporal power. They cannot free themselves from the fascination of that mirage, or cease postponing more important objects to its pursuit ; and the Pope who still hopes to recover the temporal power necessarily involves himself in intrigues fatal to spirituality. Italy will not voluntarily surrender her capital, and he must therefore desire before ll things that she should be invaded and dismembd, which can hardly be the aspiration of a good It . Even an Italian Federal Republic with the Popeyat its head, which is the form in which most Roman Catholics embody the vision, is a most secular dream, and its realisation involves the wading through a sea of blood, from which one would think the greatest of Christian ecclesiastics would instinctively shrink. The next Pope, therefore, will probably be a man like another, possibly a great Prince, possibly also an able ecclesiastic, but not one who will rise above mundane considerations, or impress upon the Christian world the feeling that he is its natural head. We regret the fact, for in the great war with materialism, and with that secularism which now threatens the supremacy of thought as well as the spread of spirituality, the Roman Catholic Church must always be one of the most efficient com- batants. There is, however, little room for hope, and we can only warn our readers not to believe too implicitly the stream of rumour which until the election is complete will come day by day pouring over the wires. The enemies and the friends of the Vatican are neither of them very scrupulous, and both are credulous to the last degree, while the few outsiders who really know what passes within the Vatican hold themselves bound to a secrecy deeper than that which surrounds the inner life of secular Courts. The secrecy was, we suppose, beneficial once, when its object was escape from the threats of violent men, and it is useless to censure an ancient Church because it fails, in the novel circumstances of an age which it condemns, to distinguish with sufficient clearness between its principles and its traditions.

SEEPING TRADE AT HOME. THE effort to keep trade at home, and to force people to buy from their neighbours rather than from the foreigner, by legal enactments in the nature of tariffs, is one which appeals at first sight to almost every one. Why not enrich ourselves instead of the foreigner ? is a question which goes home to the hearts of all of us. The answer, of course, is that you cannot enrich yourselves unless you trade with the foreigner ; that trade is always an exchange, though not always a visible one, and so a double and not a single blessing, as the Protectionists seem to imagine ; and that therefore the attempt to keep all our trade at home must kill that export trade which we all desire to see expanded. But though this answer is, in truth, sufficient, its abstract character does not make it seem satisfactory to many persons, and they raise for themselves difficulties such as those Sir Conan Doyle raises in the letter from him which we publish in another column. With his usual clear- ness and eloquence of style, Sir Conan Doyle argues the point that a man intending to buy a motor-car should be forced to spend his £1,000 on a British-made motor-car, and that the State by means of tariff enactments should not let that £1,000 go out of the country. Here, however, are Sir Conan's own words as to the two motor-cars :— " Surely, Sir, presuming that the cars are of approximately the same merit, it is against all common-sense to say that it is better to send this 41,000 to encourage a foreign industry. I am aware that it has been received as an axiom that trade begets trade, but that seems to me to be the very theory which is now upon its trial. Your correspondents both take the view that my 41,000 is not lost to Great Britain, but that it returns in payment of British products. The benefit of a concrete case like this is that one might make an attempt to trace approximately the channels through which the money continues to flow. M. Panhard, for example, pays in my amine, and transfers my money eventually to his banking account. Some proportion of it is expended in the upkeep of his factory, which becomes a valuable taxable asset for the French Government. The balance of the money is divided between the employers and the workpeople. In the expenditure of the employers certain articles of British manufacture may have a place. In that of the workman, with his blue blouse, his vin ordinaire, his sabots, and his whole French outfit, there is very little that could come back to us. He saves some of the money, and it may go to the next Russian loan. Surely it would be a fair statement to say that of that 41,000 not 420 would ever filter back to England. In the other case the whole 41,000 is being devoted to the employment of our own people. Surely it is better to retain that certain 41,000 within the country than to send it forth on the chance of some small proportion of it coming back in trade."

Now, with all respect to Sir Conan Doyle, he has been betrayed into a fallacy. It is, however, a fallacy which it is somewhat difficult to meet on the hypothetical case which he has taken, and by tracing the exact channels through which the exchange that is essential to the purchase takes place. But though we cannot trace these channels, it is not difficult to show in a wider field that Sir Conan Doyle's ideal of keeping trade at home and not subsidising a foreign industry would merely mean a shrinking, not an expansion, of industry. Sir Conan Doyle would doubt- ]ess admit that if it is wise to retain his 021,000 in the country instead of letting it go out to purchase a foreign motor-car, it would also be wise to do the same for all other things that would be of approximately similar merit if made here instead of in France. For example, instead of buying Prench brandy or French liqueurs, we might buy British brandy, British Chartreuse, and British Creme de Menthe, and instead of champagne use British cyder, which is "approxi- mately equal" to "the foaming grape of Eastern France," and probably a good deal more wholesome. We might do the same for French silks, for articles de Paris, and for an enormous number of things which now come from the Continent, but which could be made in England. What would be the result of Sir Conan Doyle's policy when pur- sued on this 'grand scale ? In the first place, it is no doubt clear that it would do a great injury to France and the rest of the nations from whom we purchase the things which we could make here of approximately equal merit. But it may be said—and in the abstract we agree to the proposi- tion—that our business is to help our own people, and not to bother about the foreigner. But unfortunately in trade we cannot help bothering about the foreigner. The foreigner will not let us forget him. If we impoverish him by refusing to take his goods, he is obliged to retort by not taking ours. As our purchases abroad decreased, so would his. In other words, the thousands of factories here which are entirely devoted to making things for the foreign market—i.e., supplying the things which have to be ex- changed against foreign imports, such as Sir Conan's motor-car—would have to shut down. They constitute the other side of the exchange, and when there is no ex- change with the outside world they must collapse. Because we apparently pay for foreign goods in gold, we forget that there are thousands of Englishmen work- ing every day to provide the material subjects of barter. Though we cannot see the channels they take, the millions of pounds which go out of this country in bills of exchange, or even in bullion, to pay for foreign goods will find their way back (possibly having first travelled, round the world) to purchase goods here.

In a word, there are thousands of men and women here whose whole livelihood depends upon Sir Conan Doyle being allowed to spend his money on a French motor-ear, if French motor-cars are better and cheaper, and so in greater demand, than British cars. spot, and will beat all competitors. If it wants protection, it must be because it is a worse car or costs more. Let us assume that it is equal in merit, but costs 10 per cent. more, say £1,100 instead of £1,000. Sir Conan Doyle gets the British ear and pays the extra £100. He has, then, £100 less to spend on other things than if he had been living under Free-trade and had bought a French car. That is no doubt an imperceptible loss in a single case, but imagine a trade of £10,000,000 a year in which the extra cost is 10 per cent. owing to Protection. In that case the buyers of the protected articles will have £1,000,000 less to spend on all sorts of commodities. They must, that is, economise to an aggregate amount of £1,000,000. But this diminution in the purchasing power of these people cannot be good for the home market. Such a shrinkage must weaken a good many existing industries. It may be said, however, that this will be compensated for by the profitable motor trade established by means of Protection. But what is the good of starting a new industry if it weakens those already in existence, and makes the purchaser pay more than he need for his article ? If we leave trade alone, the indus- tries we shall have will be those most profitable to us, either because of our material conditions, i.e., because our coal and iron are cheap and our climate suitable—the British climate is the best in the world for producing fine cottons—or because the impediments to trade established by other countries make it specially profitable to pursue certain industries. Free-tradc gives us the pick of the trades, and allows us to choose those which pay best. For example, the foreign policy of " dumping " cheap sugar here under the bounty system not only stimu- lated sugar-refining, as a correspondent points out in our issue of to-day, but also gave us the confectionery trade, the biscuit trade, and the trade in aerated waters. They are the children of cheap sugar. No one can touch us in cheap confectionery, cheap chocolate, and cheap biscuits. While the policy of Protectionist countries is constantly forcing them to take the line of least profit, Free-trade enables us to take the line of most profit.

Again, we must not suppose, because we are beimg sup- plied by the foreigner with a certain article capable of being manufactured in Britain, that we are losing because we have not got that trade. It may very often happen that we could. not have that trade without displacing one far more profit- able. People sometimes talk as if there were an indefinite amount of skilled labour in England ready to be hired, and as if all we had to do was to open factory doors, and the labour required would instantly respond to the call. The facts are very different. There is no large body of unemployed skilled workmen permanently idle in these islands. Hence a new trade is not worth getting unless it is a more profitable trade than the trade it will replace. Our industry expands with the population, and, in addition, under Free-trade there is a tendency towards Britain absorbing the profitable trades and leaving the less profit- able to Protectionist foreigners. They become, that is, through their mistaken trade policy, hewers of wood and drawers of water to the British producer. For example, a great deal of half-manufactured steel and iron products come into this country, often at a price lower than it would pay us to produce them. But that is no injury to us. We take the rough steel and iron thus furnished us and use it to give employment at high wages to specially skilled artisans. Many more of these highly paid men are thus kept at work than would be possible if we refused to take the half-manufactured steel and iron from the foreigner.

CHURCH GOVERNMENT.

WE had occasion in our issue of February 14th last to deal at length with the difficult question of the position of the laity in the Church of England. We then emphasised the fact that the Church of the present day is fully alive to national needs, that its interests are coterminous with the interests of the Empire, and that it is a Church possessing no local or provincial "note." It followed from this that the position of the laity in the Church is of the highest importance, and we urged that the "laity of the Church" should be determined by the fact of baptism, and not by that of confirmation. We went on to susYgest that in the event of the creation of a National Church Council, the electorate should in- clude all who are, all who believe they are, and all who wish to become conforming members of the Church of England. To adopt such an electoral basis would make for that inclusiveness which we believe to be a fundamental attribute of a national Church, and. would leave the way always open, not only for the nonconform- ing members of the Church to resume their Church privi- leges, but would attract more and more that considerable and. truly religious class who owe a, joint allegiance to Church and Chapel. It Would, moreover, tend to incor- porate into Church life and to bring into closer touch with the helpfulness of true religion those indeterminate millions of the poor who have been baptised, who value the fact of baptism and the name of Christian, but who have not passed to the supplementary rite of confirmation.

The recent debates and. resolutions at the joint meeting of the two Convocations, and. the able speech of the Arch- bishop of Canterbury to the deputation of High Church clergy who approached him with assurances of their alle- giance to the national Church, have done much to confirm us in these views. It is true that there were speakers to whom our views do not appeal, but on the whole we find ourselves in accord with the resolution that represents the resultant of the conflicting opinions of the various speakers. That resolution represents the outlook of the large and growing body of the clergy who regard the Church of England in its nature as inclusive, and who are adverse to any trend of ecclesias- tical policy that would eventually place the national Church among the sects, hedged round by exclusive tests and iron definitions. Every earnest Churchman of course desires to see all Churchmen conforming to the ideal life of the Church, and partaking of the privileges and responsibilities of the Church. We fully appreciate the worthiness of such a desire, but we cannot blind our eyes to the impracticableness and the injustice of a definition of Church membership that includes any test other than the fact of baptism, supplemented, in eases where interference in Church government is in question, by a bonci-fide written profession of conformity. If a man after signing a profession of conformity, and thereby obtaining power to exercise the functions of govern- ment, proves to be a hypocrite, it is always possible to exclude him from such power. But the Church has no other power of exclusion. Its duty is to compel all to come in, and that duty is evaded by the erection of tests which foster hypocrisy, prove a scandal to the Church, and deprive it of its national character.

We have said that we find ourselves in general accord with the resolution which defines the electorate upon whom would devolve the duty of electing the lay members of a National Church Council. Our accord. is based on the fact that the franchise would be exercised by persons who (inter alia) "declare themselves in writing at the time of voting to be lay members of the Church of England, and of no other religious Communion, and are not legally and actually excluded from Communion." It is quite clear that the words "not legally and actually excluded from Communion" are a rejection of the confirma- tion qualification. No one can be legally excluded from Communion on the ground of non-confirmation. To deny the Sacrament without a lawful cause is a statutory offence ; and non-confirmation is not a lawful cause, for it is specially provided that "to be ready and desirous to be confirmed" is sufficient to qualify for Communion. If this is so, no clergyman could legally refuse the Communion to any baptised person, for he is not in a position to test the mental attitude of the applicant. If that is the legal position, it would be impossible for Parliament to sanction a confirmation qualification without restricting the Sacra- ment to persons who have been confirmed, and it would have been absurd.for the Joint Committee of the Convoca- tions to advocate a qualification that Parliament could not sanction in any circumstances. This, and the fact (alluded to by the Bishop of Ripon) that our Church is a national Church, make the broadest possible qualification necessary, and. we think that the Joint Committee has iecognised this.

The debate on the first day of the joint meeting turned on the desirableness of creating a Church Council, and the decision arrived at in reality rendered the sub- sequent debate on the lay franchise somewhat unreal. The Committee, while almost unanimously in favour of the calling together of a national representative Church Council, evidently felt that the time for going to Parliament for statutory powers had not yet come. It is first necessary for the Council to justify its existence on a voluntary basis, to secure on that basis the confidence and the loyal support of conforming Churchmen, to become an instrument through which—to use the Archbishop of Canterbury's phrase—the Church could express itself with one voice upon any subject of great moment. It could not seriously be suggested that a Council created by Parliament out of the existing materials would be likely at the present time to win the confidence and arouse the enthusiasm of the laity. The fact that many members of the Joint Com- mittee are in favour of restricting the lay franchise within very narrow limits would in itself have a damping effect from the beginning, and such a. Council would be unable to command the interest of the laity or the loyalty of the clergy. The clergy who dis- liked the system of government instituted by the National Council would repudiate its authority as a creature of Parliament in the same way that a similar class now repudiates the authority of the Privy Council. We therefore think that the joint meeting was wise in reserving the question of obtaining legal constitution and authority until the Council has come into working order on a voluntary basis. Slowly the new Council may win the confidence of the Church at large, that is, the confidence of the nation, and may inspire all Church members with the belief that it is national in fact as well as in name. Such a result can only be obtained after the lapse of a con- siderable period, but the very effort to create a Council that will command the attention, and in a sense the obedience, of the country will in itself do much to strengthen and to enlarge the area of operation of the Church of England.

Meanwhile there does not appear to be any need for depression on the subject of the government of the Church of England. Men come and go, but the Church remains rooted. in a soil peculiarly favourable to institutions that are capable of slow and continual development. For a whole century the Church has been gathering strength to deal with the vast social problems which have grown up in the same period, and, on the whole, during that time its episcopal character has been its source of strength. It may be that at this particular moment the Bench of Bishops does not represent as great an aggregation of learning as in certain past times ; but the fruits of learn- ing remain, and the Bishops of to-day can approach their peculiar problems with the strength of a living hand that is armed by the policy of Pecock and Hooker, and the various learning of men such as Westcott and Light- foot. It is necessary at the present day, we were told by the Archbishop of Canterbury in his speech last Satur- day, "that some living authority should be able to sanction the necessary elasticity required for minor matters in our Church's order and system. That living authority, he added, is the Bishop of the diocese. The Archbishop's tribute to the Bishops is a thing to be thankful for. He knows, he tells us, of no case where a Bishop has been lax or careless in admitting unfit persons to Holy Orders, or in dealing with unfit clergy where it was practically possible to deal with them. "I assure you," he declared with emphasis, "that the Bishops have been considering with the greatest care what is their duty in matters such as this, and I believe that they are exercising in the sight of God, to the utmost of their power, the authority which was given to them for the repression of what they believe to be erroneous and unsound." If this is so, and we cannot doubt it—cannot doubt that the Bishops are approaching with a, large and judicial mind the infinitely delicate and difficult questions to which the Primate referred —then they are doing all that at the present time could. be done by the National Council if it were to spring suddenly into life with full legal disciplinary powers. Therefore we cannot regret that some years must pass before such a Council can obtain such powers. As a voluntary body it can do good work, and can gradually create a new organisation, but we believe that the present troubles— which are, after all, but the reflex action of more real troubles that are past—can be better approached by the silent efforts of statesmanlike Bishops than by the necessarily public proceedings of a representative Council of the Church. It will be time enough for the Council to take some share in ecclesiastical administration and legis- lation when the present discontents have passed, as they are surely passing, away.

We have only to add that we cannot open our corre- spondence columns, greatly overweighted as they are at present by the political crisis, to the discussion of the various points touched on in this article.

BARON KALLA.Y. and nearly as mountainous, was as safe as Scotland. The habit of murder had died out till the average was lower per thousand than in London ; the tenure had been corrected till the peasantry, though not fully contented, for they hold the land to be theirs, had ceased to rebel ; and the small cities had begun to exult, Balkan fashion, in all "the appurtenances of civilisation." The finances were all straight, the provinces paying their own expenses ; and the regiments of native Bosnians are believed to be as faithful as any of tlioss which take the military oath to the house of Hapsburg. • This seems to us a magnificent piece of work, deserving honour from all Europe, and also a most instructive one, especially for those who are trained to believe that the only trustworthy instrument of government is a represen- tative body. That it is the best under certain conditions of civilisation we have no doubt whatever, though the degree of its success is modified by the temperament of the race which enjoys it, to an extent not yet quite fully recognised by political philosophy ; but to lay its bases in- dividual authority is often required. Those who manage representative government have rarely the necessary originality, they rely too much on argument, and they are apt to transfer their own approval of the executive persons to the policy pursued by those persons. The representatives had been absolute in Great Britain for a century and a half before they thought of making good roads or an organised. police, and they have not yet constructed the kind of Army which is suited to the national requirements. Lord Kitchener would make an Army if you let him far more easily than Parliament will. If this is true even of a high civilisation like our own, it is far more true of a lower one, in which the first object of the representatives is apt.to be executive power with its emoluments, without reference to the uses to which executive power should be put. The Balkan States, for example, will probably in the end be as fit for representative institutions as Great Britain, or Germany, or America, but at present they need Governors who can- govern more even than " freedom " or education in political debate. A Baron Kallay would do more for Macedonia, for instance, not to say Servia or Bulgaria, than any possible Parliament. He would put an end to the conflict of races and creeds, he would render the country safe, and he would lay the foundations of that "public fortune," namely, general prosperity, without which pro-. gressive government is in our age so increasingly difficult.