storm burst we were in such a condition of unpreparedness that almost superhuman efforts were needed to remedy the criminal carelessness of the past.

When France comes to her national stocktaking, it seems likely, for the reasons above given, that the parliamentary régime will not incur so grave a condemnation as in Great Britain. Nevertheless Frenchmen will hardly forget the severe parliamentary struggle their Government had to face in order to obtain the passage of the Bill changing the period of military service from two to three years. The French Chamber suffered the same kind of blindness to outside events that obsessed the House of Commons. The climax was reached in the nonsense poured out about the advisability of a comparatively small regular army, and the levée en masse-the arming of every Frenchman with a rifle, and sending him thus equipped into the field if invasion should ever occur. It is to the everlasting credit of the French Ministry of the day and its supporters that they stood firm. They knew what the real state of affairs was, and were not afraid to risk their parliamentary existence in doing their best to be prepared when the hour of trial arrived. What a melancholy contrast is afforded by the action of the British Cabinet! But France will not forget that there was stubborn opposition to the Government's proposals, and she will probably show her stern disapproval of the miserable, petty intrigues and party combinations that discredit her present parliamentary régime. The tremendous national crisis that has welded France into one solid whole cannot fail to have its effect on her political life. The French people will demand from their deputies singleminded work for the welfare of the country, and the application of all their energies to the business of remaking the nation instead of unmaking ministries. Further than that one cannot now see. It has yet to be made clear how much this war has done towards arousing a greater sense of personal responsibility and developing a wider field of vision in the French people.

On the last of the three States selected as progressive, the United States, the effects of the struggle must be indirect only. There is, however, in the American character a somewhat unusual combination of qualities, viz. an entire satisfaction with their own national conditions, and an alert, watchful VOL. 223. NO. 456.

Y

attention to conditions prevailing elsewhere. It has been stated that a prominent American, the late Mr. Pierpont Morgan, once said that he took special heed to what was being done socially and politically in England, because, sooner or later, the United States was apt to follow on the same lines. However much truth there may be in this statement, it seems likely that if Great Britain were to broaden her political system in the manner herein suggested, the United States, having largely identical political ideas and instincts, would not remain insensible to the change, more especially as that change would lie in directions in which she is obviously tending. On her the parliamentary system sits loosest, and therefore she would feel the wrench of its loss the least.

In a word, the parliamentary system is looked upon in the United States with indifference, in France with distrust, and in Great Britain with disgust. Why? Because in principle it is obsolete, and in practice mischievous. It is obsolete in principle because changed conditions, the advance of the masses in intelligence, and the lowering of the franchise have centred the power in the people themselves, and they ought to exercise it directly. It is mischievous in practice because it blinds the people to the perception of their own responsibility.

Each widening of the franchise has increased the weakness of Parliament. The proceedings of the present House of Commons have made that weakness patent to all. Under the normal working of the party system the House of Commons is a mere machine for registering the decisions of a Cabinet responsible not to the country but to the party that placed it in power. If the Cabinet can keep on good terms with its party followers it can afford to treat the House of Commons as a body with contempt.

The destruction of the individuality and independence of the private member, which are essential to the vitality of any true representative system, and the hollowness and artificiality of debates, which are merely a waste of time, since the conclusion is foregone, alone suffice to prove that the existing parliamentary system has outgrown its capacity for good, and is dangerous to the future welfare of the nation.

W. FOSTER.

A

THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN

LL doubt as to what will be the dominating issue in the presidential election of November 1916 was swept away at the unofficial convention of the Republican party of the State of New York which was held in New York City on the 15th and 16th of February. At this State Convention a platform was adopted pledging the Republican party to the defence of America and Americans against attack from any quarter whatever, and Mr. Elihu Root made what was accepted as the key-note speech of the Republican campaign for the defeat of President Wilson. Mr. Root attacked the tariff and the Mexican policies of the Democratic Administration; but the key-note of the approaching electoral campaign was sounded when he vigorously condemned President Wilson's failure to protest against Germany's outrage on Belgium, and also the President's handling of the Lusitania' outrage and the other submarine outrages which resulted in the loss of American lives. Without question Mr. Root is the ablest man in the ranks of the Republican party. He has held two of the highest offices in the gift of the party-those of Secretary of State and Senator for the State of New York. He is the foremost statesman of the Republican party; and in spite of his age he is seventy-one-he may be nominated at Chicago as the presidential candidate of the Republicans.

Popularity such as was enjoyed by President Roosevelt, and to some degree by President Taft, has never been Mr. Root's. His career before he went actively and continuously into federal politics-his career as a corporation lawyer-militated against his popularity. But his influence in the inner councils of the Republican party has long been considerable. Certainly no man in the party speaks with more caution or with more authority; and when he declared in his speech in New York that President Wilson's policy on the war must be the dominating issue of the campaign, both parties promptly realised that the low tariff which was enacted by the Democrats

in 1913 and the policy of the President in regard to Mexican affairs must fall into subordinate places among the issues of the presidential campaign. One of the strongest journalistic supporters of President Wilson, the New York Times,' wrote on the 16th of February 1916:

'The Republicans will never win the campaign on the issues of protection and Huerta. But when Mr. Root took up the things the Administration has done or left undone, or has not succeeded in doing, in respect to the grave and urgent questions forced upon us by the European war, he placed himself boldly upon the battleground where the fighting of the campaign is to be done. In this choice of the party position he displayed the highest skill of statesmanship and of politics-he did not seek to make an issue for the Republicans, he chose an issue that is already made in the hearts of the people.'

At an earlier stage there had been a development of much significance in regard to the outlook for the Republicans at the election in November, which makes it probable-indeed almost certain-that there will be an end to the division in the Republican party.

As the elections of 1912 made plain, the Republicans can have no hope of success so long as there is in existence a wellorganised and persistent third party, led by Mr. Roosevelt, that can poll over four million votes at a presidential election. The action of the Progressives-whether they nominate their own presidential candidate or throw in their lot with the fortunes of the candidate of the Republican party-must be of the utmost importance in the electoral campaign. Their decision will come in June, when they will hold their national convention in Chicago during the same week as the Republican Convention is held in the same city. It was on the 11th of January of the present year that the Committee of the Progressive party made this very significant arrangement for synchronising the national convention with that of the Republicans. At the same meeting the Committee, after drawing up a declaration of Progressive principles in which were re-endorsed most of the principles of Mr. Roosevelt's platform of 1912, turned to President Wilson's policy on the war and condemned it, not indeed with quite so much detail but in terms quite as strong as those subsequently used by Mr. Root at the New York convention of the Republican party. The pronounce

ment of the Progressive National Committee on the war reads as follows:

'President Wilson's Administration has repudiated the faith of our forefathers, which made the American flag the sufficient protection of an American citizen around the world. It has suffered American men, women, and children to be slaughtered in Mexico and on the high seas, American property to be destroyed, and American liberty to travel and trade to be subject to the arbitrary and lawless coercion of foreign belligerents. It has stood by while the law of nations disappeared from the earth without adequate protest or effective resistance. It, first among American Administrations, has shown the supine spirit, whose sure consequence is the contempt of the world.

'Our people are becoming impatient of leaders who hold that comfort, prosperity, and material welfare are above honour, selfsacrifice, and patriotism. We need a re-awakening of older Americanism, of our belief in those things that our country and our flag stand for. Our people are seeking leadership-leadership of the highest order and most courageous character: leadership that will draft to itself, for the country's benefit, the unselfish and patriotic services of its ablest citizens. They are demanding that principles and policies shall be proclaimed and carried out by a man who has the wisdom to formulate them and the manhood to fight for them.'

With this declaration there went the statement that the national convention of the Progressive party had been called to meet in the same city and at the same time as the national convention of the Republican party.

'We take this action,' the Committee continued,' believing that the surest way to secure for our country the required leadership will be by having, if possible, both the Progressive and the Republican parties choose the same standard-bearer and the same principles. We are confident that the rank and file of the Republican party and the very large independent vote of the country will support such an effort.

'We pledge ourselves to approach the consideration of the issues involved in such an effort without any desire to revive partisan bitterness. If the Republican Convention is responsive to the patriotic spirit that brought the Republican party into existence, and that made it dominant for half a century-if it meets this crisis in the spirit of broad patriotism that rises above partisanship—the effort for a common leadership will be successful."

The Progressives and the Republicans are now in general agreement on the tariff. Each demands a permanent Tariff Commission to make possible the scientific revision of the tariff