showed similar heavy fluctuations for the same years, North Dakota, lying immediately south of the Prairie Province, coming off worstmuch the worst, in fact-in 1900, as her wheat production fell from fifty-one to thirteen million bushels. Further statistics might be given showing that the hard-wheat regions are 'liable' to vary very considerably as regards wheat production. It would, therefore, be very unwise to say that Canada is to be judged from last year's fulness; she must be judged from an average of years. Still, making every deduction, her capacity as a big grower of wheat is abundantly proved. The most important, the determining, consideration yet remains to be taken into account, and this is the absolutely certain increase on a vast scale of her agricultural population. In 1902 some eighty thousand people settled in Canada, the overwhelming majority going into Manitoba and the North-West to take up farm-lands. In the present year a tremendous effort, bound in the nature of things to be fairly successful, is being made by the Dominion Government to add still greater volume and force to the tide of immigration flowing into the country. For the coming season it is estimated-the estimate is perhaps a sanguine one, but quite probably will be realised that there will be an immigration of 200,000 into Canada, and mainly into her prairie country. If this rate of increase be maintained for two years, then the population of Manitoba and the North-West will more than double present figures. In Manitoba last year 38,000 farmers raised fifty-three million bushels of wheat. The rest is a sum of the simplest arithmetic: twice the number of farmers will raise twice the number of bushels of wheat, and Manitoba has room and to spare for far more than twice the number of farmers. This province last year had a little more than three million acres under cultivation out of a cultivable area of twenty-three million And then add to Manitoba the enormous area of arable land in the North-West Territories! Suppose that in the course of a few years -it is as inevitable as anything well can be-but suppose there are 380,000 farmers in the Canadian West, or ten times the number of farmers in Manitoba to-day, what then will be the wheat yield of the Dominion? What will it be when there are a million farmers? And there is room-plenty of room-for far more than a million farmers. But long before there are half a million Canada will have demonstrated to the world that the inscription she placed on her Coronation Arch was no empty, unmeaning boast. acres. In conclusion, a few words about the American immigration into the Canadian West which appears to have disturbed some people. To begin with, this class of immigration has been considerable, but is to be welcomed because these American immigrants are first-class practical farmers, with capital, experience, and enterprise. Having sold their farms in the States for from 10l. to 20l. an acre, they have gone into the Canadian West with the money thus realised and purchased farms for 2l. to 5l. an acre, in the sure and certain hope of rapidly improving their position. The movement is a natural movement; it has nothing to do with politics; it is solely concerned with what may be described as economic betterment. These Americans make good settlers and readily fall in with the laws, habits, and ways of the country; they cease to be Americans, they become Canadians; the transition is not violent, but easy, so there is no need for them to boggle at it-and there is no boggling. ROBERT MACHRAY. PERMANENT OFFICIALS AND NATIONAL INEFFICIENCY THAT Ministers of the Crown shall administer the affairs of State is one of the fundamental principles of the British-Constitution. But it requires little knowledge of the multifarious duties attached to each public Department to understand that such a task is impossible, and that the principle has passed into the region of constitutional fiction, meaning little more than that Ministers are directly and solely responsible to Parliament for the acts of officials. No Minister that the world has yet produced could find the time, even if he had the ability, to initiate, direct, guide, and superintend all the administrative and legislative work which he has to explain and defend in Parliament. Behind the Cabinet, working in secret, are the permanent officials and advisers of the Government, who are the real administrators, and upon whom falls the task of discharging the labours of the Executive. In the five or six months of the year during which Parliament in normal times does not sit, Ministers are scattered over moors, seas, and Continent, and only occasionally run up to town to deal with some business requiring urgent attention, but they are kept well informed upon all important matters by the officials, and attach their signatures to State documents. Meanwhile, all through the recess, the machinery of administration goes on as smoothly as if Parliament and Cabinet Ministers were vigilantly watching over the destiny of the nation. Permanent officials are left in sole charge, and there is scarcely a pretence of Ministerial supervision. During the Session members of the Government are fully occupied with Parliamentary business. Departmental work has to be done as usual, yet they spend many hours each day in answering questions, making speeches, listening to debates, reading the papers, and chatting with friends, who must always have access to them if they are to retain their personal and political popularity. Even if all social engagements, which are alluringly held out to them and their wives, are shunned, the most industrious members of the Government cannot devote more than a few hours a day, as a rule, to purely official concerns. VOL. LIV-No. 318 325 Ꮓ In every Cabinet a few exceptionally able and energetic men, like the late Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Chamberlain, Lord Rosebery, Mr. Asquith, Mr. Brodrick, and the late Mr. Hanbury, throw their whole heart and mind into the work of the Departments over which they preside, and by dint of untiring energy obtain a masterly grasp of the intricate details of administration. Yet, toil as they may, even statesmen with rare aptitude for such herculean labours find it physically impossible to deal with any but the most important questions of the moment, and as a general rule can only give consideration to these when they have assumed a magnitude which compels attention. Before that stage is reached, permanent officials, having dealt with the proceedings from their inception, have often committed Ministers to a definite course of action, and it not infrequently happens that the political heads find it wellnigh beyond their power to revoke a decision already given, even if they think it desirable to do so. When it was rumoured that an attack on Kano was contemplated, Mr. Austen Chamberlain stated on the 9th of December, 1902, in answer to a question put by Sir Charles Dilke, that no attack was intended. But preparations for the expedition had then been made without the knowledge of the Cabinet.1 The sanction of the Government was subsequently given, and only a mild censure was passed upon the High Commissioner for Northern Nigeria for not keeping the Ministry better informed. Should a subject provoke hostile public criticism before it is disposed of by officials, the Minister in charge, or the whole Cabinet, are ready enough to take the matter in hand, sometimes without even consulting their advisers; but the latter is an unusual step, undertaken only in an emergency. It is necessary, incidentally, to draw a distinction between permanent officials at Whitehall and the Government experts. In accordance with the principle of 'Ministerial responsibility,' which tends to the concealment of the real authors of the work, Ministers rarely draw a distinction between officials and experts when referring to their advisers.' They apply the term loosely to any one whose opinion they prefer to adopt for the time being. The expert being the practical and skilled man, by virtue of his knowledge and position, is generally supposed to be responsible for initiating or suggesting proposals. He may be an inspector, a commander-in-chief, or an agricultural expert, but nearly all his work, and especially any new proposal, must be submitted to permanent officials, who have no training in the technical branch of the subject, and who may be high-placed secretaries or clerks. Matters of routine are left to the latter, whose duty it is to see that everything is stereotyped.2 ''Correspondence relating to Kano' (Cd. 1433). 2 Report on War Office Decentralisation (C. 8934). Evidence before Committee on National Expenditure. Civilians rejected or approved almost every proposal of generals of the British Army until Mr. Brodrick replaced some of them by soldiers. Mr. Balfour, conscious of the injurious effect of this system, in his early speeches on education reform gave as his chief reason for the proposed changes the vital necessity of taking education affairs away from the 'hide-bound rules and regulations of officials of Whitehall.' These civil servants, having their hands on the machinery, have become the real rulers of the country. If they do not oftener usurp the position of the Minister it is because they are not self-willed and the Minister is. Some are willing to meekly wait upon, and do the bidding of, their chief (and the result is not always satisfactory), but the most zealous and enlightened of them act as though they and not the Ministers were the responsible parties. Mr. John Morley, M.P., records that the late Sir Henry Jenkyns-'an ideal public servant' Lord Welby called him-'more than once stood against all Mr. Gladstone's driving powers (which was no joke),' and often Ministers as well as generals and high officials are compelled to yield to the dogged insistence of permanent secretaries. It is their practice, however, whenever possible, to lay before the head of the Department a résumé of all despatches, the advantages and the disadvantages of a certain line of policy, and the criticism which will be offered, often putting forward alternative proposals, and leaving the Minister to decide which course shall be adopted, but very naturally, and sometimes perhaps unintentionally, care is taken to present in the most favourable light that plan which commends itself to the adviser.' Such a course is expected and required from public servants, who are placed in positions which enable them to obtain information which could not be gleaned by their chiefs, except at great labour, and by a sacrifice of time which would hurl our system of administration into chaos. 5 A candid Minister does not conceal the fact that he is merely the mouthpiece in Parliament of the officials. Mr. Arnold-Forster signalised his first appearance in the House of Commons as the representative of the Admiralty by frankly confessing that on this and on every other matter on which I speak, I am here as the mouthpiece of the Lords of the Admiralty, who instruct me, and by whom I am bound to be instructed, with regard to the technical matters of the Navy.' Yet Mr. Arnold-Forster knows probably as much about the Navy and of the departmental work as some of his 'instructors.' No Secretary of State, perhaps, has been more ready to acknowledge his indebtedness to his chief adviser than Mr. Brodrick, who meets all the criticism directed at the administration or reform of 'Report on Decentralisation. ♦ British Rule and Jurisdiction beyond the Sea, by Sir H. Jenkyns. |