698

It would be easy to enumerate instances where the current legal interpretation of the Nationality Statutes has caused unjust and unlooked-for hardships; it will be more practical to attempt, with all brevity, to outline a scheme of law which would remove some of the existing incongruities and inconveniences. It is true that without the co-operation of all foreign countries perfect consistency in the matter of nationality cannot be attained, but that is no reason why England should abstain from improving her own Statutes, nor why she should not show the way of wholesome reform to other nations.

I. The son, born abroad, of a British subject not engaged in commercial pursuits abroad, should be considered in British law a British subject. The nationality thus conferred upon him should be regarded as strictly a personal status not transmissible to his children born abroad.

2. British subjects engaged in commercial pursuits abroad should have the power of transmitting British nationality indefinitely from father to son. [Reasons of trade and commerce are the only good and sufficient reasons why an English family should permanently take root in a foreign country. The wealthy and leisured Englishman residing abroad for his pleasure has no right to expect that British nationality should be conserved to his descendants, born abroad, for ever.]

3. No claim to British nationality of the children, born abroad, of British subjects should be entertained unless the birth of such children has been registered at a British Embassy, Legation, or Consulate. [The father's profession could thus accurately be ascertained.]

The first of these simple provisions would do much to introduce consistency of practice and equity of principle into this subject. To the first, no civilised country makes any serious objection; the second might be submitted with some hope of success to the countries that do not already recognise its principle.* *

X. Y. Z.

By an enlightened provision of the Civil Code, Italy renounces all claims to the citizenship of aliens engaged in commercial pursuits in the country. They can transmit their nationality indefinitely without even the formality of opting imposed upon other classes of aliens. [Codice Civile del Regno d' Italia. Lib. I, Tit. I, Art. 8.]

TH

THE DECLINE OF THE POLITICIAN

HE politician, as such, has never been a gracious or acceptable personage to the non-politician. It is only the artist and his colleagues who give pleasure beyond their immediate circle. In the eyes of the mere literary man and the scientist the politician is a pretender who neither thinks with exactitude nor expresses himself with precision, and who seldom succeeds in being quite consistent with himself. It was a wise moralist who said you should never condemn a man until you have stood in his place. On a certain memorable occasion in the world's history the literary man and the scientist did stand in the place of the rough-and-ready politician with results that might have taught them modesty. But the lessons of the French Revolution cannot be always haunting the minds of people. To the great public who lead quiet and homely lives the politician in what may be called his official capacity is not always more acceptable than he is to the superfine professors of the gentle arts. He is often in the very nature of things a disturber of the peace, and, consequently is, to the tranquil minded, as a heathen man or a Pharisee! In all this he suffers some injustice, for he has often been-I might almost say usually is— among the most public spirited and least selfish of our citizens. In the countries where he does not flourish there is, as a rule, no public opinion, and none of that stimulus to good and just Government which comes inevitably from well-directed political activity. But just now in this country he is not living up to his best reputation. He has earned, or is earning, for himself a bad name in circles that used to suffer him. gladly, if they did not always trust and admire him. I make these preliminary observations so that I may not be confounded with his blind admirers, or classed among his thoughtless detractors, or held guilty of minimising his usefulness in the State.

We hear on every hand of the decay of respect for Parliament. It seems to me that it is the politician who is on the decline. It is with him that the responsibility lies. He has seldom, in these islands at least, been the centre of so many suspicious looks; not often has he

marched about so conspicuously with a note of interrogation after his name. I am not now referring to party rivalries or to divisions within parties themselves. These may be taken for granted. Nor am I expressing for the thousandth time the doubts and fears of the wellmeaning people whose sad fate it has always been to see the country "going to the dogs." The village ale-house and the metropolitan club are the appropriate theatres for these jeremiads. Neither do I forget that one of the most familiar features of personal history is the vigour with which the strong man or the soured man denounces his age. I trust I am avoiding these well-worn tracks.

Let me premise also that the contempt for Parliament which is the occasion of so much pungent writing in the novels of Lord Beaconsfield, in the objurgations of Carlyle, or in the mellifluous prose of Matthew Arnold, is not exceeded in our day. But it has spread to different circles; it is held over wider areas; it is centred upon the politician rather than upon the institution, upon the men rather than the system. It is not, to recall a hackneyed phrase, “representative institutions" that are "on their trial," but representative men. Observant persons cannot but see that the politician has lost some of his self-respect, has ceased to regard his own convictions as the final and supreme guide of his conduct in public affairs, and has consented to take orders.

There is a settled belief that he is persistently and blatantly insincere, that he has sold himself for a price, and that he is not to be relied on either in tranquil or in troublous times. It is felt that in his present temper he is a danger to industry more real than foreign competition or industrial strife, for he complicates the one by his fussy interference and aggravates the other by his insularity and ignorance. There is a wide-spread apprehension that our trade and commerce, our manufactures and social life, are at the mercy of men who are prepared to pass any law for their restriction or regulation that ill-informed people with narrow and selfish interests in view, and votes at their finger ends, may demand. If the danger to international peace and forc n policy be less pronounced than that which threatens domestic affairs, it is not because the politician is more trusted in these spheres, but because he has less opportunity for mischief.

Party spirit on the old lines is rapidly decaying. The familiar party appeals have lost much of their force. Like the ancient theological dogmas they have had their day. But just as men have feared that with the decline of creeds would come a corresponding

decline in personal goodness, so actually and coincident with the decline of the old party spirit a new party spirit of an infinitely worse type is taking its place.

The reckless competition of parties for votes is a far more perilous thing for the nation than their rivalry on behalf of opposing political principles or their struggles for antagonistic policies. So long as Toryism stood for the Old ways, and Liberalism for the New, there was safety in the free air of discussion and in the balance of power. Now when Toryism and Conservatism have alike disappeared in the scramble for electoral support, when Liberalism is temporarily distracted by questions of leadership, and permanently disabled by the rivalry of its old opponents, national interests are being sacrificed to meet party necessities. Hence the cry in political circles for what is called a "programme," hence the strenuous search for a "policy"; hence the moving of heaven and earth for something that will attract the eyes of electors and secure votes at the poll.

The aim is not to benefit the country, not the promotion of great national purposes, but the personal and party pride of a seat on the right of the Speaker's chair. Whether you listen to conversation in the smoking room of the political club, whether you catch the echoes of the party caucus, or whether you are in the confidence of party leaders, the one thought is dominant in each and all: What can we propose which shall secure us a following? In plainer terms the question is: By what means, by what sacrifice, by what dodge or device shall we get the Workman's Vote?

Time was when political leaders had ideas in their heads, and great causes at the core of their policies, and when they acted only in response to well-established national demands, or clamorous national necessities. The historical measures that have been passed since 1832 were the outcome of historical movements. Statesmen had not to tap the barometer every morning to see whether the pointer would go towards political Reform Bills, or Factory Acts, or Free Trade, or religious liberty. These movements came unbidden by wire-pullers. There was no need in those days to search for fire by the light of a tallow candle! The need for the statesman's reforming hand asserted itself now in the political condition of the country, now in the social misery of the people, anon in the demand for an expanding freedom. Statesmen now stand idle offering themselves for hire in the market place; or they are found fussily obtruding themselves upon the private affairs of their fellow Vol. XVII. No. 103.

3 A

countrymen. We have enormous responsibilities at home and abroad, but a type of man has come to the front who thinks nothing. is doing unless some measure is being hatched for the regulation of: poultry yards or for limiting the number of meals a tame canary should have a day. Our statesmen hear that this sort of prophet has the loudest voice, and he himself declares he can command the largest numbers. Therefore they betake themselves to their poultry-yard studies with prompt and becoming servility.

I doubt if my readers will care to follow me into the somewhat arid region of abstract principles in discussing so elementary a subject, but I am tempted to venture the proposition that our present-day, statesmen have not mastered the rudiments of their duty in relation to Representative Government. They seem to think that Democracy means the ascendency of numbers uncontrolled by experience, uninfluenced by superior knowledge, unaffected, in short, by the leadership of the most highly-trained in public affairs. They forget that, although, numbers must ultimately decide, the decision of numbers absolves no man from his own conscience.

Mr. Gladstone was the first Minister of the New Democratic Era. It was by his influence that our democratic system was brought to its present stage. His boast always was that he trusted the people. It was his frequent avowal that he was ready to obey them. He told the people of Scotland, for instance-Lord Hartington, by the way, did the same-that as soon as they were agreed among themselves about the Disestablishment of the Church he was ready to disestablish it. This was in his prime and in the heyday of his power. Later he used language in relation to the legal Eight Hours' Day for miners which. bore a similar interpretation. These two cases are illustrative of his general attitude towards unripe questions. He always kept an open mind. He was ever ready to act as the people's executive. Now the ethics of such an attitude must obviously be construed in view of the facts (1) Whether the statesman is convinced that the principle of the proposed measure is sound; and (2) Whether he believes its proposed application is the best thing for the country in which it is to be applied. I am using Mr. Gladstone's name and example for purposes of illustration, and not in the least to discredit or to discuss his sincerity. My point is that it is unpatriotic and, indeed, immoral, a sin against his conscience and an affront to his intellect, for a statesman to offer to be the executive of a people's desires in any measure or move