them with a standard of efficiency to which they could at all times refer, and to the nation by assuring it that, so long as that standard was conformed to, it would be impossible to take the country by surprise.

Now, we know that in another place an opinion adverse to this inquiry has been expressed by a personage whose views all Conservatives are bound to respect; and the First Lord of the Treasury has again told us this night, that though he does mean to grant a Commission, the inquiry will be one very different from what we ask for, and which some hon. members do not see a sufficient object in pursuing. The objection to the one asked for is, that the Government considers that in some way such a Commission would deprive Ministers of due responsibility; but I confess I am unable to understand the difficulty thus raised, for it is not to be supposed that Ministers individually or collectively would take on themselves the task of prescribing what the strength of the navy should be, what the number and organisation of the troops and the quantity of war material which are requisite for the service of the nation. They must apply to somebody of whose calculations they must assume the responsibility; and to whom could they apply

with such confidence and safety as to a body of men selected as I have suggested, publicly appointed and empowered to bring full inquiry to the aid of their own experience? The responsibility of accepting their recommendations must still rest, as in any case, with the Ministry, and the responsibility also of departing from the standard in case of need, either by diminishing or increasing the forces.

It has been made a strong point that the right hon. members for Edinburgh and Stirling (Mr. Campbell Bannerman and Mr. Childers) support the Government in deprecating the inquiry asked for; it is said that when politicians so opposed in general to a Conservative Ministry happen to agree with it their conclusions must be reasonable. It does not seem to occur to those who use that argument that these former Secretaries for War might have other reasons besides a sudden desire to support the Government for wishing to avert a too profound scrutiny into the administration of the War Office. But such apprehensions are groundless. Nobody, so far as I know, wants to rake up the past; all we want is to fix a standard for the future. If I still venture to submit that proposal to the attention of the Government, it is from a conviction that it would be for the best

interest of the Government to comply. I do not presume to offer the Government advice ; I only offer my own view with deference as a military member and a supporter who wishes to see the Government as strong as possible in all ways.

In venturing to urge that, and also in representing that more expenditure is still needed for the defence of the country, I am only pointing to a course which would be in unison with the popular desire. Why, it is not so long ago that the right hon. member for Mid-Lothian came down to the House and, for reasons far less cogent than exist now, demanded eleven millions, and got it for the asking. I believe, therefore, that the notion that the people of this country are unwilling to provide funds for a due purpose has been allowed exaggerated influence. Certainly if any Government were to demand large sums, and to keep the country in the dark as to the disposal of them, it would run a risk which it could not be expected to face. But it would be a very different thing to convince the country that certain measures were necessary to its safety, and ask its sanction for them. I believe that the action of the Government in taking a hearty lead in the present movement will be widely approved. I should

like to see its plan so completely carried out that little would be left to add; so completely that the people might repose in confidence that all had been done that could be done for the public safety. And if this would be good for the people, it would be good also for the Government that fulfilled the wish of the people.

"There is a tide in the affairs of men,

Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune."

On that tide the Conservative Government now floats, and with it float the destinies of England. Many popular waves are bearing it onward in its course; some raised by itself at home; the great Irish wave, setting in the new direction so bravely given to it; and now this flood of popular feeling is daily swelling and surging; and if our navigators do but continue to take due advantage of these, the ship of the State will be borne into that haven where alone it can rest in security-in the heart of the country.

IX.

THE MINIMUM FORCE REQUISITE FOR
SECURITY.

(THE “NINETEENTH CENTURY," JUNE 1888.)

DURING some years the present writer has from time to time set forth the following contention: that the reason why the country was allowed to remain in a dangerously defenceless condition was, that the people were blind to the peril; that it was only necessary for them to become aware of it in order to render it certain that they would raise a demand for measures of defence; and that until that demand should become urgent it could not be expected that any Government would enter upon schemes involving the expenditure of large sums on our naval and military departments.

In view of recent facts it cannot be said that this contention was groundless. Up to last year the people remained indifferent, though naval and military men tried to enlighten them, and nothing was done or even contemplated.