SATURDAY, APRIL 10, 1875. No. 153, New Series.

THE EDITOR cannot undertake to return, or

LITERATURE.

John Knox and the Church of England, his Work in Her Pulpit and his Influence upon Her Liturgy, Articles, and Parties. A Monograph, founded upon several Important Papers of Knox never before published. By Peter Lorimer, D.D., Professor of Theology, English Presbyterian College. (London: Henry S. King & Co., 1875.)

THIS is a remarkable book and will doubtless attract attention in connexion with the religious controversies of the present time. As to the particular use which may be made of its revelations we shall pronounce no opinion; but the author seems unquestionably to have added some very important details to the history of the English Prayer Book, and the facts now for the first time made known to us ought to have an interest for many besides theologians. To the Scotchman who glories in the work of John Knox it must be gratifying to know how that Reformer made his influence felt in the councils of Edward VI., while to English Churchmen, whether divines or laymen, it must be deeply interesting to trace the origin of some of the most distinctive features of the Book of Common Prayer.

One of the most singular things about this discovery is the quarter from which it comes. The MSS. containing the evidences of these new facts in the history of the Church of England have been for a couple of centuries in the custody of Dissenters, and were discovered by Dr. Lorimer in Dr. Williams's library,-among papers, too, which had already been used by Neal in his History of the Puritans, besides having been examined by several other investigators. How it was that the name of Knox in three separate documents failed to attract attention till now is a matter not easy to explain, unless it be, as suggested by Dr. Lorimer, from a too hasty presumption on the part of Neal and those who followed him that the papers must have been already printed. This supposition, perhaps, may have been encouraged by the fact that the MSS. were none of them originals; but it appears that, in the opinion of good judges, they are contemporary transcripts. As to their authenticity, the internal evidence is so strong that we imagine this will hardly be called in question.

From these remarkable documents we gather the following particulars. In the month of October, 1552, just before the general publication of the Second Prayer Book of Edward VI., John Knox-who was

then residing at the English Court as one of the Royal Chaplains-received, in cɔnjunction with five others, the royal command to consider and report upon the "Articles of Religion," at that time forty-five in number, which were embodied in the He had just then made a great impression upon the Court by a sermon preached before the King, in which he strongly denounced the practice of kneeling at the Communion as savouring of idolatry. As yet kneeling had been kept up in the Church of England only by the authority of custom. It was not expressly enjoined by any rubric, and Knox himself had invariably directed his congregations at Berwick and Newcastle to receive the elements sitting. But there was a specific direction in the new Service Book that the communicants should kneel; and it was required by the 38th Article that the whole contents of the Book should be recognised by the clergy at their ordination as wholesome, and in accordance with the spirit and freedom of the Gospel. The Book had been appointed by Parliament to come into use in all churches on November 1. Already a number of copies had been printed. If a protest was to be made against anything, no time was to be lost. A report was drawn up by Knox in the name of the Six Royal Chaplains, in which he insisted strongly on the objections to the practice of kneeling and intimated that the express injunction to kneel would prevent their unqualified acceptance of Article 38.

The scruples that had been previously mooted on this subject had already been referred by the Council to Cranmer, with a suggestion that he should consult with other learned men as to the advisability of omitting the new rubric altogether. Cranmer promised to do so, but intimated that in his opinion the subject had been very fully considered by the bishops and other divines to whom the revision of the Book had been entrusted; and he pointed out the grave inconvenience of again altering a document which had been read and approved by Parliament. He also gave his own reasons for considering the objections to kneeling untenable in a religious point of view, and hoped their lordships would not be moved by" glorious and unquiet spirits, which can like nothing but that is after their own fancy." What further report he made to the Council after consultation with other divines does not appear on record; but the final result of Knox's remonstrance and the archbishop's answer thereto was "a certain declaration signed by the King's Majesty" and ordered to be inserted in the new Prayer Book at a Council held on October 27. That declaration was substantially the same with the rubric now at the end of the Communion Service; but a few lines of preamble, which are now omitted, are remarkably significant as to the spirit of compromise in which it was originally framed. The words were as follows:

"Although no order can be so perfectly devised, but it may be of some, either for their ignorance and infirmity, or else of malice and obstinacy, misconstrued, depraved, and interpreted in a wrong part: and yet, because brotherly charity willeth that, so much as conveniently may be, offences

should be taken away; therefore we, willing to do the same; whereas it is ordained," &c.

The "Declaration," as Dr. Lorimer truly remarks, has all the appearance of having been drawn up by Cranmer. It is eminently conciliatory, and it seems to have been effective in retaining within the same communion men whose opposite leanings might otherwise have broken up the Church, and led to the general adoption of narrow and bigoted views. Knox counselled his congregation at Berwick not to withstand the authorities, but to accept the new rule with a protest against any superstitions that might appear to be involved in it. If they were not to be at liberty to sit, the declaration saved the consciences of the Puritanical party in kneeling; and so important was this object esteemed to the peace of the Church of England, "that the King and Council dangerously stretched the prerogative of the Crown in adding it to the Prayer Book without the consent either of Parliament or Convocation." ment or Convocation." The Book, however, had already passed through the press and received its final corrections when the insertion of the Declaration was thus decreed. All that could be done was to print it on a separate leaf, to be inserted by the binder at the end of the Communion office. pagination showed that it had been an afterthought, and a number of copies of this first edition of King Edward's Second Prayer Book still exist in which the intercalary leaf appears never to have been inserted.

The

Such was the origin of one of the most important rubrics in our English Liturgy. Its subsequent history was no less remark. able. Under Elizabeth it was again removed from the Prayer Book, and was only restored to its place a hundred years later. Framed originally to satisfy the Puritans, it was felt to be necessarily obnoxious to the Romanists, whom it was desired, if possible, still to retain in allegiance to the National Church. For a whole century the Church forbore positively to declare that the sacramental bread and wine remained in their natural substances, and that the natural body and blood of Christ were in Heaven and not here. But as time went on the breach between Rome and England became more manifestly irreconcileable. The Church of England herself was submerged in the waves of Puritanism; and in the new settlement of 1662 all efforts to conciliate the Catholics were very naturally abandoned. So the rubric on kneeling was again restored to its place, to become, in course of time, again a great subject of discussion, even to the present generation.

Dr. Lorimer's book is avowedly an attempt to rewrite, from the new materials found by him, "the English chapter of Knox's life." And he undoubtedly has succeeded in showing that those new materials have a biographical value in relation to other matters than the particular transactions above referred to. But the main interest of the Book centres in the point to which we have drawn attention; and the only criticism we have to make upon the mode of treatment is that we think the author would have done well to confine himself a little more strictly to the new documents which he has been so fortunate as

a

to bring to light. New materials for history are in themselves a treasure which should always be given to the public with as little delay as possible, and with no more comment than is necessary to bring out their importance. The time for writing histories, biographies, and even monographs, will come afterwards, when the whole of the original information on the subject has been thoroughly well digested and thought over. If Dr. Lorimer had allowed himself time for more exhaustive examination of other sources of information, he surely need not have troubled himself to transcribe with his own hand at Oxford, and print at the end of his book, a treatise like the life of Dean Whittingham, which has already been carefully edited, with a great deal of useful annotation, by Mrs. Green in the sixth volume of the Camden Miscellany. His discoveries are valuable enough in themselves without any such appendix; while, on the other hand, if he had aimed, as he tells us he did not, at anything like a complete history of the Puritan movements of the period, the republication of this tract would have been quite superfluous. JAMES GAIRDNER.

don: Longmans & Co., 1875.) Ar a time when distrust of political economy as consisting largely, in its present state, of deductions from unverified and inadequate assumptions, is widely spread and daily growing, Mr. Macleod comes forward "to build up and erect a great inductive science of economics on solid and durable foundations." The foundations on which he builds should be solid enough if laying them over and over again could make them so. His second volume is mainly a reiteration, often in the same words, of the doctrines of the first, itself abounding beyond measure in repetition. From both we shall try to indicate briefly their author's leading conceptions of economic philosophy. We meet at the outset with a difficulty. Although Mr. Macleod insists on the vital importance of the proper definition and consistent use of economic terms, his own definitions are surprisingly fluctuating and contradictory, beginning with political economy itself. "There are," as he says, "two great divisions of inductive science, Physical and Moral; and in the same page he calls political economy, in emphatic capitals, a Physical Science;" subsequently, summing up an elaborate discussion: "These considerations will be sufficient to satisfy all persons of competent knowledge that Economics is essentially a Physical Science." Nevertheless, he repeatedly terms it "a Moral Science;" in one passage pronouncing that "Economics, a Moral Science, is fitted to take rank by the side of Mechanics and Optics as a great Positive Inductive Science." It is an intelligible, and, in our own view, the true conception of political economy that it seeks its premisses in the phenomena and laws of both the physical and the moral world; the theory of population, for example, and the theory of rent being drawn from both. But this does not

appear to be Mr. Macleod's meaning, and his language would ill express it, if it were. Again, although he emphatically contends that political economy is "an Inductive Science," and adopts M. Say's description of it as "experimental "-a term for which he afterwards substitutes "experiential "he also speaks of it as a "mathematical" and an 66 exact science." A science engaged in the inductive investigation of phenomena, seeking and verifying its premisses, must surely be far remote from the condition of an exact science, arriving with mathematical certainty and precision at all its conclusions. Yet Mr. Macleod in the same breath calls political economy a mathematical science, and affirms in opposition to Mr. Senior that

"a thorough knowledge of the entire mechanism of commerce is absolutely indispensable to enable anyone even to see the facts of economics; and to devise a theory of the phenomena indispensably requires a knowledge of physical science, and the methods of reasoning which have brought the various sciences to their present state." Political economy is thus, according to Mr. Macleod, at once a moral, a physical, an inductive, experimental, and experiential, a mathematical, and an exact science; it is also, as he boasts of being the first to discover," a distinct body of phenomena based on a single idea." And he asks:"If then political economy is a physical science, it must be some large body of phenomena, all based upon some single conception. The question therefore is-What is that body of phenomena, all based upon a single idea, to which the name of economic science may be applied?

:

Before considering Mr. Macleod's answer, we must suggest to him that a science is the theory or interpretation of phenomena, not the phenomena themselves, otherwise the phenomena would change with all the changes in theory. Moreover, a conception may be based on phenomena; but how can phenomena be based on a conception? Or is it true of the physical sciences-chemistry, geology, physiology, for example that each is based on a single idea? The method of investigation in economics, which Mr. Macleod, combating the à priori method, puts forward as equivalent to experiment in physics, is the following:-" In political economy we can have what are in all respects equivalent to experiments, namely feigned cases. We can argue from feigned cases and educe principles from them with the same certainty as if they were real cases." Fictitious assumptions have been the bane of political economy. In place of investigating the actual phenomena of the economic world, the actual division of occupations, actual wages, profits, and prices, the real motives of men and women, the real conditions under which they operate, and their real results, the à priori school of economists have sought to obtain "the laws which regulate the production and distribution of wealth," by the very process of "feigning cases,' which Mr. Macleod extols. They have “ feigned" an unimpeded pursuit of wealth, a universal knowledge of the gains and prospects of every occupation in all places, and a perfect facility of migration; and from these fictions they have reasoned "with exactly the same certainty as if they were real cases." The result is that political economy has become

a by-word for hasty assumption and bad generalisation.

The "single idea" on which Mr. Macleod proposes to base a science of wealth is that the quality which constitutes wealth is exchangeability, and therefore debts, bills of exchange, promissory notes, being exchange. able, are, like material productions, new creations of wealth ::

"With the first debt that was created among men a new species of property sprang into exist ence; and when this property was made saleable, a new species of wealth was created, which has produced greater effects on the fortunes of mankind than any other."

A has 1001.; B expects 1057. six months hence, and exchanges his expectation for A's 1007., who takes his promissory note in evi dence of a right to the 1057. What new wealth has been created? A has given his 1001. for B's expectation, not for his note, which is valuable only as legal evidence of his claim. This might be proved in other ways, by an entry on a register for example, just as the right to land is transferred on the Continent by registration. If the promissory note creates new wealth in proportion to the sum it acknowledges, so does an entry on a register, or the title-deed to an estate. Mr. Macleod argues that a new right has been created, which has a saleable value; but what has really taken place is simply an exchange of rights. B has now a right to six months hence, which otherwise B would A's 100l., and A has a right to recover 1051. have a right to keep. Mr. Macleod, however,

insists:

"It is certain that the quantity of debts in circulation amounts to many hundreds, if not thousands of millions of money in value. Yet it debts are so much wealth, as much as an equal would startle many persons to tell them that these amount of gold and silver; and yet every lawyer, every merchant, every economist knows that they may be made of exactly the same value, and perform all the functions of money." We should suppose that every lawyer and economist but one, every merchant without exception, knows that they will not perform all the functions of money, that they will not pass everywhere and at all times like money, and that they do not, like money, possess value independent of the things which they signify.

Mr. Macleod justly enough calls the theory of Law that a paper currency cannot be issued in excess so long as it represents property, a stupendous fallacy; but how are we to cha racterise his own doctrine that every pro missory note creates new wealth equal to the amount it professes to represent, even when it transfers existing wealth to a spend thrift? With great modesty Mr. Macleod describes his own argument against Law's theory as "one of the most beautiful triumphs of pure reasoning to be found in any science." Law's theory had been very simply refuted by Mr. Mill, who showed that, as a given sum of currency circulates commodities of many times the same pecuniary value, a paper currency issued on the security of property of all kinds would be in excess in the ratio of the rapidity of circulation. Mr. Macleod's "beautiful triumph of pure reasoning" is the following:

Money does not represent commodities at all, but only debt, or services due which have not

by a touch or two the characteristic of the man he is describing, or the impression which he created. Most people have heard wonderful accounts of the forcible oratory of Chalmers, but never that we are aware has so remarkable testimony to its effect been recorded as that of our author, viz., "that on one occasion when he was powerfully demonstrating the impossibility of order arising out of Chaos without the agency of an intelligent Creator, I observed that by degrees not merely the front rows but nearly the whole class had risen to their feet;

a homage like to that described in Virgil's line,“ Ütque viro Phoebi chorus adsurrexerit omnis." În like manner he presents us with a lively idea of the readiness of Bishop Wilberforce, in the anecdote of his coming unprepared into Willis's Rooms, amidst a meeting of the National Society where he was advertised to speak, supplicating crumbs of information from the Archdeacon, on whom he fastened; and anon, when called upon to speak, "expanding the crumbs," as our author puts it, "into substantial loaves." The counter picture of unreadiness was Archbishop Howley, of whom everyone has heard, that if he had to speak of women," his fastidiousness led him to run through the range of synonyms, periphrases, and all possible and impossible figures-"sisters, weaker sex, female persons "-until he got into an inextricable boggle. Perhaps the best conceivable illustration of the advice, "Do as as I say, not as I do," is this Archbishop's counsel to the Archdeacon, whom he really desired to serve. Meeting him at the gate of Kensington Gardens, he warned him, by force of illustrious examples (other than himself), that the secret of failure in oratory was "to be more anxious about words than about ideas" (p. 273). Among the other remarkable men whose friendship he enjoyed, were Lord Chancellor Erskine and Sir William Hamilton, and his reminiscences of the wit and good companionship of the one are as lively as of the vast attainments of the other. Of Sir W. Hamilton he notes in passing, that his unprecedented list of books for the Schools at Oxford included all Aristotle and all Cicero, so that he could have drawn some of his examiners out of their depth. The subject of another of his sketches, Archdeacon Williams, of Cardigan, has the credit of having taken up "the Classics," but this (which Mr. Sinclair does not mention) may have been more a flourish than an undertaking of a bona fide nature. "Homerus" Williams was doubtless a brilliant though eccentric scholar, and had some pretensions to the name which he claimed, of a heaven-born schoolmaster, but it was just as well that his advocacy of Welsh-speaking bishops for the Principality did not lead to a mitre for himself, which his oddities would hardly have allowed him to carry with dignity, though his learning was beyond question, and he had mixed too much in the world to fall into the error of bestowing his patronage on mere vernacular preachers rather than men of education and learning the error of doing "something for Welshy because Welshy had done so much for him." Our author does not depict the quaint half-bardic appearance of Archdeacon Williams, as, in the days of his principal

ship of Llandovery College, "his hoary hair streamed like a meteor to the troubled air," yet it was a sight to remember. He does, however, preserve several traits of the man, and a few of the good stories which were his speciality. Here is one of them :

"I was one day conversing with Dr. Williams about schools and school examinations. He said: Let me give you a curious example of an examination at which I was present in Aberdeen. An English clergyman and a Lowland Scotsman visited one of the best parish schools in that city. They were strangers, but the master received them should speer these boys, or that you should speer civilly and enquired: "Would you prefer that I them yourselves?" The English clergyman having ascertained that to speer meant to question, desired the master to proceed. He did so with great success, and the boys answered numerous interrogatories as to the Exodus from Egypt. The clergyman then said he would be glad in his turn

to speer the boys, and began: "How did Pharaoh die ? There was a dead silence. In this dilemma the Lowland gentleman interposed. "I think, sir, the boys are not accustomed to your English accent," and enquired in broad Scotch, "Hoo did Phawraoh dee?" Again there was a dead silence, till the master said: "I think, gentlemen, you can't speer these boys; I'll show you how." And he proceeded: "Fat cam to Phawraoh at his hinder end?" ie. in his latter days. The boys with one voice answered "He was drooned;" and a smart little fellow added, "Ony lassie could hae told you that." The master then explained that in the Aberdeen dialect "to dee" means to die a natural death, or to die in bed: hence the perplexity of the boys, who knew that Pharaoh's end was very different.'"-(Pp. 240-41.)

97 66

Yet even

We have not touched upon Archdeacon Sinclair's descriptions of distant places, "The Orkney Isles," "Washington,' "Niagara;" but it may be enough to say that they are so lively, acute, and observant, that it is impossible not to regret their disproportion to the more biographical sketches. in taking note of distant places the Archdeacon is never so happy as when he can introduce men and mots. His glory is in anecdotes. At the outset of the trip to the Orkneys, for instance, we have a Sinclair proverb, "One skipper is enough for a boat," illustrated by the confusion and quarrelling which arose when seven skippers, or captains, were engaged to row and steer Sir John Sinclair across Pentland Firth to canvass the city of Kirkwall. In his visit to Washington he manifestly enjoys the good story of President Pearce's disrelish for having the line of policy he was to pursue suggested to him by the extempore prayers of a non-episcopalian minister, to whose congregation he belonged, and who no doubt sought to improve the occasion of having before him, and at prayers with him, "the ruler of half a continent." The result was to convert him to the principle of Church and State. That part of the book, however, which is pure description, is exceedingly readable, as one of the characteristics of its writer's style is a certain clearness which leaves no doubt of its meaning, and which evinced itself, in another field, in the Archdeacon's message to the Privy Council on the part of the National Society in 1839, "If you will give us full security for the religious education of the people, we will give you full security for their secular instruction" (p. 209).

JAMES DAVIES.

England and Russia in the East. A Series of Papers on the Political and Geographical Condition of Central Asia. By Major. General Sir Henry Rawlinson, K.C.B., F.R.S., President of the Royal Geogra phical Society, and Member of the Council of India (formerly Envoy and Minister at the Court of Persia). With Map. (London: John Murray, 1875.)

SIR HENRY RAWLINSON's supererogatory repudiation of any official authority or responsibility in this publication savours too much of an excuse which is self-accusing, and was quite uncalled for. He knows more of Oriental affairs than any man in England; and it is his personal authority alone which will give any weight with the public to his views, and certainly not the fact that he happens also to be a member of the Council of India. Had Sir Henry Rawlinson even been chargeable with an official indiscretion in republishing under his own name this collection of anonymous contributions to the Calcutta and Quarterly Reviews, no one would have had any reason to complain of him; while the very constitution of the Council of India, as a body of irresponsible advisers of the Secretary of State for India, is suffi cient proof, if any were needed, of the purely unofficial character of his book.

To quote Sir Henry Rawlinson's own words:

The Council of India has no executive powers. It is a purely consultative body, in which every man has his own opinion, and communicates it, when asked, to the Secretary of State, who is alone responsible for administrative action. In years' continuous observation in Central Asia, formy own case, for instance-as the result of forty tified by a large personal experience in Persia, in Afghanistán, and in India, I have formed a very decided opinion,

that in the event of Russia's approach to Herát it will be indispens able to the safety of India that we should resume our military occupation of Western Afghanistan; but I have no reason whatever for believing that such views are shared by the responsible officers of the Crown, either in India or in England. The arguments in favour of such a course are put f ward on my individual responsibility and with a view of eliciting discussion, not of foreshadowing the policy of the Government."

It is in the spirit of true wisdom and patriotism that Sir Henry Rawlinson has deliberately thrown on his countrymen the embarrassing responsibility of accepting or rejecting his well-matured views, as the public discussion of them and the course of events-"the chapter of accidents" which governs everything, and with which Englishmen seldom have cause to quarrel-may termine.

de

Sir Henry Rawlinson has been decried as an alarmist and the advocate of a policy of jealousy and defiance towards Russia. Nothing could be more false. He views the advance of Russia in Asia in the most impartial and even sympathetic spirit, and with no ill-feeling whatever. He simply shows that it is disturbing the minds of the people of India, and if extended to Mers will become a military as well as political danger to India, as Russia would command from Merv the open road to India-along which a phaeton can be driven-by Herat and Candahar. Everyone understands and I acknowledges this, and Sir Henry Rawlin

son does no more than enforce these patent facts, actual and potential, by an irresistible accumulation of proofs. The policy which he believes we should pursue in the face of these dangers is one of the most natural and spontaneous self-interest, without any personally offensive reference to Russia. He would have neither part nor parcel in the proceedings of Russia in Central Asia (chap. iv. § 9); no convention with her on the basis of the uti possidetis (chap. iii. § 11); no "friendly partition of Asia leaving no intermediate zone (chap. vi. § 7), as has been advocated by an influential portion of the Russian press. He would leave Russia equally with England to work out her own career, frankly acknowledging that while our boundaries in India require very little rectification, having well nigh reached their natural defensive limits, Russia is still a growing power. Only we must beware that her growth does not encroach on or menace our interests in India and Asia. Russia is pledged to the integrity of Persia, and we must keep her to her pledge. Russia is also pledged to keep beyond the Oxus, and if not withstanding her engagements she either oversteps it, or from the European basis of the Caspian advances to Merv, then Sir Henry Rawlinson believes that we shall be forced to occupy Shaul, Candahar, and Herat, leaving Cabul and Ghazni to Afghanistan. He believes that the Afghans will sooner or later ask us to do so.

"Taking it for granted," he writes (chap. vi. $7), "that we shall never wait to be attacked, in which case the troubles in our rear would probably be more serious than those in front, the next point to consider is how and where we are to meet the enemy. At what point are we prepared to say to Russia, Thus far shalt thou go, and no farther?' Along the northern limits of India and its dependencies Russia has herself drawn a line-the line of the Oxus-which she is bound not to transgress; but this limitation hardly meets the general question, since the road into India from Russia's European base is not from the northward across the Hindú-kúsh to Cabul, but from the north-westward by Merv, Herát, and Candahar, and upon this line there has been hitherto no understanding as to a finality of advance; nor, perhaps, is it advisable that there should be an understanding which would hamper England, but leave Russia free. Without, therefore, making any offensive notification to Russia about the limitation of her advance, and reserving to ourselves the right, in the interests of the Afghans, to impede her occupation of Merv, if it seem advisable, I submit that we should at any rate make

up our own minds that she shall not follow up the Murgháb valley from Mery into the Afghán territory unopposed. In fact, the facility of taking Herát by a coup de main from Merv is so patent, while the consequences of that movement to British India might be so fatal, that it seems a fair matter for consideration whether the Russian occupation of the one city should not be immediately followed by the British occupation of the other. Should the crisis be delayed for another year or two-and it seems only a fair surmise that it will be so delayed the clouds that now obscure the Cabul horizon will in all probability be blown away, and Shír Alí will then be the first to suggest the necessity of holding the 'key of India' with a British garrison." It must be remembered that in Western Afghanistan we should be among friendly populations, and that Candahar and Herat are respectively no farther from Kurrachee than Delhi and Peshawur. There would be

no difficulty in increasing our army for the purpose, if the army were made a livelihood for men. The East India Company never had any difficulty in getting recruits. The great difficulty, indeed, would be the charge on the revenues of India.

Sir Henry Rawlinson also advocates the establishment of a fortified outwork at Quetta, above the Bolan Pass. By so doing we should settle a lawless State in our immediate neighbourhood, and consolidate our mediate neighbourhood, and consolidate our frontier, and occupied in strength too great to admit of being masked, it would in the event of an invasion delay our enemy sufficiently to enable us to mass our full forces in the rear (chap. v. § 8, b). Above all it would have a quieting and immediate effect on the people of India, both those friendly to us and those inimical to our rule. Quetta, indeed, forthwith should be fortified as a "place d'armes." The occupation of Herat is, however, altogether a different matter. It would throw a permanent and intolerable charge on the inelastic and already overburdened revenues of India; and after all the strongest military defence of a country is a free and elastic revenue and a light national debt. If India were an independent country, her statesmen without doubt would take the most stringent steps to secure the country against every possibility of danger from the direction of Central Asia; and as the destinies of the country are in our hands, we are bound to be doubly vigilant on her behalf. But our responsibility to keep India solvent is equally great and far more pressing. In short, while keeping ourselves fully informed of the progress of Russia in Central Asia, we must be careful not to exaggerate its dangers to India, or to rush into any unnecessary defensive measures of a financially ruinous nature. Money is the sinew of war, and 50,000 Russians at Merv would be less dangerous to us than taxing India beyond the capability of the country to bear taxation, and the patient endurance of its long-suffering people. of its long-suffering people. It is not likely that Russia will ever become a truly great power. There are unmistakeable signs already of the breaking up of the Empire from internal disorders. She holds her sprawling conquests in Central Asia by the most precarious tenure, and entirely at our discretion. Our greatest danger from Russia is the effect which her barren conquests, which look so large on the map, have had on the minds of the natives of India. the large and growing class of educated natives are beginning to understand the hollowness and corruption of the Russian power, and that she is quite unequal to meeting us in arms in Central Asia, and will never seriously attempt to do so. They already thoroughly understand also the reality of our own power, and are beginning to show a patriotic appreciation of the justice and righteousness of our rule. They see, too, that our great and growing colonies in Australasia and at the Cape afford us a second base of operations in India. There is also a still larger class in India on whom the material prosperity of the country under our rule is slowly but surely telling. Disaffection and discontent and privy conspiracy exist in India to a great and danger

But

ous extent, but time is altogether on our side, and we may leave much to its benignant course. India is the key of Central Asia, and when once the interests of the governors and the governed in India are completely identified, we need fear no hostile elements in Central Asia. All government is difficult, and is becoming increasingly difficult in these days, but the natives of India are the easiest people in the world to govern. Much depends on our own loyalty to them. They like us, but certainly no more than we allow them to do so. They see we have some good points, and value them. But we make ourselves socially very objectionable to them, and have hitherto kept them studiously as a body out of all positions of trust and emolument. All this must be reformed. But they are minor points. The whole question of the stability of India, and with it of our paramount influence in Central Asia, is one emphatically of finance, and until the finances of India permit us to reorganise the Indian army, it is in vain to talk of garrisoning Herat; and it would be madness to attempt it in the present state of the Indian army. But Sir Henry Rawlinson is so decided on the necessity of occupying Herat under certain contingencies that he shall have the last word on this subject-the last paragraph of his book:

"I will only say one word in conclusion, that I counsel nothing rash or premature. If Russia remained encamped on the Caspian, we should not, of course, leave the valley of the Indus. So long as she held aloof from Merv, we should hold aloof from Herát; but if she deliberately threw down the gauntlet she must expect it to be taken up. We could not, as the guardians of the interests of India, permit her, on the pretext of curbing the Turcomans, or establishing a trade route through Asia, to take up a position unopposed on the Murgháb, which would compromise the safety of Herát. That city is both strategetically and politically an indispensable bulwark of India, and we cannot and will not allow its future fate to be at the disposition of a foreign

power."

ever

It is more than probable that Sir Henry Rawlinson's outspoken and vigorous words will obviate the necessity of our having to incur, or even contemplate, the risk of permanently occupying Herat. His judicious audacity is likely to save us from great embarrassments, sacrifices, and possible dangers. His book will certainly mark an era in our political dealings with Persia and Afghanistan, and the countries of the so-called reutral zone. It will educate public opinion on the Central Asian question, and strengthen the weak hands, and confirm the feeble knees of our diplomatists. It only remains now that we should keep up our knowledge of the subject. We should have our recognised agents everywhere throughout Central

Asia. Our mission at Teheran should be reorganised, and a new Minister appointed. A mission should at once be sent to Herat, and a first-class agent stationed at Meshed. And Russia should be kept to the compacts of 1834 and 1838. There must be no more ignorance, no more shrinking from the responsibilities of Empire. The capacity of Englishmen for imperial rule has abated nothing of its natural force, and as a free and self-governed people we must soberly