But perhaps the most fatal weakness of Liberalism in the past has lain in the fact that Liberals, while accepting the advantages of individualism, have always shirked its obvious obligations. They have rightly maintained that attempts by the State to relieve the destitution of unfortunate or worthless citizens are disastrous to the nation, and may easily destroy the character of the people if they are not strictly limited. But many Liberals appear to have failed entirely to perceive that, if the State is prevented from acting as a charitable institution, the relief of the destitute becomes a duty of each one of us according to his capacity. Public charity can never be a satisfactory substitute for private charity, since the State is no respecter of persons and exercises no discrimination. Indeed, there is only one principle upon which a system of public relief can be based if it is not to corrupt the whole nation and to produce a Pauper State. That principle is the one laid down definitely by the first Poor Law Commission when it declared any relief which is given must be given under such unpleasant conditions that no one will accept it if he can possibly avoid doing so. "Lloyd Georgeism" is the directly opposite policy-the policy of giving an enormous amount of outdoor relief in return for votes, and calling it by other names, so that no one shall be ashamed to claim it. Our nation has before it a long and arduous struggle before it can drag itself from the poisonous morass of corruption and pauperism into which it plunged when it acclaimed the policy of "ninepence for fourpence." Already many of our people have given up all feeling of self-respect and have abandoned the struggle for independence. The rise to power of a real Liberal party, even if it calls itself a Conservative party, would appear to be the only thing which can stop the rush of our political swine down the steep place of Socialism into the sea of autocratic tyranny.

that

I have indicated above what seem to me to be the lost principles of Liberalism, and I cannot see that they conflict in any way with those of Conservatism. The latter indeed may best be defined as the coping-stone of Liberalism, which has always suffered from its exaggerated respect for numerical values. Bitter experience has at length shown that "the enlightened self-interest of the many " is but a catch-phrase, and cannot be trusted to guide the nation into safe policies. And if for "the enlightened selfinterest of the many " is substituted "the enlightened selfsacrifice of the few," we shall at once arrive at the platonic, or

aristocratic, principle which is the true basis of Conservatism. The science of politics, which was developed by the logical minds of the old Liberals, may thus be lifted into a real philosophy of politics, and cities then may cease from evil, because at last philosophers will be kings.

The ultimate end of Liberalism, therefore, would appear to be a union with Conservatism. But the immediate future of the Liberal party is what chiefly concerns us in this essay, and I am convinced that it can hope for little public support until it regains its lost principles and grafts on to its old cruel individualism some recognition of the personal obligations which that creed lays upon its adherents. Thus, and thus only, can Liberalism become a living political force, vivified by an idealism which hitherto it has sadly lacked. Political idealism has of late become no more than a name for economic lunacy. Yet there is really no reason to suppose that idealism must inevitably cause men to act as fools, and sound national finance need not be eschewed by those who wish their fellow-countrymen to make real, in addition to economic, progress.

Certain of the old Liberal beliefs must be abandoned, since experience has rendered them untenable. The pathetic faith in the virtue of majorities must go, since the rise of modern demagogy has shown the world a new danger to democracy. Formerly, demagogues raised themselves to power and affluence by squandering the material capital of the nations which they infested. This form of infection of the body politic engendered its own cure, and the toxins of the demagogues were sooner or later neutralised by the phagocytic action of freedom-loving citizens. But the archdemagogue of our generation has discovered a device unknown to his predecessors. He has perceived that a further period of successful parasitism is possible for those who are clever enough to squander also the moral capital of the nation. Yet I have enough faith in my fellow-countrymen to believe that the same generous emotion which was perverted by the infamous "ninepence for fourpence " campaign may be again aroused for better ends. If Liberals will set themselves to realize that there is no virtue in the crowd, but immense virtue in the individuals composing it, Liberalism may come to its own again. If they will at length understand that Individualism is political idealism, and that Socialism is political materialism, they may be able to show the people the vision, lacking which they perish.

Another part of the old Liberal creed which must be thrown aside is the belief that the changing of political constitutions can lead to real progress. In Great Britain we shall soon have democracy in its fullest degree. Yet there is no reason to suppose that the blossoming of majority rule will mark the springtime of Utopia. Indeed, the only merit to be found in complete democracy is that it tends to delay for a time further constitutional changes, and thus gives us an opportunity for making the existing form of government work smoothly and effectively before another change of system destroys it.

Further, Liberals must realize that democratic political institutions are incompatible with democratic control of industry. Their predecessors knew this well and, being convinced that the former is the greater good, did their utmost to protect the capital of industry from being placed at the mercy of a popular vote. Every nation must make its choice and decide whether it wishes to have democratic industry or democratic politics. For it cannot have both. Our people appear to have chosen democratic political institutions, and I cannot but think that they have instinctively made a wise choice.

Lastly, Liberals must repudiate that narrow religious sectarianism with which their party has become associated. If they really think that liberty is a thing worth striving for, they ought at any rate to conceive it possible that those whose opinions do not tally exactly with their own are not necessarily damned to all eternity. The bitter controversy in regard to Church schools is for the moment silent. Yet it is obvious that nothing but the opportunity is lacking for another outburst of medieval intolerance which will again bring shame upon the name of Liberalism. No man is fit for liberty who denies it to others.

This

The one thing therefore which can make the Liberal party a real force in our national life is a return to Liberalism. is impossible under the leadership of Mr. Lloyd George and Sir Herbert Samuel; it would be possible under the leadership of Lord Grey of Fallodon. Those of us who have been soldiers will ever be grateful to him for his success in conducting international negotiations in such a way that we entered the war without the faintest cause for doubt that we were fighting for what was true and right. A party having such a man even as a mere figurehead would win the sympathy of much that is best in our

country. Freed from the mephitic atmosphere of LloydGeorgeism, the Celtic fire of Mr. Ian Macpherson and Sir Archibald Sinclair would once again burn brightly, restrained from creating a cosmic conflagration by the cold but deep intellectualism of Mr. Walter Runciman and Sir John Simon. Thousands who are now ashamed to let themselves be known as Liberals would undoubtedly rally to the support of the cause of real Liberalism, and once again the party system, which has worked so well in the past, might function usefully and beneficially.

Doubtless many readers will say that this is a wild Utopian dream which cannot materialize because the corruption of the electorate has proceeded so far that the latter has now no moral stamina. Let it be admitted that there is some truth in this contention. For it would be foolish to deny that seventeen years of demagogy have produced a very profound degradation of the national character. Yet even the most consistent pessimist cannot but feel a glow of hope for his fellow-countrymen, when he realizes that there never has been, and probably never will be again, a nation on the earth which could experience, without complete and irreparable ruin, such prolonged and acute political rottenness as that from which we have suffered. The Roman Empire was destroyed by forms of "social reform" far less malignant than some which infest our body politic at the present time. But for my part I am convinced, though it may be more by faith than by knowledge, that the people of Great Britain still retain the love of liberty and the desire for honest government, which alone can keep a nation from perishing. The task for real Liberals, whether they call themselves Liberals or prefer the name Conservatives, is to make a direct appeal to what is clean, and straight, and unselfish in our nation. And if they do so, despite the apparently universal cry of " ninepence for fourpence," they will be met with a response which will silence those who now proclaim to the world that the greatness of our country has passed.

AUSTIN HOPKINSON

THE VOGUE OF THE NEGRO SPIRITUAL

1. The Negro and his Songs. By HoWARD W. ODUM and GUY B. JOHNSON. The University of North Carolina Press and Oxford University Press.

1925.

2. Negro Workaday Songs. By HoWARD W. ODUM and GUY B. JOHNSON. The University of North Carolina Press and Oxford University Press. 1926.

3. On the Trail of Negro Folk Songs. By DOROTHY SCARBOROUGH. Harvard University Press and Oxford University Press. 1925.

4. The Book of American Negro Spirituals. Edited with an introduction by JAMES WELDON JOHNSON. Chapman and Hall. 1926.

5. The Second Book of Negro Spirituals. Edited with an introduction by JAMES WELDON JOHNSON. Chapman and Hall. 1927.

"WHO

taught thee to sing?" asks someone in Ibsen's Pretenders."" God sent me sorrow" was the answer. Perhaps Burghardt Du Bois had this in mind when he called the Negro Spirituals "Sorrow-songs." Certain it is that the American Negro passed with much suffering through the vale of sorrow; certain also is it that the slaves and their freedmen sons sang plaintive, haunting melodies, which still pull at the heart-strings of humanity.

There has of late been a distinct revival of interest in Negro Spirituals, due in part to the emergence of a new and healthy interest in folk-song, and in part to the work of musicians and publicists. Many collectors are at work, seeking and recording these Negro melodies before they are irrecoverably lost. Folksongs all the world over are shy, elusive things: they have to be wooed and wheedled with all manner of blandishments. People don't like being overheard humming them. There is something so intimate and domestic about folk-songs, that if an investigator brings out pencil and note-book the singing ceases. When collecting folk-songs in Wessex, Cecil Sharp had that experience a hundred times. It is equally true of the Spirituals sung by the children of the slaves in America to-day. Old plantation. workers, when asked to repeat some melody they were singing at their work, will smile kindly and say: Naw, ma honey, I wa'n't singin' nothin', nothin' a-tall." Yet, in spite of difficulties, many of these airs have been captured and set down on paper, and to-day they are being sung in all parts of the world.

66