This difficulty, however, need not be here considered. There are plenty of good men-good and suitable in every way, and no one who has any experience of life doubts that when the Hour strikes the Man will appear. The three points to consider are: (1) Could the thing be done at all? (2) Would the cost be prohibitive? (3) Would it be advisable: (a) in the interests of art; (b) good for the world of the theatre; (c) profitable directly or indirectly to the great public? The second of these we may almost dismiss. This is a rich country, and whatever work makes, in the estimation of Parliament, for good can have sufficient money provided for its doing. The first may be answered in the affirmative, if qualified by acceptance of the third; anything within reason can be done if the consensus of opinion is in its favour. It is in the third point that difficulty lies. is the only peacemaker; much virtue in If,' says Touchstone.

'Your If

If a National Theatre would be advisable in the interests of art, good for the world of the theatre, and profitable to the great public, then we may regard it as a work to be some day undertaken by the State.

This, always remembering, of course, that it be deemed worth the cost. But there must be no mistake about the cost. It does not do to calculate by subsidy fixed per annum or varying as required. It must be theoretically capitalised before we can consider the matter fairly. This capital amount would be at least a sum of 1,500,000l. sterling-1,700,000l. of money at its present value. More might be required later in case receipts did not come up to the estimated amount, whatever that might be. For it must not be forgotten that if such a theatre were to justify its name as National,' it should be kept open as far as possible all the year round. Thus only the dwellers in other cities of the nation might visit it during their occasional staying in the capital.

BRAM STOKER.

LORD CROMER AND ORIENTALS

Modern Egypt, by the Earl of Cromer, affords fascinating reading to all who are interested in Anglo-Oriental government, whether in Egypt or in India. His Lordship's remarks show a profound knowledge of Eastern habits of thought. Lord Cromer has been able to go deep into the Oriental mind, on different lines from those taken by Sir Alfred Lyall, whose Asiatic Studies have long been regarded as a very high authority on the subject. Though it is not impossible to detect, I venture to say with all respect, an occasional flaw in the arguments used in dissecting the Oriental mind, the two volumes ought to be carefully studied by every AngloIndian administrator. There is a very great deal of practical common sense in these pages, of 'supreme sanity,' such as is not always in evidence in the British-Indian administration. Lord Cromer's remarks on Anglo-Egyptian difficulties apply with redoubled force to Anglo-Indian administrative problems.

Nevertheless [writes Lord Cromer], the difficulty of arriving at a true idea of the under-currents of native opinion is probably less considerable in Egypt than in India. Notably, the absence of the caste system, and the fact that the social and religious fabric of Islamism is more readily comprehensible to the European mind than the comparatively subtle and mystical bases of Hinduism, diminish the gulf which in India separates the European from the native, &c.

The reticence of Orientals, as Lord Cromer points out, when speaking to anyone in authority adds to the difficulties of AngloIndian administrators.

From a careful study of Modern Egypt it is easy to arrive at the conclusion that Lord Cromer, though a keen politician, is by no means a political partisan. As a practical statesman he is not carried away by what his Lordship calls the catchwords which sometimes attach themselves to what, from a party point of view, is called a Liberal policy in England.' The regenerator of Egypt does not, for instance, believe in the most hackneyed catch-phrase of the Liberal party-'the freedom of the Press.' His Lordship gives instances of the abuse of the freedom of the Press in Egypt, and shows how in the East freedom of the Press checks freedom of speech. This may appear paradoxical, but nevertheless is true. It is perhaps

more true in India than in Egypt. In India it is a common occurrence for a half-educated native editor to publish utter, unmitigated nonsense through the medium of a fifth-rate weekly print, with the object of overwhelming the thoughtful leaders of the millions. The result is that the British administrators only hear the views of the professional agitator, and are unable to gain the insight into the under-currents of native thought which they ought to acquire for the proper understanding of Anglo-Indian problems. Lord Cromer has no hesitation in saying that a large number of the members of the Legislative Council in Egypt 'would welcome the enactment of a rigorous Press law as a measure calculated to free them from the moral shackles which now hamper their liberty of speech and action.' It is with a similar laudable object in view that some of the Native Princes of India appealed to the Government of India against the so-called freedom of the Press in the various cantonments and British jurisdictions in Native States. They made out such a strong case against the licence of the Press that in 1891 they practically forced the Government of India to issue a circular in the Foreign Department altogether stopping the printing of newspapers in British jurisdiction within all Native States. The punishment of the editor— European or native-for violating this circular is instant deportation. The native Durbars now enjoy a freedom of speech and action which is the envy of the native high official in British India. There are newspapers in Native States, no doubt, but they do not enjoy the licence allowed to the Press in British India. The licence of the Vernacular Press in British India appears to the native mind as not only a comedy but a screaming farce. Every shrewd AngloIndian administrator knows that, at every turn of the political wheel in India, actual facts clash with sacred Liberal theories. Racial and religious antipathies clash with a so-called freedom of the Press and land the Anglo-Indian administrator on the horns, not of a dilemma, but of a 'trilemma '-the resultant of the irreconcilable Hindu, Mahomedan, and Christian forces brought to a climax. The Moslem is the antithesis of the Hindu, and both are more or less incomprehensible to the average Anglo-Saxon mind. To make the situation more complicated, the home-staying Anglo-Saxon unwittingly gives the other forces a sharp sword in the shape of a free Press, with which they mercilessly attack both their English protectors and their native fellow-subjects.

Throughout the pages of these two volumes can easily be discerned the strong practical common-sense, and the scorn for theory, of the master mind behind them. The defect of the Radical mind is that, once having got hold of a principle which has proved sound in the West, it often rides it to death, regardless of the past history and the present circumstances of an Oriental country. The untravelled Radical mind is soothed by plausible generalities, though

often fallacious. The Radical doctrinaires expect their agents in India to reconcile two irreconcilable policies-the licence of the Vernacular Press and the preservation of peace in that vast continent with a heterogeneous population representing one-fifth of the entire human race. The elementary difference between the ideas of the Occidental and Oriental masses is forgotten. While the Occidental ruler is supposed to govern according to the will of the people, the Oriental people are anxious to know, as a guide to their conduct, the will of the King, who to them represents Divinity on earth. It is not statesmanship to be blind to such obvious realities, simply to make everything harmonise with preconceived theories. Facts, however unpleasant, cannot in the long run be altogether ignored. Facts are bound to assert themselves, though catch-phrases may for a time serve as a tinsel covering to hide glaring and dangerous fallacies. The justification of the application of Western methods to the Oriental mind generally fails unless it is in reference to some plain, tangible, material convenience like a railway, or a steamer service. A free Press appears to the Indian mind as Wagner's music, which it has not been trained to appreciate. Even in Europe the Press is a curious mosaic which is not always a safe guide. Lord Cromer, with characteristic frankness, says 'the praise or blame of the British Parliament and Press was a very faulty standard by which to judge the wisdom or unwisdom' of any measure.

In the Anglo-Indian body-politic, as in Egypt, the unseen is often more important than the seen.' The Indian patriot' indulges in inflated rubbish when he talks of free institutions suited to a caste-ridden country. It would be easier to make a pyramid stand on its apex than to make the proud Brahman treat the pariah as his equal because both are human beings. Free institutions presuppose the idea of equality, which does not exist in India. This is a fact which even those who sometimes emit flashes of true statesmanship forget when they want to try all sorts of Western experiments on on Eastern people. Radical doctrinaires should remember Lord Cromer's most significant words: Contact with Europe has led to the adoption of the forms and incorporation of much of the jargon of Western civilisation, but has been powerless to make the East imbibe its spirit.' Unless and until the East imbibes the Western spirit, the free institutions of the West will continue to be among the undesirable Western experiments on Eastern people. It is not wisdom to plant an acorn on a soil where it can never grow into an oak. The soil should be prepared first for foreign plants. 'The masterpieces of the statesman's art are for the most part not acts, but abstinence from action,' says Sir John Seeley. I had to check the reformer,' emphasises Lord Cromer, when he wished to push his reforms so far as to shake the whole political fabric,' &c. It is the so-called reformer who is at the root of most of the Anglo3 D

VOL, LXIII-No. 375

Indian troubles of the present day. The Radical reformers lack the idea of true proportion. They find plausible reasons for arriving at conclusions which fit with their pet theories. Before introducing Western methods it is essential to ascertain facts, without which political sympathies and pet theories are likely to lead to conclusions which are dangerously fallacious. A far-sighted statesman not only abstains from unnecessary 'reforms,' but acts as a check, as Lord Cromer did, on the activities of missionaries and other busybodies. Any danger from religious fanaticism may be mitigated,' observes Lord Cromer, and perhaps altogether averted, by imposing some reasonable and salutary checks on the freedom of action of missionary bodies.' If the average Anglo-Indian administrator had shown as much prudence and moral courage in dealing with missionaries in India, the gulf between the rulers and the ruled would not have been so wide as it unfortunately is to-day.

6

Any attempt towards too rapid progress is very properly condemned by Lord Cromer. If the Oriental hates anything, he hates sudden change. No doubt he himself changes, but, unless the change proposed to him is so imperceptible that he does not feel it, he objects to it.

The intellectual phase through which India is now passing [writes Lord Cromer] stands before the world as a warning that it is unwise, even if it be not dangerous, to create too wide a gap between the state of education of the higher and of the lower classes in an Oriental country governed under the inspiration of a Western democracy. High education cannot and ought not to be checked or discouraged. The policy advanced by Macaulay is sound. Moreover, it is the only policy worthy of a civilised nation. But if it is to be carried out without danger to the State, the ignorance of the masses should be tempered pari passu with the intellectual advance of those who are destined to be their leaders. It is neither wise nor just that the people should be left intellectually defenceless in the presence of the hare-brained and empirical projects which the political charlatan, himself but half educated, will not fail to pour into their credulous ears. In this early part of the twentieth century there is no possible general remedy against the demagogue except that which consists in educating those who are his natural prey to such an extent that they may, at all events, have some chance of discerning the imposture which but too often lurks beneath his perfervid eloquence and political quackery.

The above ought to be the golden maxim which should guide the Anglo-Indian administrator. But unfortunately the Government of India are often at the mercy of untravelled British Radical reformers who are unable to form a correct estimate of the main factors in an Oriental political situation. The task of the Government of India is twofold. They are in the capacity of teachers in respect to people above them as well as those below them. They have to explain to the Home Government-that is to a democratic Parliament-what India really is; they have to enunciate the first principles of Western government to Orientals to whom the very idea is foreign. The Radical reformer lays too much stress on the will of the people, which has yet to be brought into existence in India. To smash an old fabric