is undemocratic. An attitude such as this overlooks certain facts. Special representation without special electorates is apt to result in the selection of candidates altogether unacceptable to the community concerned. Unless the Muslim has a reasonable voice in the administration, his educational needs are only too likely to be neglected. It is easy to wound a section of the population by measures which appear harmless or even beneficial, and which yet strike at the vitals of its very existence. Moreover, most of these things have, in one form or another, been promised to the Muhammadans, and, though in theory some of the claims may appear questionable, the administrator experienced in Indian affairs cannot deny their practical importance.

The Muslim deserves well of India. Not all that he has brought to her is good. But his rule introduced into the country an ordered system of administration whose framework persisted through the succeeding days of confusion and from which the British raj has largely borrowed. He has been a staunch supporter of the British connection. If the present century has seen some deviation from his traditional policy, the causes of estrangement were acute, and the fact that the deviation was not greater is itself the best proof of his sanity and moderation. He fought for the Allied cause even against the Defender of his Faith. He has suffered grievous things; but he has remained loyal at heart, and has now found a voice to proclaim his loyalty. And not only his loyalty. He proclaims also to his Indian fellow-subjects that he is willing to extend to them the hand of co-operation in working out the common destiny. He only asks that the way of progress should not prove to him the way of destruction. Notwithstanding old antipathies on either side, notwithstanding the doctrinaire arguments of politicians, this proclamation will surely appeal to the great host of Hindus who desire an end to strife and are genuinely anxious for the future unity and welfare of India. The Muslim minority ranged on the side of constitutional reform at once removes an obvious menace to advance and ensures moderation in the speed of progress. Unity within her borders is an essential pre-requisite to India's attainment of autonomy. It is not too much to ask that the majority make concessions for the furtherance of that pre-requisite, or that the paramount power, which is the trustee for the welfare of many millions of Muslims, exert its influence to secure their interests.

HENRY SHARP.

A LATIN UNION

His late Majesty King Edward VII., when he founded the Entente Cordiale, appeared to have transcended even the historic 'Il n'y a plus de Pyrénées' of King Louis XIV. The Channel was abolished; French and English were to live henceforward in amity, if not in formal alliance; the age-long hatreds were 'censées non avenues.' His Majesty was miserably served, but he achieved much during his short reign. Nothing less than the wand of that royal magician could have achieved so many and great things.

During the awful years 1914-1918 many of us onlookers were accustomed to reflect: At least the war completes the work of King Edward. A holier compact than another is now being sealed with blood and iron; we have done for ever with bickerings.' We were sadly in need of consoling thoughts; but prophecy is idle work, and in the year of grace 1924 here is England snapping and snarling at France, as if there had been no King Edward and no World War. The sentiment is dead and the German propaganda is doing its work famously.

The tone recently adopted by our Foreign Office is comical. It varied from underbred impertinence to the kindness of an indulgent headmaster towards an erring pupil 'whose people he knows at home.' Why should France continue to endure this kind of thing? Because there is no alternative course,' is the natural answer. Upon reflection, it is submitted, an alternative course is actually open. It is one not only more dignified (it could hardly be more undignified), but more profitable.

It is to take the lead of Latin civilisation which, without France, is doomed.

Germany at the present moment is far stronger than ten years ago. The German population is at least twice that of France. Her prosperous condition is matter of common knowledge, and the resources of Russia are at her command. Whatever those resources may be, they were once on the side of France, and are now on the side of Germany.

The last war was a great victory for Germany. It took the world in arms to put her down; and the world in arms was so

mauled, or so frightened, that it did not dare to push the victory home. Such is the German point of view. The last war took time; the next war will be a walk-over, i.e., if France fights alone, just as the last war would have been a walk-over if it had not been (humanly speaking) for England and Belgium. At present England is throwing all her weight into the scale on the side of Germany and Russia. Not that she counts for much, with her Constitution in ruins and the Empire in its agony; still whatever harm she can do to France she is doing gleefully.

It will be for France alone, then, to resist the next Teuton onslaught—' vain hope and courage vain'-alone; but the Latin Union, led by France, might well make Germany, cautious as daring, reflect that discretion is sometimes the better part of valour, and that it would be easier and more profitable to develop eastward.

The Union' would mean that of France, Italy, Spain and Belgium, comprising a population of about ninety million souls. This is enough to give any assailant pause, if it be well knit together; disunited, it is the old story of the bundle of sticks.

The inspiration would be Roman, naturally. Equally naturally, the driving force would be French. Difficulties are made to be overcome; on the threshold we encounter the first and really the only difficulty': religion.

All these Latin countries are religious, and three out of four are officially religious, and all of the same religion: the Roman. Exception is sometimes taken to this word. The authority of the Primate of Spain (the Cardinal Archbishop of Toledo) and of the Papal Legate a latere to the Court of Madrid may perhaps suffice for those who can make no pretension to exact knowledge on the subject; it is also convenient for the purpose of these few notes.1

France is officially anti-religious, in daily practice quite sincerely devout and obedient to the Holy See. This is, in passing, an excellent and melancholy illustration of the divorce between the 'will of the people '-that eternal will-o'-the-wisp and the 'government of the people' under Tyrant Demos.

Under a monarchy there were resources open to the sufferers. Firstly, patience. In the course of Nature even the worst tyrant's reign must have an ending. Then there were the dread resources of revolt and even assassination. A consort might be gained, perhaps a Minister, a favourite, or a confessor. But Tyrant Demos never dies; nothing can shake his grip; his unhappy victim can only bleat and bleed.

If we English are less the serfs of Demos than the French, it

1 See At the Court of His Catholic Majesty, pp. 81, 222 (Collier. Chicago: A. C. Maclure & Co., 1912).

is only because we still enjoy the priceless blessing of monarchical government. This we shall continue to enjoy, under the providence of God, precisely so long as we continue to deserve it. Otherwise there is little to choose between France and England.

It is forty years or more since the war-cry of the 'advanced' parties in France became anti-Clerical. Whatever profit there may have been in 'anti-Clericalism' must have been exhausted long ago. Profit apart, there remains the pleasure of causing pain. This is more widely spread than we are accustomed to acknowledge. How to extricate France from the imbroglio is a problem which only the adroitest minds can tackle with any hope of success. The only point for us outsiders to note is that a Latin union can hardly avoid being a religious as well as a political union. The political lead must needs be taken by France. We have, therefore, to inquire whether the Holy See is likely to preconise any kind of union except one based on religion. We may easily anticipate the haughty reply: France has no need of the support of the Holy See.' Has she not? And are the rulers of France prepared to dislocate the world because a single step is, for the moment, repugnant to them?

Before considering these points let us note once more that it is essentially the politicians' job; and diplomacy could with ease find phrases to save the faces of the politicians; 'a conditional measure desirable in the interests of neighbourly and interested countries, and for the furthering of peace and friendly relations,' which, being interpreted, means stopping the persecution. The powerless' people' would be humbly grateful-for once-to their

masters.

In Italy, as all the world knows, there has long been a divided allegiance. Of recent years the relations between the Quirinal and the Vatican have been less troubled. These happier relations would be prejudiced if the civil power entered into close alliance with a State resolute to treat the Vatican roughly. In fact, here, as everywhere within the Latin Union, it is not so much what any given member would like to do as what it cannot avoid doing.

Italians then are acquiescent, to put their religious sentiments at the lowest figure. Atheism is, more or less, bad form; the Chiesa Valdese counts for little, and the Holy See has no rival in their affections.

In Spain the situation is even less complicated. Dissertations are unnecessary. France and Spain are almost summoned to be friends by the conditions of their existence, political and geographical. Religion alone keeps them apart. In days gone by religion formed a natural bond of union between the countries of the most Catholic and most Christian kings. Religion to-day is the only consideration that keeps them asunder. The anti

religious attitude of French politicians is distressing enough to pious Italians; but it is positively infuriating to the Spaniards. We cannot avoid noting, once more, how little it is asking the Republic to concede, how much the Republic has to gain in return. It is a good bargain, in fact.

We all know all about Belgium.

We all remember also in days gone by the words 'Germany must have a powerful fleet in order to protect her overseas trade,' which was plausible enough to affect the ignorant. Even so to-day we hear that 'we must set Germany on her legs in order that we may do trade with her.'

There ought to be trade enough among ninety millions of souls to keep everybody busy for the next century. (Incidentally it is presumed that the Union would be fiscal as well as religious and political. It is hard to discover what else could be anticipated as the outcome of that tragic farce, the Treaty of Versailles.)

We ought to reconsider the expression' dislocate the world.' 'European world' would be more immediately correct. It is true that with the collapse of the British Empire the Old World would relapse into chaos, and the position of most of our Dominions would be anxious indeed for some generations to come. But the New World would not be menaced.

In the desperate piquet which France has to play with Germany France won the first game-the war-but only by a little. France lost heavily in the second game-the peace; in fact, she was repiqued. When it comes to 'la belle,' France is done for unless she is dealt better cards; to drop metaphor, unless she can find a union powerful enough to give Germany pause. Otherwise Latin civilisation is doomed, and Europe is Teutonised. Germany will have handsomely earned her victory; she has

faith.

America remains a problem. We all felt safe when she entered the war. Much as she must enjoy the spectacle of hated England dwindling and dwindling, we felt confident that the old love of France had not waned. 'Auld lang syne' and 'the sister Republic' were trusty phrases; to say nothing of the eighty million pounds sterling expended by Louis XVI. to secure the independence of the revolted colonies. We were all deceived. America made no difference between France and the rest of us; she wiped her boots on all countries impartially, saving only Germany. So it is hopeless to speculate on her attitude face to face with a Latin union. We can do nothing, except pray for her neutrality. W. F. LORD.

Postscript.--Much has changed: but the above notes may stand. The question is whether intimate relations between France