cry" Banzai," for instance for a war with China, and such a war would be popular with the industries it would stimulate. The present government has pursued a cautious policy and is likely to do so under the careful guidance of Viscount Kato, but with General Tanaka in power a different line may well be taken, either at or after the conference at Pekin in October, for General Tanaka is a commanding personality, inspiring fear as well as confidence in friend and foe. He is assured of the support of the army and bureaucracy, and with the memory of Kerensky before him, he is not likely to give way to any socialist movement.

What, then, is the position of Great Britain in the Far East? We are face to face with a gallant nation in its Elizabethan stage, holding ambitious views which are not only perfectly legitimate but economically necessary to its existence. That nation, thanks to the Washington Conference and its own efforts, holds an impregnable position at sea, with vast loyal forces on land. The British Government, when it speaks of the peaceful outlook of the world, and the absence of naval antagonism, has not reckoned with our loss of "face" in the East, owing to our naval weakness and our complete isolation. As the late Sir John Jordan, who was the greatest authority on the Eastern question, pointed out in the Times on June 15, 1925: Sixty years ago (British) naval co-operation cleared the Canton delta of pirates and for the lack of it the southern seaboard is now so infested with piracy that trade is at a standstill." Since June things have gone from bad to worse, with the ever increasing seriousness of the position, the colossal losses of our business men, the number of ships laid up, our vast trade ruined, our people vilified in every way; in a word the destruction of the whole position that our fellow-countrymen had built up since 1840.

Are we going to abandon the one great open market for our goods that still remains? What attitude will America take up with regard to Japan's special interests, which she has refused to recognise? What attitude will Japan take up if any active interference in Chinese affairs is proposed by the other Powers, demanding for instance reforms and security for their introduction?

Above all, do not let us blame Japan too severely for shortcomings in international procedure. Memories are long in the Far East. Men have not forgotten the Burlingame Treaty

between China and the United States in 1861, and its subsequent rescission at the instance of California in 1876, or the proceedings of France, Germany and Russia, when Japan was deprived of the fruits of her victory over China, only to see Port Arthur taken by Russia and Kiaochow by Germany, and the occupation of Weihaiwei by Great Britain, while the Powers were professing good wishes for the integrity of China. Again there was the appeal of the Koreans to the United States in 1914, and Mr. Roosevelt's blunt response in the Nation of September. There was the treaty of the Allied Powers with Japan, as to Shantung, during the war, which was not honoured after the war.

The fact is that in international matters in the Far East the record of the Christian Powers is like that of the Christian Powers in regard to Turkey, to which I called attention in the EDINBURGH REVIEW in January, 1913-it is very bad. The best chance for peace lies in a frank recognition by all the negotiators of broken treaties in the past and, for ourselves, the maintenance of our prestige by showing an equal naval force on the spot with the United States and Japan, and by hastening to rebuild our navy and modernise our naval base at Singapore, without which our battle-fleet cannot act in the Far East.

"Face" is nine-tenths of the battle with orientals, and the Japanese are unfortunately only too well aware that the present government has mortgaged our financial future by its Pensions Act this year, and let our navy down far below the strength required to maintain its position, even on the one-Power basis.

The country should open its eyes to the ominous position of affairs in the Far East. An attempt has been made in the present article to give a plain unvarnished statement of the position so far as Japan is concerned-Sine ira et studio quorum causas procul habeo. Above all do not let us blame our diplomatists if the result of the Peking Conference in October is not in accordance with our wishes or our interests, and if another Lausanne is in store for us. For our diplomatists, like our sailors, have been once more asked by the politicians to make bricks without straw.

GEOFFREY DRAGE

A NEW INDIAN CONSTITUTION

The Commonwealth of India Bill, issued by the National Convention, India, 1924, 1925, for presentation to the Parliament of Great Britain.

AMONGST my most cherished possessions is a copy of the

first edition of Maine's "Ancient Law" which the author sent in 1861 to Frederic Harrison. It is needless to apologise for mentioning the book. It has long been regarded as out of date, and in any case has taken its place by the side of Gibbon's "Decline and Fall," Johnson's "Lives of the Poets" and other really great books which are often mentioned but seldom read. It contained however useful hints, and one of the lessons which it taught so well that it seems very trite to-day-was that law and morality, using that word in the sense of the general opinion of the people, must not be too widely separated. And this applies perhaps more to the law of the constitution than to any other law. The scientific jurists of the present day would look at the matter from another point of view. They would say that if a constitution is to be satisfactory it must be in itself a growth, a development from what has existed in some form or other for ages; it must have come into the world naturally and inevitably, because it represents the experience of a people. It need hardly be said that this is especially the case in a conservative country such as India; a country where custom is the life of the people; where, too, political thinking, when it can be said to exist at all, is connected with such elementary matters as the incidents affecting land tenure, and the ever-present problem of security of person and property, and has little relation to the wider and more complicated conceptions of the State which are so common in the west. This, then, is the first thought that arises in our minds when we examine any new proposal as to the constitution of India.

be

Another basic question which we must ask ourselves seems obvious enough, and yet it is one which those who puzzle Indians with their schemes rarely seem to take into consideration. It may put thus. Is the proposed constitution one which will involve any very violent change in the complicated political system of India, as a whole, the India of which British India is only the most important part? Will it alter the centre of gravity?

The third test we must apply is also a very simple one; it is intimately connected with the other two. Is the scheme likely to be workable, and will it conduce to the greater happiness of the majority of the people? This is equivalent to asking whether in detail it preserves or introduces what is essential to their wellbeing.

The Bill prepared by the Indian National Convention provides for the establishment of "The Commonwealth of India," or more precisely "The Commonwealth of British India"; for the Native States are for the time being excluded, although provision is made for them to come in later if they choose to do so. This Commonwealth is to "be placed on an equality with the self-governing dominions, sharing their responsibilities and their privileges, as a Free State in the Federation of Free States owning allegiance to H.I.M. the King Emperor," though the position with regard to the army suggests a question here. The legislative, executive and judicial spheres of activity are to be independent of each other " in so far as may be consistent with public weal," which leaves a troublesome legacy to those who come later; and certain fundamental rights are laid down, such as individual liberty, freedom of conscience, and equality before the law. With these last no one can quarrel in the form in which they appear, but it seems a pity to find among them the statement that "there shall be no disqualification or disability on the basis of sex." As everyone knows sex must make the profoundest political differences in India so far as the mass of the people are concerned for many years to come.

The legislative power of the Commonwealth is to be vested in a Parliament consisting of the King (in practice the Viceroy), a Senate and a Legislative Assembly. This Parliament must meet at least once a year. The Senate will consist, unless Parliament decides otherwise later, of 150 members. They are to be chosen by proportional representation, and the rules as to the election are to be drawn up by Parliament. There is to be a panel for each province, containing thrice as many names as there are members to be chosen, nominated by the Senate, the Legislative Assembly and the Provincial Legislature respectively; containing too, if they wish it, the names of those who have been members of the Senate or of the present Council of State. The members of the Senate must be thirty years of age, have rendered conspicuous public

service and possess certain qualifications, which include residence in the Commonwealth and one of several other qualifications which render a man capable of being either an elector for, or a member of, the Legislative Assembly. As regards the " conspicuous public service "it will be somewhat difficult to define; in practice it will probably never be defined at all. As anyone can stand for either body who (besides being on the panel, and possessing public service and age qualification in the case of the Senate) has received education up to the graduate level or equivalent general or technical education " (does this include the failed B.A. ?) or who has an income or allowance of Rs. 50 per month, the net is very widely spread, or seems to be so. The electorate in the case of the Senate is a much narrower one than that for the Legislative Assembly, but there is a proviso in each case in the rules which seems to give Parliament power by the rules to widen the franchise. The Legislative Assembly is to consist in the first instance of three hundred members.

It is interesting to notice that the convention which drew up this scheme has decided that there shall be no communal electorates. It has, however, made a compromise which will probably cause some difficulties. "As a transitory measure, the number of seats reserved for Musalmans and Europeans in the Government of India Act, 1919, shall be continued for five years, and examined by a Franchise Commission, which shall make recommendations for its continuance, amendment or abolition." It is not stated to what bodies this applies, and it will be noticed that it takes away the privilege of the Sikhs in the matter.

The executive power of the Commonwealth rests with the Viceroy as the King's representative acting on the advice of the Cabinet. It is to be subject to the provisions of this Act, and it extends to the execution and maintenance of this Act and of the Laws of the Commonwealth. It is also stated that the Viceroy "shall have and perform all executive powers and duties relating to the Government or revenues of India, as might or should have been exercised or performed by His Majesty's Secretary of State, or the Secretary of State in Council, before this Act came into force." But as in this matter also he has to act on the advice of the Cabinet, and as his power is to be subject to legislation by the Commonwealth Parliament, it looks as though there might not be much that he could do. The arrangements for cabinet government and responsibility call for no comment.