thus far, by its legion of Hessian mercenaries, to overawe the masses, to control the elections, and to establish an arbitrary despotism.'

The general good conduct of the Hessians, the bravery with which they fought in a cause in which they could have no national, political, or sentimental interest, are the more remarkable when we consider the manner in which they were recruited. The German Princes often had great difficulty in fulfilling their contract for supplying men for the English service. Of their own little armies they had, of course, the absolute disposal. But as the demand increased they were often obliged to enrol vagabonds and tramps from all other countries, and to employ a pressgang to kidnap any of their own subjects, who, for some reason, were exempt, but who they thought might be acceptable to Colonel Faucit and other English agents.

We gain a curious insight into the methods employed, and the sentiments of those whom they enticed or forced into the service, from the Autobiography of the German poet Seume. Seume, a man of the humblest origin, attracted in his youth the notice of Count Hohenthal Knauthayn, by whom he was sent to the University of Leipsic. While there he fell into bad odour with his tutors for not attending church, and for expressing heretical opinions. Count Hohenthal withdrew his patronage, and Seume's position became so intolerable that he ran away from Leipsic. He slept the first night at Bach, near Erfurt, and was there seized by the agents of the Landgrave of Hesse-Cassel and sent to the fortress of Ziegenhayn, which was used as a dépôt for recruits, of whom he found a strange motley crew awaiting review by Colonel Faucit. Among them were a vagabond student from Jena, a dismissed postmaster from Gotha, a bankrupt merchant from Vienna, a monk from Würzburg, an Oberamtmann from Meiningen, a Prussian Wachtmeister and a Hessian major.

Very remarkable is the easy-going insouciance with which Seume bore the hardships and privations to which he was subjected-the poor and scanty food, the insufficient clothing, the stormy passage to America in the overcrowded ship. It is true that he joined with others in attempts to escape, for which some of his comrades were beaten to death. But when these failed he accepted his fate with cheerful resignation, and was able to look at it on its humorous side. His lot was, perhaps, a little cheered by the officers of his regiment when they found that there was a man of genius in the ranks.

But the good temper and practical philosophy which he displays must have been general among his comrades, for their letters, many of which have been preserved, contain few indications of discontent or ill-temper, and the number of desertions was, under the circumstances, surprisingly small. The Americans, we know, were extremely liberal in their offers of honour and emolument to the Hessian officers and men; and it might naturally be expected that men, many of whom, like Seume, were smarting under a sense of intolerable wrong, would

VOL. LXI-No. 360

Ꮓ

gladly have accepted them. But in fact the desertion of Germans was not more frequent than that of Englishmen from their regiments, and much less frequent than the desertion of Americans from their own army.

To account for this strange fact, we must remember that their lot, as subjects of petty tyrants, was by no means an enviable one. The majority, when once landed in America, found consolation and pleasure in escaping from toil and taxes, in seeing a newer and wider world, and in bearing a part in adventurous enterprises. We find no trace among them, of sympathy with the revolted Americans. They report in their letters that the wives of small American farmers were far better dressed than the noblewomen of Germany, and express surprise and indignation at the folly and ingratitude of men who could rebel against a Government under which they were so free and prosperous and happy. They cared nothing about politics, but it seemed to them self-evident that rebels must be brought to

reason.

In a letter from a Hessian soldier in Rhode Island to his brother in Hesse-Cassel, after speaking of the beauty and fertility of the land, and the handsome, well-furnished 'English' homes of the inhabitants, he adds, 'it is therefore a pity that so fruitful a country should belong to "solchen b-schen Menschen," who, from sheer wantonness and luxury, do not know what they would be at, and will owe their ruin to their own foolish pride alone. If anyone in Germany takes their part he should, as a fitting punishment, spend a short time among them and become acquainted with their constitution, and he will see, as I do, that nothing but wantonness and crime were the causes of this rebellion.'

Very amusing, in this connection, are the incidental remarks made at this time on a well-known characteristic tendency of the English. 'Why,' asks Herr von Pinto, in his Politische Weissagungen,'' are the English so gloomy in their forebodings of the issue of this war?' Answer: Their happy constitution, combined with English spleen, engender in this nation a peculiar foolish tendency, and makes them the greatest calumniators of themselves. Other Peoples are remarkable for their ridiculous national vanity-they show only their best side, and carefully conceal their defects. The Briton, on the contrary, disparages himself, ignores his own merits, exaggerates his deficiencies, and is always ringing the alarm-bell.'

A member of the Opposition said to Earl Bathurst, To-day the nation is ruined.' 'That is impossible,' replied Lord Bathurst, 'for fifty years ago I, in the finest speech I ever made, clearly proved that, at that time, the country was irretrievably lost.'

Another letter enlarges on the beauty of the American women, their cleanliness, their free and cheerful manners, and their handsome

'Schlözer's Briefwechsel, Th. i. p. 107.

dress, of which he gives a detailed account. After something like a panegyric on them, the writer thinks it prudent to conclude with a compliment to his own countrywomen: But I must say, for the honour of my own countrywomen, that, in spite of all that I have said of the fair sex in America, I must confess that the soft, languishing, tender air which lends such an amiable charm to the German woman is here very rarely to be found.'

We have already spoken of the eminent services of foreign troops at the battle of Waterloo, and of the high opinion entertained of them by the Duke of Wellington. In 1854 the Duke of Newcastle brought in a Bill for the enlistment of foreigners, which was strongly supported by Lord John Russell, Mr. Sidney Herbert, and other leading politicians. Mr. Watson, an M.P., stated that he had served with the German Legion in Spain, and spoke as an eye-witness of the very valuable services rendered by the 10th Legion of the Duke of Wellington's army. He added that on the death of General Roberts the command fell to General Carl von Alten, a so-called mercenary.

Lord Palmerston, who was strongly in favour of foreign enlistment, reminded the House that in the late war with France we had the aid, not only of the German Legion, but also of Hanoverians, Brunswickers, Portuguese, Swiss, Greeks, Corsicans, and Sicilians.

The difficulty, one may say the impossibility, of obtaining serviceable foreign mercenaries was first experienced at the time of the Crimean war. In 1856 H.B.M. Consul was arrested at Cologne for endeavouring to enlist recruits for the English army; and at Hamburg several persons were tried and convicted of the same offence.

The few recruits that were obtained were of the worst possible character, and were worse than useless. In the same year a collision took place at Shorncliffe between mutinous soldiers of the German Legion and the police. Another mutiny broke out in the Italian Legion at Novara, and Lord Palmerston found it necessary to send it to Malta, because some of the men were taking bribes to desert and escape to Lombardy.

These were nearly the last attempts to enrol foreigners in our army, and we must consider that resource as now closed to us for ever.

A serious consideration in the face of the unpatriotic refusal of the middle and lower classes in England to prepare themselves for the defence of their country!

WALTER COPLAND PERRY.

A DEMOCRAT'S DEFENCE OF THE

HOUSE OF LORDS

WHEN the House of Lords, some six weeks ago, refused to pass the Government's Education Bill unamended, a great cry of rage arose from the ranks of the Liberal party and threats of direst vengeance immediately filled the air. The emotion was not unnatural. The Liberal party had been well nigh twenty years sitting in the cold shade of Opposition. It had seen its hated rival basking all that time in the sunshine of power, directing policy, and-what was worsedrawing salary, itself unable to participate in either the one or the other. And now, when its turn had at last arrived, it sees its first assertion of authority haughtily repelled, its first great legislative effort thwarted and brought to naught. It admitted-did the Liberal party-that its Education Bill was not perfect, offered concessions, and pleaded hard for an agreement. But the Opposition in the House of Lords are not fools; they are at least a match for His Majesty's present Ministers. They knew that, over the question of religious teaching at all events, they had the Government's head in chancery, and they were not disposed to release it. Therefore, the prayers for a settlement were coldly rejected, and Lord Lansdowne and his supporters' adhered to their amendments.' The Bill was withdrawn, war was declared, and the Liberal hosts are now presumably preparing for battle. Up to the time of writing, however, nothing definite has happened, the storm has not burst, but the Liberal warriors are possibly, like Mr. Winkle with his skating, 'just going to begin.'

What is the cause of quarrel between the two Houses of Parliament? What are the charges which the Commons make against the Lords? They are, chiefly, two. First, that the Lords, while freely passing measures sent up to them by Conservative Administrations, systematically veto or mutilate those submitted by Liberals. And, second, that the House of Lords, being a non-elected body, has no moral right to obstruct or control legislation. What is the answer of the House of Lords and its friends to these charges? To the first they reply that their action in passing or rejecting measures submitted to them is governed, not by the source from which these

measures emanate, but by the actual character of the measures themselves. To the second, they reply that they have not created the hereditary system, they find it in existence, they believe it is approved by the people, and they are certain that it works out to the welfare of the country. Let us see if these defences can be maintained.

In the first place let us, in order to test the first defence, examine the two principal measures rejected in the late Session-the Plural Voting and Education Bills. Were they measures whose actual character justified their destruction? To begin with, they were both admittedly partisan. In introducing his Education Bill, Mr. Birrell, expounding the clauses which bore hardly on the Church of England, declared that 'minorities must suffer,' while the Minister in charge of the Plural Voting Bill rather plumed himself on the fact that his proposals would weaken his political opponents. Of course, it is quite possible for a Bill to be both partisan and just, for the righting of a wrong may be altogether in the interest of one party and to the detriment of its opponents. And that, no doubt, is the contention of the authors of these two measures. But their contention does not close the argument. The Bills themselves have to be examined and their real character ascertained.

The Liberal Education Bill of 1906 has been so exhaustively discussed, both in these pages and in Parliament, that it is unnecessary to do more now than to glance at one or two of its features, in order to see how far, if at all, the House of Lords was justified in rejecting it. The great fault of that Bill-from the House of Lords' point of view-was that it aimed a blow at the Church of England and, through the Church of England, at religion itself. It sought to take away from the ministers of that Church the influence and control which they have exercised for centuries in the schools of the country and to confer that control on popularly elected bodies. It sought, also, to establish in those schools a sort of secular religion, calculated to suit the taste of atheists and agnostics, but minus the essentials of the Christian faith. That, at all events, was how the new proposals appeared to the members of the House of Lords, and that, undoubtedly, was how they appeared also to the general public. Now, it may be, as some Nonconformists assert, that the clergy of the Church of England are an arrogant and intolerant caste, who domineer over their Dissenting brethren and use the State machinery for their own sectarian ends. But the country is essentially religious, and it has got it into its head that the clergy of the Church of England are its chief stewards in the matter of religious education, and it is not going to agree to any new law which will degrade that body and place it on a lower level (in respect of State recognition) than the Nonconformists. Much fault has been found with the Bishops for their opposition to the Bill. I do not, myself, approve of these Church officials being permitted, as such, to sit in either legislative Chamber; but, being