counterpart, corresponding point with point in what is perceived in most tactual perceptions of figure, and events in this reality are the causes of our visual perceptions." This is a view which requires and admits of criticism, and Mr. Balfour would have done us a real service in subjecting it to cross-examination. For we discover that Mr. Broad means something very different by 'cause' from what is meant by common sense. He abandons the 'activity' view altogether, and informs us that a causal law subsists between two sets of events when they are so related that the proposition asserting the occurrence of one of the first set strengthens the probability of the occurrence of one of the second set.' If this is the meaning of cause' it would be interesting to know what precisely is meant when it is said that 'real' figures are the causes, or parts of the causes, of our perceptions. Again, it would be valuable to know whether the realist can give any satisfactory account of error, and, above all, what meaning, if any, he attaches to the verb ' to exist.' In the face of this interesting theory, put forward in the name of Science, and the difficulties which it seems to involve, we cannot help regretting that Mr. Balfour has ignored it. It is difficult to resist a feeling of injury that we have not been permitted to see his gentle incredulity playing with new Realism.

But we must hasten to the one fundamental complaint that we have to make against Mr. Balfour's position. It is, shortly, that he does not put the claims of Theism high enough; that he does not put them, in fact, as high as his own argument would warrant. We may welcome an advance in all that he has written in the direction of constructive thought as distinct from mere criticism. The argument from ' values 'in the ' Gifford Lectures 'represents a step forward from the argument from 'needs' of the Foundations of Belief. Mr. Balfour's claim to represent the attitude of the plain man is probably not far from the truth. Scepticism or contempt for the results of philosophic thought is, in fact, often combined with a sturdy faith that the higher experiences of the soul are not empty illusions. So Mr. Balfour shews that if we would preserve

truth goodness and beauty we must believe in God, but he will not allow us to regard this belief as more than an hypothesis. But we may ask if this scepticism is really justified. It would be a melancholy conclusion if we were forced to hold that the work of the speculative intellect through so many centuries had been so barren that even the foundations had not been laid, and that we could venture no further than a provisional point of view.' And this would in itself be prima facie an objection against Theism. If God is, in truth, the ground of all that is, it would be surprising if every level of experience, when thought out, did not lead up to the Divine.

This is, in reality, we are convinced, Mr. Balfour's own position. He has shewn that science, art and morality all imply the spiritual nature of Reality. No one has argued more powerfully than the author of Foundations of Belief that we do wrong to make one aspect of experience the norm for all the rest. If it turns out, as Mr. Balfour argues, that all levels of experience centre upon and involve a spiritual unity, which is the Living Ground of each, it seems to us that the belief in the existence of this Ground may claim to have as much certainty as any philosophical conclusion is capable of possessing. This is not to say, of course, that we rule out faith and assumption. For most men belief in God cannot be a completely reasoned conviction. The most philosophical Theist must choose to treat his experience as significant, and thought cannot move an inch without the faith that truth is self-consistent. But the believer in a Spiritual Reality is in no worse case than his rivals, who must all make similar assumptions, and he has the merit of taking account of experience as a whole. A philosophy without assumptions is as chimerical as a history without bias. The task of philosophy is to shew, in such detail as may be possible, how each aspect of experience falls into its place in the system of the whole, and how each centres round the Living Unity which gives significance to them all.

Mr. Balfour is one of those writers of whom it would be ungracious to take leave without thanks for much

excellent entertainment. He is not of the school which discourses about the Universe in a style which would be appropriate to a problem in spherical geometry. His writings are the gracefully expressed musings of a subtle and acute mind, which is deeply penetrated with reverence for the higher values of human life: a mind too which, perhaps by virtue of its sceptical tendency, gives an individual stamp to every thought. We complain that he has not put the claims of belief high enough. We fear that some may be led to conclude from his books that God is only the least irrational of several unsatisfactory hypotheses. But there are doubtless minds to which this cautious Theism will appeal more strongly than a robuster type. We must be grateful for the thoughts, since we are not permitted to call them a philosophy, of a great leader of opposition.

W. R. MATTHEWS.

ART. IX. THE CONDUCT OF THE WAR.

1. The Times. Wednesday, November 3, 1915. Speech of the Rt. Hon. H. H. ASQUITH.

2. The Times. Thursday, November 4, 1915. Speech of VISCOUNT MORLEY.

3. The Times. Tuesday, November 9, 1915. Speeches of the EARL OF LOREBURN and VISCOUNT MILNER. 4. The Times. Tuesday, November 16, 1915. Speech of the Rt. Hon. WINSTON S. CHURCHILL.

THERE have appeared from time to time in the newspapers and in speeches delivered in Parliament suggestions that criticism of the operations of war or criticisms of the Government of the country are untimely and unpatriotic. We cannot assent to such suggestions. There is of course a serious responsibility attached to criticism. It should aim at being just; it should not be exaggerated; it should

not, except when occasion demands it, be personal; it should avoid abuse.

With certain exceptions which need not be mentioned, the criticisms offered by the Press of this country have not failed in these respects. Occasionally there may have been quite reasonable lapses of temper, but very rarely. The great body of criticism has aimed at being just, and subsequent events have only too often justified it. Nor can it be doubted that on the whole the criticism has been of value. The statement made by Lord Ribblesdale in the House of Lords that, so far as he could see, most of the good things which had been done by the Government had been the carrying out of suggestions made by The Times, is not wide of the mark. At the beginning of this war, for the first few weeks, the Government seemed to be ahead of public opinion. They thought of more things than other people did, and they carried most of them out effectively. But after this somewhat brilliant spurt, they settled down to what seemed to be a contented acquiescence in what they had accomplished, and since then they have been behind public opinion. It is of course an unfortunate thing that newspapers should govern, or think they govern, the country; but then those who are responsible for our guidance in time of war should be far ahead of the rest in adopting necessary measures, should shew the foresight which may be demanded from great statesmen, and should not give the appearance of not having realized the situation.

Recognizing, then, that criticism must be exercised with responsibility, we feel bound to review the conduct of the war and to ask ourselves whether the Prime Minister has been able, with all his eloquence and all his forensic ability, to justify the situation.

Let us enumerate the points which are open to criticism. There is the fall of Antwerp, the failure in munitions, the Dardanelles expedition, and the failure of our diplomacy in the Balkan peninsula. These are four big matters: concerning all of them there has been much discussion. There are other matters, such as the treatment of alien enemies

and the Press Censorship, which demand grave consideration. There is also the question of National Service.

Take for a moment-it is somewhat instructive-the fall of Antwerp. It was possible to recognize that we could not interfere with sufficient force, and that therefore we must reconcile ourselves to its fall. It was possible to have done much more in order to relieve it. This was practically confessed by Lord Kitchener, who said that this could not be done without interfering with the plan of operations. It may be suggested that the plan of operations should be something elastic which must be adapted to the actual conditions. As a German military writer has said, the plan of campaign may be torn up the moment hostilities have begun, because the future developments will have to depend not on what was planned beforehand, but on the action of the enemy. Moreover, it is difficult to see what plan of campaign was interfered with, judging by later events. An effort might probably well have been made, directly after the Battle of the Marne, which would have preserved the seaboard of Belgium, and might even have succeeded in saving Antwerp. It would have been worth running some risk to make the attempt. But at any rate there were two clear courses open. The one was effective intervention, or at any rate intervention which might reasonably be expected to be effective. The other was to acquiesce in the inevitable, as had to be done in the earlier invasion of Belgium. The Government chose neither course. They sent a totally inadequate and untrained force into Antwerp; they lost a considerable number of men who could be ill spared; they effected nothing, and gave additional éclat to the German success. It is difficult not to believe that here we have the result of divided counsels, and at any rate just the weak action which suggests that the war is being carried on incompetently.

The speech of Mr. Churchill reveals what happened. If his own testimony is to be believed, he advocated on all occasions a bold and possibly effective policy. Had he been War Minister and been willing to take expert advice, he might have been successful. Unfortunately he was