68. If Christianity is to be what we all think it ought to be, and will be the world religion-if it is really going successfully to attack those great populations in the Far East which have behind them a great tradition, a long civilisation, a philosophic mode of regarding the world, which is their own-I believe if that ideal is carried out it will be, and must be, by the help of teachers of their own race who are going to lead them, and, in leading them, will probably add something to the apparent divisions of the Christian world, although they will add, I trust, greatly to that universal Church to which every one of us, whatever be the immediate object of his ecclesiastical allegiance, belongs. And remember, that while those are, as I think, dreamers of dreams who think we can return to a single ecclesiastical organisation, those are not less in error, as I believe, who suppose that we can do without ecclesiastical organisations. It seems easy, simple, obvious, to say that the relation of every soul to its Maker is a matter between its Maker and the soul, and that the aid of these organisations is superfluous, that it is of little assistance, that it may be a cause of discord, and cannot be of assistance in the spiritual path. I believe that to be a profound error. We are all human beings, and we must work under the conditions under which human beings alone can work, or, at all events, alone can work effectively -the conditions of being organised. And, therefore, I have for myself to face the fact, and I do face it, that Christendom is and must remain ecclesiastically divided, that the Churches into which it is divided are necessary for the spiritual welfare of the world, and that what we have to do is to be able to see, beyond the separate organisation to which we all belong, that greater whole of which we are all members.

Has there ever been a time when the efforts of the Churches were more needed? I think not. I think that when the ecclesiastical history, or the religious history, of the generation in which we are living comes to be written by our descendants, they will say, and say with truth, that Christendom has been passing through a great revolution in the last thirty yearsa revolution of which we do not yet see the end; that it is due to the insight and culture of those who lead in the various Churches that that revolution is a peaceable revolution; that Christendom has absorbed all the results of science, of criticism, of investigation, in every field of thought; that it is showing gradually, without the ostentation of apologetic polemics, but showing by practice, that it can assimilate all those new elements of enlightenment and progress; and that the teaching of Christianity need not be, and ought not to be, either a collision between religion and science, or even of a character which leaves science and knowledge on one side, and goes its own way, ignoring all that may be done in other departments of human learning and human effort. The task of carrying out this great change is that there shall be no loss to the spiritual efficiency of the Churches, so that the difficulties of individual believers may be smoothed away, and that all may feel that the knowledge of God's world never can be inconsistent with the knowledge of God's word. That task is one which falls not upon this Church or

that Church, but upon the leaders in every Church, and I believe the leaders in every Church feel the great responsibility thrown upon them and are proving themselves not unequal to the height of that great endeavour. But after all, if I have rightly indicated the character of the difficulties and of the problems which lie before the Churches, I have to ask you to remember that no organisation which has a human side at all can do without the adventitious assistance which buildings, which endowments, which subscriptions, which all the material skeleton of organisation call for from the members of the various communities. You cannot have a church and say that money is a matter of indifference to you. Money, material though it be, does lie at the base of much of the most useful work you do. In itself nothing, it is the basis of much of the best effort which can be made for spiritual purposes.

[1906.]

69. I am deeply convinced that it is quite impossible for the Church, for any Church, to mix itself up, even with the best intentions, in the secular controversies of the day without losing more for itself than it can gain for the community. That seems to me a truth to which all history attests, and I should say that even in those ages when the Church monopolised all education, all administrative ability, and all legal ability, and when therefore it was materially impossible that she should keep herself free from intermixture in the affairs of the State, such intermixture never took place without inflicting serious and sometimes permanent injury upon religion. [1908.]

70. It is this direct appeal to the individual soul which is the proper business of the Christian Churches, and that direct appeal is not limited, of course, to the mere teaching or inculcation of religion. Beyond the broader efforts which fall to the politician it is the business of the Church, as I conceive it, to appeal to the individual, to search out his particular weakness, to remedy his particular misfortunes, to raise him from his own particular quagmire, and not to put him on one side simply because he has brought by his own weakness, by his own fault if you will, by his own crime, social punishments upon himself. [1908.]

71. The fact remains, as all who are interested in these religious questions know well, that one of the great tasks which our forefathers never foresaw and with regard to which they did not organise their forces or arrange their creeds, one of the great problems and difficulties before all Churches now is how to deal with the great access of knowledge, historical, critical, and scientific, pouring in every day, new matter poured into ancient moulds, how

to combine the absorption of all that new knowledge with the continuation of the great teaching of religion which has gone on continuously through all these centuries, and which, I trust, will go on through an indefinite and immeasurable future. That is a tremendous task; it is a tremendous task because it requires great knowledge, great toleration, and sympathy from those who have to carry it on and have to deal with congregations in very different stages of education and mental development. I have always wondered and admired the success with which, on the whole, that great operation is at this moment being carried on, and has been carried on through my life, ever since I have been able to take an intelligent interest in these things. I do not believe that it has been carried on better by any Church than by the Anglican Church; partly because it is the Established Church, and largely because it is by history and tradition a comprehensive Church. That Church has, I think, been able to meet this great crisis in the history of Christianity in a way which will move the admiration of future generations. Most worthily has it been seconded by great divines and great preachers of the Nonconformist bodies; and if I may as a Scotchman say so-above all Churches in the country by the great Presbyterian bodies, the Established and the United Free Church of Scotland. In all these Churches men of great learning, great piety, great devotion, and saint-like lives have devoted these great gifts to dealing with the situation. [1912.]

The Civil Service.

I confess I have always had the profoundest curiosity to know what is thought by those members of the permanent Civil Service who come into closest contact with the Parliamentary chiefs of the various qualities of the gentlemen under whom they have successively had to serve. I cannot conceive any memoir or any commentary more interesting than such a commentary as might well be made—it would never be published— such a commentary as might well be made by some member of the Civil Service who had come into close and constant relation with the Parliamentary leaders belonging to different parties, of very different views, aiming at very different objects.

Consider, now, the experience of, let us say, the Parliamentary Draftsman. I mention the Parliamentary Draftsman because I do not think one of them is present. I might mention other members of the Civil Service, but, taking the case of the Parliamentary Draftsman, he has had, perhaps, in one year to draft a Home Rule Bill, and in another year to draft a Crimes Bill: he has had to serve, as other members of the Civil Service have had to serve, Ministers differing profoundly upon some of the most fundamental problems on which public opinion is divided he has been present while we have been discussing, not their completed measures, but their measures in process of construction he is privy to their changes of opinion upon this clause and that clause, and knows how this difficulty and that difficulty has been surmounted or has been attempted to be surmounted: he knows the varying views, and possibly Cabinet differences which have on more or less important questions for the time divided those who are working together. This is very interesting to him, but, from the point of view of the Cabinet Minister, I should like to know what he thought of my predecessors; I should like to find out what happened on such-and-such an occasion with regard to such-and-such a Bill! Unfortunately, that book is absolutely closed. Those secrets are kept with a fidelity comparable-I had almost said superior to the fidelity with which Cabinet secrets are kept from the public; and we all of us-I am alluding to my colleagues and my friends in opposition-go down to our graves absolutely ignorant of these most interesting political secrets locked up in the breasts of these distinguished members of the Civil Service. As a matter of curiosity I regret it; as a student of history I regret it; as one engaged and much interested in political speculation I regret it: I confess as a Minister I do not regret it!

But I think I am only speaking the feeling of those who have had experience similar to my own when I express my admiration of the system by which such a result is possible. I have, after all, only presented to you what may be described as the humorous side; but remember the humorous has a most serious side. It is because such things are possible that the British Civil Service is what it is a great organisation, not pretending to arrogate to itself the determination of public policy, not endeavouring to supplant either the people or Parliament, which is the organ of the people, in the direction of public affairs, but always ready to give the service of a trained intelligence and a long experience to those who from time to time may have the confidence of their countrymen and the Crown. Those who give themselves over to political speculation, if they honestly asked themselves whether it was possible to combine such a Civil Service as we possess with a democratic Government, such as that under which we live, would, I boldly say, declare such a possibility to be beyond the range of speculation. They would tell you that one of two things must surely happen-that either the permanent Civil Service of the country would gradually absorb to itself such powers that it would practically exclude all other powers from the sphere of political influence; or else, if that did not occur, that it would be at the cost of having men in our Civil Service of such inexperience or such incapacity that they would be incapable of filling any higher position, any more responsible position, than that which they actually occupy. The compromise at which we have succeeded in arriving of a trained permanent Civil Service, absolutely independent of party, absolutely at the service of each party in turn, not aiding, not impeding, the party machine, but yet combining all the advantages, all the accumulated knowledge and tradition-they would say that the creation of such a Service as that was beyond the power of human wisdom and contrivance. Well, it has come about, not by any single great measure, not by the fiat of any one powerful genius; but by the gradual operation of the common-sense of the community a result has been obtained which might seem almost impossible.

Of course, as we all know, this great end has been largely attained by the absolute exclusion of the Civil Service from any influence over elections. I do not know—I speak with imperfect knowledge, but I should like to have a Parliamentary Return, if such a subject could be dealt with by Parliamentary Returns, of the number of countries which are under representative institutions in which it is not, if anything, a disadvantage for a party to be in power at the time of an election. I know many countries—everybody who is a student of these matters knows many countries-where the party in power has such a command over the electoral machinery that it gives it a great and distinct advantage to have the command of that machinery at the time of a general election. In this country, if it has any effect at all, it is a disadvantage. The permanent Civil Service has absolutely no relation to our electoral machinery. The Government of the day stands upon its merits or demerits; and, if it is in office, its demerits are probably more