Before the War the French, Belgian, and British armies were starved, and national defence was neglected because the workers were told by their leaders that not Germany, but domestic capitalism, was their greatest enemy. Before the War adequate military preparation was systematically opposed in France, Belgium, and Great Britain by politicians who pandered to the short-sighted and ill-informed masses. The story of Athens in the time of Demosthenes repeated itself.

The question now arises whether inefficiency and improvidence are inseparably connected with democracy, whether it is not possible to combine the advantages possessed by democracy with the governmental efficiency and foresight which are found in highly organised and semi-military States such as Germany, whether it is not possible to blend representative government and one-man rule. Before deciding whether this is feasible we must inquire into the causes of the governmental efficiency which is found in the most highly developed monarchical States.

The efficiency of a nation, as of any commercial or industrial undertaking, depends mainly on two factors: its organisation and its direction, its Constitution and its director or directors.

If we study the organisation of the most successful monarchies of all time, we find two different types. Some have been ruled by a prince of the greatest genius who governed in person, who was his own Prime Minister, such as Peter the Great of Russia. Some have been ruled by men of moderate, or even of small, capacity who have entrusted an able Minister with the task of government, such as Germany under William the First and Bismarck. It is frequently asserted that the combination of a William the First and of a Bismarck is unique or almost unique. That view is erroneous. A wise king rules, but does not govern. Monarchy is a business which is best carried on through a manager. The direct rule of the sovereign is dangerous for the nation and for himself, even if the monarch is a man

of the greatest genius. That may be seen by the example of Napoleon the First. For psychological reasons alone the highly technical and laborious task of government is as a rule far more ably fulfilled by a patient and painstaking Minister who lives for his work than by a high-spirited, though able, sovereign who necessarily can only devote part of his time to the dry and tedious details of administration. The most successful States have been raised to greatness not through a great ruler but through a great statesman, such as Bismarck, working under a ruler of moderate ability. Civilisation arose in the East. Every Eastern ruler has his manager, his Vizier. Moses had his Aaron, Pharaoh his Joseph, and Solomon his Asaph. According to the Mohammedan tradition, these were the Viziers of Moses, Pharaoh, and Solomon. The foundation of the greatness of France was laid by the co-operation of the able Henry the Fourth and of Sully, his great Minister, and by Richelieu and Mazarin, who governed France in the King's name under the rule of the incapable Louis the Thirteenth and during the minority of Louis the Fourteenth. These statesmen raised France to the greatest glory and made her wealthy and powerful. Louis the Fourteenth, though personally highly gifted and well supported by great Ministers such as Colbert and Louvois, wishing to govern himself, weakened France through his impetuousness and pride. As the greatness of Germany has been established by Bismarck working under the conscientious but moderately gifted William the First, and that of France by three all-powerful Ministers, Sully, Richelieu, and Mazarin, so that of Sweden was the work of Oxenstierna, who co-operated with the great genius King Gustavus Adolphus. His work was destroyed by the rashness and pride of Charles the Twelfth as that of Bismarck seems likely to be destroyed by the pride and vanity of William the Second.

Many Englishmen are interested in the science of legislation, but only a few in that of national administration and organisation, although the latter is infinitely more important

current affairs, would be surprised by the march of events. It will be noticed that government by means of a Cabinet, as practised in this country, is in every particular diametrically opposed to the form of national organisation which the great Cardinal described as the most perfect and the most efficient.

Richelieu lived three centuries ago. Nevertheless, the broad principles of efficient government expounded by him have not been superseded. Experience has proved their worth. Let us now trace the development of modern national organisation in the best organised State, in Germany.

Brandenburg-Prussia has had the rare good fortune of having possessed some most highly gifted rulers endowed with administrative genius and ability of the highest kind : Frederick William the Great Elector, who ruled from 1640 to 1688, Frederick William the First, who ruled from 1713 to 1740, and Frederick the Great who ruled from 1740 to 1786. These three sovereigns, who together ruled during no less than 121 years, raised Brandenburg-Prussia by their personal labours from insignificance to the rank of a prosperous Great Power. They governed the country in person, and directed and controlled themselves the whole administration. They presided over the ministerial councils, heard and weighed the opinions of their counsellors, and then decided. They established the tradition that the ruler of Prussia is his own Prime Minister, a doctrine to which Richelieu was strongly opposed. Capable rulers were followed by lamentably incapable ones. The personal misgovernment of Frederick William the Second and Frederick William the Third brought about Prussia's decline and downfall.

The Napoleonic War had ended in the triumph of Great Britain. At the peace England was richer and more powerful than she was when the war began. Her prestige in Europe was unlimited. All nations desired to copy her political institutions and her economic policy. The British Government was carried on by a Cabinet of jointly

responsible Ministers, presided over by a Prime Minister. It was, therefore, only natural that Prussia, in reorganising the country, created a Cabinet of jointly responsible Ministers presided over by a Prime Minister. However, there was a profound difference between the two Cabinets. The Prussian Prime Minister was to be the King's Manager. Bismarck stated on January 24, 1882:

In Prussia the King himself governs. The ministers may put on paper the orders which the King has given, but they do not govern. In the words of the Prussian Constitution, The King alone possesses the power of the executive.' Cabinet Ministers are not mentioned in that document.

The Prussian Ministers are the King's servants, not the country's.

The great characteristic of Bismarck was his clear critical faculty. He refused to believe that a form of government or an economic policy was best because it existed in England. He thought government by means of a jointly responsible Cabinet an evil, even if it were directed, or presided over, by the King who was able to order the Ministers whom he had appointed to do this or that, whether they approved or disapproved. He shared Richelieu's opinion that there is nothing more dangerous to a State than to entrust its administration and government to a number of men enjoying equal power and authority.' He considered that joint responsibility meant irresponsibility, friction, delay, inefficiency. Therefore, when he created in 1866 the North German Federation, the forerunner of the German Empire, he concentrated all power into the hands of a single principal Minister, giving him sole responsibility and making the other Ministers his subordinates. This organisation was later on taken over by the German Empire. The Empire has only a single responsible Minister, the Imperial Chancellor, and the subordination of his ministerial assistants has been emphasised in their very title. While Prussia has a number of Ministers and a Prime Minister the

German Empire has a Chancellor supported by a number of Secretaries of State."

As the German Liberals, who loudly advocated Free Trade and Cabinet Government as in England' for the North German Federation and the German Empire, were opposed to the absolute supremacy of a single Minister, Bismarck had to defend this form of government on numerous occasions. He stated, for instance, in the Reichstag of the North German Federation, on April 16, 1869 :

A strong, active, and progressive Government is required. Yet it is desired that for every decision several Ministers of equal authority should be responsible. It is believed that by their appointment all the evils of this world may be cured. A man who has been at the head of a Cabinet and who has been forced to form decisions on his own responsibility is not afraid to act, though he alone is responsible, but he shrinks from the necessity of convincing seven people that his measures are really the best. That task is more difficult than that of governing a State. All members of a Cabinet have an honest and firm conviction. The more honest and the more capable Ministers are, the more difficult they will find it to give way to any other man. Every one of the Ministers is surrounded by a number of pugnacious permanent officials, who also have convictions of their own. In any case it is difficult to convince a man. One persuades a man occasionally, or gains him over through courtesy, but one has to do this seven times. I am firmly convinced, and my opinion has been created by practical experience, that government by means of a Cabinet, by means of a board, is a constitutional error and mistake which every State should endeavour to get rid of as soon as possible. I would not lend a hand to impose that mistaken institution of a Cabinet upon the North German Federation. I believe that Prussia would make an immense step forward if she would adopt the principle of the North German Federation, according to which only a single Minister is responsible.

Responsibility is possible only in the case of a single individual who in his person can be held responsible for his action. If the same individual is member of a Cabinet, he