The idea is not novel, but it is certainly statesmanlike.  The general principle which Lord Milner advocates will probably commend itself to thousands of his countrymen, and most of all to those whose education and experience are a warrant for the value of their political opinions.  But how far is the scheme practicable?  The answer to this question is that there is one essential preliminary condition necessary to bring it within the domain of practical politics; that condition is that a sufficient number of leading politicians should be thoroughly imbued with the virtue of compromise.  They must erase the word “thorough” from their political vocabulary.  Each must recognise that whilst, to use Lord Milner’s expression, he himself holds firmly to a “creed” on some special question, he will have to co-operate with others who hold with equally sincere conviction to a more or less antagonistic creed, and that this co-operation cannot be secured by mere assertion and still less by vituperation, but only by calm discussion and mutual concessions.  Marie Antoinette, who was very courageous and very unwise, said during the most acute crisis of the Revolution, “Better to die than allow ourselves to be saved by Lafayette and the Constitutionalists.”  That is an example of the party spirit in extremis, and when it is adopted it is that spirit which causes the shipwreck of many a scheme which might, with more moderation and conciliation, be brought safely into port.  In order to carry out Lord Milner’s plan any such spirit must be wholly cast aside.  Politicians—­and none more than many of those with whom Lord Milner is associated—­must act on the principle which Shakespeare puts into the mouth of Henry V.: 

    There is some soul of goodness in things evil
    Would men observingly distil it out.

They must be prepared to recognise that, whatever be their personal convictions, there may be some “soul of goodness” in views diametrically opposed to their own, and, moreover, they must not be scared by what Emerson called that “hobgoblin of little minds”—­the charge of inconsistency.

It cannot be said that just at present the omens are very favourable in the direction of indicating any widespread prevalence amongst active politicians of the spirit of compromise.  The reception given to Lord Curzon’s very reasonable proposal that army affairs should be treated as a non-party question is apparently scouted by Radical politicians.  Neither does there appear to be the least disposition to accept the statesmanlike suggestion that in order to avoid the risk of civil war in Ulster, with its almost inevitable consequence, viz. that the loyalty of the army will be strained to the utmost, the Home Rule Bill should not be submitted to the King for his assent until after another general election.  On the other hand, the “Die-hard” spirit, which led to the disastrous rejection of the Budget of 1909, and was with difficulty prevented from rejecting