lost. And the men who had come to the top in the old Reichstag days were not such as to compensate for want of power in the machine. The new President, Ebert, the saddler of Heidelberg, had effaced himself during the storm of the revolution and has apparently been eliminated altogether by his new responsibility.

The Premier, Scheidemann, on the other hand, showed himself to be an able and active politician who could speak well on any subject and sing many songs without book. A clever man, but not the compelling personality to control the dynamic forces of Socialism or to coerce the static forces of Separatism.

His second in command in the difficult task of making a working Constitution was Preuss, the Minister of the Interior, a Jew, a jurist, and an adjuster. A man with great finesse, but little force. The questions of the constitutional future of Prussia, of the South German States, of the North-Western Republics, of the Rhine province, and of German-Austria, treated by adjustment along a line of least resistance, seemed likely to be interminable in their intricacies. Dr. Preuss, clever as he was, soon got into a terrible tangle trying to untie knots that would have been cut by the revolution.

The post third in importance, Foreign Affairs, a non-party appointment, was retained by Count Brockdorff-Rantzau—no longer "Dr. Rantzau"—since Counts, as he told the Assembly, can be democratic. He had both character and capacity, and if he achieved no success either at Weimar or Versailles he behaved with dignity under most distressing conditions.

Of the remaining Ministers Landsberg at Justice, a red Jew from the province of Posen, who was one of the Provisional Government and previously a People's Commissary, had a singular and somewhat sinister reputation. He was held responsible by those who knew for the policy of breaking with the Poles and with Spartacus.

Bauer at Labour was a trade union politician, a bourgeois turned bureaucrat. He is now Premier in the Government that signed the peace.

Noske at Home Defence (not "War," mark you, Germany has had enough of war), is the well-known Prussian Minister, the "Saviour of Society," the Bolsheviktonos.

Wissel at National Economy had a post with possibilities, but nothing so much became him in it as the leaving of it—when he found nothing could be done.

These were all Social-Democrats and constituted such driving force as that Government had. The inner Cabinet consisted of Landsberg, Noske, and Scheidemann—brain, backbone, and jaw. Heart it had none.

The new Government was, then, a Coalition between pre-revolution politicians, and its programme had to be a compromise between pre-revolution policies. It was only a Government to tide over a crisis and give the country time to recover itself. But it was at least composed of experienced parliamentarians who kept up appearances and did their best to reconstruct with pen and ink the State that Bismarck had wrought with blood and iron.

The debate that followed the announcement of the new Government showed clearly enough that the three parties of which the Government was composed, though they parliamentarily formed a bloc and socially represented the Burgerstand, yet politically had a different basis and a divergent bias. Red, white, and black make a very effective national colour, but whether red Socialism, a colourless Liberalism, and black Clericalism can make up an effective Cabinet seemed more than dubious.

Scheidemann, as Premier, opened the debate with a fighting speech for Social-Democracy. He threw the responsibility for the misfortunes abroad on the Right, the responsibility for misunderstandings at home on the Left, and proclaimed that the Government would work methodically at realising the results of the revolution.

He was followed for the Centrum by the venerable Gröber, who preached a sermon to the effect that all Power was from on High, that the revolution came very much from below, and consequently the only things left of any importance were State rights, rights of property, and the Church of Rome.

Thereafter came Dr. Naumann, for the Democrats, with an eloquent funeral oration, in which he buried the monarchy, wept over the lost colonies and provinces, and prayed that all of Germany that was left might live in unity.

Here we have the three points of view—the Radical reconstructionist, the Clerical reactionary, and the Liberal rhetorical—red, black, and white.

And the Government's programme presented the same parti-coloured patchwork. In foreign policy: an early peace on Wilsonian principles, restoration of the colonies and prisoners, equal participation in a League of Nations with mutual disarmament, compulsory arbitration and no secret diplomacy. In internal policy: democratic administration, ditto education and army, economic reconstruction, rationing, public control of monopolies, especially mines and power, right of association and wage boards, public health, rights for civil servants, agricultural development and settlement preferably on reclaimed land, taxation of war profits, income-tax, death duties graduated but not confiscatory, freedom of conscience, freedom of the Press, freedom of meeting—all sorts of freedom.

Obviously, there was nothing very red or revolutionary there, or rather the red was so cautiously peppered into the black and white that the net result was a colourless Liberalism. It was perhaps no less symbolic that the Assembly substituted the black, red and yellow of the Frankfort Liberalism of '48 as the new national colours. German Liberalism has always had a yellow streak in it.

The failure of Weimar is the failure of German Liberalism. German Liberalism always has failed Germany, and to this may be attributed the periodic catastrophes of Germany and the calamities they have brought upon Europe. German Liberalism fell an easy prey to French Imperialism in the Napoleonic epoch and to Prussian Imperialism in the Bismarckian epoch; and the one result of German Liberal movements has hitherto been to drive abroad the flower of the German "intelligentsia." The descendants of the "forty-niners" in England and America have been as valuable an element as were the Huguenots of France or the Flemings from the Netherlands, and they have joined heartily with us in overthrowing the despotism that exiled them. But if they had been a bit tougher and had fought their own fight out a half century ago they would have saved Europe and Germany the last five years. And the process is repeating itself. Weimar has failed, so far, more miserably than did Frankfort a half century ago. The failure of Frankfort was the failure of political inexperience—that of Weimar has been the failure of political impotence. Frankfort was over-confident in this power of popular idealism. It thought a revolution for right and reason could be made by righteousness and reasoning. Weimar was too cynical to think that the ideals of the November revolution could ever be a power at all in the Europe of the Paris Conference and of the Russian campaigns. Frankfort failed because its Liberalism was too young. Weimar is failing because its Liberalism is too old.

German Liberalism and its institution parliamentary party government failed in the first place because they could not come to power before their day was already past. In the second place they failed because when their ideals did get realised they did so without opposition and consequently on too theoretic lines. The German system of proportional representation for example is the most accurately and equitably representative of all electoral systems. But it did not provide the one thing Germany wanted, a powerful and