In spite, however, of some glaring instances where such appointments have led to disaster or serious loss, the result has, on the whole, been not so bad as might have been expected.  Those who have won their way in the open conflicts in Parliament and the country have been men who have played a fair game according to the rules.  Their personal characters have stood high.  Dishonourable action has been rare, almost unknown.  As a rule, the abilities of those called to the Front Bench have probably been rather above the average among the country gentlemen, lawyers and men of business who have been associated with them; a few have shown conspicuous ability; most by experience of affairs soon gain a special aptitude in dealing with them.  Anyhow the open recognition of party claims publicly recognised is infinitely better, as Burke urged, and history from his day to ours proves, than backstairs influence or merely personal ties, and still more than using official position as a tribute to wealth, and the advantages which wealth can confer on those who do it homage.  It is the system which is to blame, not the men to be condemned.  Those who denounce the members of a Government most fiercely would be only too happy to accept an invitation to meet them at dinner.  Ask the most eloquent writer of philippics who has known, say a score of Ministers on both sides personally, and who is reasonably tolerant, modest and candid, which of them does he believe really to be either a knave or a fool; he will answer, “None, though I am not quite sure about X.”  We all have our ineradicable antipathies.  Fortunately there is something forensic about English political contests.  The astonished client sees the advocates who have been hottest in conflict walking away arm in arm.  We must make allowance for the requirements of the forum, and at the same time be thankful that while there may be something rotten in the state of politics, those who become prominent in political life are honourable men.  To some it may seem half an insult to state the fact, but the kind of talk both public and private too frequently heard to-day makes it necessary to insist upon it.  Even Members of Parliament on the opposite side are as a rule quite respectable citizens.  To maintaining a correct attitude of antagonism too close knowledge of opponents may sometimes be a hindrance, and it was not without reason that one engaged in a violent controversy on being told that if he knew Y., his antagonist, he would be sure to like him, replied, “That is the reason why I have always refused an introduction to him.”

Lastly, when the right men have been selected, they should be supported, their acts and proposals, of course, criticised if necessary, but not made the subject of perpetual and irritating nagging, or dull refusal to understand and appreciate what they are doing and aiming at.  They may not expect gratitude.  Most people learn in the course of life that recognition given and gratitude shown for any work done varies