government by party. The chairmen of the unrelated committees which prepare legislation are all members of the dominant party organisation; and it might be expected that in them a chief of the executive would find agents to cooperate in carrying through the policies he recommended. But the Democratic floor-leader in the House of Representatives and the chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs both opposed conscription. The law was sponsored by a Republican; and in several other important cases, committee chairmen, members of the President's party, have refused to support the measures proposed by the Administration. Of equal importance is the fact that, in these cases, the chairmen of the House and Senate Committees do not agree with each other; not only is the legislature, so far as its leaders are concerned, out of harmony with the executive, but the two Houses are out of harmony with each other. No wonder it can be said that the measures in Congress have no traceable kinship; and the astounding thing is that Congress accedes at all, not that it fails to grant to the fullest degree what the President demands.

Under Mr Wilson the leadership has probably been more successful than it would have been under a chief magistrate not holding his theories and without experience acquired in dealing with legislation before the entrance of the United States into the war; yet that this extra-constitutional guidance leaves something to be desired may be seen from the delays on important measures. If one thinks that Congress has done well since April 1917-and, according to American standards, it has done wonders—he should examine the record of the British Parliament, which, upon the declaration of war, passed thirty-seven important statutes in seventeen working days. The bill declaring a moratorium, for example, was rushed through all its stages and received the Royal Assent in one day; and many other measures were adopted with practically no debate.

Compared with the record of Parliament, what Congress has done, even in a far longer period, seems inadequate. Yet Congress has passed legislation which in importance, quickness of decision, and absence of partisan politics, has been without parallel in American history. During the first forty-five days of the special

session, four Appropriation Acts from the previous session, a war resolution, the bond issue, a measure creating an army and embodying the principle of universal service, stupendous war appropriations, and a beginning on a drastic tax measure and the Omnibus Espionage Lawthese constituted a remarkable record. But a month was required for the passage of the Selective Draft Act; there was interminable wrangling over certain nonessential features of the measure punishing espionage; the delays on the Food Control Bill were, as Congressman Lever said, a 'public scandal'; and, when the regular December session began, Congress spent weeks in debating the Sedition Law and the measure giving the President the right to reorganise departments in order to make administration more efficient. Mr Wilson could do no more than plead with Congress, attempt to mobilise public opinion, and use what personal influence he had with certain representatives and senators, some of whom were likely to desire future favours from his hands.

Congress has, however, a responsibility which does not confront Parliament and which is in a measure responsible for legislative delays in the United States. No Administration in American history has ever prepared so many laws as has Mr Wilson's; and his Cabinet, I venture to say, has rued more than once the absence of any expert legislative drafting assistance. In England, Ministerial initiative makes for a higher standard of legislation; the Government appears practically as an advocate, while the House of Commous is the judge; and the petty quibbling over details which marks Congressional procedure is unknown. Congress, nevertheless, has had a real duty to perform in perfecting poorlydrafted laws presented to it by Cabinet officials, and in refusing to sanction provisions that seemed unwise. This duty is important, because the Executive is not vested by the Constitution with initiating powers and has had no expert, long-continued training in this function. It had never been attempted on an extensive scale until Mr Wilson took office, and substituted for legislation fathered by a score or two of unrelated Congressional committees legislation prepared by untrained members of the Cabinet who are responsible to no one except the President.

both with the Roman Catholic and Mahommedan inhabitants of the new countries.

But we are concerned at present with the Orthodox Church. The bulk of the Jugo-Slavs are and always have been orthodox; and it must be remembered that in the times of Serbian greatness, the empire of Stephen Dushan had become a separate patriarchate. It is proposed, we believe, to revive this patriarchate, and to unite all the various branches of the Serbian Church in one organised body. Our hopes for Serbia do not stop here. The exigencies of the war and the sufferings of the people have produced a situation which may have far-reaching influence. Some thousands of Serbians have for the last three years been educated in this country. The Serbian Theological Seminary has been transferred to England and has occupied the buildings of the Anglican Theological College at Cuddesdon. Serbian children are being educated in English schools, and there are Serbian students at Oxford and Cambridge; while those theological students who have finished their course at the Cuddesdon Theological Seminary have passed on to Oxford, where they are attending lectures given there by the Faculty of Theology, and are working for the degree of Bachelor of Letters. Throughout the war the services of the Serbian Church have been regularly carried on in St John's College Chapel. A large number of Serbians will go back to their own country, it may be hoped, full of admiration for England and of what England has done for them, well acquainted with the English secular and religious life, and anxious to resuscitate their country and reform their Church.

But it is in the Greek-speaking portion of the Orthodox world that the reform movement has become most prominent and has already begun to be effective. Something has been done; and far-reaching proposals for a further advance are in contemplation. It will be remembered that, at the time of the political disturbances which preceded the deposition of King Constantine, the then Metropolitan of Athens played a not very edifying part. A public service was held in the Cathedral at Athens at which M. Venizelos and all his followers were publicly cursed; and this display of political and religious animosity was accompanied by the revival of ceremonies

more befitting a pagan community than a Christian Church. After the political revolution had taken place and M. Venizelos had returned to power, it was not unnatural that this somewhat reactionary prelate should have been deposed; and in his place an appointment of a remarkable character was made.

Meletios Metaxakis was better known, until last March, among the unredeemed Greeks than among the Greeks of the Kingdom. He was Chief Secretary of the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, and is considered in Greek Church circles to have played a great part in reviving the life and culture of that diminished fragment of the Greek Orthodox communion. He revived the patriarchal printing-press; he breathed new life into the famous theological college of the Cross; he founded numerous Greek elementary schools throughout Palestine; and he freed the finances of the Church of Mount Zion from the claws of Armenian and Jewish usurers.' To him was due also the foundation of the important theological periodical Nea Sion.' Unfortunately, we are told, German and Russian political intrigues interfered with the good work that was being done, and Meletios was forced to retire. He was then elected Metropolitan of Kition in the autocephalous Church of Cyprus. That Church had been torn asunder for over ten years by a fierce wrangle about the election of the Metropolitan of the Island; and Meletios arrived at a difficult moment. According to all accounts, he succeeded in introducing a new spirit of conciliation and progress, by his blameless moral life, his administrative ability, and his enthusiasm. His interests were not confined to purely ecclesiastical matters, and he always showed great zeal in improving the education of the clergy and in social and political reforms. In his paper the 'Ecclesiastical Herald' he continuously set forth his views, apparently with marked success. He was also an unwearied builder and renovator of churches, and showed financial ability in ridding them of their debts.

He took his oath of allegiance to the Kingdom of Greece the day that he was enthroned as Metropolitan of Athens; and in a sermon preached on the occasion he outlined a far-reaching scheme of reform. This scheme, which he has already begun to carry out, includes the

better organisation of the Church. So early as 1914, a great step was made towards a satisfactory arrangement of ecclesiastical affairs by the establishment of a mixed commission of clergy and laity for revising and collating ecclesiastical regulations. The conclusions they reached were published under the title of A Draft Constitution for the Orthodox Church of Greece.' By this draft the members of the Synod which administers the Greek Church were increased from six to twelve; the dioceses were re-modelled and reduced from seventy-four to fortysix; the powers of the royal commissioner to the Synod were defined, so as to obviate friction; and various other reforms were taken in hand. Many hopes were also aroused by the prospect of a General Synod of all Greek dioceses, which was to have followed; but the outbreak of the European War interrupted the work of reform and diverted public attention.

More important is the work which has been, or is being, done with regard to the parochial clergy. Until recently the position of the parochial clergy of Greece was deplorable; they were without regular salary and depended for subsistence on scanty perquisites. Endowed with a poor stock of theological knowledge and a good many superstitions, the parson shared his time between his plough and a mechanical performance of the Church's rites. For some time past serious efforts have been made to improve his lot, and have already given solid results. Thirty years ago, bishops with a degree could be counted on the fingers of the hand; to-day an imperfectly educated prelate is hardly to be found. In a short time it may be possible to say the same of the parish priest. It is no longer the case that there are too many ordinations. A fund for ecclesiastics established in 1910 receives steadily increasing contributions, and has done a good deal towards securing a regular salary for the parochial clergy. Moreover, a sort of Ecclesiastical Commission has been appointed, which uses for general Church purposes the surplus revenues of the monasteries.

Much has been, and is being, done for the education of the clergy. The Theological Seminaries have been converted into ecclesiastical educational training-schools, modelled on the school which the present Metropolitan