religious instruction, of subscription to any religious creed, and of attendance at any Sunday school or place of worship as conditions of their appointment; and it made provisions safeguarding their rights in cases of the transfer of voluntary schools contemplated earlier in the measure. Clauses 8 and 9 covered cases of failure in the case of schoolhouses held under charitable trusts to make the arrangements for voluntary transfer contemplated by Clause 2. A Commission of three persons was to be appointed by the Crown, to which any local education. authority might apply after January 1, 1907 (where no arrangement had been made for transfer of a schoolhouse), for a scheme "with respect to the mode in which effect is to be given to the trusts of the schoolhouse in the future." The Commission would have power to examine witnesses on oath and to compel their attendance; there was to be no appeal from its decisions, and its schemes were to be law. It was to act on the principles followed by the High Court in Chancery in dealing with charitable trusts; but it was directed, if the trustees proposed to continue the school (ie., free from the control of the education authority), to require a guarantee of effective continuance for at least five years; and it might provide for the transfer of the school to the local education authority, subject to such conditions as that body might agree to and the Commission think just, having regard to the building grants received in the past from the Government, to the special facilities offered for religious instruction, the cost of maintenance and repair, and such other circumstances as they might think proper to be considered. Clause 10 permitted the local education authority to use (without payment) a schoolhouse held under charitable trusts, if required, during the year 1908, the religious instruction going on as before; and Clause 11 forbade the closing of an existing voluntary school before 1908, except with the sanction of the Board of Education, and allowed the local authority, if the managers failed to continue it, to do so until January 1, 1909. Clause 12 provided for the additional Parliamentary grant of 1,000,000. annually, foreshadowed in Mr. Birrell's speech. Part II. (Clauses 14-24), which was subsequently separated and postponed till another session, dealt with educational endowments in such a way as to give very wide powers over them to the Board of Education. Part III. comprised "Miscellaneous Amendments." Clause 25 permitted boroughs (other than metropolitan) and urban districts with over 50,000 population to become secondary education authorities if they desired, after inquiry by, and under an order of, the Board of Education. Clause 26 provided that county councils might be required by any borough council (other than metropolitan), or urban or rural district, or parish council, to delegate to it any powers or duties connected with public elementary schools within its area, other than those relating to the appointment, dismissal, and salaries of teachers; the expenses entailed by such powers or duties being charge

able, in the event of such delegation, only on the area in question. Should the county council consider such delegation inexpedient for the educational interests of the county, it might refuse it, in which case an appeal might be made to the Board of Education, whose decision would be final. Clause 29 abolished the limitation of the higher education rate to 2d. in the £. Clause 35 conferred on local education authorities power to provide vacation schools, classes, and means of recreation, and (subject to the sanction of the Board of Education) to arrange for attention to the health and physical condition of elementary school children. Clause 36 abolished the teachers' register, established under an Act of 1899. Part IV. provided for the establishment by Order in Council of an Educational Council for Wales, consisting of members appointed by the councils of counties, county boroughs, and other boroughs and urban districts with a population of over 25,000. This Council was to have power to supply, and aid the supply of, education of all kinds in Wales, and (subject to such exceptions as the Crown might make) to take over the functions of the Board of Education, the educational work in agriculture and forestry of the Board of Agriculture, and of the Central Welsh Board of Intermediate Education, and to distribute all Parliamentary grants for Welsh education, university education excepted.

On examining the text of the Bill its opponents complained that in various ways it failed to carry out the promises of Mr. Birrell's speech, and the tide of opposition rapidly rose.

The motion for adjournment for Easter on April 11 gave the usual opportunity for the ventilation of various subjectsforeign, colonial, and domestic. Mr. Long (Dublin, S.) raised the question of the refusal of the Irish Executive to reappoint five temporary Assistant Commissioners under the Irish Land Act-a refusal which, outside the House, had been attributed to pro-Nationalist and anti-landlord bias. Mr. Long disclaimed such imputations, but declared that it had always been the custom to reappoint Assistant Commissioners at the close of their term, which was always short, and declared that the Executive had acted arbitrarily, unjustly, and cruelly. Mr. J. Redmond (Waterford) also blamed the Executive, but for a different reason. The Land Commission had always been packed with landlords, land agents, and retired officers; the Nationalist party had asked the present Chief Secretary to appoint more impartial persons, and he had reappointed all the old party hacks except five. After other speeches, Mr. Bryce (Aberdeen, S.), Chief Secretary for Ireland, justified the course taken, and said the five gentlemen in question had had reasonable notice, and some of the new candidates had had considerably better qualifications. He knew nothing about the politics or religion of the gentlemen selected. The duty of the Executive was to secure the services of the most capable men, and, if possible, of men free from bias.

Mr. Paul (Northampton) then complained of the appointment by the late Government of Mr. Milvain (late M.P. for Durham) to the office of Judge Advocate General, which he characterised as a scandalous job. He contended that the Judge Advocate General, whose function it is to revise the sentences of courts-martial, should, by the Constitution, be a member of that House and independent of the War Office. This view was supported by Mr. S. T. Evans (Glamorgan, Mid), but Mr. Haldane, after commending Mr. Milvain's performance of his duties, defended the change as based on a recommendation of the Esher Committee, and pointed out that the War Secretary had the supervision of the work of the Judge Advocate General, and was directly responsible for it to the House of Commons.

Sir Gilbert Parker (Gravesend), in the course of some remarks on land settlement in the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies, suggested that when responsible government was granted Crown lands might be reserved for settlement. Mr. Winston Churchill, however, replied that a multiplicity of reservations would cause resentment, but the Government were fully alive to the importance of the question. Any scheme proposed would be carefully considered, and the South Africa Committee would inquire whether arrangements could be made to prevent the possible dispossession of the new settlers.

Mr. Keir Hardie (Merthyr Tydfil), supported by Mr. Pickersgill (Bethnal Green, S. W.) and Mr. Brooke (Bow and Bromley), urged the Government to press the local committees formed under the Unemployed Workmen Act not to suspend their operations, and to bring forward its own promised Bill. The distress, Mr. Hardie stated, was still very severe. Mr. Burns in reply stated that the London Central Committee had found work for 4,500 applicants out of 34,071. He had done all he could to facilitate its work. Of the 62,000l. received, 12,000l. remained, which he would try to get disbursed in wages to recipients entitled to it. His department must not be held responsible for defects in the Act, which had only been working a few months, and the extent to which it was faulty could not yet be determined. An amending Act was impossible this session, but he was collecting data.

Mr. Gooch (Bath) then called attention to the subject of Macedonia. This had already been brought up in the House of Lords by Lord Monkswell on April 6, when Lord Newton had expressed some scepticism as to the prospects of the pending reforms, and Lord Fitzmaurice, Foreign Under-Secretary, had said that the success of the efforts of the Government must be conditioned by the degree in which they maintained co-operation with other Powers, especially Russia and Austria-Hungary. There had been some slight improvement, as the Financial Commission was working very hard, but progress could not be rapid. The British Government, however, were anxious to

G

lose no opportunity of pushing these reforms, and owing to the termination of other negotiations-obviously a reference to Algeciras-they would now have a freer hand. Sir Edward Grey endorsed Lord Fitzmaurice's declaration, and added that representations had been made to the Greek Government that the Greek bands which were doing so much harm in Macedonia should not be allowed to cross the frontier. After dealing with other points, he paid a tribute to Lord Lansdowne's work, and said that the Government would proceed on the same lines and keep in view the further reforms mentioned in the despatches of the ex-Foreign Secretary. Replying at the same time to Mr. Ramsay Macdonald (Leicester) with reference to the impending trial of Mr. Stannard (Foreign and Colonial History, Chap. VII.), he said that the Government cordially desired to see Belgium assume responsibility for the Congo State.

The House adjourned for the Easter recess until April 24.

At the close of this first period of its first session the position of the Government was generally satisfactory. Individual Ministers, notably Mr. Haldane, Sir Edward Grey, Mr. Morley, and Mr. Burns, had admittedly inspired confidence even in opponents; the Irish Nationalists had made some response to the Ministerial efforts at conciliation; and in the principal byeelection contest (that for the Eye Division of Suffolk) the diminution of the Liberal majority was attributable to local reasons. Profound dissatisfaction was still felt, however, in many quarters regarding South African affairs; the TurcoEgyptian dispute and some minor matters gave reason for anxiety; the Trade Disputes Bill was regarded, even by some Liberals, with very mixed feelings, and a storm was brewing over the Education Bill.

CHAPTER III.

The Education Bill: Episcopal Criticisms-Roman Catholic Attitude-Reception outside the Church-Plea for Religious Unity-Reassembling of Parliament -Second Reading of the Trade Disputes Bill-Women Suffrage: Disturbance in the Ladies' Gallery-Eighty Club Dinner: Mr. Morley on the Liberal Victory-Civil Service Estimates-Attack on the Salary of the Lord President of the Council-The Budget: Debate on the Budget Resolutions; the OverTaxation of Ireland-Plural Voting Bill-Justices of the Peace Bill-Mr. Balfour at the Primrose League-Ministers on Chinese Labour and on the Abolition of Light Dues- Results of the Yarmouth Election PetitionForeign Affairs: the Turco-Egyptian Frontier Crisis-The Education Bill: Attitude of the Various Religious Bodies-Second Reading Debate-Claims of the Labour Party-Disarmament-Mr. Chamberlain on the SituationSecond Reading of the Plural Voting Bill-Colonial Marriages Bill-Census of Production Bill-The Government and Social Questions-Their Attitude towards Irish Reform-Progress of the Finance Bill-The Labour Members and the Lords-Committee on the Education Bill, Clause 1-The Training of Naval Officers-Visit of German Civic Functionaries-Relations with Russia-Debate on Disarmament in the Lords-Empire Day: Mr. Chamberlain and Lord Milner at the Hotel Cecil-Debates in the Lords: Local Taxation; Cotton Growing; Chinese Customs-The Commons and the Education Bill, Clause 1-The Controversy Outside-Mr. Austen Chamberlain on the Finance Bill-Debate on the Unemployed-Mr. Morley on the Opium Trade-Whitsuntide Adjournment.

THE brief Easter recess saw the growth of a vigorous agitation against the Education Bill of the Government. In Church circles and among the Roman Catholics the feeling against its provisions grew more intense as their possible consequences were apprehended. The Bishop of London, in a circular-letter to the rural deans of his diocese, complained bitterly that the property of Churchmen, placed by them under strictly educational trusts for the benefit of the State, was to be taken away, and the object for which their schools had been built entirely set at naught. The facilities offered for denominational education he regarded as quite unsatisfactory, and the provisionswhich rested with the local authority-for simple Bible teaching as likely to result in a merely ethical treatment of Biblical doctrine, by teachers whose fitness to teach religion was wholly untested. He announced that a mass meeting would be held in the Albert Hall on Friday evening, May 11, and asked the rural deans to assist in its organisation. Other meetings, he thought, should follow throughout London to explain to parents and Churchmen the great danger threatening the children.

The Bishop of Manchester, in a letter to the clergy and laity of his diocese published on April 19, went even further, and showed a disposition to expect the worst. The Bill, he said, put an end to the possibility of any elementary schools other than those under State control, inasmuch as the Church schools could only abandon rate aid by giving an absolutely impossible guarantee of continuance of five years. It was a thinly veiled measure of secularisation, inasmuch as the local authority need not permit religious instruction, the children. need not attend it, and the teachers need not give it, or know