structure which shall enable them to enjoy to the full all the order and all the strength which is conferred upon our brother nations by our Colonial system. While dwelling on the pro

gressive zeal and affection of the Colonies the Prime Minister deprecated any premature efforts to hurry on the Federation of the Empire, which might produce a reaction of sentiment.

At about the same period the Liberal League issued a manifesto expounding its attitude towards Imperial and domestic questions, on the lines of the recent speeches of its principal founders. In a prefatory note to a reprint of his Liverpool and Glasgow speeches, to be issued by the League, its president, Lord Rosebery, defended himself against the charge of "something like apostasy" with regard to Home Rule. In effect he said that it was not he but the question which had changed. "This, then," he concluded, "is the point-that the conditions of the problem of Irish government have fundamentally changed; that it must be viewed in a new aspect and approached in a new spirit. Equality of treatment, so far as possible, throughout these islands, which constitute the heart of our Empire, should be the aim that statesmen should have in view. That is a policy of justice and of true union, a policy in accordance with the best Liberal traditions. But it is a policy which must be pursued gradually and tentatively if it is to receive the necessary support of the nation at large."

The Parliamentary campaign on the Budget was renewed on May 12, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer moved the second reading of the Finance Bill. The spirit with which the Opposition returned to the fray was stimulated by the result announced on May 10 of the bye-election at Bury, at which Mr. G. Toulmin (L.), who had been beaten by a majority of 849 by Mr. Kenyon (C.) in 1900, had succeeded in securing the seat by a majority of 414 over Mr. H. Lawson. That gentleman had joined the Unionist ranks rather too recently to make the best of candidates; but it was generally understood that the election had turned largely on the Corn Duty, the denunciations of which by Mr. Toulmin and his supporters had been driven home by a local rise in the price of bread. In moving the second reading of the Finance Bill, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that, yielding to the representations made to him by bankers and others, he had decided not to proceed further with his proposal to increase by 1d. the stamp duty on cheques. He was not prepared to state on that occasion what proposal he should make in substitution for the dropped duty.

Sir W. Harcourt moved as an amendment: "That this House declines to impose Customs duties upon grain, flour, and other articles of the first necessity for the food of the people." It was absurd, he said, to argue that the tax would not raise the price of bread, for it had been raised already at the expense of the consumer. He blamed the Government for giving doles

to favoured classes. But for that policy it would not have become necessary to tax the food of the poor. Sir M. HicksBeach admitted that there had been a rise in the price of corn in the last few weeks, but there was always a rise when stocks were low in the spring of the year. The price of wheat was the same as it was in March, 1901, and the price of flour was almost the same as it was at that time. As to the rise in the price of bread it was not general. There had been no general rise in price in London; in nineteen other large cities there had been no rise at all, and in nine others there had been a rise of a halfpenny on the quartern loaf. In one large city there had actually been a drop in the price. Out of 284 co-operative societies only thirty-two had raised the price by a halfpenny. Earl Percy (Kensington, S.) supported the Bill in an eloquent speech, urging in effect that the need for self-sacrifice on behalf of the State required to be brought home to every member of the State. Sir H. Fowler (Wolverhampton, E.) warned the House that in accepting the proposal to tax corn it might "get into the rapids." On the Ministerial side Sir E. Vincent (Exeter) urged the Government to withdraw the tax, which he believed to be foolish and retrograde. Mr. Churchill (Oldham), however, while he deprecated the growth of the national expenditure, which rendered increased taxation necessary. justified the corn tax as an honest and brave act of policy. At the end of the debate Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman (Stirling District) observed that avowed Protectionists had taken little part in it. It looked as if a hint had been given them to hold their tongues. If the tax was not protective it paved the way to protection; and Sir Wilfrid Laurier was believed to be expecting a differentiation in favour of Canadian wheat. Mr. Balfour declared that Sir W. Laurier's visit to this country had nothing to do with the tax, directly or indirectly. He contended that if, in carrying out what was undoubtedly the policy of the people at large, the Government had laid the whole burden of its cost upon a small and relatively helpless minority, they would indeed have been open to the charge of cowardice and meanness levelled against them by the Opposition. Sir W. Harcourt's amendment against the corn duty was rejected by 296 votes to 188.

In the adjourned debate (May 14) on the main question, Mr. E. Robertson (Dundee) called upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ask the Colonies to make their due contribution to the expenditure of the Empire. He also maintained that a large amount of revenue might reasonably be obtained from an increase in the duties on liquor licences. In his reply on the debate, the Chancellor of the Exchequer took occasion to say that he should be very glad if the Colonies would consent to contribute to the expenditure on Imperial defences, and reminded the House that this question was to be considered at the coming conference with the Colonial Premiers. As to the suggested

increase of the licence duties, he recognised that they might possibly be increased with advantage so far as the larger publichouses were concerned, but held that any additional revenue obtainable in this way ought to go in aid of local taxation. In any case the question could not be dealt with except after full inquiry. The Bill was read a second time by 224 to 134.

In resisting an amendment to the second reading of the Loan Bill, Sir M. Hicks-Beach said that he still anticipated that it would be possible to earmark certain sources of revenue in the new Colonies, and to apply them from time to time to the service of a considerable portion of the debt incurred by reason of the war. Out of the proceeds of the present loan, amounting to 29,920,000l. a sum of 11,136,000l. would probably be available for the relief of the Exchequer in the "lean" quarters, that was to say, the first three-quarters of the financial year. What was not wanted for other purposes would be applied to the redemption of the floating debt. In obtaining 93 per cent. on a fresh loan of 32,000,000l. he did not consider that he had made a bad bargain for the country. The amendment was negatived by 232 to 109, and the second reading of the Loan Bill carried by 224 to 102.

It may be mentioned here that earlier in the same sitting Lord Charles Beresford (Woolwich) made it clear, in a discussion for which space cannot be found here, that he himself had been responsible for the publication of a letter of his to Mr. Arnold White in 1901 (see ANNUAL REGISTER for that year, p. 173), expressing anxiety concerning the condition of the Mediterranean Fleet, of which he was then second in command.

At the evening sitting of May 14 Mr. Beaumont (Hexham, Northumberland) moved a resolution declaring "that legislation was necessary to prevent workmen being placed by Judge-made law in a position inferior to that intended by Parliament in 1875." By the judgment in the Taff Vale case, he pointed out, it had virtually been laid down that a union could be sued in its corporate capacity, and its funds made attachable, for peaceful picketing. This seemed to be a construction of the law which was not intended by the Act of 1875. In seconding the motion, Mr. Bell (Derby) said that if trade unions were liable to be sued, they ought also to have the right to sue. He contended generally that the law of conspiracy was unduly favourable to masters and harsh as against men. Mr. Renshaw (Renfrew, W.) moved as an amendment "that the House declined to commit itself to fresh legislation on the subject of trade disputes until it was shown that the existing law did not sufficiently protect workmen in the exercise of their lawful rights." Sir R. Reid (Dumfries District) pointed out that since it had been decided that unions could be sued, all their compassionate funds might have to be spent in paying damages for breaches of the law committed by individuals. The Attorney-General maintained that the law of conspiracy dealt impartially with employers and

K

employed. All that the Lords had decided in the Taff Vale case was that trade unions were subject to the ordinary law of the land, and responsible, like other employers, for the acts of their officials within the scope of the officials' duties. He could not allow that such a decision inflicted any special hardship upon trade unions, and he saw no reason for giving them privileges which were not shared by all classes of the community. Mr. Haldane (Haddingtonshire) complained that the law, especially in regard to picketing, was in a state of confusion, due to the conflicting interpretations of the judges, and he appealed to the Government to appoint a small commission for the codification of the law of conspiracy so that plain men might understand it. Mr. Asquith (Fife, E.) was also of opinion that the law in regard to the liability of trade union funds, picketing, and conspiracy ought to be inquired into with a view to clear and definite legislation. Mr. Ritchie (Croydon), Home Secretary, on the part of the Government, declined to accept this suggestion, adding, however, that if it should become apparent in the final trial of any case in the House of Lords that legislation was desirable on any given point, they would be ready to take the matter up. After a few words from Sir H. CampbellBannerman, who regretted the non possumus attitude of the Government, Mr. Robson (Shields, S.) moved the closure, which was carried by 199 to 177. Mr. Renshaw's amendment was then carried by 203 to 174, but on its being put as a substantive motion the adjournment of the debate was moved, and, it being midnight, the debate stood adjourned accordingly. The minority in the second division consisted of Liberals, Nationalists, and twelve Unionists-including one member of the Government, Mr. Hayes Fisher (Fulham).

On May 15 Mr. Balfour made a statement as to the measures of relief adopted for the sufferers from the recent appalling disasters in the West Indies, which are described in later chapters of this volume. After referring to the St. Vincent Relief Fund opened at the Mansion House, Mr. Balfour said that Canada, Jamaica, the neighbouring West Indian Islands and Mauritius had promised help in money or kind, and he did not doubt that other Colonies would be equally generous. In addition, the Governor of the Windward Islands had been authorised to spend whatever was necessary. Moreover, the Government were prepared, without naming any definite sum, to supplement contributions from other sources to such extent as might be thought requisite, and to augment the West Indies deficit grant annually voted by the House. The United States had, in the most sympathetic manner, expressed their desire to share in the work of aid and rescue, and the Governor of the Windward Islands had been consulted as to the manner in which that generous offer could best be accepted. With regard to Martinique, Lord Lansdowne had telegraphed on the 12th inst. to our Ambassador at Paris, offering the services of medical officers

as well as supplies and medical comforts from the neighbouring British possessions; and the offer of provisions and medical comforts had been gratefully accepted.

After a brief and desultory discussion the House of Commons rose on May 16 for the Whitsuntide Recess, the Peers, who had had almost no occupation since Easter, having dispersed a day or two earlier.

CHAPTER IV.

National Liberal Federation Meetings: Resolutions as to Corn Duty, Education, and Home Rule-Lord Rosebery on Education Bill-Mr. Chamberlain at Birmingham, on Education Bill and inter-Imperial Commercial Relations— Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman at Darlington-Co-operative Congress-Education Estimates in Commons-Tributes to Lord Pauncefote-Debates on Naval Construction and Factory Law Administration-Peace in South Africa: Universal Joy; Friendly Public Feeling towards the Boers; King's Message; Announcements in Parliament-Education Bill in Committee, and Opinions Outside Loan Bill Read a Third Time in Commons: Chancellor of the Exchequer's Revised Budget Figures-Votes of Thanks to Troops, and Grant to Lord Kitchener-Speeches by Mr. Morley and Lord Strathcona-Finance Bill Debates in Committee-Arrest of "Colonel" Lynch-Finance Bill Debates and Divisions in Committee, on Report, and on Third Reading in Commons: Lord Goschen's Speech in Lords-The Education Bill; Nonconformist Deputation to Mr. Balfour; Committee Resumed; Enlarged Grants to Elementary Schools; Amendments accepted on Secondary Clauses -Discussion on Imperial Defence - Preparations for the Coronation-The King's Illness, Convalescence and Recovery; Public Feeling ThereonCoronation Honours-Licensing and Midwives Bills carried through Parliament The Cape Constitution Question-Lord Kitchener's Return-Lord Salisbury's Retirement-Mr. Balfour Prime Minister-Reconstruction of Ministry-Education Bill Committee Resumed; Option Clause Struck Out; Prolonged Conflict on Voluntary Schools Management Clause; Clause Carried-Disorders at Sandhurst-Foreign Affairs in Both Houses-Irish Debate in Commons-Mr. Chamberlain on South African Settlement-Mr. Balfour on Imperial Defence.

THE approach of Whitsuntide had, as usual, been the signal for a large number of political and other gatherings in the country. On May 13 and 14 the National Liberal Federation held its meetings at Bristol, when, after twelve years' service, for which he was warmly thanked, Dr. Spence Watson retired from the presidency, and was succeeded by Mr. A. Birrell, M.P. The Federation naturally regarded the Bury election as affording satisfactory evidence of the growing dissatisfaction of the country with the Government, especially in connection with the corn duty, against which it passed a resolution of strenuous protest. The assembled delegates were also congratulated by Mr. Arthur Acland, whose appearance was very cordially welcomed, on the united front which the Liberal party presented in regard to the Education Bill, and at his instance that measure was denounced in a long resolution. The Federation expressed its "unabated confidence" in Lord Spencer and Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman, as the chosen leaders of the party in Parliament, and passed, unanimously, a resolution in favour of devolving upon a representative body in Ireland the power of

66