Mr. Asquith's speech was more conciliatory than those of his colleagues. He offered to consider any extensions in the facilities for denominational teaching accompanying the transfer of Anglican schools if they were not inconsistent with the fundamental principles of the Bill. Contracting out was the only way of escape for the Roman Catholic Schools, and he inferred from the speeches of Mr. Redmond and Mr. Dillon that their objection concerned not principles, but terms and conditions. That was a matter for negotiation and consideration, and the Government would listen to any suggestion, from any quarter, that gave hopes of a settlement. He said emphatically that the maintenance of an irreducible and always rising standard of educational efficiency could not be sacrificed to any religious differences; and he earnestly appealed to the House to facilitate agreement. Grave indeed would be the responsibility of any man who for purely political reasons should stand in the way of an agreement.

This speech was received with marked favour by the Ministerialists, and the motion for rejection of the Bill was negatived by 370 votes to 205. Sixty-four Nationalists, three Liberals, and a few Labour members voted with the Opposition.

This debate had been delayed for a short time by the resolution praying the King to direct the erection in Westminster Abbey, at the public expense, of a monument in memory of the late Premier. When the order was called, every one uncovered. Mr. Asquith, in a brief and very impressive speech, reminded the House that there were many precedents for the proposal, which had been adopted in the cases of Sir Robert Peel, Lord Palmerston, the Earl of Beaconsfield, and the Marquess of Salisbury. They proposed to-day, he believed with the heartfelt concurrence of the whole people, to add Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman's name to that illustrious roll. These names might cause us to reflect from what an amplitude of resources and with what an infinite diversity of gifts our country was served. Each of them had done what in them lay to make their country greater and happier; that was their title to perpetual commemoration in the Abbey consecrated to our immortal dead, a title worthily won by the leader whom the House had lost.

Mr. Balfour heartily assented to the recommendations of the Government, though he said parenthetically that he hoped this would be the last time the country would be asked to vote public money for a monument in Westminster Abbey. It was well that the late Prime Minister should have among his predecessors an honoured place. In him the House had lost a man of high character and great talents, for forty years a member, who had led both the Opposition and the House and had practically died in office. Of no other British Prime Minister could those four statements be made. He rejoiced that there was to be a permanent memorial in that great com

pany to remind us how transitory are the controversies that divide politicians and how permanent the gratitude owed to those who have done their country service.

Mr. John Redmond added that the Nationalist members had generally held aloof from ceremonial proceedings in the House. They were not there willingly; they had come to protest against a system of which it was the symbol and instrument. But they had made an exception when Mr. Gladstone died, and they made an exception now. The late Prime Minister did his best for Ireland, and was a friend of her material advancement and her national freedom. Ireland was the poorest and most oppressively taxed of the three kingdoms, but no Irishman would begrudge his mite in this cause. It would always be for him a precious memory that he had that day been able to lay "this little wreath of shamrocks" on his grave. on his grave. Sir A. Thomas (Glamorganshire, E.) expressed the feelings of the Welsh members, and the resolution was carried unanimously.

The same day saw another important development in the Ministerial programme. Though the militant women suffragists had repelled many observers by their tactics, they had not alienated the most convinced believers in the justice of their demands; and on Wednesday, May 20, a deputation of sixty Liberal members waited on the Prime Minister to ask for further facilities for the discussion of Mr. Stanger's Bill, or a promise that the Government would, before the end of the current Parliament, deal with the question themselves or let others do so. In reply Mr. Asquith pleaded want of time; but he announced that before the dissolution of the current Parliament the Government intended to introduce a comprehensive Reform Bill dealing with the grosser anomalies of the existing franchise, including the length of the residence necessary for qualification as an elector, and plural voting. The change desired by the deputation could be introduced as an amendment and the Government would leave the decision to the House, provided always that the change was on democratic lines, and was supported by the overwhelming majority of women as well

as men.

On the evening of this declaration Mr. Asquith was the guest of the Reform Club. Taking as his text the time-honoured Liberal motto, he said that the peace assured by the AngloFrench and Anglo-Russian understandings would lead to retrenchment; reform now meant more than improvement of the political machinery, but this must be kept up-to-date and, unless the current Parliament were cut short by some unforeseen catastrophe, he believed that they would remove the abuses which now made it an inadequate and unworthy exponent of popular opinion. The third year was said to be the most critical in the life of a Parliament; that depended on how it was used. He thought there was a reaction in favour of the Licensing Bill, and the most notable feature of the Education Bill

debate that day had been the general disposition to arrive at a compromise. In the bye-elections there had been some Liberal wastage, but in none of them had Tariff Reform been the dominant issue. After illustrating the effect of Free-Trade finance on the National Debt, he remarked that the proposed "broadening of the basis of taxation" was illustrated by the demand for a 40s. duty on hops-a duty amounting to 90 per cent. of the value of the raw material of a particularly clamorous industry. Free-Trade finance, moreover, had enabled them to take off more than half the oppressive sugar duty, and to start a system of old age pensions, though only on a modest and experimental scale.

The women suffragists treated Mr. Asquith's reply to the deputation as merely another manifestation of the Liberal policy of delay; and a body of them called on him next day at Downing Street to extract a more definite statement. Six, refusing to go away, were arrested, and sentenced at Westminster Police Court to terms of imprisonment varying from seven to twentyone days, in default of giving security for their future good behaviour. Some Liberals thought that the enfranchisement of women ought, before enactment, to have been made the issue at a general election; but, replying to a question from Mr. Arnold Herbert (Wycombe, Bucks) on May 26, Mr. Asquith denied that any declaration to that effect had been made (as the question implied) by or on behalf of the Government. It may be added that the Premier's promise of a Franchise Bill was not surprising, in view of the attempt to deal with one electoral anomaly in the Plural Voting Bill of 1906, and of the attitude of the Government towards proposals to remove others earlier in the session (pp. 22, 40).

In commenting on the wastage of the Liberals at recent bye-elections, Mr. Asquith had noted that Scotland was an exception; and the Stirling election (May 22) showed a larger Liberal majority than had ever been obtained by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, who had held the seat since 1885. Some encouragement was also derived from the successful settlement of the long labour dispute in the shipbuilding trade on the North-East coast. Here, at the beginning of January, the depression (ANNUAL REGISTER, 1907, pp. 264, 273) had caused the employers to attempt to reduce wages. The shipwrights, numbering 5,000, had declined to agree to the reduction, and struck (Jan. 21); 14,000 engineers had done likewise in February, as the result of a separate dispute; and subsequently there was a third strike at the graving docks. After prolonged and intricate negotiations, during February and March, in which Mr. Lloyd-George, then President of the Board of Trade, had taken an active part, the shipbuilding employers had proclaimed a general lock-out, which began on May 2, and extended to the Mersey, Barrow-in-Furness, and the Clyde. Mr. Winston Churchill had hastened to signalise his promotion by attempting

conciliation; and he had left Dundee for London at the height of the contest in order to initiate negotiations (May 6). They were resumed on May 11, two days after the election, at the Board of Trade with representatives of employers and of the men separately, and it was agreed that the terms offered by the former should be submitted to a ballot as soon as possible. The result was announced on May 26. Fifty per cent. of the men voted, and the terms were accepted by 24,145 votes to 22,110. Arrangements were made to resume work on May 29; and, though some of the men, especially on the Clyde, made difficulties, the shipbuilding dispute came to an end. The difficulty in the engineering trades on the North-East coast, however, was not finally settled until September.

On the last day of the Education debate the House of Lords had begun the discussion of Colonial Preference, and proved once more, in the words of the Spectator, that "in matters of high debate it could hold its own with any assembly in the world." The Duke of Marlborough called attention to recent changes in the tariffs of the self-governing Colonies and to the desirability of reciprocal preference as increasing the productive power of Great Britain and the Empire. He mentioned that the increase of British trade due to colonial preference alone would employ a community as large as Dundee; but he laid stress on foreign competition in colonial markets and especially of the new Franco-Canadian Convention; and condemned the Government's refusal to recognise the movement towards interImperial trade. The Earl of Cromer, who spoke next, admitted the value of the preference given by Canada, but questioned the use of that given by New Zealand and Australia. He gave amusing examples of the absurdities and petty annoyances involved in the new Australian tariff, and said that the system seemed admirably adapted to encourage corruption among the minor officials and to tempt members of Parliament to sacrifice. national to individual interests. The attainment of the closer political union with the Colonies, which every one desired, by colonial preference was purely hypothetical. For many years we had had colonial preference; it had been abandoned in 1845; its deplorable economic results had been set forth in the Report of the Lords' Committee on Import Duties in 1840; as for its political results, the period of its existence constituted the most palmy days of the Little Englander. The Colonies desired Protection, not Preference. After laying stress on the danger of raising the question in India, he quoted some Colonial dicta, among them Sir William Lyne's description of importers as "parasites on the trade" of Australia, and ended by declaring that the Budget was not likely to postpone the era of Tariff Reform. As to our union with the Colonies, let us leave well alone.

After speeches from Viscount Ridley and Viscount Wolverhampton (Sir Henry Fowler), the latter of whom addressed the

House for the first time and dwelt on the danger of imperilling India's export trade or financial position, Viscount Milner ably advocated Tariff Reform. Every year, he said, made him more favourable to Preference; as to India, Sir Edward Law, the financial adviser of her Government when the famous despatch on the subject was written (ANNUAL REGISTER, 1904, p. 33), now advocated preference, and he himself could not see that it would harm India. The Protectionism of the colonies would not destroy its advantages; the colonies must buy largely from outside; would they buy from us? We could not keep our already considerable advantage without reciprocity, but it would be destroyed by the most-favoured-nation clause under the FrancoCanadian Treaty and similar agreements. Parenthetically, he doubted the value of Imperial Free Trade. A 2s. duty on corn and low duties on foreign food imports would be a small price to pay for closer commercial union; and, if all parts of the Empire were left free to develop their own tariffs, there would be no quarrelling about the terms.

Next day Lord Avebury defended the Free-Trade standpoint in a long and closely reasoned speech. Recent colonial legislation, he said, had tended to check trade with other countries; effective colonial preference was impracticable, and colonial Protection diverted capital and labour from healthy to less healthy occupations. If all the world became Protectionists we should still be wise to remain Free Traders. Viscount St. Aldwyn, who followed, confessed himself unable to agree with the thoroughgoing partisans on either side. He did not fear the effect of the Franco-Canadian Convention; in the articles we were best able to produce, we could beat any other country on equal terms in any foreign or colonial market; but the desire. for mutual trade preference had so increased in the colonies between 1902 and 1906 that the Government ought to have tried to meet it, possibly by establishing steamship subsidies in return for lowered colonial duties. The desire could not be met by a purely negative policy. Preference on the basis of existing taxation would have been of little use to the colonies; but the crux of the whole question was whether Great Britain was prepared to impose small duties on corn, meat and dairy produce, and these he favoured, condemning the tendency of the Government to put increased burdens on the direct taxpayers as unsound finance. Still, he saw great difficulties in the working of colonial preference on this basis, since one could not bargain with foreign countries and at the same time engage to treat the colonies better than those countries. Preference on the basis of small duties might be useless, and an increase might create friction. The Mid-Devon electors had voted against the Government because food had cost more. Had a 2s. duty on corn existed, the rise, which was due to scarcity, would have been popularly attributed to colonial preference, with_detrimental results to English feeling towards the colonies. But he

H