unions was carried, though after considerable opposition, as was a resolution in favour of the "secular solution" in education. The important announcement was made that the Home Secretary had promised a Royal Commission to inquire into universal compulsory insurance; and there was a warm discussion on the industrial methods of the Salvation Army.

Altogether, it was an anxious time for Labour. The engineering dispute had continued on the north-east coast (p. 112), the men refusing to return to work unless the notice of reduction of their wages was withdrawn. Further negotiations had taken place in August, and at the invitation of the executive of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers the President of the Board of Trade had resumed his efforts at conciliation. As the result of his conference with the employers, on September 9, the men were advised to agree to resume work at the reduction, it being agreed that no further reduction should take place for six months, and that a conference should be held of representatives of employers and employed after the resumption, to consider such an amendment of the procedure in wages questions as would avoid stoppages of work. These terms were sanctioned, on a ballot of the men, by 4,609 votes against 3,739, and work was resumed on September 24.

Another serious dispute had broken out in the cotton trade meanwhile. On July 24 the master cotton spinners had decided to reduce wages by 5 per cent.; on August 4, at a conference with the men's representatives, the latter had refused to recommend the acceptance of the reduction; on the 20th, notice was given that wages would be reduced from September 21, and it was understood that non-acceptance would be met by a lock-out; but the reduction was refused on ballot by an overwhelming majority of both the spinners and the cardroom workers, and, after ineffectual negotiations for a postponement of the reduction until January, the mills were closed on September 21. The stoppage affected, directly or indirectly, some 120,000 work-people at the mills, mainly at Bolton and Oldham, but also at other Lancashire towns; while thousands of weavers were also thrown out of work for want of yarn. The dispute was not settled until November.

To avoid the recurrence of such crises, the President of the Board of Trade issued a memorandum (Sept. 15) marking an important advance in the mechanism of industrial conciliation. To consolidate, expand, and popularise the working of the Conciliation Act of 1896, he proposed to set up a Court of three members, nominated by the Board of Trade respectively from panels of employers, workmen, and "persons of eminence and impartiality," the chairmen being chosen from the last-named category. This constitution, he hoped, would meet the usual objection in cases of arbitration and conciliation in labour disputes, that the arbitrator did not understand the men's position. If the parties desired, the Court might be increased to five

men.

members by the nomination of two employers and two workA provisional list of the panels in the Labour Gazette for November mentioned, among eminent persons who had consented to serve, the Duke of Devonshire, Viscounts Selby and St. Aldwyn, Lord James of Hereford, and Lords Balfour of Burleigh, Macdonnell, and Lochee on the chairmen's panel, Lord Pirrie, Lord Glantawe, Sir Hugh Bell, Sir C. Furness, and Mr. A. Siemens on that of the employers, and some halfdozen Labour members of Parliament on that of the workmen.

These troubles in highly organised trades, however, stood quite apart from the main question of unemployment, which was taking an increasingly menacing form in many provincial towns. In Glasgow, a demonstration outside the City Council Chamber was followed by an attempt to enter, which was stopped by the aid of the police. A deputation was admitted, which found the Council's reply to its demands unsatisfactory; and on Saturday, September 5, Prince Arthur of Connaught was hooted when departing to review the Boys' Brigade after a luncheon in the city buildings, though the demonstration was against the luncheon rather than the Prince. Midnight marches were talked of, and there was a Sunday parade of unemployed; but the men were somewhat mollified by a promise from the Lord Provost that Glasgow would maintain its reputation for generous conduct, and there was no disturbance. In several provincial towns the unemployment was acutely felt, and the "Hunger Marchers," who had walked from Manchester to London, held a meeting on Tower Hill which resulted in the arrest of Mr. Stewart Gray and another leader (Sept. 10) and the imposition of trifling fines for obstructing the traffic.

Labour troubles, however, had no direct influence on party politics. It was not so with the Eucharistic Congress, which unfortunately for all concerned attracted little general attention until it actually met in London (Sept. 10-14). Similar assemblies had been held for many years in various Continental cities, and had concerned only Roman Catholics; but the meeting, unlike the other Congresses of the autumn, aimed at demonstrative worship as well as deliberation and study, and thus roused the energies of aggressive Protestantism. A Pastoral Letter from the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, read in all the churches in his diocese on Sunday, August 25, intimated that its supreme aim was the promotion of the adoration of the Mass, and that it was an act of reparation for the English Reformation. Nevertheless, outside Roman Ca tholic and ultra-Protestant circles, little notice was taken until the programme was announced of the splendid "Eucharistic Procession" which was to traverse about a mile of streets in the neighbourhood of the Westminster Cathedral on Sunday, September 13. The Host was to be carried in a gold monstrance by Cardinal Vannutelli, the Papal Legate, under a canopy; he was to be the centre of a splendid procession of

ecclesiastics in their sacramental vestments, and the Cardinals were to wear their scarlet robes. Certain Protestant societies, however, had obtained, and now published, counsel's opinion that the carrying of the Host, and the wearing of their vestments in the streets by priests and members of religious orders, were illegal under the Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829, under a penalty of 50l. for each transgressor, for which, however, only the Attorney-General could sue; and that a deliberate breach of the law might lead to a breach of the peace. These societies also telegraphed a petition against the procession to the King (who was staying with Lord Savile for the Doncaster race week at Rufford Abbey) and asked various Peers and members of Parliament to use their influence with the Government against it. The Press commonly regarded the procession as ill-advised, but thought that the law was a dead letter; and the Cardinal Archbishop disclaimed all desire to wound the susceptibilities of any one, and explained that he had not consented to the procession until he found that it was not objected to by the police. However, at a mass meeting at the Albert Hall on Saturday evening, September 12, he announced that all elements of ecclesiastical ceremonial would be eliminated. This statement, which was quite unexpected, caused keen disappointment, and Mr. Belloc, M.P., who was present, at once predicted that the intervention of the Government would cost them very dear.

Correspondence subsequently published showed that on Thursday morning, September 10, the Cardinal Archbishop received a private intimation [through the Marquess of Ripon] that the Prime Minister [who was in Scotland] desired the abandonment of the procession. He telegraphed and wrote that he could not alter the arrangements unless allowed to say that he did so at the desire of the Prime Minister, and added in his letter: (1) that similar processions [on a smaller scale] frequently took place unhindered; (2) that the police said that there was no danger; (3) that the procession was the only means of admitting all Catholics to participate in the Congress; (4) that very quiet streets had been chosen; (5) that the change would offend the foreign Bishops. The Home Secretary then wrote asking the Archbishop to secure conformity with the law. The Archbishop, after communication with the Home Office, replied that he would abandon the ceremonial if authorised to state that he did so at the Prime Minister's request. Mr. Asquith then telegraphed the collective opinion of the Government that, in the interest of order and good feeling, it would be better to abandon the proposed ceremonial, the legality of which was open to question.

The procession, therefore, was shorn of much of its splendour, but nevertheless it was profoundly impressive, and was watched by dense and sympathetic crowds, who were by no means all Roman Catholics. The members of religious orders carried

their vestments instead of wearing them; the Bishops were in Court dress, the Cardinals in scarlet; the secular priests were surpliced; and the Benediction of the Host was given from the balcony of the cathedral. Only one trifling attempt at disturbance was reported; but it was rumoured that, but for the alteration in its character, attempts would have been made by Protestant zealots to break it up. The Press generally approved of the Ministerial intervention, regretting, however, that it had come so late; and its first results were to detach Irish Nationalists from the Government, and to send the Irish vote at Newcastle to the Unionist side.

The Congress called out great enthusiasm among the participants, and was incidentally marked by an interesting ecclesiastical ceremony, the celebration of Mass in Westminster Cathedral according to the Byzantine rite; by a great procession of 17,000 children, who were reviewed by the Papal Legate, and by the revival of the protests against the form of the Royal declaration relating to the Mass. But it was resented by many English High Churchmen, inasmuch as it represented the Roman Church as the sole custodian of the doctrine of the Real Presence; and its constant presentation as an act of reparation for the apostacy of England was hardly favourable to the Roman Catholic cause.

The bye-election at Newcastle-on-Tyne (Sept. 24) caused by the death of Mr. Cairns, the Liberal member, seemed likely at first to result in a split between the Liberal and Labour parties in the constituency, the latter, who already held one of the seats, desiring to run a candidate and so secure the second. A conference of the Executive of the Labour Representation Committee, held at Nottingham, induced the Labour candidate, Mr. Stephenson, to withdraw; but a Socialist, Mr. Hartley, took his place. Mr. Renwick, an ex-member for the city, was the Unionist candidate and preached Tariff Reform; the Nationalist vote was willingly given to him, on a mandate from the central office, as a censure on the interference of the Government with the Eucharistic Procession; and Mr. Renwick won the seat, though his poll was lower than those of the Liberal and Socialist combined. Even though Newcastle had been a fickle constituency, this result was a serious blow to the Ministry.

The same cannot be said of the great demonstration of "the Trade" against the Licensing Bill in Hyde Park on Sunday, September 27. It was, indeed, very orderly; its members were brought up from all parts of the country by seventy special trains; and it contained a large respectable element, together with some who, according to the Westminster Gazette, "seemed bent on demonstrating the extreme unwisdom of the indulgence. which they claimed "; while others again "seemed as if specially chosen to illustrate the ravages of drink on the human frame.' The numbers were variously estimated at from 100,000 to 500,000; many members of Parliament, though none of them

very prominent, addressed them; and a condemnatory resolution was carried amid loud cheers. But the desecration of Sunday gave much offence, and the behaviour of the crowds in the Strand that evening recalled "Mafeking night."

Two days later Mr. Haldane, speaking at a demonstration at Perth in support of the Bill, said that the Government felt bound to go forward with it and repeated the current Liberal explanation (p. 89) of the fall in brewery stocks; he claimed also that the Bill put down those clubs which had become mere agencies for the sale of drink.

The Bill, of course, did not apply to Scotland; but nearly three weeks later (Oct. 15) the Prime Minister told a Scottish temperance deputation that the conditions in that country were riper than in England for a large and effective licensing measure, and that the Government hoped to deal with the question during the existing Parliament.

The carrying out of the Old Age Pensions Act had begun by the issue of an official circular early in August; and on September 24 the application forms were given out at all post offices, and proved, in some places, inadequate to the demand. In the Midlands and the North of England the applicants could generally fill up the forms themselves; in the South and in Ireland the officials had to give a good deal of assistance. Many found it difficult to prove their age; some clergymen helped the movement by giving certified extracts from the parish registers free of charge; and in some towns subscriptions were raised to keep applicants from disqualifying themselves by receiving parish relief while awaiting their pensions.

Some

Liberal organisations had attempted to facilitate applications; but their interference had been condemned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the House of Commons and was discontinued. Many old soldiers were among the applicants.

The end of the holiday season brought the usual multitude of platform speeches, but only a few can be noticed here. At the Welsh National Liberal Convention at Swansea (Oct. 1), Mr. Lloyd-George declared that the Government would go steadily forward. He intimated that Welsh Disestablishment was in sight, indicated that the Old Age Pensions Bill was only a beginning, and said that poverty might be dealt with partly by cutting off temptation by such measures as the Street Betting Bill and Licensing Bill, but partly it was due to economic causes over which the chief sufferers had no control. Proper provision for aged, infirm and unfortunate toilers ought to be a first charge on the wealth of the land. It was said that capital would flee the country, but where was it to go? All classes were not taking their fair share of the burden. He could name twelve men whose average income during the worst days of depression would suffice to maintain 50,000 workmen and their families for a month; yet they would probably all be on Tariff Reform platforms advocating the taxation of