attacked it as confiscatory and unjust, and incidentally declared that beer was an important part of the food of the working man. The Earl of Rosebery would vote, without the slightest doubt, for the fundamental principle underlying the Bill. To some of the details he took exception, but he thought all these were points at any rate for negotiation. The great principle emphasised in voting for the second reading was the time-limit. He thought that the feeling of the country was shown, not only by the temperance party, but by the attitude of the Bishops and the clergy of all the Churches. Were he a Socialist, there was nothing at which he would rejoice so much as the identification of the cause of property with that of the annual licence. The State, by its negligence or apathy, had allowed the interest in licences to grow up; in strict logic it should pay the compensation, but it could not afford it; nor would the temperance party permit it; they therefore fell back on the principle of the timelimit. He did not much trust analogies, but if squatters long tolerated on an estate were given a twenty-one years' time-limit, they would be liberally treated. The trade had had notice in 1904 and subsequently that the Liberal party would resume the rights of the State. The Bill was the first step to temperance reform; the value was given to the licence by the State, and, if the State did not control the trade, the trade would control the State; it was already poisoning the sources of political and municipal life. He looked forward, not to a cessation of temperance legislation, but to a series of efforts on both sides, which would embitter the cause of temperance and disturb the trade, and would be settled at last by compromise. The Opposition had an opportunity for settling the question, and if they missed it, the nation would insist on an agreement, he hoped not long hence. Among other speakers, Lord Robertson condemned the Bill, Lord Faber defended the interests of the debenture holders, and the Bishops of Birmingham and Hereford advocated the second reading, the last-named insisting that there was a popular mandate for the Bill.

On the third day the debate was opened by Lord Balfour, who, in a general review of the question, referred to the difficulties raised by extremists, thought that the Act of 1904 had been a bad bargain for the State, and regretted that the Bill was not to be discussed in Committee. Among subsequent speakers, the Bishop of Southwark supported the second reading, saying that the argument from property had been pushed too far; the Earl of Lytton criticised the Bill, and expressed a desire to amend it in Committee; Lord Fitzmaurice sarcastically remarked that the Peers were giving it a first-class funeral, commented on the number of habitual absentees then present, and laid stress on the great power of the trade. The case for the Bill was summed up by the Lord Chancellor, who said that since the Reform Bill of 1832 the House had seldom, if ever, refused a measure of first-class importance a second reading

when the Commons had passed it by a large majority. It was impossible for him to correct the many misapprehensions about the Bill; but he illustrated, by a few forcible examples, the enormous economic and moral burden imposed by the drink trade, vigorously contested the argument that the parts of the Bill generally approved should be rejected for fear of privilege, and defended its provisions for reduction, compensation and the time-limit. He knew its fate was decided, but no Government would lose in the long run by standing to what it believed to be honest and right. The rejection would be the triumph of a trade over the community, the victory of wrong over right.

The House divided at 7 P.M. and the motion for the second reading was rejected by 272 to 96. The Marquess of Lansdowne's amendment was then agreed to. The two Archbishops and ten Bishops voted, and four Bishops paired, for the Bill. Lords Milner, Balfour, Peel, Carlisle and Lytton were also in the minority.

While this result was bitterly resented by Liberals and philanthropic workers, and even The Times and the Morning Post expressed a desire for some compromise, the Liberals comforted themselves with the reflection that the Peers had estranged large sections of the Church and the independent public, and that the liquor interests might be dealt with in 1909 by the drastic taxation recommended by some temperance advocates, which could not be touched by the Lords except by rejecting the whole Budget. As the probable deficit was estimated in the Press at from twenty to twenty-five millions, this taxation would aid the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his difficulties. The first Member of the Government who addressed a public meeting after the rejection, Mr. Samuel, said that the veto of the Opposition leaders had now replaced that of the Crown, and denied in advance all rumours of a dissolution. The next, Mr. Birrell, at Warrington (Nov. 28), said that the Peers had thrown out the Bill because they thought they might obtain better terms from this or a future Government; the House of Lords was now a purely Tory organisation, a Second Chamber that had abdicated its functions. Ministers would prosecute the Licensing Bill by every means in their power; they were confident that they had forces behind them (including the Labour party) which no City syndicate could control, no unity of debenture-holders interfere with; they relied on the forces of the nation, and would give the people an opportunity of exhibiting its feelings at the polls. However, the Mid-Essex (Chelmsford) election on December 1, with its decline of the Liberal and increase of the Unionist vote, at least showed no general indignation against the Peers, and was also claimed as a victory for Tariff Reform. Again, the Parliamentary Labour party, on which Mr. Birrell had relied for help in the struggle, had its financial basis gravely compromised by the decision of the Court of Appeal in Osborne v. the Amalgamated Society of Railway

Servants (Nov. 28) that a Trade Union could not legally levy contributions on its members towards Parliamentary representation.

Under the shadow of the Lords' impending decision the second reading of the new Education Bill had been moved by Mr. Runciman on Wednesday, November 26. He referred to the general desire, of recent origin, for a compromise, and, after touching on the points in dispute, said that on three matters there appeared to be general agreement, the undesirability of a purely secular system, the value of simple Bible teaching, and the possibility of adjusting differences, while principles were safeguarded. The proposals now made were not ideal either from the Nonconformist or the denominational standpoint; but they carried out the Liberal pledges, and advanced considerably towards a really national system. He dealt in some detail with the provisions as to transfer, and described contracting out as educationally most objectionable, but unavoidable, and restricted as far as possible. The financial arrangements he regarded as generous, and he said that the right of entry was now balanced by the surrender of the rural Church schools, and safeguarded from risks of administrative confusion and tests for teachers. He appealed for public acceptance of the settlement. Half the time of the most capable officials of the Board of Education was spent on religious disputes. The compromise was an agreement, not a victory. His speech produced a decided impression; but the rejection of the Bill was moved and seconded by two Nonconformist Liberals, Mr. A. E. Hutton (Morley, W.R. Yorks) and Mr. A. C. Edwards (Denbigh District), who apprehended that it would continue and greatly magnify the religious difficulty, the latter denouncing the wickedness of introducing this difficulty into the Council schools. Sir William Anson and Sir George White approved of the Bill, Mr. T. P. O'Connor appealed earnestly for the Roman Catholic schools, which the Bill would expel from the national system, and Lord R. Cecil and Mr. Yoxall condemned the Bill, the former as a Churchman, the latter from the Liberal, educational and Nonconformist standpoint. Lord Edmund Talbot said the Bill was wholly unacceptable to Roman Catholics with the exception of Clause 3, providing for the creation of new voluntary schools; and Mr. Joynson Hicks, speaking for the Church schools of Lancashire, spoke most bitterly of the course taken by the Primate, and demanded concurrent endowment. Dr. Macnamara defended the Bill; Mr. Ramsay Macdonald opposed it as educationally bad, as continuing a make-believe religious instruction.

Next day the debate was resumed by Mr. Balfour, who had not been consulted during the negotiations. Speaking for himself alone, he denied that the measure could be final; whom did the treaty bind? The Nonconformist divines who approved it regarded it as a mere step towards a national system; the majority of the Church clergy were, he believed, already con

sidering how it could be modified, and the Roman Catholics were opposed. How did the Government stand as regarded the Archbishop? would he be bound to discourage all future attempts at altering the compact? Churchmen, who had spent 1,000,000l. since 1902 on their voluntary schools, and parents of children in them, could not but feel the transfer a hardship, and contracting out would only set up fresh difficulties. Until equality for all denominations was secured there never would be peace.

Mr. Asquith expressed his profound disappointment at Mr. Balfour's conclusion. The Bill was not a ratification of a treaty; the Government thought the parties had got near enough to each other to justify them in putting down proposals which might command general agreement; contracting out was recognised by the Roman Catholics in Scotland, and here the average grant would be larger. He summarised the gains and losses under the Bill respectively to Churchmen and Nonconformists and maintained that it contained the basis of a reasonable settlement. He added that it could not be treated in committee as if each part were separable and independent, or they would upset the equilibrium and destroy the settlement.

Among subsequent speakers Mr. Dillon regretted that the Bill of 1906 had not been reintroduced in a form acceptable to the Roman Catholics: Mr. Lough, late Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, severely criticised the Bill; and the settlement was approved by (amongst others) Mr. Butcher, though he desired better terms for the Roman Catholics, Sir R. Perks, a Nonconformist, and Sir John Kennaway, a Conservative Evangelical. Mr. Trevelyan (p. 206) deprecated the fear of tests for teachers, and the second reading was passed by 323 to 157. In the minority were Mr. Balfour, Mr. Akers-Douglas, Mr. Long, Mr. Wyndham, 70 Nationalists, several Liberals, and nearly all the Labour party.

A guillotine resolution moved next day by Mr. Asquith allotted six days for Committee, two for Report, and one for third reading. An Opposition amendment entrusted to Mr. Forster urged that a settlement by general agreement was much needed and could only be attained by full discussion. It was rejected by 194 to 71; but two additional days were given for Committee. Incidentally, Mr. Balfour intimated that his party regarded closure by compartments as now established, and would adopt it when in office.

The Committee stage began on Monday, November 30. The Opposition maintained that it was unadvisable to pass Clause 1which provided for the transfer to the local authorities of all schools which did not forego rate aid-until the terms of the compensation to be given to the denominationalists had been agreed on; and an amendment destroying the clause was moved by Mr. Hunt (Ludlow, Shropshire). Mr. Balfour, backed by Lord Edmund Talbot and Mr. Lyttelton, pressed for a clear state

ment as to the position; Mr. Runciman repeated that the Bill was not a treaty, and that an agreement had been reached on principles; but the Opposition were not satisfied, and Mr. Harold Cox attacked the withdrawal of rate aid from Roman Catholic schools unless with adequate compensation. Eventually the amendment was rejected by 211 to 117; an amendment by Mr. Dillon, aiming at the reintroduction of Clause 4 of the Bill of 1906 (ANNUAL REGISTER, 1906, p. 161), was opposed by the Government, and rejected by 226 to 159; and the first clause was carried by 238 to 144. The discussion of the second (Dec. 1 and 2) showed that the Unionists apprehended interference with the "right of entry" on the part of hostile local authorities, while the extremer Nonconformists objected to it altogether, as disintegrating the schools by dividing the children. into "sheep and goats" and giving a great advantage to the Church; and an amendment was moved by Mr. Hutton (Morley, W.R. Yorks) that it should not extend to the Council schools, but was defeated by 273 to 56. Efforts were also made from the Liberal side to abolish the privileged position of CowperTemple teaching and to leave the permission of denominational teaching at the option of the local authorities; and an attempt by Mr. Mildmay (Totnes, Devon), a Unionist, to get denominational teaching permitted daily was defeated by 269 to

109.

A crisis was reached, however, on December 2, when the financial resolutions necessitated by the Bill came up for debate. Mr. Redmond demanded larger grants for the contracted-out Roman Catholic schools; even at 50s. per child the deficit on those schools would be 120,000l. annually. Mr. Lyttelton, on behalf of the Church of England schools, quoted a letter (issued that evening) from the Primate to Mr. Runciman to the effect that the proposals in the schedule of the Bill, both as regarded the rent to be paid for transferred schools, and as regarded the contracted-out schools, were utterly inadequate, and would take away what the Bill was supposed to give. The letter gave figures, hastily obtained from schools in various parts of the country, and concluded that, in the case of contracted-out schools, there would be a deficit of 14s. 6d. per child, and that the grants must be increased by 7s. per child and rise automatically each year with the educational expenditure of the country. Unless these essential matters were conceded, the settlement would be impracticable. Hereupon Sir George White, a representative Nonconformist, intimated that he would oppose the increase of the grant by 7s.; and, after Mr. Dillon had emphasised Mr. Redmond's complaint, Mr. Runciman questioned the figures supplied both by the Roman Catholic and the Church authorities, mentioning that in some cases capital expenditure, maintenance expenditure, and charges falling on the local authorities had been inextricably mixed, and arguing that the State was providing 50s. per child out of the 60s. which the