sence of these aliens constituted a serious menace to the maintenance of order, as the relations between them and the English population were very strained. They were not the class of aliens who made the best citizens; they were, in fact, immigrants who would not be allowed to land on American soil. An important factor in the situation was the increase of crime among these foreigners, and upon this point serious representations had been made by magistrates, judges, and others. The Bill was based on the recommendations of the Royal Commission of 1903. The Secretary of State for the Home Department would have power to make regulations requiring the master of any ship to furnish a return of his alien passengers, and to give the officers of the Home Office facilities for inspection. The authorities were to be empowered to require information from any immigrant alien as to his character, antecedents, and proposed place of residence. When necessary, aliens would be prevented from landing, or only permitted to land upon conditions. Among those who would come under the operation of this provision were persons who within five years had been convicted in any foreign country of crimes for which they could be extradited; women of loose character; persons who were likely to become a charge on public funds or who had no visible means of support, or who were suffering from infectious disease or mental incapacity. The Secretary of State was also to have power to order any undesirable alien who had not been in the United Kingdom for more than two years to leave the country. An alien convicted on indictment for felony or misdemeanour and sentenced to penal servitude or to imprisonment, without the option of a fine, or an alien convicted by a court of summary jurisdiction of an offence punishable by imprisonment for three months, might be ordered to leave the kingdom on his release from prison. When the immigration of aliens had contributed substantially to the overcrowding of a district regulations might be issued for the abatement of the evil.

Sir C. Dilke protested against the introduction of a measure which would, in his opinion, strike at the helpless victims of political and religious persecution in other lands.

The Bill was then read a first time without a division, amid Ministerial cheers.

On the motion for the Easter adjournment, which followed the Aliens Bill, there was, as usual, a miscellaneous debate.

Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman, reviewing the Parliamentary position, taunted the Government with the little progress that had been made as yet with their meagre legislative programme and declared that the Estimates showed none of the alleged zeal for economy. He then directed attention to the report of the War Office (Reconstitution) Committee and to their covering letter to the Prime Minister, in which they said that their proposals should be accepted as a whole. In this letter there was a mixture of the Pontifical and the hysterical. He hoped that

they would be told without delay what action the Government proposed to take upon this report. Turning to South African affairs, he asked for an explanation of the extraordinary language attributed to the High Commissioner in the newspapers. Lord Milner was said to have declared that he did not care twopence for the opinion of the people of this country. This explained a good deal in Lord Milner's conduct of affairs. He wished to know whether the High Commissioner had been reprimanded for this gross breach of propriety. As to the fiscal policy of the Government, it became more and more vague as time went on. A sovereign remedy for all industrial grievances was said by the Government to exist. This remedy, it was understood, would be promulgated when a general election took place, and yet the Prime Minister declined to appeal to the country. It had become clear from the disappearance of the Wharton amendment that Protection was supplementary to the policy of retaliation. Except in the one matter of Chinese labour the policy of the Government had been marked by indecision, vacillation and confusion. How long was this to go on? Was it, he asked, in accordance with the Constitution that the Prime Minister should cling to power in the face of repeated defeats in the country?

Mr. Balfour was at a loss to understand why the leader of the Opposition should expect the Government to take the unprecedented course of resigning while they still retained the confidence of the House of Commons. If they were backward with their legislative programme the fault was not theirs. The delay was accounted for by the desire of the House to discuss the Estimates at considerable length, and by the eagerness of the Opposition to move resolutions which were practically votes of censure. With regard to Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman's spirited attack upon the Reconstitution Committee for the letter which they had addressed to him as Prime Minister, he had to say that he expressed a wish that the letter should not be prefixed to the report. The committee, however, differed from him, and he thought he would have been blamed if he had insisted that the report should be published without the letter, to which the committee attached much importance. He wished to express emphatically his great appreciation of the services which the committee had rendered to the cause of War Office reform and to the country. He derided the notion that Lord Milner should be rebuked because a Reuter telegram had quoted or misquoted three lines from a speech which he had delivered in South Africa. He did not know precisely what Lord Milner said, but if the High Commissioner intended to convey a certain amount of benevolent contempt for some opinions that had been recently expressed here upon subjects closely connected with the prosperity of South Africa he should be the last person to complain. In the view which he took of the fiscal question the leader of the Opposition was labouring under a misconception.

The Government had from the first consistently maintained that they ought not to shorten the natural duration of this Parliament in order to carry out the policy which had taken so strong a hold of the popular imagination. The change recommended by the Government was an important one and therefore should not be effected hurriedly. [Mr. John Morley here interrupted the speaker by pressing for further particulars as to its nature, but without avail.] He brushed aside Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman's contention that the Government ought to have resigned because they were originally returned to power on the war issue. When Mr. Gladstone came into power after his campaign in support of the Christians in the Near East he did not hesitate to bring in highly controversial legislation dealing with Irish agitation and the land problem. If a Government returned on a particular issue was never to touch other matters there would be an end of stable administration. He refused to admit that bye-elections were a test and index of the feeling of the country as a whole. The Government majority was larger than the majority which the Opposition leaders commanded when they took office in 1892, when Home Rule was brought forward. If the Government were to resign before they had effected certain tasks to which they had set their hands, including the reform of our Army system, they would be justly accused of faint-heartedness and want of spirit.

Mr. Lloyd-George, in a vigorous speech, reviewed the position and achievements of the Government and twitted the Prime Minister with striving to work with forced labour. When he resumed his seat all but a few of the Ministerialists left the House. Mr. Churchill, who had risen to speak, said he was sorry that the Prime Minister was no longer in his place, as he desired to put some questions to him with reference to his fiscal policy. He wanted especially to hear the views of the Prime Minister with regard to the proposal of Mr. Chamberlain for a 10 per cent. duty on manufactured articles. He explained that it was only after he had failed to get from the right hon. gentleman precise information as to his views on the subject of the Birmingham policy that he had taken up the position of a declared opponent of the Government. He was quite ready to resign his seat if his constituency wished him to do so.

Mr. Robson alleged that the bulk of the Unionist party had left the House with the express object of slighting Mr. Churchill, and Sir J. Gorst also condemned the marked discourtesy which had been shown to him.

The debate then passed to other matters, and it was mentioned incidentally that discussion of the Tibet expedition was prevented by a "blocking notice "-a kind of grievance which later in the session was greatly multiplied. At the evening sitting a motion condemning the exemption of the police in Ireland from popular control, moved by Mr. Swift MacNeill (Donegal, S.), and seconded by Mr. W. Redmond, was resisted

by the Attorney-General for Ireland as at least premature, and defeated by 157 to 65.

The House was shortly afterwards counted out and adjourned till April 12. Its nine weeks' sittings had been marked by debates of exceptional interest, but had produced very little either in the way of legislation or of light on the policy of the Government.

In the hope of spurring on the Government to take action in Macedonia, a conference was held at the Caxton Hall, Westminster, on March 29, at which a letter of sympathy was read from the Primate, and speeches, some in French, were delivered by the Bishop of Rochester, who presided; Mr. H. W. Nevinson, special correspondent of the Daily Chronicle; Mme. Karavéloff, M. Victor Bérard, and others, in favour generally of the appointment of a Christian governor, and autonomy after the Cretan model. But though the execution of the Mürzsteg scheme dragged, no action was taken by Great Britain.

The retirement of Sir Michael Hicks-Beach (for reasons of health) after the close of the present Parliament, was announced on March 30, and generally regretted. The ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer was probably the strongest and ablest of living Conservative financiers, and had shown remarkable independence of both sides in the fiscal controversy.

CHAPTER III.

The Easter Recess: Wales, the Education Act and Denominational SchoolsThe Ministerialists and the Country-The Anglo-French Agreement-Sir M. Hicks-Beach at Bristol-Parliament and the Metric System-Commons' Debate on the Expedition to Tibet-The Budget: Statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; Reception by the Public and in Parliament; Debates on the Resolutions; the Chancellor's Defence-Debate on the Royal Commission on Ecclesiastical Disorders-Introduction of the Licensing Bill-Trade Unions and Trade Disputes Bill-Second Reading of the Aliens Bill-Resumed Debate on the Budget Resolutions-Improvement of the Ministerial Position-Mr. Chamberlain on Chinese Labour-Education (Local Authorities Default) Bill-Final Meeting of the London School Board-Commons' Debate on Cotton Growing in the British Empire-The Revised Tobacco Duties-Scottish Education Bill-Whale Fisheries BillRegistration of Clubs (Ireland) Bill-Street Betting Bill-Bishoprics of Southwark and Birmingham Bill-Motion for Repeal of the Irish Crimes Act of 1887-Debate on the Treatment of Natives in the Rand MinesMacedonia: Debate in the House of Lords-Mr. Balfour at the Primrose League-Redistribution of Seats-Aged Pensioners Bill-Bishop of St. Asaph's Education (Transferred Schools) Bill-Licensing Bill: Debate on Second Reading-Payment of Members-Merchant Shipping (Lighthouses) Bill Mr. Chamberlain and the Government: Speech at BirminghamNational Liberal Federation-Amendment on Second Reading of the Finance Bill, Condemning National Extravagance-Monument to Lord SalisburyOver-taxation of Ireland-Debate on Mr. Black's Motion on the Fiscal Question-Whitsuntide Adjournment.

THE Easter recess was marked by few political speeches of importance, and of most of these the coming Licensing Bill and Chinese labour formed the chief topics. On the Education

G

Act the preparations for resistance in Wales and elsewhere were accompanied by tentative suggestions towards a compromise. The Liberal party's demands were for full popular control of all schools and the abolition of all tests for teachers; but some of them were willing to allow the undenominational religious teaching customary in provided (the old "Board") schools to be supplemented-either in all schools, or in those non-provided schools which might be placed under full public control-by doctrinal teaching given to those children whose parents desired them to have it, by voluntary effort and out of school hours. Mr. Lloyd-George, at a conference of Welsh County Councillors and others held at Llandrindod Wells on April 5, with a view to concerting resistance to the enforcement of the parts of the Act relating to voluntary schools, had declared himself ready to concede to the clergy the right of entry into such schools for this purpose out of school hours. The National Union of Teachers, at its annual conference on April 6, deprecated any change in the character of the undenominational teaching in the provided schools, but admitted that special conditions might be allowed for non-provided schools placed under the full control of the local authority; and Dr. Macnamara, in speaking to the resolution, indicated his readiness to accept the proposals of the Bishop of St. Asaph (see p. 121). The terms of an arrangement affecting a considerable number of the non-provided schools in the Isle of Wight were published on April 16. The managers of the Cowes and Gurnard Associated Voluntary Schools leased the school buildings at a nominal rent to the education authority, which became responsible for repairs. In return the clergy or their representatives secured the "right of entry" to give religious teaching for half an hour weekly, it being understood that Roman Catholics and Nonconformists might do likewise. Some educationists thought and hoped that a similar course might be followed by other managers of voluntary schools. Others objected to splitting up the children into sects. Others again and in Church circles these were numerous-held that the facilities obtained for doctrinal teaching, in the surrendered schools in the Isle of Wight, were altogether inadequate. Such compromises were also condemned by many Anglicans on the ground that they tended to put undenominational religious teaching in a privileged position, and it was argued that if there were to be no denominational schools at all, denominational teaching should be allowed on equal terms in all schools alike.

The precarious position of the Unionist party in the constituencies was illustrated by the unopposed return of Major Seely for the Isle of Wight on April 6. This Member had resigned his seat so as to test the feeling of his constituents on fiscal policy and Chinese labour. A Liberal candidate, Mr. Godfrey Baring, had been for some time before the electors, but retired at the instance of the Liberal whips. Major Seely had made considerable concessions to Liberal opinion on the