of all those gentle virtues of which I know I am so conspicuously devoid, in order to conciliate-to conciliate what? Panoplied hatred, insensate ambitions, invincible ignorance. I fully believe that the time is coming (Heaven knows how we desire to see it come quickly) when all the qualities of the most gentle and forbearing statesmanship which are possessed by any of our people will be called for, and ought to be applied in South Africa. I do not say for a moment there is not great scope for them even to-day, but always provided that they do not mar what is essential for success in the future, the conclusiveness of the final scenes of the present drama."

The return was announced on May 25 of Mr. Ormsby-Gore, the Conservative candidate for the Oswestry Division of Shropshire, by an even larger majority-1,088-than that secured by his much-respected predecessor, the late Mr. Stanley Leighton (who had not been opposed in 1900), at the general election of 1895. The Liberal candidate, Mr. Allan Bright, blamed Mr. Chamberlain and Mr. Kruger about equally for the outbreak of the war, but held that having broken out it must issue in annexation. His candidature received the benediction of Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman, and his failure to make any impression on the Unionist majority in the Oswestry Division was, of course, encouraging to the Government, now that the middle of the first session of the new Parliament was past with very little prospect of legislative fruit. They could not, however, regard as an agreeable incident the return a week later (June 1) of Mr. J. H. Pease (L.) for the vacancy in the Saffron Walden Division of Essex, caused by the death of Mr. Armine Wodehouse (L.), by a majority of 792 as compared with that of 115 secured by Mr. Wodehouse in 1900 over the same Conservative candidate, Mr. C. W. Gray.

The political speeches made during the Whitsuntide recess dealt largely with the war and the subsequent settlement. The Liberal Imperialist position on that subject was restated in a clear and firm, though conciliatory manner, by Sir Edward Grey. Speaking at Berwick (May 30) he maintained that the war was one of defence, not aggression, on the British side. As against Mr. Morley, he held that the question between the two races in South Africa was indeed solving itself before the war, but "solving itself by South Africa slipping from our grasp." He also insisted that Lord Milner must be the administrator to carry out the settlement of the new territories after the war. The confidence which he possessed on the part of the British in South Africa would make him strong enough to be impartial. Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman, speaking (May 31) at a Liberal meeting in Edinburgh, acknowledged the existence of differences in the Opposition ranks about the war, but claimed that at any rate they were united, with the possible exception of an insignificant section, against "the most unwise as well as the most unworthy policy of enforcing unconditional surrender upon those

who were to be their loyal and contented subjects in the new colonies."

In the first of a series of speeches delivered to his constituents, Mr. Morley, at Montrose (June 4), after dwelling on the miscalculations and blunders of which the Government had been guilty in regard to the war, made some remarks in reply to Lord Milner's luncheon speech. The High Commissioner himself, he observed, had said in August, 1899, that he did not expect war. And these people talked of creatures of delusions. He would beseech these people, as Cromwell did the Presbyterian ministers, to think it possible they might be mistaken. "Do you think," he continued, "that if we had known at the time of the Bloemfontein Conference, if we had known the strength and the power of the Boers, should we have conducted the negotiations in the spirit in which we did actually conduct them, or should we not have trusted to my policy of patience and time?" An able negotiator would not have hurried President Kruger at the conference; but he would have made him some such offer as: "This we will guarantee, the independence of your country. We do not want it. will protect you against the land robbers. We do not want your gold, we do not want your territories. We will protect you, but you must give up your arms and give up your correspondence with foreign Governments." However, when a policy of threatening was pursued, the means to carry out those threats ought to have been in readiness. It was said that the Boers struck the first blow, but the aggressor was not the man who first used force, but the man who first made force necessary. What, asked Mr. Morley, would be the effect on the future peace of the country of the concentration camps and the farm burning, which, he still maintained, was completely unjustifiable and contrary to the rules of the Hague Conference? There was no alternative but fighting and annexation, he admitted, after the Boer ultimatum and invasion of British territory, but he contended that by a conciliatory policy the continuation of the war after the occupation of Pretoria might have been avoided, with all its loss in material strength and in moral credit.

As usual, the Whitsuntide holidays were made use of for various conferences on subjects of special interest to the working classes. The Co-operative Congress which met at Middlesbrough (May 27) was the largest of the kind ever held. As many as 1,300 delegates were present, representing a membership of 1,620,185 in 1,108 societies, and the annual report indicated marked progress in the shares, sales and profits of the wholesale and retail societies. Encouraging development was also reported in the case of the productive societies, though not on so considerable a scale, but in regard to agriculture the progress made in co-operation in England was less satisfactory, and compared unfavourably with the

state of things in Ireland. Among the resolutions passed at Middlesbrough was one urging the Government to legislate in the current session for the prevention of corruption in trade, and in particular emphasising the importance of attaching legal penalties to the offering or giving, as well as to the soliciting or receiving, of bribes. It was evident, from a circular which shortly afterwards found its way into the Press, and which had been issued some months previously from the co-operative headquarters to branches in the country, that the unanimity with which the resolution just referred to was adopted at Middlesbrough was prompted in no small measure by a laudable desire to purge the co-operative movement from a malady, the spread of which would be fatal to its highest objects. Resolutions were also passed favouring the formation of a strong international alliance of co-operative societies, and on a variety of other subjects, not infrequently, as it appeared, under political inspiration.

During the last week of May the International Miners' Conference sat in London, attended by fifty-four British delegates, representing 689,000 miners; seven Belgians, representing 120,000, and four French, representing 160,000. The representatives of 115,000 Durham miners, and in particular Mr. John Wilson, M.P., and Mr. Johnson, of Durham, opposed several of the resolutions which secured the support of almost, if not quite, all the other delegates. This was the case with resolutions for a legal eight hours' day, for a minimum wage, and for the nationalisation of mines. In a discussion, however, on the attitude of the Congress towards a nation in which a general strike had been declared, the Durham miners did not stand alone. In that connection Mr. S. Woods was constrained, under pressure from the foreign delegates, to explain on behalf of the British miners generally that they were not in a position to pledge themselves to join in such a movement, but that if a general mining strike took place in a foreign country they would do what they could to check the exportation of British coal to that country.

Special interest was lent to the meeting of the Annual Movable Committee of the National Independent Order of Oddfellows at Birmingham by the attendance of Mr. Chamberlain, who delivered an address (May 29) on old-age pensions. He began by referring to the facts that a number of their lodges were financially unsound and that a large number of the younger members were seceding. That deficiency in and defection from the society were due, he thought, to the excessive and unexpected burden of old-age sickness. This question, which he preferred to call "proposals to assist men to make provision for old age," had been before the country for a number of years, but officials of the great societies had, generally speaking, turned the cold shoulder, and the matter had unfortunately become-what it ought never to have been-a subject of party controversy. The

result was that we had been bidding one against the other, making lavish promises which would never be fulfilled, and which raised impossible expectations. He wanted to see, if possible, a new start taken, and to try to put this question once more upon its merits. But that could only be done with the frank and hearty co-operation of the great friendly societies. His chief objection to a universal old-age pension was not so much that it would cost thirty to forty millions a year, which no Chancellor of the Exchequer could contemplate, but it would do a great deal to discourage thrift, and a great injury would be done to friendly societies. But that was no reason why his original proposal should not be worthy of consideration. That proposal was to assist those who were already making provision to enable them to make greater provision, and to tempt those who were making no provision at all to make some provision. If the officials of the societies which had with great skill and capacity worked out the great problems of sickness and death would set their heads to work out some system of old-age pensions, in which assistance by the State at a fixed age might be secured to those who had contributed towards it, he believed they would do a great deal to relieve them from the danger, and to solve the question of old-age sickness. Thereby they would secure the solvency of the societies, and establish a hold upon their younger members, which would induce them to continue their subscriptions until the time when they required to claim the benefit from them. In replying to a vote of thanks, Mr. Chamberlain assured his hearers that friendly societies need have no fear of any undue interference by the State. He wanted to get rid altogether of the political character of this movement. He had no vanity as an author, and he did not wish any scheme to be connected with his name.

Much interest, and in England possibly a little envy, was caused during the Whitsuntide recess by the publication of information as to the scheme of the magnificent benefaction of two millions sterling in aid of Scottish university education, first announced on May 22, on the part of Mr. Andrew Carnegie. Further reference to this pleasing topic, however, must be reserved for the Scottish chapter.

Meantime a good deal was being said as to the Government Education Bill from opposite points of view. The Committee of the Deputies of Protestant Dissenters passed and published a resolution, about the end of May, expressing their disappointment and dissatisfaction with the Government bill. They objected to it as limiting and crippling the valuable work which School Boards in London and other large towns had hitherto carried on, and also as containing nothing to prevent, if indeed it did not turn out to be intended to secure, the provision of doles to denominational colleges and schools; and, on the whole, they urged their friends in Parliament to work for the rejection of the measure. On the other hand, at a conference at Ashford

(May 29) of masters and mistresses of private and public secondary schools, at which he presided, the Archbishop of Canterbury said that he thought that the local authority, which was proposed in the Government bill, would be a very good body for secondary education. It was necessary, he held, to mix the knowledge of experts with the common sense of others. He further advocated the placing of elementary education also under this authority, because one of the difficulties of the present state of things was that those who had charge of elementary education showed a tendency to encroach upon the province of those who had charge of secondary. A resolution was unanimously passed welcoming the Government bill, while some supplementary provisions in connection with secondary schools were suggested.

Speaking at Staveley, Derbyshire (May 31), the Duke of Devonshire replied to some of the criticisms which had been passed upon the bill. It was, he said, a complete misapprehension to say that the new bill took away part of the work of School Boards. Some of the work now carried on by School Boards certainly could not any longer be carried on by them, but that was not on account of anything contained in the bill. It was on account of the existing law. Nobody denied the good work done in past times, and which was now being done, by many of the School Boards; but he thought very few people who had studied the question were of opinion that the School Boards, except in a few large towns, were bodies exercising powers over a sufficient area, or bodies of a character fitted to superintend and control secondary as well as elementary education. Some said they ought to have specially elected bodies, but the Government thought it better to place greater additional responsibilities upon those who possessed already considerable powers, and who possessed the confidence of the country-to make them a foundation on which the new authority rested-rather than to seek to create a new authority by a new election, and to add one more to our existing local authorities.

Unmoved by this vindication, Mr. Arthur Acland, formerly Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education, wrote a letter of severe criticism in the Times (June 5). He maintained that the Government bill was so inadequate, in several respects, in the provision it made for its apparent object the reorganisation and supplementing, where deficient, of the supply of secondary education in the country - that it would be better to pass a short temporary measure dealing with the Cockerton difficulty, and bring in a more complete bill another year, than to pass so imperfect a piece of legislation. The General Committee of the National Liberal Federation passed resolutions (June 5) condemning the Government bill as inadequate in its scope and also as not sufficiently democratic in the character of the local authority it proposed to set up, and as offering encouragement

K