GREAT BRITAIN

cured but only complicated by the Balfour Act of 1902, since the latter brought the support of the denominational schools upon the public rates, but without control by the local authorities. Such a scheme of taxation without representation resulted in a remarkable movement of "passive resistance," especially on the part of those Nonconformists who refused to pay taxes for the support of the institutions with Anglican affiliation. This movement culminated in the Liberal majority in the House of Commons in 1906, and had for its practical expression the Birrell Bill, which was passed by the Commons, but was so amended by the Lords that it was rejected by the House and failed to be come a law.

In introducing this measure, its sponsor the Hon. Augustine Birrell, explained that it provided that no school would be recognized as a public elementary school unless it was a school provided by the local education authority, therefore no elementary school would receive a penny of the public money unless it became a provided school within the meaning of the Education Act. Voluntary schools receiving rates and grants would at once become provided schools and consequently would receive the same kind of religious instruction as was now given in the provided schools. No catechism or distinctive religious formularies would be used. Simple religious exercises and simple biblical instruction would be given. The appointment of teachers would be in the hands of the local educational authorities, and religious tests would disappear. With regard to facilities for religious instruction of a special character, these were to be supplied in any transferred voluntary school in an urban area (i. e., charge having a population above 5000). More over, to arrange that a transferred school shall maintain a denominational teaching as formerly there are two conditions: (1) That the parents of at least four-fifths of the children desire these facilities; (2) that there be public school accommodations in schools not affected by the permission for the remaining children. The significance of all this is manifest. By the provisions of the bill the dual system of board and voluntary schools, established by the law of 1870, and strengthened by the law of 1902, is abolished, for the leading principle proposes to assimilate all so-called voluntary schools, which are maintained out of public grants and rates, to the existing Council schools, the old school board schools. Thus the broad principles of public control, the absence of religious tests for teachers, and non-denominational teaching are entirely provided for. However, two concessions to denominationalism were added: the one, that facilities should be granted in the transferred schools, two days a week, not at the public expense, for the teaching of the special religious doctrines prescribed by their existing trust deeds; the other, that in urban districts, where other purely denominational schools are open to children, exception should be made, and such schools should remain purely denominational. These conditions were made with particular reference to schools maintained not only by Nonconformists, but by Jews and Roman Catholics. To the latter they were nevertheless distasteful, for as was said by Mr. John Redmond, leader of the Nationalists, this meant, "You must maintain your own schools, you must pay for your own Catholic teaching,

and in addition to that you must pay rates for the teaching of Protestantism in Protestant schools." For these reasons the Irish vote was cast against the bill. Despite this opposition, and the demands of the Labor party, whose call was for secular schools, the bill, as reported from the committee stage, passed the House by a majority of 192. But in the House of Lords this now famous measure was modified by important amendments. Thus Lord Heneage moved that as a condition of a school being recognized as a public elementary school, some portion of the school hours every day should be set apart for the purposes of religious instruction. Again, the Bishop of Hereford's amendment provided that where extended facilities were afforded, the local authorities shall (instead of "may") permit the teachers employed in the school to give the instruction desired, but not at the expense of the authorities. Finally, the amendment of the Archbishop of Canterbury provided that it shall be the duty of the local educational authorities to satisfy themselves as to the qualifications to the bill in its original state, yet there were two chief principles which were finally accepted by all: (1) Universal public management; (2) the abolition of religious tests for teachers.

IRISH AFFAIRS. There have been three varieties of Irish government reforms advocated in recent years, namely, home rule, devolution, and separation. Of these the first appeared the most feasible, for in home rule is wrapped up all Irish reforms from land purchase and the evicted tenants' problem to the Irish University and imperial federation. Devolution, on the other hand, has had but a theoretical success. The name was adopted by the Irish Reform Association under Lord Dunraven, and covered that part of their programme which proposed the creation of an Irish representative assembly, to be mainly composed of Irish representative peers, and of the members of the House of Commons who sit for Irish constituents, and to deal with such Irish matters as may be referred to it by the Imperial Parliament. This plan was rejected by the Irish Unionists party, whether Conservative or Liberal, while the Unionists disliked it as a fatal compromise on the question of home rule. It was, however, welcomed by radical leaders in England as a means of conceding home rule on the installment plan, for it could be used to catch the Irish vote in British constituencies, and yet be counted not too dangerous a concession of local government. Lord Dunraven's scheme was, nevertheless, considered by competent judges a form of dualism and not of union, since it would be difficult to create a separate legislature in Dublin under the authority of the Imperial Parliament without widening the breach between the two islands.

The recent home rule measures of the English Government have not yet satisfied the Irish party. Of these measures the most advanced was Mr. Wyndham's Land Purchase Act of 1903. This allocated the credit of some £112,000,000 for the creation of holdings which eventually might become the actual property of the Irish peasants. This act has been called the boldest and most comprehensive attempt which has ever been made in the world's history in the direction of land legislation. Yet it is not strictly a socialistic measure, for the land is not to be confiscated, but bought of the landowners, who

will even receive a bonus for their willingness to sell their land, which will be apportioned to the peasantry against annual repayments of advanced money until the whole amount will be paid up. In spite of the advanced character of this measure, Mr. Wyndham declared that the Unionist government is opposed to the multiplication of legislative bodies within the United Kingdom, whether in pursuance of the policy generally known as Home Rule for Ireland or in that of "Home Rule all Around."

At the annual meeting of the Irish Land Owners' Convention in Dublin, August, 1905, complaint was made of the serious delay in completing sales under the 1903 Land Act because of the great disparity be tween the applications for advances and the funds provided for meeting them. The Convention regretted that the government had not proposed any remedy for meeting the difficulty which could be accepted by vendors, except at a loss of a substantial portion of the price at which they had agreed to sell their estates. In reply to this complaint the government officials said that the difficulty was entirely due to the fact that the sales and purchases had been arranged with a rapidity and to an extent far greater than the most sanguine expectations of Parliament. The unsatisfied applications for purchase money under the Act amounted to over £20,000,000.

Upon the opening of Parliament in February, 1907, the discussion of the Irish question began, but it was not until May 7 that the long expected Irish legislation was introduced by the Honorable Augustine Birrell, who declared that in his bills for the establishment of an administrative council in Ireland there would be found no trace of a proposal to confer legislative power. It did not authorize the levying of a single tax, and the powers of the House of Commons were not affected by it. The bill had as its object the association of the sentiment of the Irish people with the legislation directing the conduct of purely Irish affairs. At present the consignees of the laws passed for Ireland by Parliament were not the Irish people, but the officials in Dublin Castle. Knowing that the Castle administration had been a failure, would any one assert that the system was likely to develop the self respect of the people? To remedy all this, eight out of forty-five of the administrative Irish boards were to be put under the control of a central or representative council, the elected members of which were to be chosen by the local government electors. The nominated members would be selected in the first instance by His Majesty and after the council's first period of office by the Lord Lieutenant. This was the means for securing the representation of minorities. The president of the council would be appointed by that body, and the Chief Secretary, while not entitled to vote as a member, was to have the right to attend meetings and to speak if moved to do so. The council was to have complete control over the exercise of the powers vested in the eight departments named. It was to exercise this control by resolution, and its directions were to be obeyed, but the Lord Lieutenant was to be entitled to reserve any resolution, and he might either confirm it, or annul it, or remit it for further consideration by the council. The interference of the Lord Lieutenant would, of course, be a government matter and it could be challenged in

that House. Moreover, a separate fund, called the Irish fund, was to be established and it was proposed to constitute an Irish Treasury. For the purposes of the Act certain annual sums, to be fixed by Parliament quinquennially, went into the Irish fund.

Mr.

Finally, Mr. Birrell admitted that if his plan proved successful it might pave the way to Home Rule. Should it be a failure, it would be an obstacle in the way of that policy, for a failure would be fastened on as evidence that the Irish were not fit to be trusted with the powers of self-government. In any case it would be shocking if the Irish were to be denied the opportunity of showing themselves fit for self-government on the ground that should they prove their fitness for it the British people might some day grant them Home Rule. Balfour, the leader of the opposition, followed the Chief Secretary, and asserted that nothing good for the government of Ireland would be effected by the extraordinary proposals now made. If the evils under which Ireland suffered were due to the multiplicity of departments, why did the government only deal with eight out of the forty-seven; and why, if the creation of a board elected by the county council electors of Ireland was necessary for the preservation of their self-respect, was a similar board not necessary for England? Furthermore, he declared that it would be folly to suppose that these proposals would satisfy either the Unionists in Ireland or the Nationalists. Finally, Mr. John Redmond, leader of the Irish party, received the bill with only partial approval. He said that until it should have been exhaustively considered he would not deliver a final judgment upon it. The bill, he announced, would be discussed at the approaching National Convention. The discussion to which Mr. Redmond referred took place within two weeks, and the National Convention then unanimously condemned the government's Irish bill. It was rejected because it was held not to be the first step toward Home Rule, and because of the influences of the Irish bishops and priests, who looked on the bill as adverse to their claim to control Irish education. The opposition had been strengthened by the Sinn Fein movement, arisen since the disappearance of Mr. Parnell, and which has for its aim, instead of the policy of vague patriotic abstractions, to develop the national resources of Ireland and to make it so strong and industrial a power as to compel recognition of its independence.

Another force which complicated the problem was the Gaelic League, which has for its purpose to revive the obsolescent Irish speech and make it the official language of the country. Founded in 1893 by Dr. Douglas Hyde, it now covers about 700 localities with 60,000 members. But in addition to these sentimental considerations at work against the Irish Council bill, the great cause of its rejection was the position given to the Lord Lieutenant, who could reverse any adminis trative action by direct veto. There was also a grave financial defect in that the bill made the Irish council a debt collector for the English Treasury. Local loans contracted by this act were to be charged on the Irish, even though every man on the Council might disapprove of the terms on which they were advanced.

Another piece of legislation on behalf of Ireland was the Evicted Tenants Bill. Introduced on January 27, by Mr. Birrell, the measure,

GREAT BRITAIN

said the latter, would enable Parliament to keep faith with the Irish people. The work of restoration had, up to the present, been very slow, as there were some 2000 evicted tenants still to be dealt with. However, the amount of land that would be required would be at the outside 80,000 acres. The bill enables the estates to acquire land for the reinstatement of the tenants, and to declare any land so acquired to be an estate within the meaning of the Purchase Acts. Any occupying tenant who was dispossessed in order that an old tenant might be restored, would be provided with as good land elsewhere, or be paid a compensation. In general, this measure being but supplementary to previous legislation, called forth little opposition. The Prime Minister explained that there was general agreement as to its object. The framers of the Act of 1903 relied on voluntary means, but the government held that compulsion was now necessary. Nevertheless, the first amendment moved, which aimed at restricting the benefit of the act to evicted tenants domiciled in Ireland, was opposed by Mr. Birrell on the ground that it would give rise to legal controversy and cause delay and expense. But it was understood that the proposed limitation was necessary because Irish-Americans were return ing to Ireland in the hope of securing forty-acre farms. This amendment was rejected, but the bill as a whole was finally carried by large majorities, despite the criticism of the Nationalists that it would give the land to one class only, the small farmers, to the exclusion of the laborers of Ireland. The remainder of the promised legislation for Ireland consisted of the University Bill. Here the standing committee of the Catholic Archbishops said that the Catholics of Ireland would accept any of the following solutions, a university for Catholics, a new college in the university of Dublin, a new Royal university, but not any scheme of mixed education in Trinity College, Dublin. However, the new proposals were ahead of Gladstone's unsuccessful bill of 1873, in that any church desiring to establish a theological faculty is to be allowed to do so, provided that no payment out of public funds shall be made for theological teaching.

In summing up the various classes of Irish reforms for 1097, it is evident that all of them, from Land Purchase to Imperial Federation, were wrapped up in Home Rule. The outlook for that latter ideal has been declared by Mr. Justin McCarthy to be better than ever, for reasons both personal and general. Lord Aberdeen, with undiminished popularity, occupied for a second time the Irish viceroyalty. His first appointment was given by Mr. Gladstone twenty years before, when the latter brought out in the House of Commons his earlier measure for the granting of Home Rule. Again, the Chief Secretary was the Right Honorable James Bryce, now British Ambassador to the United States. Among the general reasons for a favorable outlook for Home Rule is the fact that the Labor Party, which is now for the first time a powerful body in the House of Commons, is prepared to stand with the Irish Nationalists. Further, some of the British colonies have, in their local parliaments, passed strong resolutions, calling upon the Parliament at Westminster to grant Ireland's demands for the right of governing her own domestic affairs, while remaining a contented and loyal partner in the

British Empire. In a word, these and the other friends of Ireland did not wish England to be the predominant partner and Ireland the silent partner, but rather that there should be a nearer approach to equality between the two.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL ELECTION. On March 2 the London County Council election was held. The Progressives, after eighteen months of office, were defeated and the Moderates secured a majority of over 40 votes in the Council. The division of the parties was economic; the Moderates were identified with the landlords, franchise owners and the large business interests; the Progressives or Liberals were municipal reformers, if not radicals and socialists. They favored the policy of the taxation of land values, of muncipal ownership and operation of water supply, of tramways and ferries. Their programme included the clearing away of disease-breeding slums and the erection of fine model dwellings for some hundred thousands of the poor. They advocated also the development of a works department for the doing of all public work without the intervention of the contractor. By directly employing labor even at the current trades union rate of wages, they felt that much would be saved the city. In spite of the socialistic character of their experiments, the Progressives' record for the past eighteen years has been praised by their adherents as one of great initiative and success. They have taken water, light and traction from the possession of private monopolies, have begun a vast drainage scheme, and greatly improved the port of London. However, by their opponents they have been charged with lavish expenditures, jobbery, and inefficiency. They have been declared to have raised the rates through mismanagement and by undertaking tasks better adapted to private enterprise, such as advancing £200,000 for the new Gaiety Theatre. In answer to these charges the Progressives said that the increase in rates has been due to the general increase in the cost of living, especially to the growing demands of education and the Conservative policy of putting the denominational schools upon the rates. In a political fight of extraordinary bitterness they were, however, defeated by the use of a huge campaign fund, by cartoons and placards illustrating the extravagance of such schemes as free fares on the Thames steamboats, and penny tubes where free uniforms were sup plied to the employes. But there were also questions of general politics in the campaign. It was thought that the vote against the Progressives would be a vote against the Liberal party, for with a Liberal government in power in Parliament, the Radical programme might not be checked. People felt that the Progressives had been in office long enough and many were uneasy as to the vast expense that would be incurred in projects of old age pensions, government help to the unemployed, municipal employment agencies, municipal milk supply, bakeries, and free food for school children.

HOUSE OF LORDS. The relation of the House of Lords to the House of Commons is a subject which excited great interest during the past year. In his letters of February 5, summoning his followers to attend the opening of Parliament, the Prime Minister used the ominous sentence that "the attention of the House of Commons will at once be called to matters of grave importance." The matters here referred to were obviously taken to mean the obstructive tactics

of the upper chamber toward the measures of the lower. In the previous session the Lords had thrown out the Plural Voting Bill and drastically amended the Education Bill. In doing this, said Mr. Winston Churchill, the peers had deliberately provoked a great constitutional question.

The Premier pointed out that when the Commons was of a certain political complexion, the House of Lords abdicated its powers and use as a revising body, but when Liberals were in power, it became unblushingly aggressive. In reply it was said that the rejection of the Plural Voting Bill and the amendment of the Education Bill were justified, and instead of being a mere partisan body the House of Lords found it possible to consider imperial measures on their intrinsic merits without reference to their temporary popularity. More than once had the House of Lords reflected the general opinion of the country in its treatment of court measures, notably in the case of Mr. Gladstone's Home Rule legislation. Various schemes of reform were put forward and defeated. Lord Newton proposed a reform bill and on May 6 moved for its second reading. He explained as follows the objects he had in view. The first was to reduce the preponderance of the hereditary element in the House. For this purpose he proposed that the possession of a peerage by descent shall not of itself give any right to a seat, and that each peer shall have a right to sit only if he possesses certain special qualifications, or if he is elected as a representative peer. The representative peers would be elected for a Parliament only. The second object was to give the Crown the power to appoint life peers to a number not exceeding 100; the third was to effect a reduction in the number of bishops in the House proportionate to the reduction of hereditary peers; the fourth was to assimilate the system of electing Scotch and Irish representative peers to the system proposed by the bill for the peerage of England; and the fifth object was to enable any hereditary peer who did not desire to become a representative peer, or to sit in the House, to stand as a candidate for election to the House of Commons. He argued that he was not really proposing anything new or revolutionary; he had simply adopted ideas which had been frequently put forward by distinguished members of the House, and in this he found justification for the scheme of his bill. Lord Newton's bill was withdrawn on the passing of the amendment of Lord Cawdor to appoint a select committee to deal with the subject.

COLONIAL CONFERENCE. Continuing the assembly of Colonial Ministers which met in 1897 and 1902, the Colonial Conference met in London, April 15, 1907, under the presidency of Lord Elgin, Secretary of State for the Colonies. Welcoming the delegates, Sir Henry CampbellBannerman gave among the subjects to be discussed, preferential trade between the colonies and Great Britain, and among the colonies themselves a project for a permanent council, imperial defense schemes, naturalization and patent laws. What was positively accomplished by the conference, outside the tightening of the social bonds of the empire, did not appear to be much. Australia could not assent to a system of internal penny postage because it would upset the revenue accounts of some of her States; likewise the home government deemed it inadvisable to

refuse the privileges of coastwise trade between the mother country and its colonies and possessions and between one colony or possession and another to countries in which the corresponding trade is confined to ships of their own nationality. Similar negative results met the proposals for preferential trade, which had been so strenuously urged in the previous meeting by Mr. Chamberlain, for now there was but a bold reaffirmation of the results of 1902, which ran as follows: "That the Prime Ministers of the colonies respectfully urge on His Majesty's government the expediency of granting in the United Kingdom preferential treatment to the products and manufactures of the colonies, either by exemption from, or reduction of, duties now or heretofore imposed." The reason for this negative attitude was summed up by Mr. Asquith, when he argued that it was very easy for the colonies which have a protective system to give preference to Great Britain. They do so by reducing some of their duties, that is to say, lightening the burden of taxation upon their people, but it is a very different thing for Great Britain, a free trade country, to reciprocate with preference. She could only do so by imposing duties that do not now exist upon foreign importations, and that would involve a sacrifice in the increased cost of the necessaries of life and of the raw materials of industries which she could not afford to make. Disagreeing upon the question of the slightest discrimination in favor of colonial imports, the conference nevertheless accomplished something for imperial trade in regard to an "all red route" to all the dominions beyond the seas. It was resolved that in the opinion of this conference the interests of the empire demand that, in so far as practicable, its different portions should be connected by the best possible means of mail communication, travel and transportation, and that to this end it is advisable that Great Britain should be connected with Canada, and through Canada with Australia and New Zealand by the best service available within reasonable cost, that for the purpose of carrying the above project into effect, such financial support as may be necessary should be contributed by Great Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand in equitable proportions. Provision was also made for subsidiary conferences in case of important matters which could not be postponed to the conference of 1911, and also for the creation of a permanent secretarial staff under the direction of the Secretary for the Colonies, "with the duty of obtaining information for the use of the conference, of attending to its resolutions, and of conducting correspondence on matters relating to its affairs." As a final measure, which some consider the first step in the actual unification of Great Britain and her colonies, there was urged the creation of a general staff for the empire "selected from the forces of the empire as a whole, which shall collect and disseminate military information, prepare schemes of defense on a common principle, and advise as to the training and organization of the military forces in every part of the empire, without in the least interfering in questions connected with command and administration in the respective governments."

THREATENED RAILWAY STRIKE. On November 1 the Executive Committee of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants adopted a resolu tion in favor of a general strike. This resolu