attacking the Government in so grave a state of affairs, but he also blamed the Government for taking possession of Wei-haiwei, which he only hoped would prove to be like Cyprus, and would never be used; and Sir Charles Dilke pointed out that it would never be of any use unless it was fortified and garrisoned at very considerable expense. Mr. Curzon answered several questions, and especially satisfied the House by the assurance that our relations with both Germany and Japan in regard to what was happening in the Far East were of the best kind. As to Southern China, matters were still under discussion. Our interests in China were not limited to north or south, but extended freely over the whole empire, and we were not likely to allow them to be frittered away in any part. As to Port Arthur, we retained all our treaty rights, including the right to send ships of war there. The acquisition of Wei-hai-wei was not, as Sir William Harcourt had suggested, an abandonment of the policy of "the open door"; it was, on the contrary, in order to keep the door open that we had taken the place. Sir Edward Grey (Berwick-on-Tweed, Northumberland) admitted that the new policy of the Government must be judged by its success, but he insisted that our prestige must be maintained. For the future we must not lend ourselves to a policy of splendid isolation," but must find between ourselves and other Powers grounds of common interest. The Government should always say what they meant, and never say what they did not mean. Lord Charles Beresford (York) was in favour of the acquisition of Wei-hai-wei, but insisted that docks must be made there, and that it must be garrisoned and fortified. He was glad to hear that there was no irritation against us on the part of either Germany or Japan, for that was most important. As to the Yang-tzse Valley, he wanted to know how it was to be defended from attack and possible capture in the event of Russia obtaining possession of the whole of Manchuria. He declined to believe in any Russian assurances, even if they were twenty fathoms long," for he remembered Merv, Bokhara, Khiva and Batoum. As for "the open door" it was very nearly "a blind brick wall already, and might soon become an ironclad one." Mr. Yerburgh (Chester), who had been most prominent among the Conservative jingoes, expressed dissatisfaction with the explanation of the Government, and declared, amid strong expressions of dissent, that his views were shared by the great majority of the Ministerial party, and promised that the subject should be fully discussed at a later period. With this the debate was allowed to drop, and the House adjourned for the Easter

recess.

In the excitement roused by the progress of affairs in China, the practical termination of the Concert of Europe by the withdrawal by Germany of her ship in Cretan waters passed almost without notice. Throughout the previous year's negotiations Germany had leant towards Turkey and had emboldened

that country to evade the demands of the rest of Europe. The proposal by Russia, supported by the other Powers, that Prince George of Greece should be made Governor of Crete was the pretext for the action of Germany, which was subsequently followed by Austria; but in reality it showed that Russia and Great Britain, respectively supported by France and Italy, had decided that the Sultan's rule in Crete should come to an end, and Germany being unable or unwilling to resist, decided to withdraw from the concert.

The annual gathering of the National Liberal Federation, held this year at Leicester, showed that the party was still undecided as to its programme and its leaders, and the proceedings were not calculated to suggest that the latter were in a hurry about the former. Meanwhile they were satisfied with their creed, which would enable all Liberals to embrace every reform which might present itself; but Mr. Birrell, who was one of the speakers, admitted that "Irish Home Rule as a practical measure had gone clean out of the minds of the constituencies.' The special duty of "enthusing" the party, however, fell to Mr. John Morley, who promptly showed that he was not prepared to sacrifice any of his personal views in order to prove himself in harmony with his colleagues. He strongly and uncompromisingly attacked the referendum; towards which Mr. Asquith, a few days previously, had expressed a leaning. He, nevertheless, defended the party leaders against the charge of "nervelessness brought against them by discontented Liberals, and took occasion to say that he was not going to turn his back upon a single item of the Newcastle programme. He was not sure that the next election would turn upon legislation at all. It might turn, like that of 1880, on the question of foreign policy. If the House of Lords resisted anything upon which the heart of the country was set, of course they would be driven like chaff before the wind, but he was not sure that the peers would give their enemies. that chance. Mr. Morley added that he was glad to see at the end of the hall those two words written up large on a red ground, "No referendum." Those two words expressed his sentiments. The referendum had worked indifferently in Switzerland, and he believed that in England it would cause constant friction. With respect to Home Rule, it might be that the particular chapter in the relations of the Liberal party to Ireland which opened in 1886 might be approaching its last page. As to the future, he would put the case in this way: "If the Irish demand persists-and what man in his political senses doubts that it will and must persist-and that demand is presented, as Mr. Parnell deliberately shaped and accepted it in 1886, for a strictly subordinate legislative body, in my belief British Liberals will be no more justified in retreating, will be no more inclined to retreat, from the compulsion of the arguments which pressed upon them from 1886 to 1889 than their Liberal forefathers two or three generations ago believed they

had any right at any stage of a thirty years' battle to drop the cause of Catholic emancipation." The idea of "Home Rule all round" he characterised as "impracticable and as going altogether beyond the necessities of the case."

Two bye-elections which occurred shortly after the Leicester meeting might have encouraged the Liberals to hope that a better day was dawning for their party. At Maidstone where the Unionists had met with no opposition in 1895, and had carried the seat in 1892 by upwards of 800 votes, the same candidate, Mr. Cornwallis, only succeeded in holding it (March 26) for his party by a majority of 178 votes. In the Wokingham division of Berks the jealousy occasioned by the choice of the Unionist candidate may have caused a falling off in the party vote, but it was not sufficient to account for the reduction of the Unionist majority by more than 1,000 votes (4,726 to 3,690), although the Liberal candidate, Mr. G. Palmer of Reading, was an exceptionally strong candidate, whilst Captain Young was a comparatively new-comer to the district.

The ending of the Indian frontier war, followed by the apparent humiliation of the Afridis, and the crushing defeat of the Khalifa's lieutenant at Atbara, came opportunely to raise the spirits of the Ministerial supporters, and to show to the world that our soldiers could still hold their own against their enemies and doggedly pursue them into regions deemed wellnigh inaccessible.

CHAPTER III.

The South Wales Coal Dispute-The United States and Spain-Lord Salisbury's attitude-Sir Edward Grey at Hartlepool--Mr. Courtney at Bodmin-The British South Africa Company-The Vaccination Bill-The Budget-Irish Distress-Debate on Chinese Affairs-The Irish Local Government Bill in Committee-Lord Salisbury at the Albert Hall-The Colonial Policy of the Government-Mr. Chamberlain at Birmingham-The Lords on Colonial Affairs-The Bye-elections-Mr. Gladstone's Death-Tributes in both Houses -His Public Funeral.

THE cession of Wei-hai-wei and the brilliant victory over the strongly entrenched Dervish army at Atbara came opportunely to revive the flagging fortunes of the Ministry. Unfortunately, nearer home, a wide-reaching strike through the South Wales coalfields threw a gloom over the Easter holidays in that district, and threatened to interrupt the activity which had been of late showing itself in many industries. The coal-owners, who had displayed unusual foresight in providing against a sudden suspension of work, were ready from the outset to go into conference, but the men, apparently unable to agree among themselves, or unwilling to place unlimited powers in the hands of their delegates, refused to allow negotiations to proceed. The origin of the dispute was the conviction that the South Wales miners were not earning equal wages with those of other

In

coalfields. For upwards of twenty years the industry in South Wales had been worked on "the sliding scale," ten shillings per ton being taken as the standard, not the minimum price. Since the adoption of this system the output of South Wales coalalmost exclusively used for steamships and locomotives-had more than doubled, to the immense profit of the owners, but with little advantage to the men, except in the numbers of men employed. The demand put forward by the men, upsetting the arrangement of 1876, was that they should receive a rise of 10 per cent. indefinitely with the increase of the price of coal, but that wages should never fall below one shilling per ton. order to support their demand, the men urged that the output should be limited in order to keep up the price of coal. Possibly had South Wales held an absolute monopoly of "steam coal," the owners might not have been unwilling to meet the men on the last point, but in face of a world-wide competition, and the fact that Japanese coal had been found suitable for ships of war, the danger of such a policy was too obvious. The result was that 100,000 miners went out on strike, and at the same time refused to invest their representatives with plenary powers to treat with the masters. A deadlock was the natural result, and a constantly growing misunderstanding, which no outside arbitrators were allowed to remove.

For the moment, however, all attention was concentrated upon the daily growing trouble between the United States and Spain, the latter nation naturally declining to yield her sovereign rights over Cuba without striking a blow in their defence. The excesses and cruelties which had marked the protracted and ineffectual attempts to crush the insurrection in the island, had aroused the sympathies of a large party in America, and these were adroitly worked upon and turned to account by two or three independent groups of politicians, whose views were not wholly humanitarian. The desire of the President to intervene to prevent further bloodshed and horrors was supported, after some hesitation, by Congress, and this decision was met in their country by the hearty approval of nearly all parties and classes, although it was felt that the United States had somewhat unnecessarily cut off from Spain the path of retreat she might, under pressure, have been induced to take. Unfortunately for that unhappy country, some of the European countries counselled resistance, and even held out the prospect of at least moral support during the struggle, and especially after the end of the war. Dynastic and other reasons combined to persuade Spain to stiffen her back, and it was only after war was inevitable that the Spanish Government learnt that the overtures-originated by Germany-for a joint representation to the Washington Government had fallen through in consequence of Great Britain's absolute refusal to interfere. In acting thus Lord Salisbury undoubtedly gave expression to the dominant feeling in this country, where the maladministration of the Spanish colonies

F

was fully known, although the horrors of the prolonged Cuban revolt were less keenly felt than on the American continent; and undoubtedly British sympathies were quickened by the contemptuous indifference displayed by the Americans to the "European Concert," which suddenly became an object of veneration to the journalists of Paris and Berlin. It subsequently transpired that Austria, moved by family friendship, had sounded France and Germany on the subject of joint intervention. The former, whose citizens were enormously interested in the solvency of Spain, of whose securities they were the chief holders, readily acquiesced. Germany made its accession contingent on the co-operation of Great Britain, of which neither Power doubted, in view of the repeated wranglings between Great Britain and the United States. Mr. Balfour, however, who was, in the absence of Lord Salisbury, acting as Foreign Secretary, promptly demolished this carefully planned scheme to embroil the two English-speaking countries, and then to profit by the exhaustion of both. Appreciating fully the real meaning of the "friendly mediation it was suggested should be offered, he instructed Sir Julian Pauncefote that under no circumstances would Great Britain adopt a policy which might be regarded as unfriendly by the Washington Cabinet. This refusal, which was notified to the various European courts, was, as might have been anticipated, followed by eager denials in the official and semi-official newspapers of those countries that anything unfriendly to the United States had ever been contemplated.

Among the few speeches which, contrary to custom, the Easter recess called forth, only those of Sir Edward Grey at Hartlepool and of Mr. Leonard Courtney at Bodmin (April 13) call for special notice. The former, who had been Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs in Lord Rosebery's Administration, and was justly regarded as one of the future leaders of the Liberal party, censured the Chinese policy of the Government as dilatory and irresolute. It was nearly three years, he said, since the question of Russia taking Port Arthur was first mooted, and apparently only three weeks since our Government spoke to the Russian Government. Then a little later the British Government put forward what he called a demand, but what he was told was a request, to have the port of Ta-lien-wan made open to trade. To put this forward, when they knew they did not mean to press it, was not, he thought, a very wise policy. Just at the critical moment, just when the lease of Port Arthur was the subject of discussion between the Russian and Chinese Governments, the British ships were withdrawn from Port Arthur. It had been put abroad that the withdrawal of these ships from Port Arthur at that particular time gave rise, he thought quite wrongly, to the construction that the British Government did not mean to raise any objection to Russian demands about Port Arthur. He thought that the Government should have made up their mind during the last three years whether they were going to resist Russia having a