systematic inspection "; and (2) on the establishment, in supersession of the existing War Office Council and Army Board, of a permanent Board consisting of the heads of all the great departments, military and civil, and to be known as the "War Office Board." This body "would be charged (under the Secretary of State) with the supervision and control of the working and management of the War Office, with the consideration of the annual estimates prepared by the heads of departments, and with the allocation of the sums allotted for military purposes." As illustrating the beneficial manner in which it would be calculated to affect the settlement of important questions there may be quoted the recommendation that "the financial criticism of any proposal before the Board would be considered pari passu with the proposal itself, so that the whole subject would leave the Board for the Secretary of State's decision in a complete state."

The report as a whole made a very favourable impression on public opinion, and the hope was generally entertained and expressed that Mr. Brodrick would be strong enough to wrestle successfully with the great difficulties in the way of the adoption of the reforms which it sketched out.

A few days after the House of Commons had met, the intervening sittings having been mainly occupied with Supply, and with futile attempts by Mr. Labouchere and a few other Radicals, with Irish support, to introduce modifications into the Civil List Bill, which was reported (June 10) without amendment, Mr. Balfour moved (June 11) that for the rest of the session, except on the two following Wednesdays, Government business should have precedence. In so doing he stated that the bills which the Government wished to pass were, besides the Budget and the Loan Bills, the Rating Bill, which he feared was controversial, and the Education Bill, which he thought ought not to be so regarded, the Factory and Workshop Acts Amendment Bill, and a Teachers' Tenure Bill to be introduced by Sir J. Gorst. As to private Members' bills, he proposed to put down for June 26 the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors to Children and the Beer Bills, and the motions for sending them to grand committees, leaving the remainder of the day for other private Members' bills. He hoped those two bills would be passed, but could not promise further time. [A reduced Children's Bill became law; the Beer Bill not.]

Sir H. Campbell - Bannerman warned the Government significantly that the bill for continuing the grants in aid of local rates and the Education Bill would take up a great deal of time, and referred to the marked contraction of the Government programme from that announced at the beginning of the session. Mr. J. Redmond commented bitterly on the disappearance of the Irish Land Purchase Bill from the Ministerial list, and declared that it was evident that Parliament as at present

constituted had no time to attend to the affairs of Ireland. It was worthy of observation that, though Sir H. CampbellBannerman did not, in the existing situation, raise objection to Mr. Balfour's motion, a division taken against it showed a Ministerial majority of only 144 to 111.

Immediately afterwards the Home Secretary moved the second reading of the Factory and Workshop Acts Amendment Bill, which had been read a first time on March 28. In so doing Mr. Ritchie drew attention in the first place to some minor though important changes which it would effect in the law, instancing provisions for securing the improved ventilation of rooms in which working girls were crowded together, the prohibition of the employment of children in cleaning operations beneath moving machinery, and the clause making local authorities responsible for the sanitation of underground bakehouses. Explaining the alterations which were proposed in the law relating to dangerous trades, he said that the rules for their regulation would, in the first place, be made in draft form by the Home Secretary, and that all parties interested would be given an opportunity of stating their views. The rules could be amended, and before they became operative there would be the fullest inquiry before an arbitrator, by whose decision, however, the Home Secretary would not be bound. Finally, the proposed rules would be laid on the tables of both Houses. There were important provisions affecting laundries, and religious and charitable institutions were to a certain extent to be brought within the operation of the factory laws; but Mr. Ritchie understood that objection was taken to the inspection of some of these institutions, and he should be ready to consider in committee how the difficulty could be met. For the sanitary condition of domestic workshops local authorities would in future be responsible. The bill was to be sent to the Grand Committee on Trade.

Anticipating slightly, it may be recorded at this point that the second reading of the Factory Bill was obtained (June 17) after a generally friendly discussion. Mr. Asquith in particular, while offering some criticisms on points of detail, recognised in the measure a distinct advance on previous legislation. It contained, he said, useful new developments of the factory law, and also provisions facilitating the enforcement of the existing law. On the same evening a bill for the Consolidation of the Factory Acts was also read a second time and referred, with the amending measure, to the Standing Committee on Trade.

In the meantime the Eight Hours Bill for Miners, which, as recorded (p. 55), had been read a second time by a small majority on February 27, came up as the second order on Wednesday, June 12, for discussion in committee in the Commons; but, the debate being easily kept up till 5.30, the measure lost whatever chance it had of becoming law in the ession of 1901. In the Lords (June 13) the Convocations

Bill was read a second time, on the motion of the Archbishop of Canterbury, supported by the Northern Primate, and with the assent of Lord Salisbury. This measure was much favoured by Church reformers, as a step towards securing autonomy for the Church of England more or less similar to that enjoyed by the Kirk of Scotland. Its objects, as the Archbishop of Canterbury explained, were to remove the doubts which existed in regard to the power of the Convocations of Canterbury and York to reform their constitutions and to amend the representation of the clergy by passing canons under the licence and with the consent of the Crown; and also to enact that these Convocations might subsequently prepare a scheme providing for the joint deliberation and action of the Convocations of the two provinces, the scheme to become law on being confirmed by an order in Council. This measure passed smoothly through its subsequent stages in the Upper House, but in the Commons it never advanced beyond a first reading. It was quite possible, no doubt, that the Convocations Bill might have been treated as controversial by a section of the House of Commons. There was no reason, however, to entertain any such supposition with regard to the Prevention of Corruption Bill, which was introduced by the Lord Chancellor, and read a first time on May 21, and read a second time on June 10; subsequently considered in committee of the whole House of Lords, and also by the Standing Committee; and passed and sent to the House of Commons on June 28. This measure dealt with the notorious evils of corruption in commercial affairs, and, as the Co-operative Congress at Middlesbrough desired, it provided for the punishment of the offering or giving, as well as the soliciting or receiving, of corrupt considerations. The bill was a somewhat reduced version of one with similar objects which had been promoted by the late Lord Russell of Killowen, and brought to a second reading (April 23, 1901) by Lord Alverstone. The subject had been very fully considered, and there was no reason why it should not have been very briefly disposed of by the House of Commons. It never reached a second reading there, however, and its failure and the waste of the time spent upon it could not but be regarded as a striking illustration of the unsatisfactory working of the legislative machine.

A premature and inconclusive debate took place in the House of Commons (June 13) on a motion for the adjournment made by Mr. Gibson Bowles (King's Lynn) in regard to the works at Gibraltar, as to which he had formed one of a Committee of Inquiry with Admiral Sir Harry Rawson, Sir W. Nicholson and Mr. Matthews. He complained that in view of a report which they had sent in on March 30 certain works on the western side of the Rock had not been abandoned, and he also suggested that the committee had been invited to rewrite, or, at any rate, considerably modify their report, and that his colleagues had been ready to fall in with this suggestion.

Mr. Balfour repudiated this allegation at the time, and promised at an early date as full information as could properly be given on a subject involving considerations of international delicacy. On June 27, in the House of Lords, the First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord Selborne) made a full statement on the subject, copious extracts from the interim report of March 30 and the final one, signed by all the members of the committee except Mr. Bowles on May 16, having been issued in a Parliamentary paper on the previous day.

Having mentioned the reserve with which he was bound, by the respect due to Spain, to treat the question, Lord Selborne reminded the House that the works at Gibraltar were begun in 1893, when Lord Spencer was First Lord of the Admiralty, and were continued and enlarged when Lord Goschen held that office. On both occasions it was recognised that the western side was more exposed to gun fire than the eastern side, but this fact was not allowed to outweigh the advantages of having a harbour and docks on the western side. When he came into office he had to consider the state of the works, and he was constrained to admit the fact that an important new factor was introduced into the consideration of the question by the experience in South Africa, which showed that the large and heavy guns by which such works could be attacked were mobile. He felt the great importance of that, and after he had consulted his advisers at the Board of Admiralty and communicated with the commanders in the Mediterranean and in the Channel a committee was appointed to investigate the subject. As to the two reports of that committee, he understood Mr. Bowles to have said that the first report was a final report, and that the other members of the committee must have been subjected to official pressure to induce them to change their opinions. On the part of the Government and of Sir H. Rawson and his colleagues he wished to repudiate that charge most clearly and emphatically. At the same time he frankly recognised the great ability which Mr. Bowles had shown in connection with the matter and the cordial assistance which he had received from that hon. gentleman.

Proceeding to deal with the complaint that during the investigation the works were not suspended, Lord Selborne said that considering the great importance of these works he had no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the right course was to allow the policy adopted by two successive Governments to proceed until good reason was shown for changing it; but when the interim report of March 30 reached him he took all the steps open to him, without breaking or suspending the contracts, to prevent the contractors from incurring any additional expenditure with regard to the docks and storehouses. Both the interim and final report of the committee strongly recommended that a harbour and dock, and certain other works, should be established on the eastern

side of the Rock. He had no hesitation in saying that the possession of such a harbour and dock would be a great advantage to the Mediterranean Fleet in war time. He was unable, however, to give any estimate as to what such works would cost, or as to the time that would be occupied in their construction. The estimate of the committee was that the cost of the proposed works would be 5,320,000l., and that the time occupied in their construction would be about ten years, but this estimate could not be accepted as final. In fact, he was not in possession of the materials for submitting to Parliament proposals for the construction of a harbour on the eastern side. It was the intention of the Government to have a complete survey and all the observations and inquiries made that would be needed in order to form the basis of a reasonable and reliable estimate. In his judgment, however, such a work could never be considered without relation to the other calls upon the Exchequer and to the other requirements of the Navy. His Majesty's Government had considered most earnestly whether it would be for the benefit of the public service to suspend the construction of the dock on the western side. He had not only discussed the question with his colleagues at the Board of Admiralty, but he had consulted the admirals in command of the Mediterranean and Channel Squadrons. They were unanimously of opinion that three graving docks were urgently required at Gibraltar for the service of the Navy, and the Government had therefore resolved to complete a third dock on the western side. Parliament would be asked to sanction two supplementary estimates for providing quarters, equally accessible from east and west, for the accommodation of the men working on the docks, and for water storage necessary for the service of the dockyards.

Lord Selborne's statement was accepted as on the whole satisfactory by Lord Spencer, and Lord Goschen also expressed his approval of the course taken by the Government.

It is now necessary to go back slightly in order to begin the review of a series of incidents, most of which, though not all, occurred outside Parliament, but which in June and July occupied much more public attention than was bestowed on the general course of Parliamentary proceedings at the same period. They were all connected with the South African war, and for some weeks they seemed to bring well within view the possibility that the long-standing differences within the Liberal party on that subject would issue in a definitive rupture. Repeated and emphatic expression had been given in the last days of May and early in June to what may conveniently, and not very unjustly, be called the pro-Boer views current among a section of the Liberal party, by the speeches delivered by Mr. Morley to his constituents, and by the presence and speeches of several Members of Parliament of more or less note, such as Mr. Courtney, Mr. E. Robertson, Mr. Channing and Mr. Burns, at meetings