veniently be mentioned here an incident in the sphere of foreign policy which did not form the subject of Parliamentary debate -the reply of Lord Lansdowne to the communication of the American Secretary of State's hope that the amendments introduced by the Senate in December, 1900, into the Isthmian Canal Convention arranged between Lord Pauncefote and Mr. Hay early in the same year "would be found acceptable" to the British Government. On March 11 Lord Pauncefote, as was immediately announced, notified to Mr. Secretary Hay personally the negative answer of his Majesty's Government, and left with him Lord Lansdowne's despatch, the text of which was issued on March 25. It was entirely courteous and friendly in tone, but quite clear and decided. Lord Lansdowne briefly reviewed the circumstances in which negotiations had been opened, at the wish of the United States, with a view to the modification of the provisions of the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty of 1850, in so far as they stood in the way of the construction of a Trans-Isthmian Canal by the American Government, and pointed out that the British Government had accepted unconditionally the convention proposed by the American Government on this subject, " as a signal proof of their friendly disposition and of their desire not to impede the execution of a project declared to be of national importance to the people of the United States." The American Government, Lord Lansdowne recalled, had "expressed satisfaction at this happy result and appreciation of the conciliatory disposition shown by her Majesty's Government." Lord Lansdowne then proceeded to deal seriatim with the amendments introduced by the Senate into the convention which had been thus agreed upon between the two Governments, beginning with that which, in form at least, was the most remarkable of them-the amendment introduced into Article II., declaring that the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty is "hereby superseded." He argued temperately, but effectively, that the joint result of the Senate's amendments would be to place Great Britain in a position of exceptional disadvantage. The details of this despatch, however, need not be set forth here in view of the favourable course of the negotiations which, in accordance with an invitation virtually extended in its concluding sentence, were reopened later in the year for a new Isthmian Canal Convention.

In the Commons, on the night (Feb. 27) on which the Address was at last agreed to, Mr. Balfour moved the sessional order allocating twenty days, with a possible addition of three more, for the consideration of Supply. The order differed from those introduced in former sessions in one particular, supplementary votes presented for war expenditure being excluded from the operation of the rule. The revival of the order was advocated by Sir H. Fowler from the front Opposition bench; but Mr. J. Redmond and several of the Nationalist members protested against it on the ground that it prevented adequate discussion

of the Irish votes. An amendment proposed by Mr. Dalziel, asking that the number of extra days which might be devoted to Supply should be increased by two, was supported on the following day (Feb. 28), to which the debate was adjourned, by Mr. T. W. Russell (Tyrone, S.), as being necessary to secure an adequate discussion of Irish questions, including the working of the new system of local government. No other Unionist spoke for the amendment, but on a division it was only defeated by a majority of 38-179 votes to 141. This result, which was naturally hailed with loud Opposition cheers, was one of the first of many incidents in the session illustrative of slackness on the Ministerial side, either on the part of the Whips or rather --which was much more probable--in the response they secured. In an hour or so, however, the supporters of the Government had rallied; an amendment, moved by Sir T. Esmonde (Wexford, N.), that six out of the allotted days should be set apart for Irish Estimates was defeated by 213 to 141, and the sessional order was shortly afterwards carried by 257 to 104 -majority, 153.

Then followed the recurrent debate on the second reading of the Miners' Eight Hours Bill, with inevitably very much the same arguments and some of the same speakers as on the day (Feb. 28, 1900), almost exactly a year before, when the subject was last discussed, but with an opposite result. The second reading was moved by Mr. Yoxall (Nottingham, W.). Besides insisting, on what he claimed as expert authority, that the economic effects would be slight, and also, he believed, transient, Mr. Yoxall dwelt on the need of restricting the daily duration of employment under conditions shown by figures as to casualties to be so dangerous as those in mines. On the other side, Sir A. Hickman (Wolverhampton, W.), in moving the rejection of the bill, insisted that legislation of this kind would be disastrous to our coal, iron and steel industries. The bill, he contended, could not be defended successfully even on humanitarian grounds, for if it passed the work in mines would have to be carried on at high pressure-as Mr. Yoxall had incidentally recognised and consequently the risk of accidents would be greater. This last point of view was also sustained by Mr. Fenwick (Wansbeck, Northumberland). He earnestly protested, on behalf of Northumberland miners, against legislation which, even if it made the difference of only sixpence or threepence per ton in the cost of raising coal, would do much to drive the coalowners of that district, whose dealings were mainly with foreign countries, out of their principal markets. On the other hand, Mr. Atherley-Jones (Durham, N.W.) supported the bill in the interest of the boys, whose long employment in the mines, he maintained, on the strength of the reports of Government Commissions and of his own observation, caused them to deteriorate morally, mentally and physically. The bill, having been further supported by Mr. Keir Hardie

(Merthyr-Tydvil), and opposed by Mr. Higginbottom (West Derby, Liverpool) and Sir J. Joicey (Chester-le-Street, Durham), the closure was moved by its friends." With some hesitation, having regard to the shortness of the debate, the Speaker put the motion, when it was carried by 231 to 184-majority 47, and the second reading was then carried, amid loud cheers, by 212 to 199majority, 13.

Hardly had the House of Commons settled down to the business of the session when there were indications of the intention of the Nationalists to make the wheels of the Parliamentary machine move as slowly as possible, not merely, or even perhaps mainly, by what could be called directly obstructive proceedings, but by the development of minute criticism (followed by divisions) on points in themselves more or less open to criticism. Some four hours were thus spent in discussions upon, and divisions on motions for the reduction of, supplementary estimates, amounting in all to less than 12,000l., for such purposes as the warming of art and science buildings in Great Britain, for expenses connected with diplomatic and consular buildings abroad, and for post-office buildings in Great Britain. These proceedings were maintained principally, though not quite entirely, by the Nationalist members, the points of criticism having sometimes reference to some ingenious suggestion of an Irish grievance, sometimes to questions of alleged deficiency in business-like departmental management. It might be difficult to say that any individual discussion was of an illegitimate or obviously obstructive character. But the repeated taking of divisions was obviously so, and there could be no doubt that if the estimates generally were dealt with in the same fashion, the House of Commons would not get through its work if it sat for twenty-four hours on every day in the year. In connection, however, with the consideration in Committee of Supply of supplementary estimates for sundry public buildings, there was a useful discussion, in which Mr. Buxton took part, urging, with other Members, that several of the items set down need not and ought not to have been placed in a supplementary vote at all. This view was practically sustained by so good a financier as Sir E. Vincent (Exeter) on the Unionist side, and notwithstanding that Mr. Akers-Douglas (St. Augustine's, Kent), First Commissioner of Works, had maintained that most, though not all, of the items in question had been necessarily unforeseen, Mr. A. Chamberlain (Worcestershire, E.), Financial Secretary to the Treasury, gave the assurance that in future everything would be done to limit supplementary estimates as strictly as possible. Later in the same evening (March 1) a discussion, raised by Mr. Dalziel (Kirkcaldy Burghs), took place on the propriety of the arrangement under which, since Lord Salisbury gave up the Foreign Secretaryship on the reconstitution of the Ministry in October, 1900, the sinecure office of Lord Privy

Seal, with a salary of 2,000l. a year, was attached to his tenure of the position of Prime Minister. No one had a word to say in depreciation of Lord Salisbury. It was contended by Liberal members, however, that on the one hand there was a certain want of fitness in the remuneration of the head of the Government at a lower rate than his principal colleagues, and, on the other hand, that the most suitable office for the statesman exercising supervision over all the King's Ministers was the post of First Lord of the Treasury. A feeling was also indicated against the re-establishment of a salary in connection with the office of Lord Privy Seal, which since 1884 had had no duties and no pay. Mr. Balfour, however, maintained that the office of Lord Privy Seal might quite suitably be associated with that of Prime Minister (which though the most important in the Ministry is not formally recognised by the Constitution); that, when so associated, it certainly must be a salaried office; and that, if, as was the fact in the present instance, the Prime Minister was satisfied with, and had even suggested, a relatively low rate of emolument, nobody else need complain. A motion for the reduction of the Privy Seal office vote was rejected by 183 to 107.

In view of the inordinate number of sittings occupied by the debate on the Address, and of the indications referred to above as to the intentions of the Nationalists in regard to the extravagant consumption of Parliamentary time, no surprise could be felt at the measures proposed by Mr. Balfour (March 4) for preventing in two specified ways the delay of public business. The first of the resolutions moved by the leader of the House deprived members of the right of moving amendments to the motion for going into Committee of Ways and Means, thereby assimilating the Standing Orders in that respect to the rules regulating the business of Supply. This proposal was opposed by Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman and other Liberal, and also by some Unionist, Members, but its necessity was maintained by Mr. Elliot (Durham), one of the most independent of the Ministerialists, and the resolution was carried by 255 to 161. So, by 237 to 144, was a second resolution giving precedence to financial business on Tuesdays up to Easter, whenever set down by Government. The situation being what it had already become there was indeed no case against these Governmental raids on the preserves of private members, but neither was there any obvious answer to the censure directed by Mr. Bartley (Islington, N.) from the Unionist side, as well as by the leader of the Opposition, on the Government for not having called Parliament together earlier. In Committee of Supply on the same evening certain Supplementary Naval Votes were considered, including one for 600 extra men comprised in the Australian contingent, which had rendered very valuable and conspicuously gallant services in China. The votes were, of course, carried, but not until on proposals of reductions, on the closure and on the main question, four divisions had been taken by the Irish Nationalists.

The temper of that section of politicians was illustrated next day (March 5) by a scene of extraordinary and scandalous violence. Before its occurrence, however, there had been a debate of considerable interest on education. The House having gone into Committee of Supply on a vote of account of 17,304,000l. for the Civil Service and Revenue Departments, Mr. Yoxall (Nottingham, W.) moved a reduction in the vote for the Board of Education in order to take the sense of the House on various points of which he complained in the Board's administration. In particular, he complained that in interpreting a minute which it had issued in 1900 on higher elementary schools the Board was persistently discouraging the development of higher teaching on the lines which various School Boards were desirous of pursuing, and which, he maintained, were in accordance with the legitimate needs of the country. The work of science classes in elementary schools, he complained, had been paralysed, and that of evening continuation schools had been irretrievably damaged by the Cockerton judgment, and he referred to the fact that in the committee for fighting that case against the School Boards Lord Hugh Cecil and Mr. E. Cecil were prominent. A long discussion followed, in which Sir John Gorst (Cambridge University) spoke twice. He entirely repudiated, on behalf of the Board of Education, any responsibility for the initiation of the Cockerton case, but maintained that the minute on higher elementary schools had been drawn up and administered with the intention of facilitating adjustments of curriculum to legal requirements, on the part of any schools which the judgment (always anticipated at Whitehall) in that case might deprive of resources on which they had been depending. Most of the larger School Boards, however, had "boycotted" the minute thus benevolently designed. Sir J. Gorst attributed the irritation felt among them to the disappointment of their desire to become Secondary Education authorities. He expressed a distinct disapproval of that ambition, holding that its gratification would lead, besides having other disadvantages, to the multiplication of a type of school "tainted with the defects of the elementary school system." That there must be a single local authority for education of all grades Sir J. Gorst maintained with much earnestness. Only so could overlapping and waste be prevented, and order be introduced into the existing chaos. The Vice-President did not, indeed, in his references to the Education Bill to be introduced on behalf of the Government, indicate that it would establish any such single local authority. He rather seemed to suggest that it was for Parliament to decide the scope and limits of legislation on the subject. The debate, however, was sustained with so much vigour and intelligent interest and so little of a merely polemical spirit by Members on both sides as to fully justify, in appearance at any rate, the hopeful inferences drawn from it at its close by Mr. Asquith. Having regard, he said, to