A. Milner's refusal to recognise the possibility of arbitration between an independent and a dependent nation. In reply to a question addressed to him from his own side of the House, Mr. Chamberlain recapitulated (June 8) the course of events at Bloemfontein. He said that it was, unfortunately, true that the conference had broken up without result, and that a new situation had thus been created. President Kruger had rejected the proposals made by Sir A. Milner, and the alternative suggested by President Kruger was considered by her Majesty's Government as entirely inadequate. The discussion, he stated, turned mainly on the question of the franchise, Sir A. Milner being of opinion that the exclusion of the Outlanders from representation was the root of the difficulties which had arisen. Having explained Sir A. Milner's suggestions respecting the franchise and the counter proposals of the President, he pointed out that according to these no change whatever would take place for two years, and then only in the case of a small minority of the Outlanders. These proposals, he added, were made subject to an agreement by this country to refer all differences with the Transvaal to the arbitration of a foreign Power. Sir A. Milner had told the President that the British Government would not consent to the intervention of any foreign Power in disputes between themselves and the Government of the South African Republic. With reference to the indemnity for the Jameson raid, he said that Sir A. Milner had informed the President that the British South Africa Company, while protesting against the amount of the claim, would consent to submit to arbitration the amount of damages for any material injury suffered by the Transvaal in consequence of the raid. The question of the dynamite monopoly was reserved for further discussion. The despatch in answer to the petition of the Outlanders to the Queen, which had been held back pending the result of the conference, would now be communicated to the Government of the Transvaal.

A few days later, Mr. Chamberlain, in reply to various questions, explained (June 13) that a foreigner coming to the United Kingdom could be naturalised after five years' residence, and could exercise the franchise six months afterwards. President

Kruger's suggestion was seven years for future foreigners. Immigrants who had arrived in the Transvaal before 1890 would have to wait two and a half years from the passing of the act, and later comers five years. With regard to arbitration, he had received from Sir A. Milner a despatch in which the High Commissioner repeated that he had stated distinctly at the conference that arbitration was not admissible on all questions of difference, and that on no question would arbitration by a foreign Power be permitted. Since the conference, however, President Kruger had submitted a proposal on the subject of arbitration, which contemplated that the president of the arbitral tribunal should be a foreigner. The Transvaal version

H

of the conference was embodied in a despatch from Pretoria to Dr. Leyds, its representative in Europe. According to this, on the British side stress was laid on the franchise and dynamite questions, while for the Transvaal arguments were put forward in reference to the franchise, the incorporation of Swaziland with the republic, the payment of the indemnity demanded on account of the Jameson raid, and the adoption of arbitration for the settlement of the differences between the two countries. The High Commissioner did not insist in regard to the dynamite question, and President Kruger did not insist on the Swaziland demand. As to the Jameson raid indemnity, Sir A. Milner stated that a despatch was on its way from his Government, proposing a settlement of the matter by arbitration. The proposals of both sides in regard to the franchise were set forth, and it was added that the High Commissioner did not regard the President's proposals as sufficient. President Kruger stipulated that all his proposals should be subject to the acceptance by the British Government of arbitration in reference to the differences between the two countries; and if that stipulation were complied with he proposed to submit the different proposals to the Volksraad.

The attitude of the Government was generally endorsed by public opinion throughout the country, the organs most hostile to the display of even firmness, not to say force, in dealing with the Transvaal, hinting more or less clearly that the alleged grievances of the Outlanders were being skilfully engineered and in a great measure manufactured by the capitalists. There was no doubt that on these fell the burden of taxation, direct and indirect, whilst their workmen, enjoying a high rate of wages, only felt their inequality when coming into actual conflict with the dominant Boers. It was, moreover, urged, both in Parliament and in the Press, that the actual difference between the treatment of foreigners desirous of being naturalised as British subject and those who were able to comply with the numerous conditions required by the Transvaal Government was only two years. On the other hand it was admitted that even had President Kruger's proposals been accepted as the basis of further negotiations, foreigners who went to the Transvaal before 1890 would still have to wait two and a half years for the franchise, and those arriving subsequent to that date seven years. The weak side of the British position was the Jameson raid, and the subsequent abortive proceedings in Parliament, by which Mr. Rhodes, who was regarded as the arch-enemy of Transvaal independence, had not only escaped all charges of privity to the raid, but had been extolled in Parliament by Mr. Chamberlain, who, as Secretary for the Colonies, was most prominent in the present proceedings.

In reply, however, to a direct question (June 15) Mr. Chamberlain stated that the report that he had been conferring with Mr. Rhodes was without foundation, for that since 1896

he had had no communication with Mr. Rhodes on Transvaal affairs.

The South African Blue Book which appeared at this time (June 14) contained several interesting papers. In a telegram, dated May 5, Sir A. Milner described the position of the Outlanders. The present crisis was, he said, largely due to the killing of the workman Edgar by the Boer police. Edgar, in resisting an arbitrary arrest in his own room, was shot dead, and this incident precipitated the struggle for political rights. After denying very emphatically that the movement was artificial or the work of capitalists, the High Commissioner declared that "the case for intervention is overwhelming," and insisted that the proposition that things would right themselves if left alone was untenable. "The spectacle of thousands of British subjects kept permanently in the position of helots, constantly chafing under undoubted grievances, and calling vainly on her Majesty's Government for redress, does steadily undermine the influence and reputation of Great Britain, and the respect for the British Government within the Queen's dominions." Mr. Chamberlain's despatch relating to the Outlanders' petition to the Queen was also published. After dwelling upon their grievances with regard to the police, and dealing with the Edgar incident, Mr. Chamberlain explained the policy of the Government. "They are most unwilling to depart from their attitude of reserve and expectancy; but having regard to the position of Great Britain as the paramount Power, and the duty incumbent upon them to protect all British subjects residing in a foreign country, they cannot permanently ignore the exceptional and arbitrary treatment to which their fellow-countrymen and others are exposed, and the absolute indifference of the Government of the republic to the friendly representations which have been made to them on the subject." The Government, he went on to say, were most anxious to avoid intervention, and earnestly desired to maintain the independence of the republic. If they wished its overthrow they would certainly not have urged upon the republic the course which they had suggested, feeling convinced that by satisfying the legitimate demands of the Outlanders, the stability of the republic would be greatly increased.

The House of Commons, which had actually reassembled on the Derby Day (May 31), managed to secure a good attendance for the discussion of the Half-Timers Bill in committee; and, notwithstanding the hostile attitude of the Lancashire members, led by Mr. G. Whiteley (Liverpool), and Mr. SetonKarr (St. Helens), Mr. Robson succeeded in carrying his oneclause bill through the ordeal. The first dilatory proposal was to defer the operation of the bill for five years on the ground that employers might be given time to prepare for the new state of things. This preposterous suggestion was debated at some length, but finally only found ten supporters in a House of 173

members. The next suggestion was that the age for halftimers should commence at eleven and a half instead of at twelve years, which led to a still more protracted discussion, in the course of which the principle of half-timers was strongly denounced by competent speakers. The discussion on this point was practically closed by Sir J. Gorst, who stated that at the Berlin Conference the British Government pledged itself with other Governments to the acceptance of the principle that it was desirable that the minimum age for child labour in factories and workshops should be twelve years. After this official expression, it was surprising that Mr. Robson's clause was gained by only 177 to 18 votes-the Lancashire members of the Government still abstaining from recording their opinions. The only concession to which Mr. Robson, the author of the bill would consent, was a proviso with reference to rural districts, where the local authority had fixed thirteen years as the minimum age for exemption for children employed in agriculture. Mr. Robson was willing that under his bill such children, over eleven years of age and under thirteen who had passed the local standard exempting them, should not be required to attend more than 250 times in a year. This proviso was opposed by Mr. Yoxall (Nottingham, W.), a Radical representing the School Teachers' Union, who thought that too much was done already to conciliate opponents, but it was supported by the representatives of the Conservative landowners, with whose concurrence it had been brought forward. Mr. G. Whiteley (Stockport) at once seized upon the opporutnity to extend the exemption to other than rural districts, but finding the feeling of the House against him, he attempted to limit the operation of the proviso to "children not employed in any factory or workshop." To this dangerous exemption Mr. Robson would not consent, and finally his concession to the agriculturalists was endorsed by 245 to 26 votes. Mr. Rutherford's (Darwen, Lancashire) amendment, under which children might claim partial exemption at the age of twelve, provided that they could show 300 school attendances annually for five years, was accepted in full belief that such patterns of regularity were very exceptional. On the other hand, Colonel Mellor's (Radcliffe, Lancashire) desire to exempt children upon whose earnings the parents were dependent, was promptly negatived, and the clause as amended was then submitted for approval. Again Mr. Whiteley endeavoured to stop the bill, but urgency had been recognised on all sides, and the closure was agreed to by 263 to 26 votes, and the clause carried. A week later, by a clever display of parliamentary tactics, favoured by good luck, the bill was reported as amended; but it was not yet safe, for on coming forward for the third reading (June 14) Mr. SetonKarr (St. Helens) and Mr. G. Whiteley (Stockport) again attempted to impede its progress, but the feeling of the House was now so thoroughly awakened to the importance of the change involved

that the Lancashire members saw the uselessness of prolonging the struggle, and the bill was finally passed.

The immediate cause of the rapid passage of the bill through the report stage (June 7) was in some ways due to the strange fortunes of the Service Franchise Bill, introduced by Sir Blundell Maple (Dulwich) and supported by the Conservative party. It had been opposed by the Radicals on various specious grounds, but principally on the plea that policemen and shop assistants would be chiefly benefited. Mr. M‘Kenna (Monmouthshire, N.) on going into committee, with a view of mutilating the measure, moved that the fact of an employer living on his business premises should disqualify his assistants. With scarcely a pretence of debate this amendment, practically rendering the bill futile, was agreed to by 58 to 40 votes, the author of the bill vainly protesting that he was opposed to this treatment of his proposal, and the Government apparently indifferent to the change. The Radicals, however, having succeeded better than they had anticipated in wrecking the bill, promptly withdrew all the other amendments of which they had given notice, reserving them for the report stage, and the field was thus left open to Mr. Robson. Sir Blundell Maple, however, was not disposed to be made the catspaw of his political opponents, and when his bill next came forward (June 14) he moved that the words struck out in committee should be reinserted, and that his proposal should be limited to restoring the franchise to those who had previously exercised it. There was a fair amount of fencing between the advocates of extension and restriction, the main object being to allow the whips to get their men into line. Finally, after three dilatory divisions, Sir Blundell Maple carried his point by a narrow majority-171 to 154-the Government having at the last moment thought it expedient to assist their own supporter.

The progress of Government business since the Whitsuntide recess had been marked by several important debates. The vote of a grant of 30,000l. to Lord Kitchener of Khartoum gave an opportunity of showing how deep was the cleavage of the Liberal party in the matter of foreign policy. The idea of making the conduct of troops in the field the touchstone of Ministerial responsibility was not altogether a new one, but this was one of the rare occasions on which the grant of a reward to a successful commander was made the occasion of political feeling. The official leaders of the Opposition declined to associate themselves with such tactics, and the Radical "rump," led by Mr. Morley, found but little sympathy and support even among the journals of their own party. Mr. Balfour, in moving (June 5) the grant, endeavoured, as far as possible, to avoid all contentious questions. He was anxious that his fellow-countrymen should realise what it was that the Sirdar had done for the Soudan, for Egypt and for England, and should not think of him merely or chiefly as he was before the fortified lines at Atbara