there was nothing to prevent small shopkeepers from taking advantage of the act. From statistics with which he had been furnished, he believed that between ten and twelve years' purchase of the gross rental was the selling value of the kind of house the bill had in view, and that under its provisions a purchaser would become owner in from sixteen to twenty years' time without paying annually more than he did at present. The amendment was negatived by 249 to 69, and the bill read a second time; Mr. Chamberlain's subsequent motion that it should be referred to the Standing Committee on Law being carried by 224 to 79 votes.

After a few nights had been delivered to general business and rather prolonged discussion of unpractical reforms, the Government announced their intention of occupying the time of the House with their Finance and London Government Bills to the exclusion of private members' efforts at legislation. In the Upper House also the desire to proceed with practical business was more apparent after Lord Russell of Killowen had introduced his bill for suppressing illicit commissions (April 20), and the Earl of Wemyss had ventilated his views (April 21) on the proper decoration of St. Paul's Cathedral. The latter might possibly have been regarded as a connecting link between clerical and educational questions, which engrossed so much attention. The Prime Minister said the answer to the question whether Government could do anything in the matter must be an absolute negative. Nor did he believe that any member of the chapter would greatly care to take action, seeing that ecclesiastical litigation was one of the most expensive amusements in which a man could indulge; and when appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council were lightly suggested, he could not help thinking that that unfortunate body had burdens enough already on its shoulders without being required to determine whether the architecture which was prevalent in the days of the Exarchate of Ravenna was proper to apply to St. Paul's, and what the precise tone of the decorations should be. As to the Government attempting legislation, the state of public business in the other House scarcely encouraged them to enter upon so thorny a question; but there was no reason why Lord Wemyss should not himself introduce a bill on the subject, so that their lordships might have a definite proposal to consider. Lord Ribblesdale thought that a good deal of harm was being done in St. Paul's, but it was clear that only the influence of public opinion could put a stop to it. Earl Egerton joined with those who objected to the dean of a cathedral having the power to alter the character of that cathedral by a system of decoration. We did not want St. Paul's turned into a St. Peter's at Rome, nor an imitation of St. Mark's at Venice, nor of St. Sophia at Constantinople. Earl Brownlow reminded their lordships that when the choir was reopened, and the present decoration of that part of the cathedral for the first

time exhibited, there was a perfect pæan of approbation both from the Press and the public, in consequence of which a considerable sum of money poured in for the continuance of the work. As to the stencilling of the stone under the dome, that the dean had assured the deputation of architects who waited on him was entirely experimental, and it had already been stopped.

The Board of Education Bill, which although to a great extent a permissive bill if carried out in a sympathetic spirit, aimed at reviving the responsibilities of local school managers. In the debate on the second reading many interesting speeches were made by those possessing special means of judging the value of its recommendations. The Archbishop of Canterbury (Dr. Temple) did not think it possible for any who took interest in the education of the country not to rejoice at the appearance of this bill. It was the first attempt to do what, in his judgment, ought to have been done something like five and twenty years sooner, because, through all that time, our educational system had been suffering from the want of that completeness which was necessary in order that any part of it should work as well as it was possible to make it work. He hoped that private schools would be allowed to obtain inspection on the same terms as any of the other schools. Nor should schools which gave religious instruction be hindered from getting inspection on the same terms exactly as schools which did not give such instruction. To put a kind of fine on schools which gave religious instruction by making them pay for inspection seemed to him neither wise nor just, and he trusted the bill would make explicit and satisfactory provision on this point. The Marquess of Ripon sincerely regretted the limitations of the bill. He had hoped ministers would have seen their way to deal with secondary education as a whole. The Bishop of Winchester (Dr. Randall Davidson) agreed that the bill did not go far enough, but it went in the right direction, and it was a practical measure. The Earl of Kimberley also criticised the bill as inadequate. So far as it went, however, it was an improvement on the measure introduced last year. The Duke of Devonshire said that though the Government deemed it desirable completely to reorganise the Education Department before the new local authorities were called into existence, he knew of no insurmountable reason why a measure dealing with those authorities should not be passed next session. As to inspection there were, he believed, some 800 public and 5,000 private schools. The systematic inspection of the latter would obviously require a very large and highly trained staff, and for financial as well as other reasons such a staff would scarcely be at the disposal of the Education Board in the near future. While thanking the Primate for the general support he had given to the measure, he regretted that the religious question should have been raised in connection with it. There was nothing in the bill before them to change, and he knew of no inten

tion to change in any respect, the administration of secondary education in the matter of religious instruction. He could not allow that the Charity Commission was in the nature of a judicial body, its functions being almost entirely administrative. With respect to the consultative body he should prefer to postpone detailed explanation till the committee stage. The bill was then read a second time without a division.

In the House of Commons precedence was given to financial questions, and the general discussion of the Budget was concluded without bringing out more than a reiteration of Sir Wm. Harcourt's denunciation, who remarked that apparently to the imperialists the meaning of "taking up the white man's burden was the suspension of the sinking fund. We were to have the glory of an imperial policy, and those who came after us were to pay for it. Sir M. Hicks-Beach reminded his predecessor in office that he had himself three times suspended the sinking fund. With a fixed charge of 23,000,000%. for the debt there would still be nearly 6,000,000l. a year for the payment of principal-just the amount which Sir Wm. Harcourt had thought sufficient to apply to that purpose during the year 1886-7, when the total of the debt was very much greater. He also dwelt on the fact that a constant increase of the sinking fund must tend to raise the value of Consols till the public were disgusted at the price which would have to be paid for them. With this singularly inaccurate prophecy the discussion closed, and within less than six months Consols which then stood above 110 had dropped to considerably below 105.

The London Government Bill, on the passing of which the Ministry had staked their credit, occupied no less than twelve nights in its discussion in committee, and but for the warning that prolonged debate would curtail the Whitsun holidays might have gone on for longer. The Opposition saw their opportunity, and determined to use it to the best advantage; for as the metropolitan district, now represented by a Unionist majority, was also the most hopeful field for the Liberals at another general election, it was highly important that the electors should be conciliated. The question was which party could claim to have best represented the wishes of the voters. The first skirmish (April 24), arose on the question of the inclusion of the City of London within the operations of the bill moved by Mr. Haldane (Haddingtonshire), and negatived by 208 to 103 votes. Mr. Stuart (Hoxton), the champion of the London County Council, assisted by Sir Charles Dilke (Forest of Dean) and Mr. A. Birrell (Fifeshire, W.), next displayed a remarkable hostility to the word "borough," preferring the term "district.' Mr. Pickersgill (Bethnal Green, S. W.), was more successful in obtaining the introduction of a suggestion that every unscheduled borough should be formed with due regard to efficiency of administration, local history and association, and also should

have a population of between 100,000 and 400,000, or a rateable value of 500,000l. (April 25). Clause 2 (constitution of Borough Councils), raised the sex question, which was debated with great vehemence and at great length. Having decided by 245 to 140 that the new bodies should consist of mayors, aldermen and councillors, Mr. Boulnois (Marylebone, E.), proposed that no women should be eligible for either category, but this was negatived by 127 to 101 votes. Mr. T. H. Robertson (Hackney, S.), then proposed that only the office of mayor should be placed outside the reach of the ladies, and this was agreed to by 179 to 77 votes. The House then put itself into a ridiculous position by passing by 155 to 124 votes, on the motion of Mr. Webster (St. Pancras, E.), an amendment excluding women from the office of alderman. This led to a hopeless tangle of amendments, and in the end it was agreed that the whole matter should be reconsidered, and in like manner Mr. Buxton's (Poplar), proposed substitution of triennial for annual elections was adjourned. Subsequently when the matter was rediscussed (May 4), Mr Balfour, after much pressure from the metropolitan members, agreed that any municipality might, if it wished, adopt the triennial system. This decision was subsequently modified (May 8), and it was decided that the Local Government Board might, under certain conditions, make an order directing all councillors of a borough to be elected triennially. The maximum number of councillors for any borough was fixed at seventy and the aldermen, not necessarily to be chosen from among the councillors, at one-sixth of their number. An attempt to relax the residence qualification of councillors and aldermen was strongly resisted by metropolitan members of all shades of opinion, a very strong protest being raised by them against" carpet-baggers"" and "political bounders". Sir Charles Dilke (Forest of Dean), whose previous experience as a metropolitan member gave authority to his views, was desirous that the borrowing powers of the new councils should be absolutely controlled by the London County Council instead of by the Local Government Board, but Mr. Balfour would only consent to the appeal to the latter being final, in cases where the London County Council had refused its consent to a proposed loan.

On the question of the transfer of powers actually exercised by the London County Council to the new Borough Councils, Mr. Balfour was more pliable (May 9); accepting a clause which permitted the voluntary interchange of powers between the two authorities, subject only to the approval of the Local Government Board. He also withdrew the clause (6) delimiting the respective powers of the old and new authorities under the Building Acts, but resisted all attempts by the Radical members to withhold and limit the new councils' power to promote bills in Parliament. After a prolonged discussion, and in view of the unanimity of the London members, Mr. Balfour con

ceded (May 16), that the new Borough Councils should act as overseers for the purpose of rate-collecting, and that the town clerk should be the officer responsible for the registration of voters. New clauses were also added (May 18) to the bill qualifying borough mayors as justices of the peace, protecting open spaces, including the precincts of the Inner and Middle Temples, within the City of London. The parliamentary divisions of Deptford, Greenwich, Woolwich, Lewisham and others were added to those already scheduled, and the attempt to divide Westminster into two boroughs was decisively negatived, and the bill was reported to the House on the eve of the Whitsuntide recess.

The other important measure of the Government was the Finance Bill, against which the Opposition made a strong and not altogether useless stand. The debate was opened (May 1) by Sir H. Fowler (Wolverhampton, E.), who expressed the fear that the new wine duties would diminish consumption and so reduce our trade with both France and our own colonies. With regard to the sinking fund, he said that the effect of the plan would be to reduce the fixed amount of the sinking fund from 25,000,000l. to 23,000,000l. He urged the Government to appoint a select committee to consider the whole question of the Savings Banks' investments. As to the National Debt, it was a tax upon the industry of the country, and it was the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to get rid of it as far as he could. Mr. Haldane (Haddingtonshire) pointed out that by enlarging the scope of trust investments a good deal could be done to reduce the price of Consols. Sir M. Hicks-Beach, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, said, with regard to the wine duties, that any other taxation would have interfered more with the trade and industry of the country. Explaining his reasons for his proposal with regard to the debt, he said that they ought not to incur loss in the future by adding largely to the amount set aside annually for the reduction of the debt at a time when the Consol market was narrowing considerably. If they did not reduce the fixed debt charge, it would not be very long before it would be practically impossible for the Government to purchase the Consols which they required. There was no doubt that the position of the Savings Banks and their fund was one of considerable difficulty; it was, however, so important that it deserved exhaustive inquiry, which should include the area of investment, the rate of interest, and the limit of deposits. He intended to communicate with members who took an interest in the subject with a view to ascertaining in what way and by whom such an inquiry could best be conducted. With regard to fixed debt charge, the money set aside for the payment of the debt was surplus revenue raised by taxation, and to propose fresh taxation in order that the fixed amount might be paid would be unreasonable and would result in an agitation against the fund.