paramount importance that the Parliament of 1885 should deal with it in a statesmanlike manner, it was of still greater importance that it should be dealt with by the present Parliament, or that which was to come. If Home Rule were dead, why did their opponents make such a fuss about it, and why did they not let the dead bury the dead? Now these opponents complained that the Liberals did not fight fairly, but had too many items in their programme when they ought to be content with one. But the Liberals were going to fight the battle in their own way. They were asked to give the details, but they would give nothing of the kind. It was not usual or necessary. They were sometimes asked what was the position of Home Rule. It stood just where Land Purchase did in 1886, and where Free Education did last year. It was difficult to say whether the Tory party pledged itself more against Land Purchase or Free Education or Home Rule. With regard to the Free Education Bill, he was opposed to giving large sums of money to denominational schools without popular control. The Unionists objected to the multifarious Liberal programme; but the Liberal programme always had been and always would be multifarious. The Unionist party claimed the authorship of a great many social changes; but he had seen such measures defeated by them night after night. He could honestly concede Lord Hartington's claim that the great merit of the Tory measures had been their incompleteness. Their reforms had been like a watch without a mainspring, or a horse with three legs. There were two programmes before the country. Liberals proposed to go again before the constituencies as they had done in the old days, with the big loaf, but the Unionists would go with the little loaf. The Unionists knew very well what was in store for them. Every Unionist speech betrayed this consciousness of impending doom. The Unionists had had their trial and had been found wanting. But the time of the Liberals was coming.

The ten days' visit to this country of the German Emperor (July 4-14) gave an increased activity to the last days of the Parliamentary Session. His Imperial Majesty was himself most actively employed throughout the period of his stay, but of the numerous functions in which he was the centre of interest it is only necessary here to record that of his reception in the City (July 10). The Emperor was on this occasion entertained at a déjeuner at the Guildhall, and in reply to the toast of his health spoke as follows:

"MY LORD,-Receive my most heartfelt thanks for the warm welcome from the citizens of this ancient and noble metropolis. I beg that your lordship will kindly transmit the expression of my feelings to those in whose name you have spoken. I have always felt at home in this lovely country, being the grandson of a Queen whose name will ever be remembered as the most noble character, and a lady great in the wisdom of her counsels, and

More

whose reign has conferred lasting blessings on England. over, the same blood runs in English and German veins. Following the examples of my grandfather and of my ever-lamented father, I shall always, as far as it is in my power, maintain the historical friendship between these two our nations, which, as your lordship mentioned, have so often been seen side by side in defence of liberty and justice. I feel encouraged in my task when I see that wise and capable men, such as are gathered here, do justice to the earnestness and honesty of my intentions. My aim is above all the maintenance of peace, for peace alone can give the confidence which is necessary to the healthy development of science, art, and trade. Only as long as peace reigns are we at liberty to bestow earnest thoughts upon the great problems the solution of which in fairness and equity I consider the most prominent duty of our times. You may rest assured, therefore, that I shall continue to do my best to maintain and constantly to increase the good relations between Germany and the other nations, and that I shall always be found ready to unite with you and them in a common labour for peaceful progress, friendly intercourse, and the advancement of civilisation."

The Elementary Education Act was read a second time in the House of Lords (July 16), after a debate in which the Archbishop of Canterbury gave a hearty welcome to the Bill, and said that religious education would not be injured by making the schools free. In Committee (July 20) an amendment, moved by the Bishop of London, providing that where two or more schools were under the same managers, the schools, if the managers so desired, should be deemed one school for the purposes of the Act, was agreed to. Some other amendments were also made in the Bill, some proposed amendments were rejected, and the Bill was subsequently (July 24) read a third time. On the consideration by the House of Commons of the Lords' amendments Mr. H. Fowler (Wolverhampton, E.) moved to disagree with the Bishop of London's amendment, which, he contended, would increase the 17s. 6d. limit. The Government supported the amendment, and it was adopted on a division by 105 to 58. Mr. Fowler then asked whether it was competent for the House of Lords so to amend the Bill as to increase the grant beyond the amount authorised by the financial resolution under which the Bill was introduced. The Speaker replied that if the effect of the Lords' amendment would be to increase the grant it would be a breach of privilege. The amendment in question was afterwards struck out of the Bill. On the Bill again going to the House of Lords another amendment was substituted for the one thus struck out, which Lord Cranbrook said would accomplish the object of the latter amendment without doing violence to the doctrine laid down by the Speaker. Both Lord Cranbrook and Lord Salisbury, however, held that it was necessary in such a matter to guard the privileges of the House of Lords. In other respects the Bill was

not materially altered by the amendments adopted in either House.

Of effective business in Parliament, other than that of Supply, very little remains to be noticed. Among the non-contentious measures introduced and passed late in the Session were a Bill for amending the Post-office Acts, a Bill for amending the law relating to penal servitude, and several measures for giving effect to the new schedules of railway rates settled by the Board of Trade for adoption by various railway companies. The Session had its share of personal incidents of a regrettable character. Of these the expulsion of Captain Verney, to which reference has been made in a previous chapter, was the most painful. Rumours of a criminal charge against another member, Mr. De Cobain (Belfast, E.), reached the House, and a copy of the warrant for Mr. De Cobain's arrest was directed to be obtained. Mr. De Cobain was continuously absent from his place in Parliament, and on July 13 Mr. Goschen moved, and the House agreed, that he be required to attend in his place on the 23rd of July. Subsequently (July 20), the Speaker reported that he had received a letter from Mr. De Cobain's solicitor, stating that the honourable gentleman was ill, and that it would be extremely dangerous for him to comply with the requirement of the House. The Government in these circumstances decided not to press for Mr. De Cobain's attendance, and the order made in the matter was discharged (July 23). The only other personal incident to which it is necessary to refer was that which resulted in the suspension for a week of the attendance in Parliament of Mr. Atkinson (Boston) (July 27). The honourable member incurred the rebuke of the Speaker (July 24) by his persistence in moving frivolous amendments to the Railway Rates Bills, and the Speaker afterwards reported to the House that two letters charging him with unfairness, one of them being of an insulting character, had been addressed to him by Mr. Atkinson. The House thereupon made the order of suspension.

The Army and Navy Estimates were mainly disposed of at an early period of the Session, but the votes for the Civil Service were, as usual, spread over nearly the whole Session, the bulk of them being taken after Whitsuntide. On the vote for the House of Commons offices (July 9), Mr. Morton (Peterborough) moved a reduction as a protest against the sale of liquors at the bar in the lobby, but the reduction was negatived by 127 to 55. At the same sitting, on the Foreign Office vote, Sir George Campbell (Kirkcaldy) raised a question as to the relations of England and the Triple Alliance, and Mr. Labouchere (Northampton) protested against the attitude taken by Lord Salisbury, especially as implied by an alleged secret arrangement with Italy, as being calculated to irritate France. Sir James Fergusson (Manchester, N.E.) stated that the so-called secret understanding with Italy only amounted to an exchange of views, with the object of maintaining

No

peace in Europe and the status quo in the Mediterranean. further discussion of any importance occurred in Supply until the vote for the office of the Chief Secretary for Ireland was taken (July 20). Mr. Webb (Waterford, W.) then moved a reduction as a protest against the action of the Executive in relation to the Tipperary prosecution. After some discussion, in which several Irish members claimed that the present improved state of the country was not due to the firm administration of the law, Mr. Balfour (Manchester, E.) defended his policy, and attributed the tranquillity prevailing in Ireland to the fact that the country had been governed by the Imperial Parliament. From this, he contended, advantages were derived which could never be obtained from a Parliament on College Green.

On the vote for the relief of distress in Ireland (July 22), Mr. Balfour explained what had been done in connection with the subject since it was last discussed. As regarded the distress of the last winter, the Government relied, in the first place, on railway construction. This had been left in the hands of contractors, who had been required to employ local labour as far as possible, and special expenditure had been sanctioned in order that a larger number of persons might be employed than would have been necessary if a more economical method of construction had been adopted. The total number of labourers engaged, including men, women, and children, was, on the 28th of February, 6,812. This was increased by the 23rd of May to 14,000; but on the 11th of July the number had fallen to 11,000, and it was still rapidly diminishing. He next referred to the potato loans, the total of which amounted to 276,500l., as against 600,000l. in 1881. Having detailed at some length the manner in which the seed and the loans had been distributed, Mr. Balfour returned to the subject of the relief works, and explained that the greatest care had been taken to insure that they should be useful not only for the temporary purpose of relieving distress, but also as a permanent addition to the comfort and welfare of the population. Mr. Balfour's statement was criticised by several Irish members, and he made a brief reply, after which the vote was agreed to.

The usual statement on the educational work of the year was made by Sir W. Hart Dyke (Dartford) in connection with the Education Vote (July 30). He pointed out, in the first place, that this was the first year of the new Code, which, he remarked, was likely to prove a great success, though he admitted that the average attendance under it had fallen short of the estimate by 30,000. The grant for the financial year 1890-91 was 3,782,2247., the sum actually expended being 3,782,0571., leaving a surplus of 1671., while the grant per day scholar under the old Code to September 1 was 17s. 103d., and under the new Code 18s. 3d. Coming to the Estimates for the year 1891-92, the first framed to meet the new Code, Sir William pointed out that the sum asked for was

136,9081. more than last year's vote, which was due to an increase of 120,817. for evening scholars, a large addition to meet grants for day training colleges, increments of salaries, and additional pensions. The number of children in average attendance during the coming year he estimated at 3,794,156, an increase of only 11,600 as compared with the estimate of the previous year, but of 40,000 as compared with the actual results of that year. The rate of grant per day scholar was estimated at 18s. 6d., an increase of 64d. over the estimate for 1890-91, and of 74d. over the rate per scholar during the last year of the old Code, but in this connection he remarked that as the estimate for 1890-91 was based only on the Code of 1889, the comparison should be with the rate actually earned under the new Code in the seven months of 1890-91 during which it was in force, and thus compared the increase was only 24d. He next dealt in much detail with the progress made during the inspection year ending August 31, 1890, which showed, as compared with 1889, an increase in the number of schools inspected of 109. Accommodation had also been provided for 99,000 additional scholars, and 49,000 more scholars were on the register. The average attendance showed an increase of 35,000; 6,000 more scholars were examined in Standard IV. and upwards, and the number of girls who earned grants for cookery was 9,300 more. Mr. Mundella (Brightside, Sheffield) complimented Sir W. Hart Dyke on his statement, and after some discussion the vote was agreed to. The Scotch and Irish Education votes were agreed to (July 31). On the taking of the latter Mr. Balfour (Manchester, E.) intimated that the Training Colleges Bill-a measure read a second time (July 7)— would not be proceeded with, but he intended to obtain a valuation of the denominational colleges, and when the capital sum required was ascertained he would pay the interest out of the vote. The sitting was prolonged until after four o'clock on the morning of August 1, and before the House rose all the votes in Supply had been agreed to.

On the second reading of the Appropriation Bill (August 3) Mr. J. Redmond (Wexford, N.) called attention to the case of the dynamite convicts, Daly and Egan, and moved a resolution urging that, in view of the peaceable state of Ireland, the cases of these and other convicts undergoing penal servitude for treason-felony should be reconsidered, with a view to the clemency of the Crown being extended to them. Complaining that the men were convicted for one offence and sentenced for another, he contended that Daly's conviction had been obtained by a conspiracy on the part of the Irish police, who had "planted" on him the explosives with which he was found dealing, and he appealed to the Home Secretary, especially having regard to the opinion formed of the action of the Irish police by Mr. Farndale, the Chief Constable of Birmingham, to reconsider the case. Mr. Matthews (Birmingham, E.) replied that he had