be given to every individual, and minority representation should be provided. Mr. Snowden (Lab., Blackburn) said that the Bill was repudiated by all the women's suffrage societies, and there was no strong demand for the further enfranchisement of men ; still, he would not vote against it. It was opposed, however, by Mr. Bertram (L., Hitchin, Herts); by Earl Percy, who argued that franchise extension without redistribution would make the House less representative, and, while favouring women's suffrage, thought it could only be done by giving women a special kind of representation, analogous to University representation, or votes on a referendum; by Mr. Massie (L., Cricklade, Wilts) who had just presented a petition against it with 243,000 signatures, and who insisted that the "revolution" must be first decided on at a general election; and by other members. Mr. Dickinson (L., St. Pancras, N.) and Mr. Robertson (L., Tyneside, Northumberland) supported it. Mr. Asquith said that the Cabinet were divided on the question of women's franchise, but were in favour of other reforms included in the Bill, but that such a measure should proceed from the Government of the day and be carefully moulded by the House. Hence Ministers would not support the second reading. After closure, however, the Bill was read a second time by 135 to 122; but it was necessarily dropped.

The Report of the Vote on Account on the Civil Services (March 24) afforded an opportunity for the ventilation of various Irish grievances and advanced Liberals' apprehensions. The suppression of the Irish Postal Servants' Association was defended by Mr. Buxton, Postmaster-General, on the ground that its paper had attacked a high official; at the same time, he approved of such associations in principle as a means of ventilating grievances. Subjects of wider interest were raised by Mr. Lynch (L., Ripon, W.R. Yorks) who, with the support, later, of Mr. Dillon insisted that the Persian Constitution ought to be restored, and expressed fears as to the action of Russia; and Mr. Swift MacNeill complained that the King was again unattended by a Minister while on the Continent. Sir Edward Grey's reply was fully justified by subsequent events (post, Foreign History, Chapter V.). The Anglo-Russian Convention, he said, was entered into simply to provide against the intervention of either Power in those parts of Persia in which the other was interested. If Colonel Liakhoff had exceeded his instructions at the time of the coup d'état in 1908, it was not with the authority or approval of the Russian authorities. After justifying Russian action in view of the proximity of the disturbances to the frontier, he said that the intervention would have been much greater but for the Convention, which had been strictly adhered to. The British Government had not been a party to anything of which the House would disapprove; they had expressly declined to lend the Shah money until there was an assembly to sanction the loan. They desired the restoration of order and decent government to avoid the danger

of intervention, but they could not dictate the form of the Constitution. Answering Mr. MacNeill, he said that no sovereign had adhered more strictly than King Edward VII. to the constitutional practice that Foreign Office work should be conducted solely through the Foreign Secretary. His Majesty's visits to foreign countries had been of special value from his singular gift of conveying to the Government and people of the country an impression of British goodwill. Were these visits supposed to imply important diplomatic negotiations, their wholesome and benign effect would be impaired, and if important agreements were initiated during them it would be a grave breach of constitutional practice. The Anglo-Russian Agreement was completed before the Reval visit, and such political discussion as took place there was on points of detail in regard to Macedonia and arrangements as to concessions in Persia. The Persian coup d'état was then unforeseen. Charles Hardinge when abroad was in the same position as an ambassador, or as when his chief was at a debate. Since 1868 no Foreign Secretary had been abroad with the Sovereign. Earl Percy expressed the concurrence of the Opposition in the Ministerial policy in Persia, and the Vote was agreed to.

Sir

Memories of past controversies were called up next day by some of the speeches in the debate on the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill, in which Mr. Lyttelton raised the question of the position of the British settlers in the Orange River Colony, and of the retrenched officials, and Mr. T. P. O'Connor referred to a letter from Lord Curzon of Kedleston in the Times of March 23, testifying to the success of the South African policy of the Government. In his reply Colonel Seely, Colonial UnderSecretary, said that nothing could be done to assist the settlers pending the achievement of South African Union; as to the retrenched officials, he promised consideration, but it was false that the Government had been untrue to a definite legal obligation. The claims were complicated by questions of evidence. As to the changed situation in South Africa, perhaps the greatest credit was due to the leaders on both sides, who had led their people from so desperate a conflict to so great a reconciliation.

A complaint was then made by Mr. Hugh Law (Nat., Donegal, W.) and supported by other Irish members, that the Irish fisheries were insufficiently protected against the trawlers, that there were too few piers and harbours, and that the Board of Agriculture had too little money for fishery purposes; but Mr. T. W. Russell, the Board's representative, regretted that none was available in view of other Irish expenditure on land, oldage pensions, and the University.

The few days before the recess were occupied chiefly with legislative work of great importance. The second reading of the Irish Land Bill was moved by Mr. Birrell on March 30. He explained that it was only slightly altered from the Bill of

In

the previous autumn (ANNUAL REGISTER, 1908, p. 230). Ireland they were about the middle of a vast agrarian revolution. Before the Act of 1903 more than 24,000,000l. had been advanced for land purchase and 2,500,000 acres had been sold. On March 1, 1909, 28,000,000l. had been advanced under the Act of 1903, and agreements were pending amounting to 56,000,000l. The total acreage sold or agreed to be sold was 7,271,000, leaving nearly 9,000,000 acres still unsold. Mr. Wyndham had estimated the total cost at 100,000,000l., but it would probably be 183,000,000. Power had been reserved in the Act of 1903 to reconsider the bonus after five years, and in November, 1908, it had been cut down from 12 per cent. to 3 per cent., which must remain the figure unless altered by law. The average price of the 33,000,000l. of land stock issued had been 885, i.e. 1137. 5s. stock had to be issued to obtain 1001. cash. He did not think that for a decade a price higher than 85 would be obtained, and at that figure the eventual charge for excess stock would be over 1,000,000l. annually, 160,000l. on the Irish Development Grant, 855,000l. on the Irish ratepayers. Thus unless the law was amended the scheme of land purchase must break down. He proposed that the bonus should be paid according to a scale; the higher the price given for the land, the lower the bonus. This would involve at least 3,000,000l. beyond the original 12,000,000. After giving further details, he said that the Exchequer would assume a burden of 30,000,000l. instead of the original free gift of 12,000,000l. Landlords were empowered to take payment partly in cash and partly in stock at 92. Steps were being taken to accelerate the work of the Estates Commissioners, and advances to the amount of 10,000,000l. were not likely to be exceeded in any year. They now had reached 8,000,000l.

The

The rejection was moved by Mr. J. H. Campbell (U., Dublin University) who declared that the Bill might accentuate congestion and would paralyse land purchase. Voluntary sale, as provided by the Act of 1903, had been very successful; yet the Government were preparing to introduce compulsion. elective Boards to be established for dealing with congestion would set up strife and corruption. Mr. J. Redmond (N., Waterford) ridiculed the idea that the Bill would stop land purchase, which had gone on as usual since November, 1908. The measure had been discussed exhaustively in Ireland since that date, and his party had commissioned him to support it. Among its merits were the removal of liability from the ratepayers and the increase of the bonus, and he thought this might be further increased. Among the defects he counted the increase of the tenants' annuities; the future loans on flotation were being shifted on to the landlords and tenants. If the Treasury would be more generous, they would be recouped by the saving in the cost of police. He urged the Government not to send the Bill to a Grand Committee, but to reserve it for the House. On the other hand,

That

Mr. Lonsdale (U., Armagh, Mid.) declared that the Government had practically stopped land purchase, to save the Treasury and to give the Nationalists an occasion for renewing the agitation for Home Rule. He did not think landlords would accept stock-which might fall-instead of cash, and compulsion would do nothing for the relief of congestion. The Bill was criticised, favourably on the whole, by Mr. Kavanagh (N., Carlow), and unfavourably by Mr. Barrie (U., Londonderry, N.) who said it was strongly opposed in Ulster; and it was vigorously defended by the Solicitor-General for Ireland (Mr. Redmond Barry) whose speech, interrupted by the adjournment, was continued next day, April 1. He described the measure as a ratepayers' relief Bill, and calculated to stimulate land purchase, which was paralysed by the inexorable terms of the Act of 1903. Act had failed to relieve congestion, owing to lack of funds. He justified the introduction of the elective element by the Report of the Dudley Commission. Mr. Wyndham, who severely criticised the financial provisions, maintained that it made no adequate provision for removing the existing block of pending agreements; the terms offered to the landlords and tenants who would come in after its removal might be fairer, and the new policy respecting congestion was unsatisfactory, and unrealisable hopes would be excited. Mr. Healy (Ind. Nat., Louth, N.) said that in view of Mr. Redmond's conciliatory speech he intended to vote for the Bill. Recent great Irish measures had been passed by agreement in the House-he instanced the Local Government Act, the Universities Act, and the Land Act of 1903-and without some sort of agreement this Bill could not be got through the Commons and would not get through the "lethal Chamber" elsewhere. After other speeches, including a vigorous attack by Sir E. Carson and a reply by the Attorney-General for Ireland, the Bill was read a second time, Mr. Campbell's hostile amendment having been negatived by 275 to 102.

The Indian Councils Bill was read a second time in the Commons on April 1. A good impression had been produced by the appointment a few days before of Mr. Sinha, a leading Calcutta barrister, as the first native member of the Viceroy's Council; and in moving the second reading, Mr. T. R. Buchanan (Perthshire, E.), Under-Secretary for India, affirmed that Lord Morley's proposals had been generally accepted both in India and at home, dealt largely with criticisms passed on the measure, and mentioned that the Government would reintroduce the clause struck out by the Lords (p. 41). He laid stress on the necessity of ensuring that others besides the professional classes should be represented in the Legislative Councils, notably Mohammedans and landowners. As to the abolition of the official majority in the Councils, there was actually none, except in Madras and Burma; it was unlikely that all the non-official members would combine against the official members, and the

veto would be kept in reserve. If India were to be contented British rule must not only be strong and stable, but also progressive. This it could only be if educated Indians were associated freely and generously with the Government.

Earl Percy (U., South Kensington) while declining to divide the House, expressed misgivings as to the effect of the Bill, and criticised especially the proposal to abolish the official majority and that to appoint natives on the Executive Councils; the latter, he said, was opposed by the whole Mohammedan community. As to the deleted clause, why did the Government desire to have a power which they only meant to use in Bengal ? He thought only because the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal desired it; it would lead to constant agitation. He described the Bill as a leap in the dark, and as welcomed by native reformers as a step towards destroying that personal and autocratic principle which Lord Morley had declared in 1907 to be essential to the maintenance of British rule.

Mr. Asquith said that the Bill marked a momentous, but not a revolutionary stage in the history of British rule in India. It was the extension of institutions long in operation, an extension always contemplated by the wise men who founded our government in India. After paying a high compliment to the Indian Civil Service, he contended, citing Lord Cromer as his authority, that the people of India must be more and more associated with the administration. The Indian extremists would probably not be satisfied; but Mr. Gokhale, a fairly representative Indian reformer, had just declared that the reforms "had saved India from drifting into chaos." The Governor's veto would prevent dangerous legislation by non-official majorities. A veto existed in Great Britain, and set up irritation; but still we went on. As to Mohammedan representation, the discrimination on religious grounds was not a grave objection, because the distinction was historic and social as well as religious; the regulations would prescribe the method of election, there would be a separate register for them, and in various ways they would secure adequate representation on the Viceroy's Council. As to the native member, the objections that he was admitted to a knowledge of the secrets of Government and that he had no previous experience would apply to a new Cabinet Minister in England, and to Lord Macaulay and many legal members of the Viceroy's Council. As to the "suspended" clause 3, the Act of 1861 gave power to create new Lieutenant-Governorships and legislative Councils; the Government of India desired the power, and would use it hereafter by the light of experience gained in Bengal. The Bill was the natural development of the principles at the base of Indian administration, and its provisions were calculated to associate the people of India with the administration of their own affairs, and fully consistent with the maintenance of our Imperial supremacy.

The Earl of Ronaldshay (U., Hornsey, Middlesex) refrained