On the Irish Estimates (July 23 and 24) Mr. Wyndham's administration was fiercely attacked. Under the Crimes Act, as put in force by the Government over a large part of the country, Mr. J. Redmond (Waterford) said that tribunals corrupt, servile and degraded had superseded the ordinary criminal courts. The Chief Secretary's Land Bill (with which no progress had been made) was a miserable makeshift of a remedy for a state of things admittedly calling for radical reform. Much was made by Mr. Redmond of the fact that the signatures of Lord Clonbrock and Lord Barrymore (Mr. Smith-Barry having lately become Peer with that title) were attached, as those of Lords Commissioners, to a proclamation extending the sphere of operation of the Crimes Act, they being members of the landlords' combination for the defeat of the United Irish League. On this certainly unfortunate circumstance Mr. Morley also dwelt, and it was no sufficient answer to say, as the Chief Secretary did, that, as the Government bore the entire responsibility for the policy of the Crimes Act proclamation, the question who signed it was of very little consequence. On the merits, he maintained, and no doubt with truth, that the Irish Executive had put the Crimes Act more extensively in force in order to defend private liberty. Mr. Dillon was more violent than usual, and Mr. W. O'Brien said that if Prince Henry of Prussia, when he recently steamed into Bantry Bay, had landed an army and 100,000 rifles, every young man worth his salt would have joined the invaders. The minority for the reduction of the vote for the Chief Secretary's office mustered as many as 135 votes, some fifty or sixty Liberals probably holding with Mr. Morley that no sufficient case had been made out for the Crimes Act proclamation, and some being also influenced by the question of the landlord signatures.

More, perhaps, of chivalry than of his usual sound judgment was apparent in Sir Edward Grey's attempt, made entirely on his own responsibility, to secure a rehearing of the case of Sir R. Buller by the House of Commons. He moved (July 17) to reduce the War Office salaries vote in order to call attention to the unfair position in which Sir R. Buller had been placed by the partial and unexplained publication of selected telegrams, instead of the full publicity which he desired. He urged that the gallant general had really rendered great services in Natal; that they had been, in effect, recognised in his appointment to the Aldershot command; and that his enforced retirement after his Westminster speech was a step which ought not to have been taken without giving him a trial. He was supported by Sir J. Kennaway (Honiton, Devon). Mr. Brodrick (War Secretary) made a speech in reply, in which he said that it was impossible for him to make any general publication of the telegrams, for that would make confidential military communications impossible in future. But he said that the attack on Colenso was "universally admitted by all military men to have

N

been ill-conceived and ill-executed," and asked what publication of papers could conceivably lessen Sir R. Buller's responsibility for the abandonment of the guns on that occasion, or do away with the painful feeling caused by his suggestion, heliographed to Sir G. White, that Ladysmith should be surrendered after one ineffectual attempt to relieve it. His attempted vindication of the Government's treatment of Sir R. Buller, however, laid him open to the very plausible remark of Lord H. Cecil's, that the moral of the case seemed to be that a general might with impunity lose battles or abandon garrisons, but that there could be no mercy for him if he made an indiscreet speech after luncheon. Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman thought that in the selection of telegrams Sir R. Buller had had hard measure, and hoped the case would come into the general inquiry promised by the Government into the war. Mr. C. Lowther (Eskdale, Cumberland) thought that Sir C. Warren, who had been condemned by Sir R. Buller, ought also to have a chance of defending himself. Sir E. Grey ultimately offered to withdraw his motion, but the House refused, and it was rejected by 236 votes to 98, the minority containing some forty Irish Nationalists.

On July 29 Mr. Chamberlain appeared in the House of Commons for the first time since his severe cab accident early in the month, and was received with general cheering and congratulated by Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman on his recovery. The Leader of the Opposition proceeded in a spirit friendly to the Colonial Secretary, but distinctly less so to Lord Milner, to ask a number of questions about South Africa. The difference was regretted by Mr. Chamberlain in his reply, in the course of which he touched first, as Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman had done in his interrogatories, on the conference which was still going on with the Colonial Premiers. He could not, he said, as yet make any statement on the subject, but he assured the Committee that all the members of the conference were animated by the desire to draw closer together the different portions of the Empire. While the Government did not wish to go one step beyond what was justified by public opinion in this country and in the Colonies, he did not believe that the conference would be without result. On the contrary, he believed that when it was concluded it would be found that a step had been made towards that entire union to which he looked forward in the future. In regard to South Africa he said, among other things, that there was no idea of "packing" the country with British colonists. The Dutch would probably always outnumber the British in the Orange River Colony and the agricultural districts of the Transvaal. But the potential agricultural wealth of these countries was enormous, and as the number of people upon the land must be increased in order that this wealth might be developed, it would be necessary to import British settlers. There would be no arbitrary expropriation, but Boers who owned vast tracts of land might be willing to part with portions

of their estates in order that they might be cultivated effectively. Mr. Bryce having expressed the hope that the Government would not become a landlord on a vast scale in the new Colonies, Mr. Chamberlain said that the object of the Government would not be to act as landlord permanently, but to convert its tenants into owners.

Supported by Sir E. Grey, who was one of the Royal Commission who reported upon them in 1896, Mr. Chamberlain (July 31) secured a supplementary vote of 250,000l. for the West Indian Colonies. Good results, he explained, had in various cases been attained through the adoption by the Government of suggestions made by the Royal Commission, but this grant was wanted to enable the sugar industry to tide over the interval between the present time and the date for the abolition of the sugar bounties, under the terms of the Convention recently concluded at Brussels.

Members specially interested in questions of Imperial defence, like Sir Charles Dilke and Lord Charles Beresford, expressed definite gratification at a statement made by the Prime Minister during the debate on the second reading of the Appropriation Bill (Aug. 6), when, Major Seely (Isle of Wight) having complained of what he held to be the lack of co-ordination in our schemes of naval and military defence, Mr. Balfour observed that too much attention could not be paid to the larger problems of strategy, partly military, partly naval, which the defence of this country involved. The problem of Imperial defence, he went on to say, for a dominion so widely spread as ours was one of the most difficult and complicated that any Government could be called upon to face; and his Majesty's Ministers were doing their best to grapple with it. This was indeed an announcement of good omen for the early days of a new Premiership.

CHAPTER V.

The King's Message to His People-The Coronation: Public Feeling; The Solemnity in Westminster Abbey; General Rejoicings and Thanksgivings-The King's Gift to the Nation-The Naval Review-The Royal Yachting Cruise -Arrival of the Boer Generals; Their Correspondence and Interview with Mr. Chamberlain; Their Appeal to the "Civilised World"-The Imperial Conference; Colonial Contributions to the Navy Increased; Resolutions on Commercial Relations and other Subjects-Trade Union Congress in London; Votes against Compulsory Arbitration, and for Legislation as to Rights of Organised Labour-Sevenoaks Election-Agitation against Education Bill; Leeds Meeting; Dissatisfaction among Birmingham Liberal Unionists; Meeting Addressed by Mr. Chamberlain; Rally of Opinion for the Bill; Mr. Balfour's Manchester Speech-The Rhodes Scholarships Scheme-Sir M. Hicks-Beach on Outside Influences at the War Office; Mr. Brodrick's Reply-Re-assembling of Parliament; Irish Scenes-Education Bill Committee; School Maintenance Clause, Kenyon-Slaney and other Amendments-Church Discontent-Committee Continued and ultimately Closured by Compartments-The Bill in the Lords; The Primate's Speech; Illness and Death; Bishop of Manchester's Amendment Carried against Government-Bill in Commons again, and Finally Passed-London Water Bill Passed-Other Measures Passed-Grants to New Colonies-Sugar Convention Approved-Memorandum on Naval Education-Venezuelan Difficulty-Close of the Year.

KING EDWARD's recovery from his illness proceeded so steadily and rapidly, under the influence of the breezes of the Solent, that the surprisingly early date of August 9-less than seven weeks from his severe operation-found him fully able to sustain the physical fatigues and the great emotional stress of the high solemnity of the Coronation. On August 6 he returned with the Queen to London, and on the 8th there was published the following message, conveying, as was authoritatively stated, the entirely personal and spontaneous expression of his Majesty's feelings :

“TO MY PEOPLE-On the eve of my Coronation, an event which I look upon as one of the most solemn and important in my life, I am anxious to express to my people at home and in the Colonies and in India my heartfelt appreciation of the deep sympathy which they have manifested towards me during the time that my life was in such imminent danger.

"The postponement of the ceremony owing to my illness caused, I fear, much inconvenience and trouble to all those who intended to celebrate it; but their disappointment was borne by them with admirable patience and temper. The prayers of my people for my recovery were heard; and I now offer up my deepest gratitude to Divine Providence for having preserved my life and given me strength to fulfil the important duties which devolve upon me as the Sovereign of this great Empire. "EDWARD R. and I.

"Buckingham Palace, August 8, 1902."

The morning of August 9 dawned brightly, but as the hours wore on the skies became grey, and rain fell for a short time after the King and Queen had returned from the Abbey to Buckingham Palace. The absence of bright sunshine, however, or at least of the heat which in August commonly accompanies it, was probably an advantage to the multitudes of spectators who waited for many hours on their feet in the streets, at some points very inconveniently packed. Great as were the numbers of those who lined the route by which their Majesties passed, they were, doubtless, smaller than would have been the case if the Coronation had taken place on the date originally fixed. For, on the one hand, it was inevitable that very many persons who had arranged to come or had actually come to London from the country, and even from the Colonies and foreign countries, especially the United States, for June 26, should find it impossible to be present in August; and, on the other hand, as a spectacle, the procession connected with the Coronation had lost some impressive features, and therefore somewhat of its drawing power, in the absence of the Heirs-Apparent and other near representatives of great European monarchies who had assembled for the original date. The foreign Princes who were present on August 9 were members of minor reigning houses closely connected by ties of blood with the King or Queen. But this circumstance was in happy accord with the whole character of an occasion which, as, with much felicity, Lord Rosebery said, took pre-eminently the aspect of a family festival. The whole British nation had passed, in the shock of the first announcement of the King's illness, and in the keen anxiety as to its issue, through an experience which drew closer its bonds of unity within itself and with him as its head. Thus the merely spectacular element was less, and the sacramental quality of the occasion was distinctly more prominent on August 9 than it would, or could, have been on June 26. There was great joy in the aspect of those who enthusiastically acclaimed the progress of their Majesties to and from the Abbey, but there was a touch of sobriety also, as in those who, having emerged from a great shadow, no longer look only at the surface. And so it might be truly said that they, and as represented through them the whole British nation and Empire, who had sorrowed so genuinely over the King's weakness and suffering, joined with the privileged and brilliant throng who in the sacred building itself participated in one of the most stately and impressive religious services ever held in the history of the world.

As to the supreme interest of that great solemnity there was but one voice from all who had the good fortune of actually witnessing it. From every point of view-spectacular, musical, national and religious-it achieved the profoundest impression. The interior of the historic fabric itself had been treated for the occasion with taste and reverence. The temporary galleries,