managers in a minority on the management of Voluntary Schools-which was defeated by 158 to 27-Lord Rosebery endeavoured to explain himself. His explanation was to the effect that he had only intended to urge the Nonconformists to shake off "insidious sloth," and throw themselves as of old into active political agitation. It was generally thought, however, that for that limited object his language had been unfortunately chosen.

Two or three amendments of some importance were carried in the House of Lords. In Committee of the Commons on Clause 4 it had been provided on the motion of Sir W. Anson, then a private Member, that any secondary school, college or hostel provided by the local authority should be subject to the Cowper-Temple clause, viz., that "no catechism or formulary distinctive of any particular denomination" should be taught therein. On the motion of Lord Goschen, however, and with the assent of the Government, words were added making an exception of cases where the local education authority at the request of parents or scholars allow any religious instruction to be given in such school, college or hostel otherwise than at the cost of the authority. This exception was objected to by Liberal peers, but carried by 107 to 14. Reference has already been made to the failure of attempts made to modify in its essence the Kenyon-Slaney sub-section. In this case the urgency of the claim pressed upon the Peers to consider the feelings of the clergy did not avail to secure more than 65 against 96 votes. On the other hand, while they thus decidedly refused to restore to the parochial clergy the position of independence which very many of them had enjoyed under school trust-deeds, the lay Lords supported the Bishops in such numbers as to defeat the Government on a question connected with the apportionment of the charges for repairs in Voluntary Schools.

As the Bill left the Commons it had placed upon the managers of Voluntary Schools the obligation of keeping them in good repair, and making such alterations and improvements in the buildings as might be reasonably required by the local education authority. It was represented, however, by the Bishop of London and others that in many cases this proposed charge, for repairs only, apart from any possible alterations or improvements, would involve a serious enhancement of their pecuniary burdens. A number of cases were adduced in which the charge for repairs had been substantially and even very largely in excess of the voluntary subscriptions. The Duke of Devonshire admitted that in certain cases the burden of repairs would be heavy, but deprecated any change in the Bill at this stage, the Government having done their best to make a generally equitable financial arrangement. Nevertheless, on the motion of the Bishop of Manchester, an amendment was carried by 114 to 88, providing that all damage due to the wear and tear connected with the occupation of schoolrooms by children for ele

mentary school purposes should be made good by the local authority. It was estimated by the Bishop of Manchester that this modification would reduce the charge for repairs to the managers from about 700,000l. to about 350,000l. Of course the effect of this amendment was to throw a correspondingly increased charge upon local rates. But as the privileges of the House of Commons were understood to preclude the Upper House from directly introducing any provision involving any public financial burden, the Bishop of Manchester's sub-section, before it left the Upper House, was modified, on the motion of the Duke of Norfolk (by 56 to 17), by the addition of the words: "This obligation on the local education authority shall throw no additional charge on any public fund." The sub-section therefore went to the House of Commons in an avowedly meaningless form.

This procedure caused a good deal of irritation in the Commons, and was not much admired outside even by those who thought that the Voluntary School managers had a reasonable case for some such relief as the Bishop of Manchester's amendment aimed at securing for them. Mr. Balfour took a detached line, and left Ministerialists and even Ministers to vote as they liked on the subject, and the results were somewhat curious. By a majority of 194 to 165 an amendment moved by Mr. Lloyd-George (Carnarvon Dist.) was carried (Dec. 16) against Mr. Balfour's individual opinion. Its effect was to assign to the local authority the determination of the amount which it ought to pay for the fair wear and tear of any schoolroom through its use for elementary school purposes. The meaningless words added by the Duke of Norfolk to the Bishop of Manchester's amendment were struck out by 200 to 104, although Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman thought that they ought to stand "in their naked deformity and original absurdity." In his private capacity Mr. Balfour supported the amended amendment, acknowledging that until lately he had not fully realised the amount of the burdens which the Bill, while on the whole operating financially in favour of the Voluntary Schools, would impose upon some of them in the poorer districts. The Lords' amendment, as amended, was carried by 197 to 159; but the minority included Sir W. Anson, Mr. Arnold-Forster, Mr. A. Chamberlain, the Attorney-General (Sir R. Finlay), and some forty supporters of the Government. It would, moreover, probably have been a majority but for the fact that, under pressure of remonstrances from the Irish Roman Catholic Bishops, a large number of Irish Nationalist Members had returned to Westminster to support what were supposed to be the interests. of the Voluntary Schools.

On December 17 Lord Hugh Cecil (Greenwich) made a final protest against the limitation placed by the Kenyon-Slaney provision upon the right of an incumbent to give religious. instruction in a Church School. His language was very

vehement, and Mr. Balfour, in a dignified and effective reply, reiterated his contention that the general policy of the provision in question was the declared policy of the Bill from the beginning, and maintained that it was a policy which was really implied in the celebrated resolutions of the Joint Committee of the two Convocations in the summer of 1901. The Prime Minister also strongly deprecated the line of action foreshadowed by Lord H. Cecil as calculated to drive deeper the wedge which was unhappily separating certain classes of ecclesiastical opinion from the great body of the religious lay opinion of the country. Thus not without a touch of gloom passed the last day of this protracted legislative controversy. However opinions might differ on the issues involved, it was recognised on all hands that Mr. Balfour's Parliamentary reputation had been much enhanced by the skill, resource and temper with which he had conducted the Education. Bill through the House of Commons. No point of disagreement arose between the two Houses, and the Bill received the Royal assent on December 18.

So also did the London Water Bill, as to which it has already been recorded that it was read a second time in the early part of the session in both Houses and referred to a Joint Committee. The Committee at first carried against the Government extensive alterations in the scheme of constitution for the Water Board, to which the Bill assigned the functions of acquiring by purchase and managing and carrying on the undertakings of the metropolitan water companies, and generally of supplying water within their areas. These alterations were, however, reversed at later sittings of the Committee, when equal numbers voted either way, and therefore, by the rules of the House of Lords' Committee, the original form of the Bill stood. The Bill did not come on for further discussion in the House of Commons until December, when it was considered at several sittings, but was very little altered in scope from the measure sketched by Mr. Long in February (see pp. 42-3). The number of Members who voted on Opposition amendments, of which many were moved, was generally under sixty, and often under forty. One or two changes were made which gratified Liberal feeling, viz., the increase of the representatives of the London County Council on the Water Board from ten to fourteen, and the limitation of all metropolitan boroughs (except Westminster, which, as originally proposed, retained two members), to one each. The City and West Ham retained the two each originally proposed. The total of the appointed members was to be sixty-six, and there were to be a chairman and vice-chairman, who might be chosen from outside and salaried. An amendment was made, on the motion of Mr. Long, in Clause 15, providing that the Water Board should not, until Parliament otherwise determined, reduce the rates charged for the supply of water below those in force during the quarter

ended June 24, 1902, unless the Board were satisfied that such reduction would not cause a deficiency in the water fund; but the following direction was also added: "The Water Board shall, within three years after the appointed day, introduce into Parliament a Bill providing for uniform scales of charges applicable throughout the limits of supply." The appointed day for the transfer to the Board of the companies' undertakings was made June 24, 1904. The Board, it may be added, were directed to cause chemical and bacteriological examinations, and experiments as to the condition, of the water supplied by them. The Bill was read a third time by the Commons by 104 to 28 (Dec. 10) and underwent no alteration of importance in the House of Lords.

Another measure which Mr. G. Balfour, President of the Board of Trade, succeeded in passing, and which, with the Education, Licensing, and London Water Acts, received special mention in the King's Speech on the Prorogation (Dec. 18), was the Patents Act. This measure, which was based upon the report of a committee appointed by the Board of Trade, was well received, and after second reading it was examined by the Grand Committee on Trade, and had a smooth course to the Statute-Book. It provided for a limited official inquiry into the anticipation of an invention so far as disclosed by the records of the Patent Office over a period of fifty years, and if it appeared that the invention had been wholly or in part claimed or described in any previous complete specification, the applicant being informed thereof, might within a certain period amend his specification. These provisions, it was recognised, would be of important advantage to poor inventors. If the Comptroller of the Patent Office were ultimately not satisfied that the invention was new, he was empowered to determine whether a reference should be made in the specification to prior specifications by way of notice to the public. The above inquiries would not, however, in any case guarantee the validity of any patent. The Act further enabled any person to petition the Board of Trade, alleging that the reasonable requirements of the public in regard to a patented invention had not been satisfied, and, if the parties could not be brought to an agreement, the Board of Trade was empowered to refer the matter to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which might either order the patentee to grant licences, or even revoke the patent, but not the latter within three years of the date of the patent, or if the patentee could explain his default satisfactorily. An important advantage of these provisions was expected to be the discouragement of the very undesirable practice of some foreigners of taking out patents here with a view to checking the development of a process or industry in this country.

Another measure which became law earlier in the session was the Shop Clubs Bill, which, after second reading (see p. 98), was referred to the Grand Committee on Trade. In its final form it constituted it an offence punishable by fine for an em

ployer to make it a condition of employment that any workman should discontinue his membership of any friendly society; or should not join any friendly society other than the shop club or thrift fund; or should join such club or fund unless it were registered under the Friendly Societies Act. Before certifying any such club or fund, the Registrar of Friendly Societies was required to ascertain that at least 75 per cent. of the workmen concerned desired its establishment, and to consider any objections they might make to the certification. A narrow majority in the Commons-155 to 142-retained (June 15), on report, a clause inserted in Grand Committee exempting from the operation of the Act compulsory membership of any superannuation fund, insurance, or other society, already existing for the benefit of the persons employed by any railway company, to the funds of which such company contributes. The Act also made provision to prevent pecuniary loss in the case of loss or relinquishment of employment by a workman, who was by the conditions of such employment a member of any shop club.

It should be recorded that, on the motion of Mr. Balfour, the new Sessional Orders, passed in the spring, giving power to the Speaker to adjourn the sitting when grave disorder arises; providing for the allocation of Parliamentary time as between the Government and unofficial members; regulating the procedure for the conduct of business in Supply and of private business, and making counts-out impossible at evening sittings before 10 o'clock, were converted (Dec. 1) into Standing Orders, after several divisions, by a final vote of 155 to 61.

So much space has necessarily been occupied by the treatment of the main business of a most protracted session that little more than mention can be made of other interesting incidents. On November 8 the House of Commons cheerfully voted a grant in aid of 8,000,000l. to the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies for expenses consequent upon the termination of the war. Of this large sum 3,000,000l. was for free grants to burghers of the late Republics in accordance with the terms of surrender; 2,000,000l. grants to other persons (but not companies or large firms) in respect of war losses in the new Colonies; and 3,000,000l. for loans to be advanced by the Colonial Governments to supplement the free grants. These advances would be repaid by the Colonies out of the first loan raised by them. In the course of his speech on the subject Mr. Chamberlain explained in regard to the war losses of loyalists in Natal that the Imperial Ministers had undertaken to repay the Government of that Colony the compensation they had given to loyal subjects injured by the invasion, and desired and intended that it should be given on a liberal scale. As to the Cape Colony also they had agreed that a contribution should be given to those loyal subjects who had suffered there through the first invasion. In regard to the second invasion, the Colony itself, they considered, must bear the responsibility. He stated,