heard from the Colonial Secretary that some of those terms were not to be renewed. Having animadverted on the action of the Cape Ministers in proclaiming martial law and suspending the Constitution, he contended that before peace could be established self-government must be restored in the Colony. The policy of the Government had been mistaken from first to last; it had led to the prolongation of this unhappy war, and he could see nothing in it which gave promise of a durable peace.

Mr. Elliot (Durham) described the amendment as a weighty indictment which the Opposition as yet had failed to justify. For the speech delivered by the Colonial Secretary on Jan. 20 he had nothing but admiration. Having regard to the immense difficulties we should have to face when peace was restored, it would be politic to show as much generosity to the Boers as was compatible with our main policy.

Mr. Norman (Wolverhampton, S.) supported the amendment, as a Liberal Imperialist, mainly on account of what he held to be the inadequacy of the military preparations of the Government, and Mr. Gibson Bowles, while condemning the amendment, unfavourably criticised the Government on account both of military inefficiency and of unwise interference with Lord Kitchener's negotiations with Botha. The amendment having been supported by Mr. C. Hobhouse (Bristol, E.) and Mr. Scott (Leigh, Lancs.), and opposed by Mr. Renwick (Newcastle-onTyne) and Mr. Gray (West Ham, Ñ.), was fiercely torn to pieces by Mr. Lloyd-George (Carnarvon Boroughs). It meant, he said, that "one set of gentlemen were asked to support what they regarded as a criminal enterprise, as an inducement for another set of gentlemen to vote for a proposition which they did not believe to be true." Unity could not be got, he maintained, on any such basis as that. He asked Members who voted for the amendment, would they vote, if their party could come into power, for the prosecution of an unrighteous war? If not, what was the meaning of the amendment? If, on the other hand, they were prepared to go on with it, what did their past denunciation of the war mean? He admitted that opposition to the war was unpopular, but for Liberals it was "a mistake to pawn, as it were, the heirlooms of their party in order to buy off unpopularity."

Sir E. Lees (Birkenhead) opposed the amendment in a speech in the course of which he bore strong evidence, as the result of a year of South African service, to the admirable conduct of our soldiers. He was all in favour of dealing very liberally with the Boers, but it would be the gravest mistake to come to political terms with them.

Mr. Balfour, rising to wind up the debate for the Government, felt dispensed from the necessity of much criticism of the amendment by Mr. Lloyd-George's vehemently destructive analysis of it. Dealing with the criticisms levelled against the Government

and the Secretary for War, he reminded the House that the old Yeomanry were sent home by Lord Kitchener and not brought home by the Government. Then the new Yeomanry were sent out untrained at Lord Kitchener's own request, as he believed that it would be wise to train them in South Africa. They had done excellent service. Mr. Balfour next cited a number of interesting figures relating to the reinforcements sent out at different periods, and, viewing the administrative performance of the War Department as a whole, he asserted that it was extraordinary and unequalled in the history of the Empire. The attacks that were made upon the War Office, he said, filled him with disgust. Turning to the main issue raised by the amendment, he commented on the absence of vigour and fire from the debate, and suggested that the speech of the Secretary for the Colonies had "knocked everybody out of time." The controversy after that speech was delivered degenerated into mere quibbling and word-splitting. He bantered Sir W. Harcourt upon his agreement with Lord Rosebery, expressing surprise at the conversion which the Chesterfield speech had apparently effected. Defining unconditional surrender, he said that after all it only meant a surrender such as was made in the case of Alsace-Lorraine and in all cases where incorporation took place. One had only to read what the Boers said to understand that the differences which prevented peace were not small differences, as some Members alleged. Peace was delayed because the Boers were fighting for their independence, which we did not intend to give them. Appealing to the Radical Opposition to pause before they went to a division, Mr. Balfour said that the issues in South Africa might be profoundly influenced by what they did. A division which showed strength in the opponents of the Government would infuse renewed vigour into our enemies in the field. He hoped that in future the Opposition would allow the South African question to be treated as neutral ground.

Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman declared emphatically that it was because the Opposition conscientiously believed that the policy of the Government did not conduce to peace and tranquillity in South Africa that they had brought the amendment forward. The communities with whom we were fighting formed an essential part of the whole South African community, and were unalterably attached to their country. The Boers were not men we could look forward to keeping down by force of arms. The strain would be too severe, and such a course would be contrary to all our principles and traditions. The Government, therefore, ought to have done nothing likely to exacerbate the feelings of the Boers. After asking a series of questions with reference to farm-burning and the concentration camps, he characterised the whole devastation policy as a gigantic political blunder. These views he had expressed in June, when he affirmed that he brought no charge of cruelty against our

officers and men. Some of the reforms which were then pointed out as desirable had since been introduced into the camps, but they ought to have been introduced earlier. This concentration, with its deplorable consequences, was an offence against civilisation, a military mistake, and a political disaster. Were the Government, he asked, honestly desirous to bring about a generous and magnanimous peace by means of negotiations? He believed that the great majority of the country were in favour of such a peace, and therefore why should we not make our desire known? No display of force would do so much for peace as the announcement of generous intentions.

The division being then taken, the amendment was defeated by 333 votes to 123-majority 210. The remarkably poor figure cut by the Opposition was caused by the abstention of the whole of the Nationalists, of a certain number of extreme Radicals, who agreed with Mr. Lloyd-George, and of a rather larger number of Liberal Imperialists. These last, including Sir E. Grey and Mr. Haldane, it was understood, had refrained from voting on the ground that Mr. Chamberlain's speech had indicated so near an approach on the part of the Government to sound lines of policy that there was no justification for passing a censure on them in presence of the enemy. In any case the result of the first trial of the strength of the Liberal party in the House of Commons in the new session was the reverse of a triumph for the leadership of Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman. Whether it pointed towards a likelihood of the consolidation of the party in Parliament and the country at some later date under the leadership of Lord Rosebery was, however, by no means equally clear.

A debate of much interest took place (Jan. 22) on an amendment to the Address, asking that adequate measures should be taken to safeguard the commercial and political interests of the British Empire in Persia. This was moved by Mr. J. Walton, the Liberal Member for Barnsley, who had just returned from spending the recess in Persia. Referring to the influence which Russia had gained by railway extension, the construction of roads, and by other means in Northern Persia, he alleged that our trade in that part of the country had been almost killed, and he contended that if we were to maintain our commercial position in Southern Persia we must have recourse to new methods. Roads ought to be developed in order that our goods might be carried into the interior, and we ought to come to an agreement with Russia as to our rights of railway construction. In the south we should have a prior right of construction. British influence had undoubtedly declined in Persia in recent years, and among the causes which had led to this state of things was the unfortunate refusal of the British Government to guarantee the 2,500,000l. loan to Persia in 1900. This gave Russia her opportunity; she guaranteed the loan and imposed terms upon Persia which were unfavourable

to British commerce. The Government should protest against any negotiations between Persia and Russia which might be detrimental to British trade. Mr. Walton also urged strongly that if Russia were ever to acquire a port in the Persian Gulf, which would become a naval base, British interests would be most seriously affected. He was moved to make this protest, which was received with Ministerial cheers, by the recent appearance in English reviews and newspapers of articles advocating the acquiescence by this country in Russian aspirations towards the Gulf.

The amendment was seconded by Lord Percy (Kensington, S.), who had also travelled in Persia. He desired that we should treat Persia in a sympathetic manner, as we had done in the past; but he thought that we might fairly put some pressure upon her Government in the interest of the construction of roads in the southern part of the country, such improvements having been carried out under pressure from Russia in the north. Mr. Norman (Wolverhampton, S.) expressed his opinion that there was reason to fear that a secret agreement with Germany, as to the existence and application of which to the Persian Gulf Lord Cranborne had declined to answer questions, did exist and did relate to that region. For his part, he favoured a general understanding with Russia, including acquiescence in her obtaining access to the Persian Gulf, as to the dangers of which policy he disagreed with Mr. Walton. Sir E. Grey (Berwick, Northumberland) urged that if there was to be Russian expansion in that part of the world it should come about as the result of agreement with the British Government, not as the result of a policy of drift on our part. The first thing to do was to find out what the Russian Government wanted and to determine whether her designs were compatible with British interests. He approved of the policy of maintaining the independence and integrity of Persia, but we must be prepared for eventualities. The British Government should relax no effort to maintain the position we already had in Persia, and at the same time there should be increasing efforts to come to an agreement with Russia and other Powers.

Lord Cranborne (Rochester), Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, said that, speaking generally, our wise policy in Asia was to maintain the status quo, but this was not free from difficulties, and might be mistaken for a policy of drift, which it was not. In Persia we had vast interests to maintain, which should not endanger our friendly relations with Russia; but such relations, while we sought them, were not to be bought at the cost of any treaty rights which we possessed, and it would not become us to go cap in hand to Russia or any other Power to ask for an understanding. The notes interchanged in 1888 showed that a mutual assurance had been given that the policy of Great Britain and Russia was the maintenance of the integrity of Persia; and he had every reason to believe that

the assurance had been acted upon by both sides. The UnderSecretary proceeded, however, to modify the effect of this assertion by saying that the policy of maintaining the integrity of Persia could not be pursued independently of the action of other countries, for the balance of power must always be considered. It was true not only of the Persian Gulf, but of the southern provinces of Persia, and those provinces which bordered on our Indian Empire, that "our rights there, and our position of ascendency, we cannot abandon." For the development of Persia the Government were most anxious, and they welcomed such development from whatever source it came. He stated that the reason why the loan guaranteed by Russia was not guaranteed by Great Britain was that the security was not such as business men could approve. Explaining what the Government had done to further British interests, Lord Cranborne said that they had extended considerably our consular representation in Persia, and that more would be done in that direction if necessary. He also mentioned that a convention for the creation of a central Persian telegraph was on the point of being settled. The reform introduced in the Customs administration had proved highly beneficial. As to our commercial policy in Persia it was calculated to benefit every interest concerned. The House might rest assured that the Government would continue to uphold the position which they considered it essential that this country should maintain in Persia, and especially in the Persian Gulf. After a few more speeches the amendment was withdrawn.

On the same afternoon, an amendment in favour of the policy known as "Home Rule all round" was moved by Mr. Pirie (Aberdeen, N.), but attracted very little interest-no Member on the front Opposition bench giving it any support—and was negatived without a division.

The next two sittings of the House of Commons were occupied with the discussion of a lengthy amendment to the Address, moved (Jan. 23) by Mr. J. Redmond (Waterford), representing that the refusal of the Government to settle the Irish land question by a comprehensive measure of compulsory sale in the tenants' interest, and by conferring larger powers on the Congested Districts Board, had caused widespread discontent and agitation in Ireland; and complaining that the Irish Government, instead of striving to remove the grievances of the people, had, at a time when Ireland was absolutely free from agrarian crime, put the Coercion Act once more into operation, suppressed the right of free speech, dispersed legal and peaceable meetings with unprovoked and brutal police violence, and substituted for trial by jury trial by removable magistrates, in order that they might imprison Members of Parliament and others for no other offence than that of asserting their right to address public meetings. With the present system of dual ownership in Ireland, Mr. Redmond declared that no one was satisfied; and yet the