persistent refusal of the Government to meet the wishes of the Colonies in regard to Preferences which he strongly advocated as a step to Imperial consolidation.

More pleasing among the indirect results of the Conference was the increased energy and enthusiasm shown in the celebration of Empire Day, May 24, especially in the schools both in London and in the Provinces. Moreover, a Federal Conference on Education attended by representatives from nearly all the Colonial Governments and from most of the Universities and leading Educational Associations of the Empire was formally opened (with a speech from the Earl of Crewe) in the Caxton Hall, Westminster. The Conference met daily for more than a week, and discussed such questions as the interchange of teachers between different parts of the Empire, the teaching of English to non-English speaking children in the Colonies, civic instruction, and various educational questions in the light of Colonial experience.

But political interest was speedily diverted to a subject nearer home. It had at once become apparent that the Nationalist rank and file would have nothing to do with the Irish Councils Bill, or with any mere "instalments of Home Rule. On its appearance the Bill was spoken of by their Parliamentary leaders, and by some moderate Nationalists, as a measure which might be tolerated, subject to extensive amendment in Committee; and the provisions as to education commended it to the Gaelic League. But it was violently denounced on various grounds by the Dublin Corporation, the extremists known as the "Sinn Fein" party, by Nationalist dissentients like Mr. Healy, and by members of the Roman Catholic Episcopate. It was expected that Mr. Redmond would recommend its provisional acceptance, subject to amendment, but his followers were too much for him. The Irish National Convention, the largest ever held in Ireland, numbering 3,000 delegates, met at the Mansion House, Dublin, on May 21. Mr. John Redmond moved the first resolution. It declared that nothing could satisfy Irish national aspirations but a measure giving to the Irish people complete control of their own domestic affairs; that, while never wavering in that belief, they had been willing to give fair consideration to any scheme leading up to the larger policy to which British Ministers were pledged, but that the Bill was utterly inadequate in its scope, unsatisfactory in its details, and deserving of rejection by the Irish nation, and that it confirmed their view that any attempt at a settlement by half measures would be entirely unsuccessful. The resolution closed with an appeal to the Irish party to press for the establishment of a native Parliament with a responsible executive having power over all purely Irish affairs, and to the Nationalist forces for union. Mr. Redmond said that the Nationalist leaders were in no way committed to the Bill; the Government had refused their advice; they voted for its introduction to fulfil their pledge to Ireland, that it should

be submitted to a National Convention (ANNual Register, 1906, p. 217). Had he attempted successfully to prevent its introduction, he would have been denounced as keeping Ireland from some great unknown boon. Had he denounced it he would have broken his pledge. The Bill was far better than Lord Dunraven's scheme (ANNUAL REGISTER, 1904, p. 242) which the Nationalist leaders were falsely charged with having rejected, since it was never offered to them. That scheme had set up the idea of "Home Rule by instalments," and, while himself believing that no half-way house was practicable, he had agreed that any scheme short of full Home Rule should be considered calmly on its merits. He had never seen the Bill till it was completed, and had at once objected to most of its features. Recapitulating his objections, he advised the Convention to reject the Bill. On the vital point, the constitution of the Irish Council, no amendment would be accepted. The Liberal party must drop the Roseberyite idea of settling the Irish question and come back to the standard of Gladstone. The Nationalist members would press for the immediate introduction of an Evicted Tenants Bill, an Irish University Bill on Mr. Bryce's lines (p. 5), and legislation on the lines of their Land Law (Ireland) Act Amendment Bill (p. 83). In any case there could be no alliance between the Irish and the Liberal parties until Home Rule was back in the forefront of the Liberal programme.

The Bill was generally condemned, one speaker-Father Humphreys-describing it as subversive of Catholicism, which caused Mr. Devlin, M.P., to appeal energetically for union among Nationalists irrespective of creed. Mr. T. P. O'Connor spoke commending the resolution, which was carried unanimously, and was endorsed by the United Irish League of Great Britain at its meeting, also held in Dublin, on the day following.

It was freely stated by the Sinn Fein extremists and others that Mr. Redmond had been forced into his action by his supporters and that his authority in the party was greatly weakened by his previous tolerance of the Bill. It was generally believed that the Bill was dead; but the Unionist party demonstrated vigorously against it-notably in Belfast under the Marquess of Londonderry's presidency on May 24-and the Government on the reassembling of Parliament hesitated as to their course.

The House of Commons reassembled after the recess on Thursday, May 23. On the Prisons Vote that evening, Mr. Pickersgill (Bethnal Green, S.W.), referring to the light thrown on prison conditions by the imprisoned passive resisters and suffragists, suggested that civilians should be appointed governors, and that at least one Prison Commissioner and one Inspector should be a woman. In a sympathetic reply Mr. Gladstone, Home Secretary, remarked that the death rate of prisoners (37 per 1,000) was the lowest known, and declared himself converted to the view that military and naval officers could be found who made as good governors as civilians. Without

pledging himself, he agreed that more should be done to meet the needs of women prisoners; favoured the appointment of a woman inspector, and stated that a Bill was in preparation dealing with State reformatories.

The Vaccination Bill came up for second reading next day, May 24. Briefly, it substituted a statutory declaration, made before a Commissioner for Oaths or a Justice of the Peace, for the certificate given by magistrates, frequently with some demur, to "conscientious objectors" to the process. Mr. Burns (Battersea), President of the Local Government Board, explained that the Government had just reduced the cost of vaccination, and had issued a circular recommending that magistrates should be more discreet and seek more uniformity in enforcing the Act. They could not transfer the administration of vaccination from the Guardians to the public health authorities, who were the proper persons to deal with it, until the Royal Commission had reported. He remarked on the great reduction of smallpox cases, and stated that the postponement of vaccination from early infancy to a later period would be considered. The rejection had been moved by Sir J. Batty Tuke (Edinburgh and St. Andrews Universities), an eminent physician, and Sir H. Craik (Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities) described the Bill as the outcome of prejudice and ignorance; but it was read a second time by 122 to 14.

Earlier in the evening strong opposition had been offered by the financial resolution for the payment from the Consolidated Fund of the expenses entailed by the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill-comprising salaries of officials, an annual grant not exceeding 85,000l. for the use of the Commissioners, and compensation to members and officers of the Crofters' Commission; and the Government was pressed to give an estimate of the expenditure. The resolution, however, was carried by 118 to 17, but the attack was renewed on Report (Monday, May 27). An estimate, however, was declared to be impossible as yet; and the resolution was carried by 278 to 84.

The Small Holdings and Allotments Bill for England, which now seemed likely to succeed the moribund Irish Councils Bill as the chief measure of the session, was introduced on May 27 by Mr. L. V. Harcourt (Rossendale, N.E. Lancs), First Commissioner of Works. The Government, he said, proposed to set up a class not of small owners but of occupying, cultivating tenants, under public authority, and not dependent on the caprice of private owners, with security of tenure, but with no system of dual ownership and no saleable tenant-right. The County and Borough Councils would administer the Bill, or, in their default, two or more Commissioners under the Board of Agriculture. These Commissioners with sub-Commissioners would also inquire as to the demand for small holdings or allotments, and would consider schemes prepared by the local authorities, or, when necessary, prepare schemes themselves. County

Councils would be empowered to acquire the necessary land by purchase, lease, agreement, or compulsion, and an arbitrator, if necessary, would fix the price. Leased land might be taken back by the landlord whenever required for a purpose other than agriculture. United owners and life tenants would have the same right of leasing as absolute owners. Small holdings would be defined as exceeding five but not exceeding fifty acres and limited to 50l. in annual value. The Commissioners would be empowered to pay the initial charges, the County Councils to raise loans for purchase, the term for repayment being extended to eighty years. The whole interest and sinking fund would have to be met by the rents. Small holdings might be developed through allotments; the area of these, now defined as one acre, would be extended to five acres, and the authority for acquiring land for them would be the Parish Council or the chairman of the parish meeting with the overseers. It would have power to purchase or hire land compulsorily. Power was given to the County Councils to transfer land they had acquired to organisations for promoting small holdings, and to the Board of Agriculture to set up holdings experimentally. A small holdings account would be opened at the Bank of England, and for the first year the Treasury would contribute 100,000l. Small holders would receive statutory right for compensation for their improvements on the market gardening scale, and County Councils would be empowered to promote co-operative societies and credit banks. He did not think compulsion would be greatly resorted to, and, as a limited owner himself, he welcomed it, as giving him and his trustees more freedom of action. The farmers should welcome the Bill, for there would be a prosperous and contented peasantry who would supply labour when needed. The Bill was drafted so as to stand alone, but was adapted to facilitate the application of proposals which were intended to follow it for land valuation.

Mr. Long (South Dublin), while ready to approve any just and practical scheme, laid stress on the difficulty of equipment, criticised the proposal to make the small holders tenants instead of owners, and did not think the Bill would stop the rural exodus, which went on where small holdings had been the rule for generations. Under compulsory hiring the land might revert to the landlord greatly deteriorated; a sacrifice should fall on the nation, not on a class. Compulsion, if any, should be confined to purchase. The Bill was welcomed on behalf of the Labour party by Mr. Nicholls (Northants, N.), and condemned by Mr. Jesse Collings (Bordesley, Birmingham) for not establishing ownership. Mr. Winfrey (Norfolk, N.), commending it, gave particulars indicating that the Small Holdings Act, 1892, had been a failure; and Colonel Kenyon-Slaney (Newport, Shropshire) regretted that it contained no provision encouraging landlords to create small holdings. After a reply from the Solicitor-General, it was read a first time.

The evidence as to the difficulty of obtaining small holdings promised by the Prime Minister (p. 102), and subsequently adduced in a Parliamentary paper, was denounced as flimsy and scanty by the Marquess of Lansdowne in the House of Lords on May 30. Examining it minutely, he pointed out that a Committee of 1890 had reported that compulsory powers would be little used, that the Report of the Departmental Committee of 1906 showed that such demand as existed for small holdings came from small shopkeepers in towns, and did not indicate obstruction by landowners, and that a Report of the Department of Agriculture for 1906 showed that men brought up on the land were disinclined to undertake the risks of farming, and that the cost of equipment was a great obstacle. Landlords did not desire to obstruct the erection of small holdings, but they had to consider the interest of the sitting tenants and the danger of disastrous experiments; still, they were prepared to do their share in bringing people back to the land.

Earl Carrington, President of the Board of Agriculture, vigorously defended the Prime Minister, and declared that his statement as to "blank denial" of small holdings was not a charge levelled at the landlords as a class. Abundant evidence (some of which he quoted) had been given before the Committee of 1906, that there was such a demand. Agents and large farmers objected to small holdings. He was glad to hear that there were to be no party recrimination over the Bill.

The subsequent discussion added little to the content of these speeches, but further information to be supplied by County Councils was promised as to the demand for small holdings.

The next day, May 28, the House went into Committee on the Territorial and Reserve Forces Bill under the "closure by compartment" resolution. On the first clause, providing for the establishment of County Associations to attend to the reorganisation and administration of military forces "other than Regulars," an amendment by Sir Charles Dilke preserving the designations Militia, Yeomanry and Volunteers, was opposed by the Government and rejected, after much discussion, by 212 to 94. A lengthy debate then ensued on the proposed absorption of the Militia, a point, however, on which a compromise took place subsequently (June 17; p. 161). An amendment to exempt the force from the operation of the Bill was moved by Mr. F. E. Smith, and supported strongly by Mr. Balfour on grounds of economy as well as sentiment; but Mr. Haldane described it as a decadent force, for whose duties in war time, in garrison and in guarding lines of communication other provision would be made, and the amendment was negatived by 260 to 80. Viscount Valentia (Oxford) then proposed to exclude the Yeomanry from the control of the County Associations. Mr. Haldane, however, argued that they would now receive that training in conjunction with other forces which cavalry required, and that, if their pay were to remain at 5s. 6d. a day, the regular cavalry,