There was very much that was clever and a good deal that was just in the speech just summarised, but it was not calculated to conciliate opposition, and its tone undoubtedly served to lend some plausibility to the contention of Sir W. Harcourt and other speakers that the bill was designed as "an attack on School Boards." Mr. Bryce, who took a leading part in the opposition to the bill, strongly denied that it carried out the recommendations of the Secondary Education Commission, and insisted that the House ought not to be asked to sanction in a temporary bill the important principle that the control over all kinds of education should be entrusted to county and municipal authorities. The defence of the bill on its second reading was summed up with sufficient compactness by Mr. Balfour (July 9). While denying the imputation above referred to, he ridiculed the notion that county and municipal authorities elected by the people were likely to disregard the wishes of their constituents in respect of existing educational privileges. It had been impossible, he said, to entertain the suggestion that a bill should be introduced simply to legalise the status quo ante. As a consequence of the Cockerton judgment it had become necessary to determine whether School Boards were the proper authorities to deal with secondary education or not, and the Government had decided against them. It was incumbent on the House to establish as soon as possible a single authority for the control of secondary education for all classes in the community, and, pending that final settlement of the matter, it was undesirable to do anything which could prejudice or imperil it.

The second reading, which had been supported, it should be noted, by Sir W. Anson (Oxford University) and Sir R. Jebb (Cambridge University), though opposed by Members specially connected with the School Boards or with the profession of elementary teacher, was carried by 333 to 215-although the Nationalists on this education question voted against the Government. During the debates in committee a good deal of apprehension was expressed by Opposition speakers as to possible friction between the local authorities charged with the responsibility created by the bill, and the School Boards which had been conducting the schools to which the Cockerton judgment applied, and as to possible confusion and diversity in the exercise of the new responsibility by local authorities in the absence of some clear direction by Parliament or by the Board of Education. Sir W. Hart-Dyke (Dartford, Kent), formerly Conservative Education Minister, who said that he intervened with a view to the prevention of strife, appealed to the Government to agree to a compromise which Mr. Mather (Rossendale, Lancashire) had proposed. Its effect was to direct local authorities to enable School Boards, with the consent of the Board of Education, to carry on for a year out of the school funds the work of their higher grade schools and evening continuation classes, to the same extent and on the same conditions as at present. The

only difference between the bill and this amendment was that, while the former empowered the local authorities to sanction the maintenance of certain educational work out of the rates, the latter required them to do so, with the approval of the Board of Education.

Mr. Balfour, however, refused to accede to this proposal, maintaining that if Ministers agreed to it the country would infer that they wished to prolong the condition of things which was now illegal, and which did not conform to the lines on which education ought to be conducted, and as to which the present bill was to be regarded as an authoritative declaration of the views and intentions of the Government for the future. Mr. Asquith (Fife, E.) entered a protest against the contention of Mr. Balfour that the bill pledged the House in regard to the local authority to be established in future for the control of secondary education. In their resistance to this bill the Opposition were united, though it had not been clear that they would have been equally so in regard to the larger measure which the Government had dropped. No amendment was admitted into the bill, nor, indeed, on the principles avowed by the Government on the subject as a whole was there much scope for any. On some points the Ministerial majority fell substantially below its normal proportions, and the third reading was only carried (July 30) by 200 to 142. General slackness, however, and a preference for social engagements as compared with the discharge of dull Parliamentary work, rather than any dislike for the character of the Education (No. 2) Bill, appeared to be the ground for these failures to maintain the full measure of Ministerial preponderance.

Naval and military affairs occupied some of the attention of both Houses during the summer. A certain amount of uneasiness was produced in the public mind by a manifesto of the Navy League, setting forth both that the naval strength of the country as a whole was inadequate, having regard to the growth of foreign programmes of naval construction, and in particular that the British fleet in the Mediterranean, "where the battle for empire would probably be fought out,' was insufficient in its number of fighting ships and unprovided with many essential accessories. Some of the principal alleged defects were thus summed up: "A deficiency in all classes of vessels, from battleships to destroyers. Complete absence of fleet auxiliaries of all kinds. No provision for hospital ships, repairing ships, frozen meat store, mother ships for destroyers, efficient colliers, or telegraph ships. No adequate provision for the first essentials of efficient fighting-e.g., telescopic sights, gyroscopes, smokeless powder for the 13.5in. guns, armour-piercing shell, breechloading field-guns, wireless telegraphy." The impression produced by these statements on the part of the Navy League was aided by an article appearng in the National Review for July by Mr. Arnold White, under

the title of "A Message from the Mediterranean," setting forth in vehement fashion that, on grounds similar to those alleged by the Navy League as justifying it, great dissatisfaction did exist among the officers of our fleet in that sea. The greatest effect, perhaps, was produced by the publicity given-no doubt very irregularly-to a letter from Lord Charles Beresford, the brilliant and popular officer who was second in command of the Mediterranean Fleet, expressing grave anxiety as to its condition.

In the House of Commons, in Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates (July 3), this subject was discussed. Sir C. Dilke (Forest of Dean, Gloucestershire), whose intimate acquaintance with questions connected with the defensive services of the country always gave weight to his utterances on such questions, maintained that there were substantial grounds for anxiety, and declared that almost all the officers in the Mediterranean Fleet were distressed by certain shortcomings in the fleet, and he mentioned in that connection the supply of destroyers, cruisers and fleet auxiliaries. Mr. Yerburgh (Chester) affirmed that the combined French and Russian fleets in the Mediterranean included twenty battleships as against ten British battleships. Mr. E. Robertson (Dundee), on the other hand, protested against what he described as a mischievous newspaper agitation, and Sir J. Colomb (Great Yarmouth), an ardent student of questions of Imperial defence, protested against outside attempts to influence the Admiralty in regard to the distribution of our naval forces. The speech, however, in which Mr. ArnoldForster dealt with the subject could not but be regarded as a practical admission that in the view of the Admiralty there was a large measure of truth in the statements made by the outside critics, and that while active endeavours were being made to remedy recognised defects as quickly as might be, some of them at any rate might not be made good for some time to come. Thus he said that the Admiralty recognised that an addition ought to be made to the battleships in the Mediterranean, and new ships, when they became available, would be sent there to replace ships of an older date. Subsequently the number of the battleships would be increased. It was also known to the Admiralty that the number of our cruisers in the Mediterranean was not as large as it ought to be, owing to withdrawals; but they were on the eve of adding to our available fleet a large number of cruisers whose fighting efficiency would be greater than that of any existing cruisers, and when this addition had been made the strength of the Mediterranean Fleet would be materially increased. As he had stated on a former occasion, an addition was to be made to the number of destroyers in the Mediterranean. With regard to the general question of the distribution of the fleet, he declared that there had been no change in the policy of the Admiralty. The Department was not failing in its duties, and was doing everything in its power to protect the interests of the country. [In a later speech

(July 5) Mr. Arnold-Forster went into considerable detail to show that the Admiralty had been and was exerting itself for the adequate provision of scientific appliances.] With regard to the supply of auxiliary vessels, he said that a considerable sum of money had already been asked for in order that such ships might be provided, and that the Admiralty were going even further in this direction. [Here again details were given on July 5.]

This statement by the Secretary for the Admiralty was supplemented and emphasised by one made in the House of Lords (July 5) by Lord Selborne. The First Lord was somewhat more severe than his subordinate in the House of Commons in his treatment of outside criticism. He expressed himself prepared to welcome such criticism if it were reasonable, and if the critics had taken the trouble to ascertain the facts, but he declined to believe that, as seemed to be implied, all the members of the Board of Admiralty were careless or incapable. Without suggesting that the old two-Power standard was too high-quite the contrary-he held that the Navy should be so strong as to be reasonably certain of successfully performing any duty to which it was reasonably probable that it might be called. As to the distribution of the existing ships, the Admiralty alone had the information which enabled it to decide this question, and he declined to accept the view that the Mediterranean must be treated as a unit by itself. Though it was one of the most important stations of the British Navy, yet it must be considered, not by itself, but in connection with the Channel and the approaches to the Channel. In the assignment of new ships all the important squadrons in turn had their share, and the destination of ships was governed by considerations of the moment. In reference to the new ships he mentioned that nine would be completed this year and eight during the first six months of next year. As to destroyers he said that we had in all 113, and that of the twenty-six which were abroad sixteen were in the Mediterranean. Ten additional destroyers of a stronger construction were in this year's programme, and some more would be sent to the Mediterranean Squadron. He ridiculed the hypothesis, apparently current, that the enemy would attack on a war footing while the Mediterranean Fleet was on a peace footing. The battleships would be of quite a new type.

Mr. Arnold-Forster explained, on the same evening, on the shipbuilding vote, in the House of Commons, that the new battleships were of 16,500 tons displacement, 20 ft. longer than the Formidable class, with an indicated horse-power of 18,000, and 18 knots speed. It was proposed to add to the four 12in. guns which now formed the normal armament of all the first-class battleships of the world four 9-2 guns. The three new battleships were to be named The King Edward, The Commonwealth and The Dominion. Six armoured cruisers were to be laid down, of 9,800 tons, 22,000 horse-power, and 23 knots speed, and ten destroyers. Every effort was being made to wipe off shipbuild

ing arrears. The available plant of manufacturing firms was greatly increased, and a much better rate of progress might be looked for.

Satisfactory as, on the whole, the naval prospects thus held out might appear, the general result of the Ministerial statements was to confirm the impression previously current that, indirectly, the war had served to check the maintenance of the immediately effective predominance of the British Navy. In regard to the Army, there was a widespread feeling that, whatever might be the merits of the military reorganisation scheme brought forward by the War Minister and sanctioned by the House of Commons, the recruiting question was fundamental and had yet to be dealt with. In that connection the House of Lords had an interesting debate on two evenings (June 25 and 28), introduced by the Duke of Bedford, who feared that we should never have a force sufficient for the defence of the country, unless we were prepared to pay the private a shilling a day "all found and well found." There ought also, he maintained, to be a more liberal system of pensions. He was supported by Lord Wolseley in holding that the question of pay was the real crux of the Army question. On the part of the Government it was intimated, not for the first time, that if enough men could not be obtained by recruiting on the existing terms they would be prepared to consider and propose some further measures. But it was pointed out, what was indeed sufficiently obvious, that the adoption of the Duke of Bedford's proposals would involve a large addition to the Estimates. The duke did not press to a division his motion as to the inadequacy of the existing terms of remuneration to soldiers, but there was a pretty general feeling that if all forms of compulsory service were still to be avoided the nation would have to bid higher in the market for its private soldiers.

On a later day (July 30), in Committee of Supply on the War Office vote, Mr. Brodrick referred to the report on War Office reorganisation, of which some account has been given (pp. 146-8). Some of its recommendations, he observed, had already been adopted. For example, on the military side of the office civilians were being replaced by soldiers. Before the end of the year he proposed to set up three Army Corps commands-at Aldershot, on Salisbury Plain, and in Ireland. Very extensive powers would be conferred on the generals, and they would have financial assistants. Moreover, commanding officers of engineers would be empowered to execute certain classes of work in the districts where they were stationed, without reference to headquarters, save reporting the expenditure, which would of course be confined within limits. That this would lead to increased efficiency he had no doubt; whether it would promote economy was another question. With regard to the suggested "War Office Board," they had already a War Office Council, over which the Secretary of State presided (though he was not bound