stituents at Ladybank, Fifeshire (Sept. 28), from restating with his habitual decision his familiar views on the war, or tempt him into any endeavour to conciliate Irish support. As to the war, he held, he said, in a sentence, that we were "fighting with clean hands, and with a clear conscience, in a just cause." But the right of criticism remained. He exercised that right with regard to the Unionist electioneering statements in 1900, and went on to say that on various points explanations were wanted from the Government. Thus, when objection was taken in the House of Commons to Lord Kitchener's proclamation of August 6, an assurance was given that the proclamation was simply a warning, and would not be put into effect till legislation had been passed for the purpose. Yet it was now announced that ten persons had been sentenced to banishment on the assumed authority of the proclamation. If the statement was correct, there was a startling discrepancy between the undertaking given by the Government and its action. People would be also glad to know whether the Government were adopting vigorous measures to bring the campaign to a close or whether they were once more in a mood of lethargic happy-go-lucky optimism.

Mr. Asquith then went on to advert to a topic which, since the census had shown the continued decline in the Irish population, both absolute and as compared with that of Great Britain, had been a good deal discussed in the Unionist Press. The demand for a reduction in the proportionately excessive representation of Ireland had been strongly put forward, and though, perhaps, not directly based on the conduct of the Irish Members in the present Parliament, that consideration could hardly fail to exercise influence wherever the topic was raised. Mr. Asquith, for his part, deprecated any idea of a partial or punitive redistribution of seats. For one thing, it would be useless, for even if the Nationalists were reduced to fifty they would be quite strong enough for an effective guerilla warfare. Moreover, though he did not hold the consideration decisive, he thought it not immaterial to remember that the Irish representation was fixed by the Act of Union at a figure which was then far below what Ireland was entitled to, on the principle of proportional representation, and that whatever changes had since been made had been made with the assent, expressed or presumed, of the vast majority of the Irish people themselves. In any case, there were even more glaring anomalies in the representation of Great Britain than in that of Ireland.

Then followed an interesting declaration. The claim to independence of English parties which the Irish party put forward-and had just exercised in Lanarkshire-must, Mr. Asquith said, of course, be fully recognised; but there must also be reciprocity in these things; and he himself held that the Liberal party "ought not to assume the duties and responsi

bilities of office until it could rely on an independent Liberal majority in the House of Commons." Such a majority might take a long time to secure, but he was satisfied that it was the only practical alternative to a Tory Government.

To this avowal Mr. Redmond, speaking in Dublin (Oct. 1), replied in a high tone. Mr. Asquith's declaration, he said, was "rash and foolish," and he advised him to remember that a greater than he took office at the head of a party dependent on the Irish vote, and brought in a Home Rule Bill within six months of having appealed to the electorate to give him a majority independent of the Irish vote. Further, Mr. Redmond expressed his very poor opinion of the Imperialist wing of the Liberal party, and their prospects. Soon, he believed, they would disappear, and the Liberal party "would be made up of men of the stamp of Lloyd-George.

The very vigorous resumption of the offensive by the Boers at the end of September, at widely distant parts of the field of operations, caused an appreciable amount of disquietude here. That feeling was not altogether allayed either by the contemplation of the splendid and, though costly, successful defence made by the garrison of Fort Itala, on the Zululand border, and by Colonel Kekewich's force in the south-west of the Transvaal respectively, or by the theory that these onslaughts were the last desperate flashes of Boer hostility in arms. In some quarters there was a call for sterner measures, and for pronouncing outlawry against the Boers who should still keep the field. Against any such idea Mr. Winston Churchill, speaking at a Primrose League meeting in Yorkshire about this time, strongly protested. It was, he said, not by threats or proclamations, but only by the vigorous application of military force that this matter could be settled as it should be settled. Ministers, however, seemed to him to be "drifting helplessly as in a dream," instead of, as they ought to be, "ceaselessly planning for the future." The particular plan which he urged was not, as many advocated, the mere pouring in of more reinforcements. They wanted, he said, quality rather than quantity, leaders rather than generals, men, not masses. Lines of communication must be held and towns garrisoned; but beyond the troops needed for this work, who were more than sufficient, a force of 15,000 to 20,000 men must be put in the field equal to the Boer commandoes in initiative, determination and resource, in marksmanship, mobility and endurance, and superior to them in numbers, equipment and the quality of their horses.

The public mind was puzzled and anxious, and by no means soothed by Lord Halsbury, who, at the Cutlers' Feast at Sheffield (Oct. 3), ineptly said that "a sort of warfare" was, indeed, still going on, but asked "Is it war?" Enough of the genuine article, men thought, to keep 200,000 British soldiers engaged in the unsuccessful attempt to stop it. On the same occasion, Lord Halsbury, on the question of a redistribu

tion of seats, used language which was regarded as at variance with the effect of that used by Mr. Balfour and Mr. Chamberlain at Blenheim. It was contrary, he said, to the Constitution to be perpetually tinkering at the House of Commons. Do not let them, because some Members of the House misbehaved themselves, put everything into the melting pot, for that was not Conservatism. This point of view may very possibly have commended itself to many minds. It was the war, however, and not the over-representation of Ireland, which was occupying men's attention; so the net effect of the Lord Chancellor's utterance was irritation, and somewhat enhanced uneasiness. This state of mind, however, was appreciably relieved by the judicious tone-serious and straightforward-of a letter written by the War Secretary to Sir Howard Vincent, which was published on October 11. In the course of this communication Mr. Brodrick wrote: "I am in daily correspondence by telegraph with Lord Kitchener, and there is no single demand which he has made on us which has not been promptly met. We have, roughly speaking, 200,000 men, with 450 guns, in South Africa, and over 100,000 men under training at home. We have, therefore, no difficulty in keeping up the field Army to its requisite strength by drafts, and, if a further call be made on us, we are in a position to meet it with the utmost promptitude. Notwithstanding this, there seems to be an impression abroad that the close of the war is being in some way retarded by a scarcity of troops or want of mobility in our columns. Our last returns from South Africa show that, besides providing supplies from here for 314,000 persons directly or indirectly connected with the war, we are feeding 248,000 horses and mules in that country, and we maintain in South Africa a reserve of four months' food supply for men and animals. There are at present in the field sixty-nine mobile columns perfectly equipped for service with picked commanders, and we deliver at South African ports a monthly supply of nearly 10,000 remounts, so that, apart from horses taken from the enemy, we continue in advance of Lord Kitchener's requirements.'

People seemed to be anxious, Mr. Brodrick said, about some inactivity or apathy on the part of the Government. "The Home Government have never in any way interfered with the military dispositions of Lord Kitchener, in whose vigorous prosecution of the war they have entire confidence. They have neither spared men nor money to assist him in his difficult task of chasing small bodies of the enemy over an area the size of France and Spain, and defending thousands of miles of railways against attack.'

The tranquillising effect of Mr. Brodrick's assurances was very considerably enhanced by the appearance on the same day of the report of a speech by Sir M. Hicks-Beach at Oldham, in which, having referred to the "equinoctial gale of newspaper

criticism," to which the Government had been lately subjected on account of their conduct of the war, he not only denied that there was any ground for the suggestion of slackness made against them, but affirmed in so many words that, in his opinion, it would be "the most mistaken economy to grudge any amount of expenditure which would bring the war to an earlier conclusion." In view of this temper on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and of Mr. Brodrick's positive assurances-and Lord Roberts had spoken in the same sense at Liverpool (Oct. 8)—the disposition to gird at the Government for the slow progress of the war very appreciably subsided.

None the less, the circumstances under which the nation was keeping the second anniversary (Oct. 11) of the outbreak of the South African struggle were felt to be very melancholy, and comparatively little attention was given to domestic questions. Some interest was, however, attracted by a speech made by Mr. Chamberlain in opening a new temperance hall in Birmingham. In the course of this utterance Mr. Chamberlain observed that he knew of no Act of Parliament which had had any effect. whatever in reducing drunkenness, though he knew of several which had had the effect of increasing it-as, for instance, the Act which established grocers' licences, or the legislation of 1869. At the same time he did not think that any impartial man would pretend that there was no need for legislation. But no measure could be carried which had not a large force of moderate opinion behind it. Mr. Chamberlain then illustrated the harm which might be done by extreme reformers by reference to the manner in which his own early proposals for the adoption by Birmingham of the Gothenburg plan, which had the most influential and representative support, had been defeated, with the result that the strength of the liquor interest had been enormously increased there. He went on to say that the principle of the Gothenburg system-the absolute elimination of any idea of private gain from the retail sale of liquorswas, however, a sound one, and he welcomed the efforts of the Public-House Trust Associations to carry it out according to their ability. With the spirit of the minority report of Lord Peel's Commission he agreed, as well as with many of its recommendations, but he entirely disagreed with the view that the licence-holders had no equitable claim to compensation for the non-renewal of their licences, and he believed that the majority of the people were with him on that point. He was glad, he added, to see that in Birmingham the magistrates and brewers were working together for a reduction in the number of houses, which everybody allowed to be desirable.

In this connection it is well worthy of record that during the year 1901 the movement in favour of Reformed Public Houses, managed on the principle referred to by Mr. Chamberlain, took fresh and important developments, mainly through the energetic

advocacy of Lord Grey. For some years a company called the People's Refreshment House Association had been in existence, due to the initiative of the Bishop of Chester (Dr. Jayne), who acted as its president. This Association by the middle of 1901 had become the managers of eighteen licensed houses in various parts of England, and was doing a very useful work. But Lord Grey aimed at a great increase in the scope of this movement, through the establishment of limited trust companies for all counties or county-groups in the Kingdom, who would be able. to apply to the magistrates whenever licenses fell in, or new licensed premises were needed, for permission to hold the licenses concerned, if any were granted, as a trust, on the understanding that the houses would be put in the hands of officials having no private interest in the sale of liquor. The profits of the shareholders in the companies were also limited to 5 per cent., any surplus being applied, locally or generally, to public objects. By the middle of October, according to a report issued by the Central Public House Trust Association, fourteen such companies had been, or were on the point of being, registered-six in England, six in Scotland, one in Wales and one in Ireland. In all cases the directors were persons of high local standing.

In the course of a speech at Edinburgh (Oct. 16) Mr. Asquith expressed surprise at the tone of Mr. Chamberlain's speech, and insisted that vigorous legislative efforts must be made to remedy the evils of the drink traffic. Liberals, he maintained, should take their stand, he would not say upon the details, but upon the main lines of Lord Peel's report. At the same time he held, with regard to the reduction of houses, that, as a matter not of right but of policy, something in the nature of compensation should be paid to the owners of suppressed licenses, to be levied on the enhanced value of the licenses which survived. In the same speech he again touched on the relations between the Liberals and the Nationalists. In the interval since his last speech Mr. Herbert Gladstone, at Leeds (Oct. 7), had apparently declined to accept Mr. Asquith's declaration on this subject as bearing its only obvious meaning. Mr. Asquith now reiterated what he had said, in its plain sense. "It would not," he said, "be wise for the Liberal party to repeat the experiment of 1892, and to assume power when it could only be retained by the support of the Irish vote." But he added that he had no authority to give a pledge on the subject for the party as a whole, though he knew his opinions were shared by " a large number of the most level-headed Liberals in the country."

On October 25 Mr. Chamberlain made a speech of considerable length and importance at Edinburgh. In its course he intimated that in the ensuing Session the Government meant to bring forward rules which would "give to the majority of the House of Commons a greater control over its own business, a greater control over the men who insulted and outraged it". As