the other Powers concerned. Lord Landsdown proceeded to explain that the Powers thought, in regard to the war indemnities, that their claims ought to be limited to the actual cost incurred in these operations, and in the case of private indemnities they desired to exclude indirect and consequential claims. Moreover, the Powers were of opinion that they ought to avoid imposing on China a burden which could properly be described as being of an overwhelming nature; and again, they did not desire to take advantage of this opportunity to urge China to make a number of internal reforms. At the same time, he should be sorry to have it understood that they despaired of seeing reforms carried out in China. Adverting next to the agreement entered into between this country and Russia in 1899 on the question of the northern railways, the noble lord said his Majesty's Government distinctly regarded these arrangements as being still in force, and they did not admit that the temporary disturbance of existing arrangements in any way modified the binding nature of the agreement. With regard to the Anglo-German agreement, the German Government had given them to understand that in their view Manchuria was not a place in which they considered they had influence; but he did not think this point deserved too much attention; and he pointed out that all the Powers, including Germany, had repeatedly declared their policy to be that the integrity of the Chinese Empire should be maintained. ring to the question of the supposed Russo-Chinese Convention with regard to Manchuria, he said that the Government did not take an exaggerated view of our interests there, and would not be disposed to criticise in a carping or pedantic spirit any arrangement of a temporary character; but some of the versions of the text of the agreement seemed to contain covenants derogatory to our treaty rights in China. Until all doubts on the subject had been removed his Majesty's Government could only adhere to the view which they had already intimated to the Chinese Government-and Germany had held almost precisely the same language-namely, that it was desirable that China, at a time when she was negotiating with the whole of the Powers at Pekin, should not simultaneously enter into a private and separate engagement with any individual Power.

Refer

In the Commons on the same evening, replying to Sir E. Ashmead-Bartlett and Mr. J. Walton (Barnsley, Yorkshire), Lord Cranborne gave information of the same character as that given by the Foreign Secretary in the Upper House, and vindicated the Government against the charge of having neglected to sustain British interests in the Far East.

An event of much interest in the educational world occurred on April 1, when the decision of the Queen's (now King's) Bench Division in the Cockerton case was unanimously confirmed by the Court of Appeal, consisting of the Master of the Rolls and Lord Justices Collins and Romer. The judgment given by the Master of the Rolls was even more emphatically

unfavourable to the contention of the London School Board than was the judgment of Mr. Justice Wills in the court below. He declared that "no effort of imagination" could describe the system of education set forth in the South Kensington Directory as elementary education, and in his opinion the Whitehall Code embraced elementary education up to its high-water mark. He pointed out, very decidedly, that the act of 1870 dealt solely with the elementary education of children, and never referred to adults or to higher education or to South Kensington; nor was there anything in later Acts to warrant the extension of the authority and the spending powers of the Board.

With reference to the situation thus emphasised Sir J. Gorst, in reply to Mr. Yoxall (Nottingham, W.), said (April 2) that the Government would be prepared at the proper time to make such recommendations as seemed advisable. In the meantime he could assure the House that no school which was doing good work would be compelled to close its doors in consequence of the judgment. This declaration supplemented a statement by the Duke of Devonshire in the Upper House (March 30) that in one House or the other an Education Bill was to be introduced, on behalf of the Government, immediately after the Easter recess.

On April 2 the House of Commons spent a few hours, not very seriously, in discussing the Demise of the Crown Bill. The object of this measure was, as explained by the AttorneyGeneral in moving its second reading, to render unnecessary the reappointment of certain officials on a demise of the Crown, and it was to take effect as from the commencement of the present reign. He did not believe that Ministers who had been reappointed by the King to the places they held under her late Majesty had vacated their seats in the House of Commons, and he quoted the opinion of Speaker Abbot that "to accept the same office under a new commission has never in practice been held to vacate a seat"; but the bill would remove all doubts on the matter. To the retrospective functions of the bill objection was taken as making it virtually an Act of Indemnity for Ministers, who, it was said, had really vacated their seats on being reappointed, and had thus incurred pecuniary penalties of serious magnitude; and it was therefore contended that they ought frankly to ask for an indemnity. In the end, however, the bill was read a second time by 155 to 72.

The South African question came up in various forms during the last fortnight before the Easter recess. On March 25 Mr. Ellis (Rushcliffe, Notts) challenged the vote for the South African Land Settlement Commission, which had consisted of Mr. Arnold-Forster and Mr. Southey, a gentleman of great farming experience in South Africa, and had inquired into the possibility of settling soldiers in South Africa and finding employment for them. Mr. Ellis, in language which was strongly

reprobated by Mr. Chamberlain, deprecated the idea of planting in the conquered territories, as agricultural settlers, "undersized, town-bred starvelings," such as, he said, were being sent out as Yeomanry. On behalf of the Government, it was maintained by Mr. Chamberlain that the publication of the report of the commission might be premature in existing circumstances, and at any rate it could not be published without Sir A. Milner's sanction. Mr. Balfour denied that the commissioners, as had been suggested, were opposed to the Government's policy, and the Colonial Secretary assured the Opposition that Ministers had no intention of expropriation or confiscation.

The most important debate was that which related to the failure of the peace negotiations conducted by Lord Kitchener and General Botha. Since the fact of that failure had been announced a Parliamentary paper had been issued (March 22) giving telegraphic correspondence which had passed as to the negotiations. A telegram from Lord Kitchener (March 20) gave the terms of the final offer to the Boer general, the most important points of which may be thus summarised :

66

In the event of a general and complete surrender the King's Government were prepared to grant an immediate amnesty in the two new colonies for all bond fide acts of war; British subjects, if they chose to return to Natal and Cape Colony, would be liable to be dealt with under the special laws passed about treason, which in the case of the Cape Colony had greatly mitigated the ordinary penalties. Prisoners of war were to be brought back as soon as possible; military administration was to be replaced by civil administration in the form of Crown colony government, a nominated unofficial element being introduced at the outset, and as soon as practicable a representative element" with the ultimate prospect of self-governA high court, independent of the executive, would administer the "law of the land" in each of the new colonies. The Dutch language would be allowed in courts of law and taught in schools where parents desired it. Church property and public trusts would be respected. A sum of 1,000,000. would be set aside to repay the inhabitants for goods requisitioned by the Republican Governments and commandants; no special war tax would be imposed, and loans would be given to assist farmers in replacing the losses which they had incurred during the war. Military firearms would be allowed, when needed for protection, to burghers who had taken the oath of allegiance, on due registration. Finally, with regard to the Kaffirs, it was stated that their legal position would be the same as in Cape Colony, but that no franchise would be granted to them until representative government was introduced, and then it would be so restricted as not to endanger "the just predominance of the white races." Such were the terms which were offered to General Botha, and the correspondence closed with the brief intimation that he did not feel disposed to recommend them to

the consideration of his Government, and that his Government (which had apparently considered them without his recommendation) and his chief officers shared his views.

The despatches showed that Lord Kitchener had stipulated as a condition of any interview between himself and General Botha that the question of the independence of the Transvaal and Orange Colony should not be discussed in any way; that nevertheless at the interview (Feb. 28) Botha, who "showed very good feeling, tried very hard for some kind of independence," but Lord Kitchener declined to discuss it, and they proceeded to talk over the nature of the future Government under the British flag, and other details. In this conversation it was clear that Lord Kitchener treated as possible some concessions to the Boers which the British Government, and in one case Sir A. Milner, very definitely regarded as imprudent. The point on which Sir A. Milner distinctly deprecated concurrence with Lord Kitchener's suggestions, as embodied in a draft despatch to Botha, was that of an amnesty (subject only to disfranchisement) to the colonial rebels. He thought such a concession would have a "deplorable effect" in the Colonies, and the Imperial Government accepted a modification in Lord Kitchener's draft, suggested by the High Commissioner, which practically brought the terms ultimately to the sense indicated in the above summary, on the question of the rebels. Other points on which Lord Kitchener had shown readiness to go beyond what the Government deemed wise were the creation, upon the close of the war, of an elective assembly, to advise with but not to control the nominated executive, and the bestowal of pecuniary assistance by gift and not by way of loan to repair injury to farm property during the war. On this last point Sir A. Milner agreed with Lord Kitchener.

Considerable, however, as was the difference between Lord Kitchener's draft (and perhaps even more his telegraphically reported observations to Botha) and the terms finally offered, it was noteworthy that such papers as the Cologne Gazette and the Neue Freie Presse of Vienna, which had not been remarkable for friendliness to England during the war, expressed astonishment at the moderation of the British demands and the incomprehensible refusal of the Boers to accept them. Early in April in an interview with Mr. Kruger, published in the Matin, the exPresident was reported to have emphatically denied that Botha ever had any idea of accepting any terms which in any way impaired the independence of the Transvaal, or ever used an ambiguous word on the subject. This report tended to give an academic and unreal air to any discussion of the causes of the breakdown of the negotiations such as took place at length in the House of Commons on March 28. Before it began on that day Mr. Balfour announced, in reply to Sir R. Reid (Dumfries), that the Government would not propose that Messrs. Merriman and Sauer, of the Afrikander Bond, should be heard as they

desired at the bar of the House on the question of the settlement in South Africa. On the motion for the third reading of the Appropriation Bill, Mr. Ure (Linlithgowshire) and Mr. Robson (South Shields), both Liberal lawyers, expressed the opinion that the terms offered by the Government were generous and well conceived. Mr. Arthur Elliot (Durham) also supported the Government's policy, but deprecated any positive statement that we would never go further than we had gone, and also argued that Sir A. Milner, for whom he avowed the greatest regard, was not now the man best qualified to succeed in drawing together the British and the Boers.

Mr. Bryce, while admitting that some of the changes made by the Government in the terms discussed between Lord Kitchener and General Botha were reasonable, took exception to the policy of subjecting the colonial rebels to the law of treason, and dwelt on the inexpediency of satisfying the vindictive feelings of the extreme loyalist faction at the Cape. History, he maintained, showed that a policy of amnesty was generally successful. He recognised that there must be a special form of administration, either military or civil, for an intermediate period, but he protested against the introduction of the arbitrary system of Crown colony government. He regretted the failure of the negotiations and trusted that they would be resumed by the Government when we had gained another military success.

Mr. Chamberlain repudiated an allegation that in regard to the peace negotiations he had sought to shift responsibility which he ought to have borne himself on to the shoulders of Lord Kitchener and Sir A. Milner. The reason why he had made their opinions public was to give the House and the country information which he thought they ought to have. If that information had been withheld the Opposition would at once have protested. Alluding to a previous statement of his that General Botha objected to Sir A. Milner, he explained that the objection was to Sir A. Milner's appointment as head official of the Transvaal. He did not believe, however, that this was the reason of General Botha's refusal to make peace. With regard to the terms of settlement, he said that a way must first be found to bring about a peace that would be both honourable and lasting. To an amnesty for the Cape rebels Sir A. Milner and the Government had been consistently opposed. These rebels had no grievance, and the fact that they sympathised with the Transvaal was no justification for their conduct. They must be punished, for it must not be thought, as it had been in the past, that it was better to be a rebel than a loyalist in South Africa. Nothing could be more mischievous or more likely to lead to future trouble than to allow rebels to go unscathed. It was not correct to say that Lord Kitchener recommended an amnesty, though possibly he suggested it; and it did not appear that he differed from the views of the Government when he learned what they were. As to the question of assistance to