omit the sub-section, an amendment which, it was asserted, was contrary to the compromise. At length the sub-section was carried by 118 to 50 votes, a significant testimony to the waning interest of both sides. At the next two sittings of the House the progress was still more rapid, the Government consenting to several minor amendments without going to a division. On clause 31, dealing with the machinery relating to parochial elections, Sir John Gorst (Cambridge University) pointed out that if the clause passed in the shape in which it then stood there could be no Parish Council called into existence until April, 1895, because the parish register could not be formed until the revising barrister sat in the autumn of the present year. This led to a considerable discussion, in the course of which the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Fowler) explained that when the bill was originally introduced it was hoped that it would be passed by the month of August, in which case the register would have been revised at the ordinary time, and the measure brought into operation in the month of April next. But circumstances had since altered, and it was now the month of January, and he promised at a later period to bring forward a temporary provision to meet the difficulty which undoubtedly existed, which provision the Government now had under consideration. Ultimately the clause was agreed to. Other clauses were also passed, or postponed, with but slight discussion, but there was considerable discussion on clause 45, which dealt with the audit of the accounts of the Parish and District Councils. One of the points raised was as to whether the audit should be yearly or half-yearly, and the Government supported a halfyearly audit on the ground that it would better further the interests of economy and efficiency. Such an audit was, however, resisted by some members because in their opinion. it would lead to the employment by the Government of an army of auditors who would have to deal in many cases with very small amounts, and the suggestion was made by Mr. Bartley (Islington, N.) that a great deal of expense would be saved by adopting some arrangement for a local audit. However, Mr. Fowler insisted on a Government audit, because of the abuses which had arisen under the other system. An amendment moved (Jan. 4) by Mr. Storey (Sunderland), to take the auditing of Parish Council accounts out of the hands of the Local Government Board and to place it in those of the local authorities, was opposed by Mr. Fowler, who, in proof of the necessity of having some Government control over the accounts, pointed out that during the last twelve months the auditing staff of the Local Government Board had disallowed 3,500 cases of improper and illegal expenditure by local authorities, including among others a sum paid by a highway board for killing foxes. He stated, moreover, in reply to an objection raised as to the expense of a Government audit, that where the

amount of expenditure was under 201. the cost of the official audit would only be 5s. Mr. Balfour was in favour of a Government audit. After some further discussion, and the insertion of some small amendments, the clause was added to the bill. On the question of the annual retirement of one-third of the board of guardians (Jan. 4), Sir Charles Dilke (Forest of Dean, Gloucester) opposed the provisions, especially in the case of London, and insisted upon the triennial retirement of the whole board, whilst Mr. Fowler (Wolverhampton) supported the Government proposal as necessary for securing continuity of administration. Mr. A. J. Balfour (Manchester, E.) thereupon suggested that a relaxation of the hard and fast rule should be left to the Local Government Board, and ultimately the clause was made to read that one-third of the guardians "may" instead of "shall" retire annually. The discussion on the remaining clauses (some few of which were again postponed) was brief and of no great importance, and when progress was reported all the clauses of the bill, except those which had been postponed and the new clauses, had been disposed of, a consummation which was loudly cheered.

The discussion of the postponed clauses of the bill proceeded (Jan. 5) with equal smoothness, Mr. Fowler explaining, in reference to the operation of the bill, that all existing local authorities were to be continued in authority until the first election under the bill had taken place; and that the "appointed day," or day for the election, should be not April 15, as was originally proposed, but December 8, as soon as the registration, which would be accelerated, was complete. Parliament would be asked to pass a short act for accelerating the registration, and for appointing as many additional revising barristers as might be deemed necessary. Changes were made in the other postponed clauses to carry out pledges which had been given by the Government in the course of the discussions upon the bill, and then the new clauses were attacked. Mr. Fowler moved one of great length, dealing with the duties and powers of the County Councils with respect to areas and boundaries, and after considerable discussion it was agreed to with certain amendments. The clause giving the franchise to married women was also debated for some time, but ultimately agreed to, Mr. Fowler being prevented by the forms of the House from carrying out his pledge to extend it so as to make it apply to Town Councils and other local bodies not affected by the bill. Other new clauses to carry out ministerial pledges were also discussed and agreed to. There was, however, more protracted discussion (Jan. 8) over the new clause dealing with allotments, submitted by Mr. Fowler as part of the compromise between the two front benches. The President of the Local Government Board proposed that when a Parish Council was unable to hire land for allotments "on reasonable terms," the Local Government Board might make an order authorising compulsory

hiring for a period of not less than fourteen years, and that when compulsorily hired they should not exceed four acres of pasture, or one acre of arable and three of pasture, land. This led to a long discussion, in which Mr. Channing (Northamptonshire, E.) deplored the way in which the proposal had been crippled by the compromise, while Mr. Chaplin (Sleaford, Lincolnshire) entered a last protest against compulsory hiring altogether, his own feeling being entirely in favour of voluntary arrangements. For this he was bantered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir William Harcourt), who insisted that the Government would take their stand on the proposal, inasmuch as buying the land meant dear allotments, but hiring it meant cheap ones. Mr. Goschen (St. George's, Hanover Square) thought hired allotments would not be beneficial to the agricultural labourer, but Mr. Joseph Arch (Norfolk, N.W.), an agricultural labourer himself, declared that the labourer preferred hired ones, and he was so hopeful of the prospect held out by that proposal of the Government that he predicted that in a quarter of a century the workhouses might all be pulled down. Mr. Jeffreys (Hants, N.), a Conservative, on the other hand, thought the allotments would be of little use unless the Government would advance money to erect buildings on them; and after some further discussion the clause was read a second time, and the rest of the sitting was spent in various attempts to amend it in matters of detail.

On the last day of the committee (Jan. 9) a slight change was made, with the consent of the Opposition, in the allotments clause, a provision being inserted that pasture land let out in allotments might be broken up by the tenant if he obtained the written approval of the landlord. Some time was spent in an attempt to satisfactorily define "an ecclesiastical charity," and ultimately the whole of the new clauses and schedules of the bill passed through committee. On the report stage (Jan. 11) a clause was passed forbidding the use for Parish Council or guardian meetings of premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors, "except in cases where no other suitable room is available for such meeting, either free or at a reasonable cost." A further clause moved by Mr. H. Hobhouse (Somersetshire, E.) enacted that the Parish Council should not be entitled to incur any expenditure involving a rate of more than 3d. in the pound without the consent of the parish meeting. On the following day the remainder of the clauses were passed, and the bill was read a third time, and sent to the House of Lords one week before the time originally fixed by the compromise.

The only other subject of general interest which occupied the House of Commons was the report of the Featherstone Colliery Commission. The Labour members were anxious to censure the conduct of the soldiers who had fired upon the rioters, and at the same time to obtain money compensation for

the families of those who had been killed or injured. Mr. Keir Hardie (West Ham), however, who had been unsparing in his attacks upon the Home Office for the use of soldiers, was not, as on a previous occasion, in his place to confront the Home Secretary. Mr. Burns (Battersea) contented himself with a plea for compensation, which Mr. Asquith (Fifeshire, E.) conceded as a matter of compassion, not of legal right. It may have been that the Socialists were for the moment satisfied with the more important and bloodless victory they had gained on the question of the hours of labour in Government workshops. The Secretary of State for War (Mr. CampbellBannerman) announced that the results of a careful inquiry had convinced his colleagues that a reduction to forty-eight hours' work per week in the Ordnance factories would be beneficial to both the work and the men; and that no reduction of wages would be made in consequence of the change. It was subsequently intimated that a similar reform would be introduced into the Government dockyards and other departments. Whether this concession was wholly the result of conviction, or merely a bid for the Labour vote at the ensuing election, the Labour leaders had no cause to inquire. They had obtained for those whose interests they especially had at heart an appreciable boon, which the trade unions might be trusted to extort from the private employers of labour.

If any lesson was to be drawn from the election for the Horncastle division of Lincolnshire, it was that the agricultural voters at least were slow to appreciate the prospective benefits of the Parish Councils Bill, and careless of the benefits in the matter of reduced hours of labour granted to their artisan brethren. The Liberal candidate, Mr. Torr, had doubtless offended the leaders of the Liberationist sect by his strong views on concurrent endowment, but the polling showed no evidence that the Lincolnshire Nonconformists were appreciably affected by their candidate's personal opinions. Mr. Torr slightly increased the Liberal vote as compared with the numbers polled at the general election, 3,744 votes as against 3,700 in 1892. On the other hand the Conservative candidate, Lord Willoughby d'Everby, the son of one of the chief landowners in the division, polled 4,582 votes as compared with 4,438. The election, however, can scarcely be said to have been significant of anything more than the absurdity of the assertion frequently made by Radical speakers of the increasing unpopularity of the larger landowners.

The House of Commons immediately after the third reading of the Local Government Bill adjourned for three weeks in order to allow the House of Lords to deal with the various measures sent up for their consideration. Before separating, some ninety members of the Lower House, all belonging to the advanced Radical section, signed a memorial to the Chancellor of the Exchequer urging him to prepare a “Demo

cratic Budget," of which a graduated income tax, graduated death duties, and the taxation of "land values," should be the chief features. Sir Wm. Harcourt, in acknowledging the memorial "representing such a weight of opinion," promised that it should receive the most careful and respectful consideration, but declined further to commit himself as to his intentions.

The undue prolongation of the Parliamentary session naturally prevented members visiting their constituents, and leaders expounding their party principles. Nevertheless, in the short interval of rest which followed on the passing of the Government bills through the House of Commons, Sir Henry James on behalf of the Liberal Unionists, and Mr. A. J. Balfour as chief of the Conservatives, were able to place their views before the public. The former, addressing his constituents at Bury (Jan. 17), urged with great force the degrading effect produced upon the House of Commons by the Irish party, which, without taking any personal interest in bills for Great Britain, voted for all Mr. Gladstone's proposals by way of paying the equivalent for Irish Home Rule. He showed by the speeches of the Irish leaders that they recognised the necessity of postponing an appeal to the country on the question of Home Rule until sufficient English measures had been passed, until concession had been made to every faddist and every particularist in the hope that his vote at the next general election might be secured on every point, except that of Home Rule, which was to be carefully kept out of sight of the English voters. The long session he declared had been barren and waste, because the Government, instead of acting as statesmen, had acted as electioneering agents.

Mr. Balfour's series of speeches to his constituents at Manchester lasted over three days and dealt with a much wider range of subjects. His first address (Jan. 22) referred almost exclusively to national defence, which he refused to regard as a party question. He greatly regretted the action of the Government in treating Lord George Hamilton's motion, at the close of the previous year, as an attack on the Administration, and declared that he would give a hearty support to any measure, no matter by whom proposed, which would prevent our naval supremacy on the high seas from being undermined. He held it to be a great mistake to regard this country as safe, if it were safe only from the landing of a hostile force. It would not, he contended, be safe for a moment if our great import and export trade were imperilled: "To me it seems that of all the empires in the world, the British Empire has the least defensible frontier." He dwelt with pleasure on the friendliness of foreign States and statesmen, but pointed out how unpopular this country was with the French people as distinguished from French statesmen, how easily we might be forced into an attitude of serious and sudden hostility. With regard to the best means of meeting this danger, Mr. Balfour