which they could not give. Mr. Chamberlain had lately said that he (Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman) was one of the principal authors of the war, because last summer he repeatedly said that military preparations were unnecessary: "I said nothing of the kind. I had no such information as would justify me in making any broad statement of the sort. What I did say was that neither on the question of the Transvaal franchise, nor in the negotiations relating to it, could I discern any ground for war, nor special preparation for war. I limited my opinion strictly to the facts in the possession of the public, and it was most necessary that this opinion should be expressed by way of a faint protest and corrective against the obvious drift of the right hon. gentleman's own proceedings, and the twists that were being given to them in the direction of war." The Colonial Secretary himself said that he never intended or anticipated war. Plain people last summer knew from bitter past experience that the Boers were a fighting race, brave and stubborn; but it was not till the war began that they knew of their immense warlike preparations. But the Colonial Secretary knew the extent of the armaments, which was a matter of fact; and he erred in his estimate and in his judgment of the temper and capacity of the Boers.

And the statesmanship of the Government was equally defective in matters of fact.

The accumulation of armaments by the Boers began a short time before the Jameson raid, and it was continued year after year. The Government made no remonstrance, and the only excuse they could make for their neglect was that they felt themselves compromised by the raid and by their attitude after the raid. And then when the Boer armaments had been completed in the way our soldiers had recently felt, Mr. Chamberlain took up the Outlanders' grievances and began a series of irritating negotiations, and at the same time gave a pledge that the territory of Natal should be inviolate, while small reinforcements were sent out, only sufficient to irritate the Boers.

Mr. John Morley, succeeding Mr. Gladstone as honorary president of the Oxford Palmerston Club, in reply to the toast of the "Liberal Party," took the opportunity of showing how it was in danger of bearing out Lord Chatham's dictum, that the disturbance of an effective party system resulted in national confusion. Mr. Morley, however, seemed anxious to contribute little to bringing back harmony to the Liberal party. He disliked the catchword "Liberal imperialism," and could not see what distinguished it from Unionist imperialism or Liberal militarism. His reading, too, of the causes which led to the war differed from that of his former colleagues; but he was careful not to say anything which might suggest that he was for an immediate stoppage of the campaign. He assumed, however, with greater assurance than the public had done, that the Liberal leaders of the House. of Commons were agreed with him upon the following points.

He held that financial combinations had a share in the Outlander agitation, that our relations with the Transvaal from the raid to the war were clumsy and provocative, that the objects of the war at best were not worth the sacrifices and the kindling of abominable passions which they had entailed, that present dangers immeasurably transcended past dangers, and that none of the alleged wrongs were worth the desolation of a single British or Boer home. The first act of the drama was drawing to a close, and he would not pretend that he did not rejoice in the triumph of our arms. Before the outbreak of hostilities he had warned the South African Republic that war must mean the extinction of their independence, and had warned this country that the Transvaal would have to be made a Crown colony. He did not justify those results. The independence of the Free State had been extinguished: "I am sure it is the first time in the history of this country that it has begun its acquisition of the territory of a white community by blotting out, as the Russian censor blots out an obnoxious newspaper article, the sacred word free." He refused to indicate his views of settlement because as yet they did not know enough. They wanted an estimate made by a wise and patient administrator actually on the ground and unconnected with the war, and he regarded the suggestion that the High Commissioner (Sir Alfred Milner) should arrange the settlement with the Transvaal as the last link in the chain of preposterous absurdity and folly. People said that our Boer subjects would soon be contented to exchange political liberty for real liberty, but that was an argument which was used now by Russia in Finland and formerly by Austria in Italy, and the populations were not satisfied. Were men who had fought as the Boers had done likely to acquiesce so tamely? Mr. Gladstone had said that not one of the empires whose rise and fall had been recorded in history had owed its ruin to checking the lust of territorial acquisition. Imperialism was unfavourable to domestic reforms which required expenditure. He had year after year opposed the socialists, not because he did not sympathise with them, but because he thought their means would do mischief to the character of the individual, and would handicap us in the struggle, the vital struggle, for an industrial position. But if he were unfortunately called upon to choose between the socialist and the militarist, the socialist's standards were higher and his aims not any more wild.

Public attention which for so many months had been directed solely towards South Africa was now suddenly diverted to Pastorn Asia. A formidable organisation known as "the Hoxos" had either imposed its anti-foreign views upon the Imperial Government, or, as was asserted, was being secretly protected by it. The demand of this ultra-patriotic party was The ejection of all foreigners from China, and as Chinese Christian converts as a rule were disposed to look with favour upon Europeans, a general massacre of missionaries and their

For many

converts was a part of the Boxer programme. months warnings had been addressed to the European representatives at Pekin of the gathering danger, but these were so busily occupied in watching each other's intrigues, and so eagerly anxious to obtain some special privilege or concession from the Chinese authorities, that they paid no heed to the grave situation created throughout the vast empire by the preachers of the anti-foreign crusade. Even in the first moment of alarm, when it was thought advisable to strengthen the Legation guards, the jealousy and rivalry of the European Powers prevented any effective force being sent to Pekin from the coast, it being important that no nation should be disproportionately represented. Eight hundred men of all nationalities reached the capital, and as a precautionary measure an allied naval brigade was established in Tientsin, but the next news was that the railway and telegraph wires to Pekin were cut; that the country between the port and the capital was held by the Boxers, and that the Chinese Army was not seriously attempting to restrain those whom the Chinese officials termed "insurgents." For the second time, also, that disturbing factor in Eastern policy, Japan, was entering upon the scene, and the treatment she had received from the European Powers after her successful campaign against China caused her course of action to be carefully scrutinised by those who had been foremost in robbing Japan of the fruits of her victory. She was on the spot with a highly trained army, which had already proved its superiority and might therefore have promptly restored communication between Pekin and the seaboard, and rescued the legations from the dangers by which they were surrounded. After long discussion and much hesitation it was decided by the European Powers that it was inadvisable to entrust a nonChristian nation with the sole right of restoring order and of rescuing its representatives, and it was solemnly agreed that these should be left to their fate until such time as the European Powers could agree among themselves by what forces each would allow the other to be represented, and under whose command the relief expedition should be placed.

When Parliament reassembled (June 14) its only sign of renewed vigour was a curiosity as to the course of events in China and the trend of our policy. Mr. Brodrick's explanation of the intentions of the Government was in the regular official optimistic strain, but conveyed little information. Admiral Seymour had been instructed to take, in concert with the other Powers, any steps thought necessary to protect the legations and British subjects; but he specially referred to the Russian representative at Pekin as the colleague with whom our minister was directed to confer. The reason for this preference might have been that Russian troops were more available for immediate co-operation, and also that Russia's interest in Asian affairs far exceeded that of the other Powers. Of course Mr. Brodrick

declared that complete accord prevailed among the Powers as to the steps taken by Admiral Seymour, and his assurance was accepted as indicating a relaxation of that distrust of Russia, which had been the leading feature of British diplomacy in the Far East. The Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs found a somewhat unusual platform for delivering his views of the crisis. At a meeting of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, Lord Salisbury spoke (June 19) with evident conviction of the need for discretion among missionaries. He quoted the Eastern proverb, "First the missionary, then the consul, then the general," and pointed out what a terrible hindrance to missionary work was this notion that political expansion and missionary work went hand in hand. "Just look at this Chinese matter. You observe that all the people who are slaughtered are Christians. Do you imagine that they are slaughtered simply because the Chinese dislike their religion?— there is no nation in the world so indifferent on the subject of religion as the Chinese--it is because they and other nations have got the idea that missionary work is a mere instrument of the secular Government in order to achieve the objects it has in view. That is a most dangerous and terrible snare." In dealing with missionary work among Mahomedan populations, Lord Salisbury urged special care. He urged them to remember "that in these Mahomedan countries you are not dealing with men who are wholly evil; you are dealing with men who have religious motives, earnest in many respects, terribly mutilated in others, but a religion that has portions of our own embodied in its system. You are dealing with a force which a pure, though mistaken, theism gives to a vast population." The speech, although full of common sense as well as political foresight, was probably received with half-hearted assent by the audience, whilst it furnished the foreign critics of this country with a fresh text on which to hang a sermon on, "British hypocrisy."

Two sittings were devoted to the Education Vote (June 14), but the points raised were almost wholly those of detail. A good deal was said about the popularity of infant schools, which were really "storage places for babies," many of whom were quite beyond the infant age. The "new code was also discussed at length. It was, as the Vice-President of the Council, Sir J. Gorst (Cambridge Univ.), explained, rather of a negative than of a positive character, removing obstacles in the way of a better system of education, but not itself accomplishing that result. To achieve this it was necessary that school managers should understand and adopt the policy of the Government instead of, as was frequently the case, clinging to methods which the Government had found useless and even harmful. The need of a better supply of teachers; the inferior quality of pupil teachers in rural schools, and the religious difficulty in voluntary schools were also discussed. With regard to the latter the Vice-President maintained that the powers of the department were limited to

the enforcement of the Cowper-Temple clause; whilst Mr. A. Birrell (Fife, S.), with great truth and speaking as a Nonconformist, said that the clamour about compulsory religious instruction was raised over a number of children whose parents were wholly indifferent to religious instruction of any kind.

The appeal clause in the Australian Commonwealth Bill had led to a large amount of correspondence in the newspapers, and to a general bewilderment of the public mind. The real wish of the Australian colonies was obscured under a mass of assertions and denials, of which the weight and value were unassignable. Negotiations had taken place between Mr. Chamberlain and the delegates, the result of which was that the compromise as to the right of appeal was now objected to. Mr. Chamberlain therefore proposed (June 18) a new clause which enacted that no appeal should be permitted to the Queen in Council from a decision of the High Court of the Commonwealth upon any question as to the limits inter se of the constitutional powers of the Commonwealth and those of any State, or as to the limits inter se of the constitutional powers of any two States, unless the High Court should certify that the question was one which ought to be determined by the Privy Council. Mr. Haldane (Haddingtonshire) argued that as the new clause contained no express reservation of the right of appeal in cases affecting the public interests of her Majesty's dominions outside Australia, more had been given than the delegates had asked for. The Attorney-General, Sir R. B. Finlay (Inverness Burgh), however, argued that upon the question whether or not a power had been delegated, there would be an appeal as of right. On the next occasion (June 21) Mr. Chamberlain was able to announce that the new clause giving effect to the compromise on clause 74 had been cordially accepted by four out of five colonies, and that there was little doubt (and this was verified the next day) that New South Wales would accede to the proposal, and after some further debate the bill was agreed to and passed (June 25). Its passage through the House of Lords was not delayed, but the second reading gave rise (June 29) to an interesting discussion, in the course of which Lord Carrington, who had been Governor of New South Wales, and had obtained great popularity in the colony, contended that the compromise over clause 74 was in a reality a surrender. This view, however, was not generally held even on the Opposition side of the House, and without further hindrance the bill passed through all its stages and received (July 9) royal assent and the cordial endorsement of public opinion throughout the country. It was subsequently announced that as a result of communications with the Australian colonies it was decided not to appoint four additional judges to represent the colonies on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and in the House of Lords. The home Government, however, promised to take an early opportunity of consulting