testify that this is done by nearly all Nonconformist ministers, and with good results. We value greatly the religious instruction given in day schools, but we realise that it is altogether inadequate for denominational purposes, and cheerfully give the necessary time to supplying the deficiency. Board school religion is described by denominationalists as inadequate, because it is negative. But it is no more negative in relation to the Church of England than it is in relation to the Baptists, the Congregationalists, the Wesleyans, or the Presbyterians. They are all on the same ground, and if they want their children taught in their own positive creeds, the only fair thing for them to do is to adopt some such methods as the above. There are ample opportunities for hard-working, conscientious, and earnest clergymen and ministers of all denominations to teach their own children in their own faith' without encroaching on each other's rights, or extending exclusive preference to any sect. The Nonconformists are willing to abide by this principle. Why cannot the Church do the same?

But I have reasons for knowing that the Nonconformists would be willing, in order to put an end to the dispute, to go much further than this, and to agree to facilities being given for unrestricted religious teaching by the denominations at their own expense in all schools outside of school hours on one or two days a week-religious instruction on the basis of the London syllabus being given on the remaining days. This would, however, be subject to the concession of public control, abolition of tests for teachers, and adequate guarantees that these conditions would be strictly adhered to in respect of all schools. The Bishop of St. Asaph implies that the representatives of the Welsh Councils were willing in March 1903 to agree to unrestricted facilities in all schools during school hours. There is evidently a serious misapprehension on this point. Such an agreement would be totally at variance with the universal convictions of those whom they represented, and would be giving away the very principle for which they themselves had been fighting all along. I am, moreover, authorised by Mr. Lloyd-George to state positively that the utmost that the representatives of the Councils offered was facilities for unrestricted religious instruction on certain days outside school hours, and in this he is corroborated by every member of the committee whom I have had an opportunity of consulting. In proof of this he adduces the fact that both the Bishop of St. Asaph and himself consulted the officials of the Board of Education, and were distinctly told that this was the utmost that the law would allow; but that, in order to settle the matter, no objection would be raised by the Board to the school hours being so arranged as to enable this suggestion to be carried out without interfering with the hours of secular instruction. Although many things have happened during the past twelve months to complicate matters, and to accentuate the differences between the parties, I believe that

a settlement on these lines would be cordially welcomed even now, by many devoted Churchmen, and by the majority of Nonconformists. No agreement which went further than this would, however, be entertained for one moment. Inside denominational facilities would be inconsistent with both public control and the abolition of tests, and all the children would be compelled to attend such instruction unless they claimed the Conscience Clause--an act which frequently places those claiming it in an invidious and unbearable position. If it is only their own children that the Church of England desire to teach in their own faith, why are they so anxious to obtain these facilities during the hours of the compulsory attendance of all children? If, on the other hand, it is the moral and religious welfare of the rising generation that they have so much at heart, why cannot they accept the religious syllabus of the London School Board for all children and supplement its denominational deficiency to meet the wants of their own children, outside school hours? They might have the reasonable use of all the school buildings for this purpose. According to the Bishop's admission this syllabus covers four-fifths of the religious instruction required even by a Church child, and the deficiency could be supplied in from half an hour to three-quarters a week. This being so the difficulty cannot be a very great one, and for the sake of peace and of the educational progress on which the future of our Empire so much depends, surely this small concession might be made by the Church party. This is the only difference between the points of agreement put forth by the Bishop of St. Asaph and those which I believe would be acceptable to Nonconformists. To the latter it is of vital importance, but is it of such importance to the Church party as to warrant them in risking the welfare of the coming generation for its sake?

To this proposal there are only two alternatives. The one is the secularisation of the schools, and much as I should deplore this I fear that, unless some settlement is arrived at soon, public opinion will have none other. The other is the Scotch system. Personally I would, as a compromise, accept its extension to England and Wales. It provides the only complete public control possible. Each locality decides for itself what the nature of the religious instruction in the schools shall be, and an effective Conscience Clause protects the minority. But the total abolition of tests would even then be difficult. Still it would be better than the present position, and in no case would an insignificant minority impose grievous burdens on the majority. The will of the people would be supreme, and democratic principles would triumph. Taxation and representation would go together, and there would be complete control by the ratepayers. This settlement could not, however, be a permanent one, because the same conditions. do not exist in England as we find in Scotland.

Nonconformists are weary of this conflict. It was not they who

initiated it, it was forced upon them against their will. They only entered the fray when they discovered that their most cherished principles were being assailed, and their inalienable rights being taken away from them. They have done everything possible to evade the conflict. In Parliament, in the country, by conferences and correspondence and offers of concordats, their desires were made known time after time, but they remained unheeded. Even now many of them cherish the hope that some method of settlement may be arrived at. Unless this is achieved, the conflict must continue, and the bitterness will increase, with what amount of loss to the country, both materially and spiritually, no man can tell.

JOHN HUGHES.

VOL LV.-No. 325

EE

SIR GEORGE COLLEY IN SOUTH AFRICA

MR. MORLEY'S CHAPTER ON MAJUBA

Iniquissima hæc bellorum conditio est: prospera omnes sibi vindicant, adversa uni imputantur.-TACItus.

[Most unjust is this rule of war: in success all claim the credit, in adversity one man bears the blame.]

As for his [Lord C.'s] support, I shall have it if I am successful, and if I am not, that alone will vex me so much that the displeasure of a minister more or less will be of little importance to me.-Diary of Sir John Moore, vol. ii. p. 273. IN the third volume of Mr. Morley's Life of Gladstone (published October, 1903) will be found a chapter entitled Majuba.' It is written in defence of Mr. Gladstone's South African policy in 1881, and follows Mr. Gladstone's own argument in the debate in the Commons in July of the same year: that Sir George Colley's military operations were neither authorised by the Government nor rendered necessary by the Boer revolt, but were on the contrary undertaken rashly and unjustifiably by the British general. It ought to have been possible to shield Mr. Gladstone's memory without doing this injustice to Sir George Colley, and had such a course been taken the present article need not have been written. In fairness to Sir George, it has now become necessary to record briefly the course of events during his command in South Africa. In taking this step I have no present intention of trying to affect the judgment of men upon the loss of Majuba Hill.

Sir George Pomeroy-Colley was serving in India when the appointment in South Africa was offered to him by the Conservative Government of Mr. Disraeli. He succeeded Sir Garnet Wolseley as Governor of Natal, High Commissioner of South East Africa, and Commander-in-Chief of the troops in Natal and the Transvaal. Before he left England to take up the post the general election of 1880 placed the Liberals in power. Mr. Gladstone's Government, however, confirmed the appointment, and Sir George sailed for South Africa at the end of May. The third paragraph of his Letter of Instructions from Lord Kimberley, the Colonial Secretary, refers to a commission empowering you to assume the Government of the Transvaal in the event of your finding it necessary, either as the officer commanding her Majesty's troops, or in connection with native difficulties, to make any pro

longed stay in that province. But in the absence of any such special causes it has been thought desirable to leave in the hands of Sir O. Lanyon the administration of the Transvaal which he has proved himself so well qualified to hold; and your commission to administer the Government of that province will therefore be a dormant one, only to be brought into operation on the occurrence of an emergency such as I have mentioned.1

It will be observed that this paragraph defines very carefully the only circumstances in which Sir George Colley was empowered to assume the control of the Transvaal, namely, in the event of finding it necessary, either as the officer commanding her Majesty's troops, or in connection with native difficulties, to make any prolonged stay in that province. Consequently, until the British rule was annulled by the outbreak of rebellion, the administration of that province remained in the hands of Sir O. Lanyon, and Sir George Colley was dependent on him for all official information on Transvaal matters.

It should be clearly understood---though this is by no means distinctly explained by Mr. Morley in describing the 'folly' and shortsightedness imputed by him to the administration of the Transvaal-that for the mistakes and omissions, whatever they may have been, of that time, Sir George Colley cannot be held responsible.

Mr. Morley considers that the Boer revolt of 1880 ought to have been foreseen. In support of his own view he quotes a warning written by Sir Garnet Wolseley in October 1879, as to the serious condition of the Transvaal. But he does not mention that a few months later, just before the 1880 elections put the Liberals in office, Sir Garnet, then on the point of leaving South Africa, wrote officially in an opposite sense (April 10):

In my despatch of the 2nd ultimo, I informed you that, in my belief, there was a growing desire among the Boers of the Transvaal for the conclusion of the agitation against British government in that province. . . . Reports from all quarters of the Transvaal sustain the opinion that the people . . . have determined to renounce all further disturbing action. Taxes are being paid, and the revenue of the country so long disturbed, and in part suspended, is flowing in steadily in its natural course.

I believe that, with the check which has thus been imposed upon the organisation of discontent, a foundation has been laid for the administration of affairs in the Transvaal, upon which there may be built, with the aid of time, a fabric of government in furtherance of the prosperity of the people, and in unison with their sympathies and their wishes.

These opinions were also held and repeated up to the very date of the outbreak by Sir O. Lanyon, who states very fair grounds for his belief that the rising was unexpected even by the people themselves. No doubt Sir Garnet Wolseley's conclusions carried due weight both with the Home Government and with Sir George Colley. Yet Mr. Morley can hardly intend to include this eminent soldier' (as he happily calls Sir Garnet) amongst the blind guides whose optimistic reports he treats with bitter contempt.

'Italics are mine.

2 C. 2959, p. 26.