South Africa a citadel and centre of disaffection and race animosity, and that they must never again be able to endanger the paramountcy of Great Britain, or to treat an Englishman as if he belonged to an inferior race. He ridiculed the notion which was entertained, apparently, in some quarters that gloom had settled upon the nation, which had shown a most manful spirit under the reverses that had occurred. The part taken in the war by our colonies was a factor of which the importance could not be exaggerated. Never before had the empire realised to the same extent its great strength and unity. For the first time our colonies had claimed their share in the duties and responsibilities of empire. In this federation of our race and in other circumstances compensation was to be found for the evils of war.

If Mr. L. H. Courtney's (Bodmin, Cornwall) conscientious scruples met with a cold reception from the House, his singleness of purpose and humanitarian feelings were recognised, and his expression of definite views was welcomed as a contrast to the trimming utterances of so many speakers who addressed the House. Like Mr. Bryce, Mr. Courtney wished to inform the House on the South African problem, with which he was accurately acquainted, although he adopted a different standpoint from that of the member for Aberdeen. Regardless of the approach of a general election, which rendered many Liberals timorous, Mr. Courtney, although sitting on the Government side of the House, did not scruple to challenge the assertion that the war was justifiable because the nation supported the Government in the existing crisis, and he warned Mr. Chamberlain of the dangers of the situation he had created. He rejected the idea that the policy of this country after Majuba was in the circumstances magnanimous, and declined to admit that there was after 1881 an irreconcilable feud between the Dutch and English in the Transvaal. The Dutch authorities at the Cape and President Kruger had done their best to maintain peace, and he charged Mr. Chamberlain with having brought some of the negotiations with the Transvaal to an unnecessarily abrupt termination. War, he maintained, was precipitated by the incurable perversity of the Colonial Office. He was anxious that the war should be stopped at the first favourable opportunity, and trusted that the settlement would be such as would not create new trouble. Some of the errors which the Colonial Secretary had committed were, he fancied, attributable to the mistaken views publicly expressed by Mr. Rhodes, who had shown great ignorance of the Boer character. He feared that if the Government persisted in their present policy they would have to govern in South Africa by force, and urged that our experience in Ireland ought to deter them from such a course.

On the last night of the debate the burden of the defence of the Opposition was divided between Mr. Asquith, Q.C. (Fife, E.),

C

and Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman (Stirling Burghs), but they worked upon somewhat different lines, although they were agreed upon the general principle that neither should say anything which in the actual state of public opinion might weaken the Liberal party, should a dissolution be at hand. Mr. Asquith therefore began by pleading that it was the duty of the Opposition to call upon the Executive to explain the apparently inexplicable strategy pursued in South Africa, and the disasters and reverses which it had entailed, and of which different members of the Government had given contradictory explanations. However, as he could find no reason for believing that either the war or its blunders were inevitable, he was forced to the conclusion, first, that the war was never intended by the British Government, and hence their unpreparedness; secondly, that President Kruger, had he wished, might have avoided the war, as the British proposals did not aim at destroying the independence of the Transvaal. Mr. Asquith was further ready to acquit the British Government of having been the tools of interested speculators; but throughout the negotiations they had displayed an astounding lack of both foresight and insight, with the result of intensifying the suspicions of the Boers, especially since the Jameson raid. Adverting to the consequences of "the unhappy entanglement at Ladysmith," he asked whether before confirming the promise of the High Commissioner of Natal to the effect that the colony would be defended with the whole force of the empire the Colonial Secretary consulted the War Office as to the wisdom of the undertaking. Contemplating the future he said there was no ground for the croaking of pessimism or shivering fits of panic. There was compensation for our reverses in the valour and discipline of our soldiers and in the assistance of our colonies, whose action had made us realise that our empire was not merely a name or a sentiment, but a fact. He trusted that the war would be followed by a durable settlement, safeguarding our colonies against the risk of further invasion or menace, and securing equal rights to both white races throughout South Africa.

It was obvious from Mr. Asquith's speech that the policy of pressing Lord E. Fitzmaurice's amendment to a division was not approved by all the members on the Opposition side of the House. The Irish Nationalists, moreover, had notified their intention of taking no part in the debate or the division, so that the weakness of the attack would be too plainly revealed. There were, however, other influences which forced Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman to take a different course in order that the bonds which held together the various sections of the Liberal party might not be wholly broken. Under such conditions it was scarcely possible for its leader to speak with either authority or effect. He claimed the right of the Opposition to press the amendment, and dismissed with contempt the charge of showing a want of patriotism. The country might be dis

appointed at the actual results of the campaign, but there was no sign of national humiliation. The Opposition had shown its readiness to give the Government every facility for the prosecution of the war, and it was justified in demanding a strict account of the way in which the Government had acquitted itself. If the debate on the amendment had been at all likely to impede the development of the scheme of the Government for the defence of the country he would have done his best to shorten the discussion; but they had been assured that there would be no delay. The Opposition wanted more information on certain important points. They wished to know, for example, whether the Government were aware, during the negotiations last summer, of the disparity between the defensive strength of the colonies and the military resources of the Boers. With regard to this, contradictory statements had been made. Then the alleged conspiracy against us in the Republics and the Cape Colony was in his opinion an absolute invention. Who, he asked, told the Government of the existence of this conspiracy? He hoped that in future a wiser spirit would be shown in our dealings with the mixed Dutch and British races in South Africa than had been exhibited in the past, for the key of the situation was that these races had got to live together. As soon as our territory was freed from its invaders, and our military superiority asserted, the important question was the nature of the settlement to be arrived at.

Mr. Balfour in winding up the debate had a comparatively easy task before him; for there could be no doubt as to the result of the division. By some strange perversity of temper he chose to take a line which, although it brought him the cheers of his supporters, found no favour outside the walls of Parliament. Whilst every paper, irrespective of party and even of nationality, was overflowing with complaints of the management of the campaign, Mr. Balfour thought it wise to declare that the War Office was in perfect working order and its chiefs beyond reproach. After a warm panegyric on his colleague, Mr. Chamberlain, during whose tenure of office every British colony had, for the first time, joined the mother country in a great military undertaking, Mr. Balfour appealed to "the patriotism" of those who, holding that the war should be prosecuted to the end, intended to vote for the amendment. He airily admitted that the Government was to be held responsible for any errors that had been committed, but whilst declining to defend the Government at that moment, he carefully avoided giving the promise that such an opportunity would be found later. After a further florid and somewhat frothy appeal to "the consciences" of his opponents, he closed the debate. The division showed that however tender may have been the consciences of individuals, they voted almost strictly upon party lines, two Liberals only voting with the Government, but a number of the same party took no part in the division, which

showed a majority of 352 to 139 votes against the amendment.

The announcement of the result of the York election a few hours before the division was taken may have had some effect upon the consciences of the more timid members. Lord Charles Beresford, who, with the utmost difficulty and by the narrowest majority, had carried the seat for the Unionists, had been obliged to resign it on being appointed on active service, and it was thought not improbable that the Liberals might reassert their claim to one of the city seats. The Liberal candidate, Hon. A. Murray, although not personally connected with the county, was cordially accepted by the party, with every anticipation of a close contest. The Unionist candidate, Mr. G. Denison Faber, was more in touch with the constituency, and he had the good luck to come forward at a moment when Mr. Chamberlain's personality was very much in evidence. The latter was the object of the bitterest hatred from his former colleagues, and by them was credited with the disasters which had befallen the Liberal party. If he had failed to secure the hearty support of the older Conservatives in the House, his reputation in the country had been steadily increasing. He was looked upon, rightly or wrongly, as the only member of the Cabinet capable of reorganising the naval and military administration of the country. Lord E. Fitzmaurice's amendment was for some reason regarded as an attack upon Mr. Chamberlain, and the electors of York gave expression to a very widespread feeling that they wished the war to be pushed to its conclusion in the most vigorous fashion. Mr. Faber polled 6,248 votes against 4,818 given to his opponent, and members of the House of Commons, on hearing this surprising result, might not unreasonably have wished to show regard for similar feelings on the part of their own constituents.

On the same day (Feb. 12) a writ was moved for an election at Plymouth to the seat resigned by Sir Edward Clarke, who found that his views on the war and of its justice were not in accordance with those of his constituents. The council of the Conservative party conveyed to him the feeling of the electors, that as he habitually condemned the action of the Government, and advocated a repetition of the "disgraceful blunder" which followed on the repulse on Majuba Hill, he no longer represented their views. Sir E. Clarke, while declining to admit the accuracy of the council's statement, said that he was anxious not to say a word which would widen the breach between himself and those whom he had represented for twenty years. He therefore withdrew from Parliament, to the great regret of those who, not sharing his opinions, deplored the loss of a colleague who could fearlessly and independently express his sincere convictions. Under the circumstances, the Liberals decided not to contest the seat, and the Hon. Ivor Guest was elected (Feb. 19) without opposition.

The other amendments on the address were for the most

part the annual repetition of grievances for which no practical relief was anticipated, but the urging of them was a recognised duty. There were, however, some novelties of the present session, of which Mr. J. Redmond (Waterford City), as leader of the newly united Irish party, introduced the first. He wished that on the conclusion of the war peace should be settled on the basis of the independence of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State. This view having been negatived by 368 to 66 votes, and the union of the Irish party proved, Mr. Kearley (Devonport) called attention to the unsatisfactory administration of the Royal Patriotic Fund, making out so clear a case that the Government, with little demur, promised an inquiry into war relief funds, new and old. Mr. Weir (Ross and Cromarty) wished to reclaim the deer forests of Scotland by means of crofters or small tenants, but after a short debate, which showed that Scotch members were not agreed among themselves on this delicate subject, the amendment was negatived by 186 to 113

votes.

The last night of the debate on the address (Feb. 9) was devoted to Irish grievances. That arising out of the oftasserted over-taxation of Ireland was negatived, after a prolonged discussion, by 200 to 77 votes; and Mr. Daly (Monaghan, S.) was equally unsuccessful in convincing the House that a solution of the Irish land question would be found in a compulsory "general and immediate creation of an occupying proprietary" in that country. The address itself was then voted by 229 to 39 votes, the smallness of the numbers showing how little interest was taken in the many questions not directly connected with the war.

The Government proposals with regard to the increase of the Army were explained simultaneously in both Houses (Feb. 12). Lord Lansdowne's statement in the Upper House dealt exhaustively with the demands of the campaign in South Africa and the means by which they had been answered and possible emergencies might be met. According to a statement made in the other House (Feb. 8) the composition of the South African field force, exclusive of killed and prisoners, was in round numbers Regulars, 128,000; Royal Naval Brigade, 1,000; Militia, 20,000; Yeomanry, 8,000; Volunteers, 10,000; Colonials, 26,000, of whom about 20,000 had been raised in South Africa, making a total of about 194,000 effectives. Lord Lansdowne, in opening his speech, stated that at that time there were in the United Kingdom some 110,000 Regulars (including 12,000 Reservists not called out), 7,000 Yeomanry, 77,000 Militia and 215,000 Volunteers; or a total of 409,000 armed men serving in this country. He admitted that not every one of them was immediately available for military purposes, for the force required organisation and equipment. Meanwhile our first duty was to provide for an additional field army of about 130,000 men, from which we could take, if necessary, further reinforcements for the front;