however, that the present measure, instead of cheapening procedure, was likely to make it more costly, while it would increase the work of the Land Commission, and would overweigh, if it did not actually crush, that department. So far from this bill clearing up the difficulties of the act of 1881 it introduced a crop of new difficulties of its own. The Government had chosen to bring in a bill which must produce the utmost bitterness of feeling between different sections in that House and in Ireland, and the time that must be occupied in discussing the heterogeneous proposals offered for their acceptance would make a very large hole in the current session. Proceeding to examine the effect which the general scheme of the legislation proposed by the Government would have in Ireland, Mr. Balfour said the act of 1881, according to his view, was only tolerable to reasonable and practical men if it. were regarded as a bridge between the old state of things and the introduction of an extended system of peasant proprietors. The method of valuing rents in Ireland by a court was in itself necessarily and intrinsically demoralising, and, indeed, it was only possible as a transition stage. Her Majesty's Government, by the course of action they had taken, would do much to perpetuate a state of things which was intolerable. The ministers who framed the act of 1881 had no idea of occupation right as it was now defined by hon. gentlemen below the gangway; and with regard to the burning question of improvements he failed to understand why the tenant should monopolise the unearned increase in consequence of an improvement. They would be acting criminally if they did anything by their legislation with regard to rents which might arouse in the minds of the tenants the idea that if they returned a certain number of representatives to that House, and if a squeezable Government were in power, there was no limit to the concessions which could be extracted from Parliament. Mr. Balfour went on to remark that he assented to the second reading of this bill because in one sense he thought a bill was necessary, and he admitted that many of the clauses of this bill would with very little amendment give the necessary amount of repair and patching to the original fabric of 1881. But his assent to the second reading must not be taken as implying that he accepted those modifications of the principles of the act of 1881 that the Government had rashly introduced; and, unless in Committee they could repair the wrongs which the Government intended to do, he should exert himself to the utmost in order to defeat a policy that would inflict an intolerable injury on the very class whom it was intended to benefit.

After an original suggestion from Mr. Courtney that the bill should be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses, it was read a second time without a division. Outside the House the general impression was that the Government bill, whilst containing many valuable proposals intended to protect the tenant

(and also the landowner when considering the tenant right), could never have been intended to pass as a final measure, since it failed to facilitate land purchase, for which it was supposed Irish Nationalists of all shades were united. The absence of any proposal to this effect seemed more likely than even the change of front which some of Mr. Morley's opponents brought against him to make the passage of the bill an easy matter. In the eyes of more hostile critics it suggested that there was no serious intention on the part of the Government to press it forward during the present session.

It might, indeed, have been thought that the list of Government measures was already more than sufficient for two or three sessions of ordinary length. This, however, did not deter them from giving a benevolent hearing to the Church Patronage Bill brought in by Mr. Hayes Fisher (Fulham), a Conservative (April 3), and to a resolution moved by Mr. Dalziel (Kirkcaldy Burghs) for taking a second ballot at elections, whenever the candidate at the head of the poll had failed to obtain a majority of the votes recorded. The resolution, even if embodied in a bill, was felt to be harmless, but as a topic for discussion it offered limitless opportunities of suggesting ideal electoral methods, and in the end was carried by 132 to 72 votes, the minority being composed of those who were content to leave things as they were. Mr. Hayes Fisher's Church Patronage Bill proposed to give the bishops greater power in refusing to allow unfit presentations to livings, and to remove incumbents in case of misconduct. The opposition to the measure was led by those Nonconformists, especially Welsh, who held that Disestablishment should precede reform, and by the Radicals, who objected to any extension of episcopal or ecclesiastical power. The Treasury bench, however, for certain reasons thought it prudent to defy their extreme Radical supporters, and by 179 to 118 votes the bill was read a second time.

There was, however, still one more important bill which the Government determined at any cost to introduce before the Easter recess, although by so doing the Budget would have to be unduly postponed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was responsible in both cases, decided that the more important question, from a political or electioneering point of view, should have precedence of his financial statement. In order to effect this, the Local Control Bill had to be brought in in the short interval between the resignation of the Speaker and the formal election of his successor. It was the measure, however, which for some unexplained cause had excited Sir William Harcourt's enthusiasm, and his insistence upon bringing it forward had been, it was said, one of the chief causes of disunion in the Cabinet. At any rate the result showed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had carried his point, and both the objections of his colleagues and the warnings of the local agents of the party had been powerless to restrain him from touching the danger

ous liquor question. Probably he felt that the services rendered to the Liberal cause by the temperance and teetotal societies deserved recognition, or that in forcing the question to an issue he would not in vain appeal to the better instincts and convictions of both the clergy and laity throughout Great Britain. Therefore, whilst laying himself open to the reproach that his zeal for the cause of temperance was measured by his regard for political necessities, he might with reason declare his aims to be that England should be sober and Ireland free.

The speech in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained the general purpose of the Government bill (April 8) was listened to and subsequently read with more curiosity than interest, for it was framed so closely upon the model of his previous measure that a like fate seemed inevitable. In the interval no enthusiasm, except the author's own, had been aroused for a bill which, whilst it proposed to do little to satisfy the Abolitionists, did much to exasperate the licensed victuallers. The bill, as Sir William Harcourt began by explaining, was intended to establish local control over the traffic in intoxicating liquor, and was, with certain alterations, substantially the same measure as that which he had brought forward in 1893. He would not argue the necessity for some bill of this description, as there was no social question comparable in importance to that of the evils of excessive drink in this country. The drink traffic was to a great degree the creation of our law, and consequently it must be reformed by legislation. Our present system depended on the licensing discretion of the magistrates, and, although he was not disposed to pass a censure upon them, he must severely condemn the plan of appealing to quarter sessions from the decisions of the local authority. Her Majesty's Government were deeply convinced that no adequate reform could be effected merely by making improvements in the licensing system. They must invoke a much more powerful and more effectual agency by appealing to the conscience and the voice of the people. If the people were to be reformed at all, they must be the authors of their own reformation. This was the principle of local option. on which the present bill, like its predecessor of 1893, was founded, and he reminded the House that the adhesion of the Liberal party to the principle was officially declared in 1883. At the same time, he ventured to say that this was not a party question, as a bill on the subject was brought in by Lord R. Churchill, who was in favour of the direct veto; for it was generally agreed that the County, Town, and Parish Councils ought not to be periodically mixed up with the decision of the liquor question. He believed the great majority of the temperance party in this country had rallied to the principle of local option, although no doubt there were distinguished advocates of the Scandinavian or Gothenburg system, which, however, was about to be subjected in Sweden to the direct veto of the people.

The bill which he introduced on the part of the Government in 1893 was correctly entitled a Local Veto Bill, whereas the present measure might be more properly described as a Local Option Bill, because it offered other options besides that of total prohibition. Under the provisions of the bill a poll would be taken by the Town Council, Parish Council, or other local authority on a requisition being made by not less than one-tenth of the parochial electors. The areas would be in boroughs the wards, and in rural districts the parishes or wards of parishes. In London the area would be the sanitary district or ward within the meaning of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891. For a purpose of this kind small areas were preferable to large ones, because they gave more completely the true opinion of the people. The provisions in regard to a prohibitory resolution were much the same as those contained in the bill of 1893. Such a resolution might be carried by a majority of two-thirds of the electors voting, and it would come into force at the general annual licensing meeting which occurred next after the expiration of three years from the commencement of the act. This would practically give a period of four years before the prohibitory resolution could take effect. While it was in force no ordinary or justices' licences, including grocers' licences, could be granted within the area. If a resolution were either carried or rejected the question could not be re-opened for three years. At the expiration of that period another poll might be taken, and if a prohibitory resolution were in force it could be repealed by a simple majority. In this respect the bill differed from that of 1893, which required a three-fourths majority in such a case. If the repeal resolution were carried, of course, at the expiration of three years another resolution in favour of prohibition might be brought forward. Coming to what was substantially the only new feature of the bill, Sir William Harcourt said a requisition might be presented for a reduction in the number of licences. It was proposed that a resolution for the limitation of the number might be carried by a simple majority. While a limiting resolution was in force ordinary licences could not be granted within the area to a number in excess of three-fourths of the number existing at the date of the poll, without prejudice to the discretion of the justices to grant a less number of licences than three-fourths. In this case the magistrates would have to deal with all the licences in the district as if they were new licences. Provision was made that a vote might be taken on both a prohibitory and a limiting resolution at the same election. With regard to what were called exemptions in the former bill, he said the justices would be empowered to grant "restricted licences" on certain conditions to hotels, inns, eating-houses, and railway refreshment rooms. A resolution in favour of Sunday closing might be adopted by a simple majority, and would come into operation

at once. In 1893 he stated numerous reasons why compensation could not be given in the case of terminable licences, and it was certain that if they attempted to deal with this temperance question upon a footing of money compensation it would never be dealt with at all. When they were told that this proposal was in the nature of robbery, plunder, and confiscation they could point to the examples of the United States, Norway and Sweden, where temperance reforms had been carried out without any compensation being given at all. The present bill, he observed, amid laughter from the Opposition, did not extend to Ireland, because the Government contemplated that Ireland would soon be in a position to deal with the question herself. In conclusion, he expressed his fervent hope and confident belief that the present Parliament would make a strenuous effort to lay the foundations of this supreme reform.

It was on the new features of the bill-the limitation of the number of public houses by local vote-that the more important criticisms arose. Sir Edward Clarke (Plymouth) and Mr. Goschen (St. George's, Hanover Square) insisted on the canvassing and jobbery in every village resulting from such a system, and from the absence of any principle to guide the licensing justices when the local vote should have been obtained. They both agreed in condemning the bill as a mere election manœuvre, and that it would fail to evoke sufficient support from any side of the House to justify the time spent in discussing it. On the other hand, Sir Wilfrid Lawson (Cockermouth, Cumberland), a strong Radical, the recognised champion of the Abolitionists, was prepared to support the bill, although it was not teetotal. The Government, he said, had loyally redeemed its pledges given before the last general election, and he congratulated the Chancellor of the Exchequer on being the first minister who had introduced a bill calculated to deal a real and lasting blow to the traffic in intoxicating liquors. Another Radical and a supporter of the Government, Mr. Evershed (Burton, Staffordshire), representing a centre of the brewing trade, took an opposite view, and declared the bill to be one to enable those who did not want public houses to tyrannise over those who did. Mr. T. W. Russell (Tyrone, South), a strong supporter of the temperance movement for many years, said the conversion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this subject was one of the most wonderful things in politics that he had ever witnessed, and he was heartily glad that he had lived to see it. He warmly protested against the exclusion of Ireland from the operation of the bill, and asserted that this was part of a bargain between the Government and the Irish Nationalist members. The Chancellor of the Exchequer well knew that he could not carry the bill by the votes of English members alone. As for the Nationalist members, they were against local option, and many of them were engaged in the trade, and con