estrangement, and their supporters in Parliament were divided on the Budget, the "Federal solution" of the Irish question, the treatment of the incipient rebellion in Ulster, and the policy exhibited in the introduction of the Amending Bill. A general election towards the end of July was freely predicted; but, while a Liberal victory might have provoked an explosion of rebellion in Ulster, an indecisive result or a Unionist victory would almost certainly have led to prolonged and grave disturbance. In Ulster there were Church parades of Ulster Volunteers, militant speeches, popular demonstrations, and every sign of determined preparation to resist Home Rule. Sir Edward Carson, who spent the recess in the province, said (at East Belfast, June 2) that he "had come to make arrangements for the final scene"; that he "was going to have more Mausers"; and that he had scant faith in the Amending Bill. It was not surprising under these circumstances that several deputations, including Liberal and Labour working-men, and sent over, generally by Unionist aid, to see the condition of affairs in Ulster for themselves, declared themselves converted to Unionist views. On the other hand, the probable consequences of the triumph of those views were indicated by the growth of the National Volunteers. They were stated to number nearly 130,000, of whom 5,000 had joined in the last week of May; their numbers were estimated at 41,000 in Ulster, 42,000 in Leinster, 27,000 in Munster, and nearly 19,000 in Connaught; drilling was going on daily, and they were assured of the assistance of many retired military officers of repute. The movement had begun independently of the Nationalist party (A.R., 1913, p. 267), and was stated by its leaders to be non-political; but the Nationalist leaders were now endeavouring to secure its assistance and to obtain control. The position was described by Viscount Milner (at Rothwell, May 30) as "smouldering war"; and trustees and others were transferring securities from the North of Ireland to Great Britain for safety, while preparations were being made in England for the reception and housing of Ulster Protestant refugees.

Speaking at Criccieth, however, on June 2, to members of the Bristol Radical Association who had come on a day's excursion, the Chancellor of the Exchequer showed that the Government stood firm. It would definitely reap the full harvest of the Parliament Act, and would decline to dissolve until the existing Parliament had carried the measures which the people had empowered it to carry. Were the Parliament Act swept away, a Labour Parliament in five years' time might find itself confronted by a powerful plutocratic Second Chamber more firmly entrenched than ever. No Government dissolved Parliament for the loss of a few bye-elections. The real rock ahead for Liberalism was not the "little temporary trouble" in Ulster, but the dissensions between Labour and Liberalism. Ipswich had been lost owing to this dissension, and to its occurrence in North-East Derbyshire. The

nation as a whole wanted to go forward, and to go faster, and in the villages the land programme was creating enthusiasm.

A host of Unionist speeches and impressive demonstrations took place at the week-end (June 5, 6) at Hull, at Newcastle, at Eastbourne and elsewhere; and at a garden party at Mr. Joseph Chamberlain's residence at Birmingham Mr. Austen Chamberlain spoke, and Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, in a bath-chair, received the greetings of a few local Unionist leaders. But these speeches merely conveyed the impression that the Ulster crisis was becoming graver. On the other hand, the Lord Chancellor, at the combined dinner of the Russell, Palmerston, and Eighty Clubs at Oxford, while recognising Sir Edward Carson's efforts to keep the peace, said that his Ulster army had caused the raising of the National Volunteers; both forces were illegal and unconstitutional, but the Government had decided, he thought wisely, to leave events to take their course. As to the Amending Bill, the Government were prepared, as the Premier's speeches had shown, to make offers towards a settlement, and to consider suggestions from the other side. Two days later the Archbishop of York pleaded earnestly in The Times for some form of exclusion of Ulster accompanied by a scheme of devolution; and on June 10 an earnest appeal was published by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York against Disestablishment both in Wales and generally, partly on the ground of the need of a National Church, for which they were prepared to agree to a larger measure of self-government.

Parliament reassembled on June 9, and began by giving a second reading to three non-contentious measures-the National Insurance Act, 1911 (Pt. II.), Amending Bill, and two Milk and Dairies Bills, for England and Scotland respectively. The first named was described by the President of the Board of Trade as designed to remove administrative difficulties, to diminish the working cost, and to remove certain delays inevitable in the first administration of a new Act of the kind. He gave particulars (too detailed to be reproduced here) and said that the Bill would not increase the total charge on the Treasury, but would give relief to employers and workmen, and might lead to the extension of the Act to new trades, and to the extension of the benefit or reduction of the contribution. He had been surprised at the small number of grievances under the Act; it had not only stimulated organisation among working-men, but had enabled many employers to increase the stability of employment and to regularise their work. Some of the Labour members' speeches were much less optimistic, but the Bill passed its second reading without a division. The Milk and Dairies Bill, introduced by the President of the Local Government Board, empowered that Department with the approval of the Board of Agriculture, to make regulations preventing the supply of contaminated or dirty milk, which would be laid before Parliament before becoming operative. Means would be

provided for tracing and stopping the source of diseased milk, and for punishing the real adulterator, and a single inspection would replace the existing multiple inspections. Similar precautions would be applied to imported foreign milk. The Bill was supported by Mr. C. Bathurst (U., Wilts, Wilton) and other members, and criticised in detail by Mr. Forster (U., Kent, Sevenoaks) and Mr. Astor (U., Plymouth), who suggested various amendments, and, after a reply by the President of the Local Government Board, was read a second time without a division. So, after a very brief conversation, was the corresponding measure for Scotland.

The Post Office Vote was further discussed, according to promise, on June 10. Sir Henry Norman (L., Blackburn) complained of the delay in establishing the Imperial wireless chain (A.R., 1912, p. 199), and ascribed the loss on the telegraph service largely to the old-fashioned methods in use. Mr. Joynson-Hicks (U., Middlesex, Brentford) said that the badness of the telephone service of which there had been countless complaints since the transfer to the Post Office-was largely due to the discontent of the staff. Other members laid stress on the postal servants' grievances, and Sir T. Whittaker (L.) and Mr. Ramsay Macdonald (L.) suggested that a special and permanent Board should be set up to deal with them, representing the Government, the Departments, and the employees. The Postmaster-General promised to set up a Committee or Commission to inquire into the future relations of the State with its employees, and to take action on its report, partly to free members from political pressure and to ensure a competent and impartial tribunal. A reduction of the Vote was defeated by 275 to 221.

Previously Major Archer-Shee (U., Finsbury, Central) had obtained leave under the ten-minutes' rule, to introduce a Foreign Companies Central Bill, requiring foreign companies raising money in the United Kingdom to comply with the requirements of British company law-a measure occasioned by the circumstances of the flotation of the American Marconi Company, and thus a sequel of the Marconi scandal. It got no farther.

Next day, on the Home Office Vote, the House discussed the pressing and vexatious problem of the treatment of militant suffragism. Wargrave Church, near Henley, a picturesque edifice containing historic monuments, was burnt down on the night of May 31; the same gang were responsible for an attempt a few hours later to set fire to a country house near Windsor; the services in St. Paul's, Westminster Abbey, and the Brompton Oratory were disturbed by women protesters against forcible feeding; a picture was destroyed in the Doré Gallery; and at the King's Court (June 4) a lady fell on her knees when passing Their Majesties and cried out, "Your Majesty, won't you stop torturing women?" They took no notice, and she was carried out.

She proved to be Miss Mary Blomfield, daughter of an

eminent architect and a descendant of a famous Bishop of London. Two days later an empty house was burnt at High Wycombe; and, among minor disturbances, windows were broken by women at Criccieth during Mr. Lloyd George's speech (June 2), and would-be interrupters of Sir E. Carson in Ulster were all but lynched. Miss Sylvia Pankhurst was rearrested (June 10) in the East End while heading a deputation of suffragists to Parliament, though part of it reached the Houses of Parliament and saw the Liberal Chief Whip, who naturally gave them no satisfaction. To repress these outrages, "cat and mouse treatment had evidently proved ineffective; but the offices of the militant organisation at 17 Tothill Street, Westminster, were raided (June 9), and it was hoped that the names might be obtained of subscribers to the funds, and that they could then collectively be made pecuniarily responsible for the damage done.

The possible methods of combating militancy were the topic principally discussed on the Home Office Vote (June 11). Previously the Home Secretary, in reply to questions, had stated that no general relaxation of prison rules had been made for militant offenders, and that no official statistics of arson by them were available. In moving a reduction of 100l. in the Vote, Lord Robert Cecil (U., Marylebone, E.) referred to the number of the outrages recorded (Times, June 4; pp. 112, 116), and said that the gravest circumstance was the open defiance of the law. What was going on in Ireland might be rebellion, but this was anarchy; the public irritation was increasing, and was venting itself on peaceable suffragists. He believed the militants' leaders now cared more for the existence and power of their society than for the ultimate success of its propaganda. The followers, however, where they were not paid to commit outrages, were acting from honest motives. They were devoted to Mrs. Pankhurst, and she and her daughters were the people almost wholly responsible. But the continuance of militancy was largely due to the repeated mistakes of the Government. Repudiating the suggestion that the suffragist members should postpone their efforts till militancy had ceased, he strongly advocated deportation, and welcomed the design attributed to the Government to attack the militants' funds. He suggested, also, that the French Government should be asked to take proceedings against Miss Sylvia Pankhurst.

The Home Secretary said that the phenomenon they had to deal with had no precedent in history. The number of women actually committing crimes was small, the number of sympathisers with them extremely large. But the number of militants committed to prison in 1906, the first year of the agitation, was 31; in 1909 it was 156; in 1911, 188 (six being men); in 1912, 290 (two being men); in 1913, 183, and in the current year 108. The "Cat and Mouse" Act had therefore greatly reduced the number of offences, but these had become much more serious. He did not

think the irritation which was the aim of the campaign would recoil on the Government. Dealing with the recent acts of rudeness to the King, he said that while all subjects had the right of petitioning His Majesty in respectful language, there was no right to a personal audience of him; the Home Secretary's duty was to submit petitions to him and advise action on them, and they were presented even if the action requested was illegal, unconstitutional, or impracticable. The militants' action had been an effective advertisement, and he wished that the Press would not give it prominence. On the other hand, many of the fires attributed to the suffragettes were really cases of ordinary crime, and the whole number was an insignificant percentage of the total. He discussed the four alternative methods proposed of treating the militants. (1) To let them die was the most popular, but he had the authority of a great medical expert for saying that they wished, and actually tried, to die in prison. Such deaths would be the greatest possible incentive to militancy, and, as they multiplied, there would be a violent reaction against the Government. Even supposing the necessary Act were passed relieving the prison officials of responsibility, a humane prison doctor could not let a woman die whose only offence had been obstructing the police. (2) Supposing they were deported, say to St. Kilda, if it were not treated as a prison they would be speedily rescued; if it were, they would still refuse food. (3) To treat them as lunatics would require medical certificates, which would not be given. (4) To give them the franchise was hardly a remedy for the existing lawlessness. They were, in fact, more severely punished by their hunger-and-thirst strikes than by imprisonment. Statistics showed that the " Cat and Mouse" Bill had been effective. Of the eighty-three persons discharged under it, fifteen had given up militancy, six had fled the country, twenty were in hiding, possibly abroad; the rest, mostly women who had obstructed the police in the recent procession to Buckingham Palace, were either legally at large or were at addresses known to the police. Just before the Act came into force, a report had been made to him showing that the women coming into prison were physically defective; they were sent there to die, and the offenders were paid to commit crime. The Act had been effective in diminishing the number of crimes, but not their seriousness, which naturally increased as the movement was combated. As to other possible steps, the militants' funds were doubtless lodged in banks abroad, but the raids on the militants' society's offices had provided the Government with evidence enabling them, they hoped, to proceed against the subscribers and make them personally liable for the damage done. Criminal proceedings might also be possible, and the insurance companies would doubtless bring actions besides. The militants, he declared, lived only by the subscriptions of rich women, who paid their tools 30s. or 21. a week to go about and commit outrages. If the means of revenue of the Women's Social