NEWS OF THE WEEK.

■ •••■■•••••■1111■••■

THE Unionist crisis has passed. On Tuesday Mr. Bonar Law sent a letter to Lord Balcarres in answer to the memorial of the Unionist members of Parliament. The letter is transparently honest and simple. Mr. Bonar Law says that the signatories had requested that Lord Lansdowne and he should remain leaders of the party while altering in "one very important particular," not the policy of Imperial Preference, but the method of giving effect to it. He confesses that it would have been more agreeable to him and Lord Lansdowne, and, in their opinion, "more in the interest of the party," that the change of method should be accompanied by a change of leaders. They feel, however, that it is their duty to comply with the request addressed to them. They therefore accept the proposed condition that Food Duties shall not be imposed without referring the question to the electors at a subsequent general election. We felt confident that both Mr. Bonar Law and Lord Lansdowne would give an answer in this sense, but we must acknowledge, nevertheless, the very high degree of public spirit and self-abnegation which prompted it. The whole party is enormously in their debt.

Immediately after Mr. Bonar Law had made his speech at Ashton we ventured to propose that he might take the further step of guaranteeing a second election on the subject of Food Taxes. It seemed too much to expect that the retractation of the Referendum pledge should itself be retracted, but we thought that the promise of a subsequent election could not injure even the most austere Tariff Reformer. The policy of a second election has enjoyed powerful and able advocacy from the Daily Telegraph. We are certain that it is the best possible solution in the circumstances. For ourselves we should unreservedly have supported the Unionist leaders, however deeply they might have been committed to Tariff Reform, because Home Rule, a scandalously partisan Franchise Bill, and other items of the Liberal programme, are the immediate perils, whereas Food Taxes are a comparatively remote peril. In any ease Food Taxes could not have survived the test for them set forth in the Ashton speech. But the arguments that seemed convincing to us would not, we feared, satisfy doubtful electors. It is now perfectly clear

to the electors that the ultimate decision will rest withthem

, . selves. There is no excuse whatever now for anyone to say that voting Unionist in order to kill Home Rule involves the taxation of food. The Unionist Party has most happily been delivered, moreover, from an extraordinary misreading of its sentiments. It was formerly assumed that the resolute Food Taxers were in a large majority. As it turns out, a very small minority nearly imposed its will on the majority.

In a speech near Birmingham on Monday Mr. Austen Chamberlain explained his opinions about Imperial Preference. The principal point was that Mr. Bonar Law's and Lord Lansdowne's services should be retained for the party, but he admitted frankly that he concurred reluctantly in the wish of the majority of Unionists to postpone Food Taxes. He bad pressed for adherence to the full programme of Imperial Preference. "But the decision," he said, "of the great majority of the party is, for the time being at any rate, against me." He feared this decision might be a calamity to the party and a misfortune to the Empire. He could not therefore take "any share in the responsibility" for it. He had not been consulted as to the policy announced by Mr. Bonar Law at Ashton, and he did not wholly agree with it. "I cannot," he added, "turn my back upon myself." At the same time he had no intention of sulking because he could not have his own way. He would do his best to support his leaders and co-operate with his political friends. The whole speech was informed with the spirit that proves the honest and independent man. No one jealous for the straightforwardness of modern politics could read it without pride and pleasure, even when one dissents as strongly as we do from its main theme.

The Home Rule Bill has passed its third reading in the House of Commons. On Wednesday Mr. Balfour moved the rejection in a brilliant and vigorous speech. He did not deny that the Government had been supported on the Bill by large and substantial majorities, but the discussion had been carried on in circumstances which made that support worthless. The Government promised a different thing to every section of the community, in and out of the House, and duped them every one—most of all the Nationalist, who thought it would make Ireland a nation, and the citizen of this island, who thought it would give him political peace. The points of view of the givers and the receivers were irreconcilable. Other federations had proceeded upon the basis of unification; this proceeded in the direction of disintegration. Ulster had seen the men under whose heel they were to be placed denounce British government, and attack them on all their great questions of foreign policy—and attack them the more they had been in difficulties. Was it unreasonable that Ulstermen should say: "We refuse to be placed under these men as hewers of wood and drawers of water and payers of taxes, without the least chance under this Bill of being masters of our own destinies?" He warned the Government not to put off the day of enlightenment too long. There was still time for the real sentiment of the British people to find expression in the legislation of the Government, and avert an immeasurable calamity. But if blood were spilt in this matter, the real assassins would be those who had never had the courage to face the situation.

The Prime Minister, who followed, demurred to Mr. Balfour's reading of history, and asked what the Unionists would do if the Bill were rejected They would still find standing in their path with undiminished vitality the political demand of the vast majority of the Irish people. He paid a handsome tribute to the courage and sincerity of Sir Edward Carson, but adhered to his view, expressed in Dublin, that a minority could not be allowed to thwart a majority. Minorities ought to be protected, but the claim now put forward was absolutely fatal to democratic government. Mr. Balfour's " fuliginous " prediction of disaster in Ireland under self-government recalled to him the same right hon. gentleman's prediction regarding the grant of self-government to the Transvaal. Risks must be run in building up a great Empire, but in the past they had invariably been justified by subsequent experience. In an eloquent, but to us entirely unconvincing peroration Mr. Asquith declared that they would do their part to exorcise once and for all the baleful influences which had again and again torn Great Britain and Ireland apart when they were on the point of coming together, and to join two peoples meant to be one, but kept apart by the chances of history, the seeming caprice of fortune, and the violence of the passions of men, in a fruitful and enduring union.

On Thursday, the concluding day of the debate, the speeches on both sides maintained the level of excellence demanded by the occasion. The first speakers were Sir John Simon and Mr. F. E. Smith, and they were followed by Mr. John Redmond, whose eloquence and genuine feeling were recognized by all parties. After a few other speeches the debate was wound up by Mr. Bonar Law and Mr. Birrell. We shall not follow the arguments put forward by the speakers, but will merely observe that Mr. Boner Law, in the course of his very trenchant remarks, emphasized again the appeal made by Mr. Balfour the day before, that the Government should face the facts of the situation. The divisions were taken in a very full house, amid considerable excitement. Mr. Balfour's amendment was rejected by 368 votes to 258, and the third reading of the Bill was carried by 367 votes to 257, the Government's majority being in both cases 110. Later in the evening the Bill was taken up to the House of Lords and received its formal first reading there. In spite of rumours to the contrary, and of some cheering and counter-cheering in the streets, no disorder of any kind took place outside the House when the result of the division became known.

The country now has an exquisitely well-defined illustration of the working of the Parliament Act. Nothing stands between us and the final calamity of Home Rule but the possibility of procuring an election on the single issue (as far as possible) of Home Rule, and the unlikelihood that the Government in the last resort will face bloodshed in Ulster. Apart from such prospects as these all the Government have to do in order to bring into operation an Act which has never been properly discussed is to go on passing it over the Leads of the Lords till it automatically becomes law. It is preposterous that such slender barriers should alone safeguard the kingdom from a scheme which cannot satisfy even the professional Nationalist politicians, will be worked at an indefinite cost to Great Britain, and would, in the opinion of almost everyone, be rejected if the electorate had an opportunity of expressing its feelings about it. Such are the results of the destruction of the Constitution. An oligarchy has gathered unprecedented power into its hands in the name of democracy. If this is not political blasphemy we do not know what it is. The balance of the Constitution can be restored only by a system of direct reference to the electors by means of the Poll of the People on any particular Act of Parliament.

The question of whether the war is to be resumed or not has been hanging in the balance all through the week. The decisive factor is still the cession of Adrianople. Sir Edward Grey and the ambassadors have met three times since we last wrote (on Friday week, on Monday, and on Wednesday), and their joint Note to the Porte was telegraphed to Constantinople on Monday, though it has apparently not yet been presented. The long delay in the presentation of the Note was indeed beginning to create some uneasiness on Friday, especially in Vienna, and the only explanation offered was that the German Ambassador at Constantinople bad not yet received his instructions from Berlin. This was considered mysterious in view of the authoritative statements made in London to the effect that the Powers were unanimous in recommending Turkey to agree to the cession of Adrianople and to leave the question of the 2Egean islands for settlement by them. A Grand Council of Ministers and other notables was summoned in Constantinople early in the week in order to arrive at the final decision, but in spite of many rumours to the contrary that decision has been put off from day to day. Meanwhile on Tuesday morning the delegates of the Allies in London seem to have decided to break off the peace negotiations and recommend their Governments to recommence hostilities. Fortunately, however, in view of the unanimous disapproval with which this step was received in diplomatic circles, the decision was reversed, and it was determined to await the reception by Turkey of the joint Note of the Powers.

Through the interposition of Sir Edward Grey the difficulty between Bulgaria and Roumania seems to be on the way to adjustment : and this, combined with the hesitation of the Turkish Government and the retractation of the Allies' ultimatum, is the hopeful side of the case. On the other band, it must be said that general opinion is distinctly pessimistic, and that there has been a renewed suggestion of tension between Russia and Austria-Hungary. The present situation seems to us, in spite of everything, the most favourable that has occurred for generations for a really satisfactory solution of the Near Eastern question. It is much too good to be lost. The cession of Adrianople by Turkey must be recognized as a necessary part of a settlement, though some scheme of extra-territoriality might guarantee to the Turks the possession of their sacred places. Whether its cession is made now, or after its inevitable surrender to the Bulgarian army, the Powers can clearly never allow it to remain in the hands of Turkey and so endanger the permanency of the whole Balkan settlement.

We deal in another column with the resignation of M. Millerand and the split in the French Republican Party and in the Ministry over the selection of a Presidential candidate. After three ballots M. Poincare has been beaten, though not decisively, by one of his own colleagues, M. Pains, who is supported by the Coznbistes and M Clemenceau. After the third ballot, in which M. Pains obtained 323 votes to 309 east for M. Poincare, four ex-Prime Ministers—MM. Cotnbes, Sarrien, Monis, and Caillaux—called on M. Poincar6 and begged him to withdraw out of respect for Republican discipline, but M. Poincare declined to accede to the proposal. We go to press before the meeting at Versailles, at which the National Congress will decide between M. Pams and M. Poincare, though the successful revival of one of the rejected candidatures is not beyond the bounds of possibility.

The Parliamentary situation in Spain has undergone a remarkable change since our last issue. Senor Manse, in answer to an appeal from his party, has withdrawn his decision to retire from public life. But the summons of Senor Azcarate and other leading Republicans to the Palace on Tuesday and their prolonged conversation with the King is of far greater significance. The way seems to have been paved for the visit by the tribute recently paid by the Republican deputy for Seville to the King for his handling of the Ministerial crisis : "We have a great King ; much greater than we deserve." The King has not been slow to acknowledge this attitude. It is pointed out that in view of the collapse of the reactionary Conservatives, and the prospect of a long continuance of the Liberals in power, he is naturally anxious to conciliate the Republican and Socialist extremists. In any case the King's action is a practical admission that the old system of party rotation is at an end, and is applauded by the Spanish press generally as inaugurating a policy of the open door to all parties on the councils of the Crown.

The benefits under the Insurance Act have come into operation during the week. It is too early as yet to say what degree of confusion has been caused by the refusal of large numbers of doctors to join the panels, and we can only mention a few isolated facts which throw light upon the question. Mr. Masterman stated in the House of Commons on Wednesday that the number of doctors upon the London panels was nearly 800. The divergence between this number and the much larger one (nearly 2,000) given in the original statements is, of course, due to the fact that many doctors have undertaken work in several areas. A number of doctors seem to have wished at the last moment to withdraw their names from the panels, but this was not allowed by the Insurance Committees. Considerable activity has been displayed by the "London Medical Committee," which is endeavouring to persuade insured persons to claim the right to contract out

(to employ, that is. doctors not upon the panel), which is granted by the Act in exceptional circumstances. It may be added that a further representative meeting of the British Medical Association is to be held to-day.

Lord Haldane made an important statement as to the Government's programme at Manchester yesterday week. He denied that there was any conflict of opinion in the Cabinet on the land question. At present, however, they were still in a state of inquiry, and the moment bad not yet arrived for making some suggestion. But another great social problem was now upon them. Hitherto the Liberal Party had done nothing publicly for the coming generation, but they had decided that the question of education was the next and the most urgent of the great social problems they had to take up. The state of education in the country, elementary, secondary. and higher, was chaotic, and his colleagues and he felt that the time had come when a step forward must be taken, and on no small scale. (It is thoroughly characteristic of the way in which education is treated in this country that this announcement should be made not by the Minister of that department but by a colleague who barely mentioned Mr. Pease's name.) Lord Haldane added that one thing was certain—what was about to be done for the coming generation must not be done at the expense of the ratepayer. The importance of what Lord Haldane rightly called a colossal undertaking is not to be denied, and his announcement has been cordially received. But the Prime Minister has found it necessary to explain that no Royal Commission would be appointed, and that no immediate legislation was contemplated.

One reason,no doubt, why the land campaign is being deferred is that the facts collected by Mr. Lloyd George's secret commissioners are not of a nature to satisfy the more sober of his colleagues. As yet, the land campaigners as a body neither know exactly what they want nor how they mean to reach their nebulous goal. Moreover, the agricultural interest would greatly resent the campaign. The Government know very well that the agricultural labourer, in spite of all that is said to the contrary, does find his interest to be more or less identical with that of the agricultural employer. Now it appears that the whole agricultural interest might possibly be attached to the Liberal Party (so the Liberal argument runs) if just when Tariff Reformers admit that they are unable to help agriculture— on the assumption that agriculturists think that a two-shilling tax really would help them —the Liberal programme includes a Bill that would reduce the education rate in rural districts. We do not forget that the recommendations of the Nonconformist Parliamentary Committee, if carried out, would increase the rates, but with the agricultural interest to be attracted the Government would naturally avoid that course and would probably arrange that the contribution from the National Exchequer should sensibly reduce the rural rates.

The earlier part of the week was devoted in the House of Commons to the conclusion of the Report stage of the Home Rule Bill, which was taken on Monday, and to the resumption of the Committee stage of the Welsh Church Bill. During the debate on this subject on Friday week the Government majority, which has otherwise been fairly steady, fell unexpectedly to forty. The amendment which produced this result was moved by Mr. Goulding to the 14th clause, and proposed that the Welsh Commissioners should be required to pay to the representative body a capital sum of 2112,200, to be used as a curates' compensation fund. Mr. McKenna maintained that sufficient provisions against injury to the curates were contained in the Bill, but many Ministerialists were apparently dissatisfied, and Mr. Leach, a Liberal, and Mr. Walsh, the Labour member, spoke in favour of the amendment. It was eventuaily defeated by 230 votes to 190, the Government's majority depending upon the Irish vote. The 15th, 16th, and 17th clauses of the Bill were passed through Committee at Tuesday's sitting.

On Tuesday, in reply to Mr. Hamersley, Mr. Run ciman described the arrangements that had been made to assist the Operations of the rural credit banks. As a result of negotiation between the Board of Agriculture and the leading joint-stock banks, twenty of these were prepared to assist all registered

co-operative credit societies on the following lines. "The committee of any such society may apply with some confidence to the local branch manager of any of these banks for advice and help in matters of bookkeeping, accounts, and audit, and if they wish to obtain an advance from the bank and are able to satisfy the manager and directors that the security for repayment is sufficient, they may expect that their application will be granted on favourable terms." Mr. Runciman added that the scheme, which would only apply to England, would come into operation immediately, as he thought the sooner co-operative societies could get the advantage of cash advances from the banks the better. He declined, therefore, to defer the initiation of the scheme until the Irish Departmental Committee had reported on the working of a similar scheme in Ireland.

At the meeting of the Marconi Committee on Monday the Postmaster-General was invited to be present, and gave his views upon the draft of an interim report which was submitted to him by the Chairman. This report made two recommendations : first, that the Government should sanction the immediate acquisition of sites for the various wireless stations in the Imperial chain; and, secondly, that an expert committee should immediately be appointed to inquire into the technical merits of the rival wireless systems, and so relieve the committee of work for which it did not feel itself competent. With regard to the first point Mr. Samuel expressed his satisfaction, and stated that sites had already been chosen in England, that those in Egypt could be secured in two months, and that the rest would follow in succession. The proposal to appoint a technical committee was criticized by him on various grounds. He contended that it would create great delay, that there was little prospect of the experts agreeing, and that the Select Committee's responsibility must largely be shifted on to them. In response to these criticisms some alterations were made in the report, but it was presented to the House of Commons in substantially the same form on Wednesday ; and that afternoon Mr. Samuel announced in the House that the Government would immediately carry out the two recommendations of the Committee.

The judgments in the Telephone Transfer case, the hearing of which before the Railway and Canal Commissioners (Mr. Justice Lawrence, Mr. A. E. Gathorne Hardy, and Sir James Woodhouse) has occupied seventy-two days, were delivered on Monday. The National Telephone Company claimed £20,924,700, and the award amounts to 212,515,264. As the result of an agreement between the parties the fundamental cost of the plant was arrived at in the sum of £10,313,765, leaving over for the Court's consideration the question of percentages to be added to this sum and the depreciation in the value of the plant. The cost of the proceedings is estimated at not far short of half a million, including £250,000 for the National Telephone Company's inventory, and counsel's fees £71,000. We deal with the case in another column.

In view of the County Council elections in March the Municipal Reform Party have issued a manifesto setting forth their claims to the continued confidence of the London ratepayers. These are briefly their policy of harmonious co-operation with the City Corporation and Borough Councils, which the Progressives seek to absorb or destroy ; their achievement in restoring the financial credit of the Council, and giving London all that a. well-managed municipality ought to provide without increasing the general purposes rate by a fraction of a farthing during their six years' tenure of office—in a word, combining economy with efficiency. They also point to the work of clearing slum areas on an unprecedented scale on which they are now engaged; to their policy of managing the tramways on sound commercial lines without hounding the motor-'buses off the streets; and to their conviction that, as a traffic policy is larger than a tramway policy, the appointment of a Traffic Board is the true and only way to decide impartially between the competing means of public transit. This remedy Progressives and Radicals unite in refusing.

Bank Rate, 5 per cent., changed from 4 per cent. October 17th. Consols (21) were on Friday 74E1—Friday week 75.