HOUSE OF PARLIAMENT—LONDON.
As parliament virtually selects the ministers and as these ministers are responsible to parliament rather than to the king, they must attend the sessions at stated times and answer questions. Any member of parliament is at liberty to submit a question in writing and the minister is obliged to give answer, provided, of course, the answer would not make an improper disclosure.
The leaders, facing each other from the opposing benches, present a very interesting picture and after listening to the discussions back and forth, one can understand why free speech has had so large an influence in the development of the political institutions of Great Britain. Here every idea is threshed out and every measure moulded into permanent form.
But to return to the minister of war. Mr. Haldane might be taken for Tom L. Johnson, Cleveland's redoubtable mayor, so much is he like him in face and figure. He is plausible in speech and so good natured that no one can be angry with him, however much he may dissent from his conclusions. For two hours he held the attention of the house and gallery—an unusual feat in London where the speeches are not so long as in America. He was frequently encouraged by cries of "Hear! Hear!" the usual applause in the House of Commons. It was noticeable that the heartiest responses were drawn forth by his expressions in favor of peace and arbitration. The reorganization scheme which he presented provides for a reduction of several thousand men and a considerable decrease in the total cost, but to make the scheme more acceptable the remaining regiments are so disposed as to give the country a larger fighting force than it now has. It was interesting to watch the opposition benches, whose able leaders vigorously attack everything that the new government proposes. Ex-War Minister Foster followed Mr. Haldane and picked flaws in his plans, but he did not receive the attention accorded the war minister.
The army question is arousing considerable interest, and the government bill is likely to have more opposition in the House of Lords than in the Commons. In fact, Lord Roberts has already attacked the bill in advance, in a speech which affords conclusive proof of the tendency of man to magnify his own calling. Nothing better illustrates the conservatism of the House of Lords than the fact that the Liberal party can claim but one-tenth of the membership of that body while it has two hundred majority in the popular branch of parliament. It must not be supposed, however, that all the bills passed by the House of Commons will be defeated in the House of Lords, for while a large majority of that house may really oppose a measure, they recognize that the very existence of their body would be jeopardized if it opposed the people on any important question. Nominally the House of Lords has an equal voice with the House of Commons, in the enactment of laws, but as a matter of fact it does not dare to exercise the power which it has.
The navy department has reduced the appropriation for large vessels, and it is certain that at the next Hague conference Great Britain will be found supporting a proposition for the limitation of armaments. Mr. Edmund Robertson, the financial secretary to the admiralty, presented the government's scheme for reduction and made a favorable impression upon the House of Commons.
JOHN MORLEY, M. P.
The minister of education, Mr. Birrell, has been the busiest of the ministers so far. He has had charge of the educational bill which has been under discussion for several months and which, after being perfected in the committee of the whole, has been passed to a third reading by a majority of a hundred and ninety-two. As the bill deals with religion as well as education and concerns the children of the country, it arouses deep interest. In England the public school system has grown up as an addition to the church schools, or rather the public schools have supplemented the work formerly done by the private schools. As these schools increased in numbers and importance the church schools began to ask for a division of the school funds and this, as it usually does, brought into politics the question of religious instruction in the schools. As long as the private schools were supported by private contribution or endowment their religious instruction was entirely in their own hands, but when these schools began to draw their support from the public treasury the taxpayers objected to paying for instruction in the creed of any other church than their own. Four years ago the Conservatives enacted a law which gave to the Established Church of England considerable advantage over the nonconformist churches in the management of the public schools, and this led to a campaign against the law by the nonconformists. Their opposition to the conservative government contributed not a little to the Liberal victory and the bill now under consideration in parliament puts them upon an equal footing with the members of the Established Church in respect to schools and removes the tests which formerly operated against nonconformist teachers.[12]