in the Bill of some proviso whereby it would lapse automatically unless confirmed by a resolution of the House of Commons after the election. This would mean saving face as regards the Home Rule Bill, and still passing Welsh Disestablishment and Plural Voting under the Parliament Act. But the power behind the throne evidently scouted the idea; and on the next day Sir E. Grey had to undergo the humiliation of being present at his public repudiation by Mr Samuel. Once more the Government attitude stiffened. An offer by the Unionist leaders to insure that no obstacles should be placed in the way of the immediate passage of the Bill, if confirmed at a General Election, elicited no response; and the passage of the Second Reading by a majority of 80 has left the deadlock more complete than ever. It is true that on both sides during this debate members on the back benches freely discussed the desirability of a settlement by consent based on the adoption of some sort of federal or devolutionary system for the whole United Kingdom. Even Sir E. Grey toyed with the idea that, if Ulster accepted the Government proposal, the six years might be devoted to exploring the federal question-presumably with the same determination to achieve a positive result as has been shown in regard to the question of Second Chamber reform since the passing of the Parliament Act. Mr Redmond, however, threw a most effectual douche of cold water on all the federalist talk, by explaining that he had no objection to federalism, so long as it did not involve the possibility of Ulster forming a separate federal unit, or so long as none of the powers granted to Ireland under the Home Rule Bill were whittled down-in other words, so long as it did not interfere with separatism. His utterance was illuminating, for it made it palpable beyond dispute that the idea of a settlement by consent on federal or quasi-federal lines is out of the question so long as he can exercise a controlling influence-that is to say, so long as the present Government exists. That, indeed, is the crux of the whole situation. There is probably a substantial majority in the House of Commons to-day who would agree readily to the setting up of a non-party convention to discuss and settle the whole question of the constitution of the United Kingdom and the working of Parliament—the only method by which a true settlement by consent can be attained. But those who share this view on the Liberal side are in a position of great difficulty. They cannot push the policy of conciliation to its conclusion without destroying the Government. And the destruction of the Government, in their belief, will involve the loss not only of the pending measures of its programme, but of all that the Liberal Party has secured since 1910. The idea of a return to the political conditions of 1909, or the creation of a Second Chamber reformed on Tory lines and made stronger in the process, and the prospect of a generation of renewed effort to alter the situation so created, or even to abolish Plural Voting, are to them intolerable. If the desperate cohesion of the Liberal ranks, even in the face of civil war, is to be broken up, that fear must be clearly and definitely dispelled. The Unionist Party has already given ample guarantees to its opponents in the event of an election being decided in favour of the present Government. It has given no guarantees in the event of a Unionist victory. And yet to give such guarantees would be the part not only of sound tactics for the present, but of true wisdom for the future. Whatever the majority by which a Unionist Government may be returned, it will be crushed and rendered utterly sterile for all fresh constructive effort, if it has to attempt the superhuman task of dealing with the Irish problem and the Parliamentary problem on party lines. That those problems can only be dealt with successfully as a single whole and on national lines will be as true then as it is to-day. If the Unionist leaders gave a guarantee to-morrow of their intention, if returned at an election, immediately to refer the whole constitutional and Parliamentary problem to a free and equal national convention, they would not be tying their hands for the future, they would only be announcing the inevitable conclusion of a far-sighted view of the problem. But they would at the same time have undermined the whole moral fabric upon which the Coalition now rests, and have done the one thing within their power and consistent with their honour to avert the appalling catastrophe of civil war. INDEX TO THE TWO HUNDRED AND TWENTIETH VOLUME OF THE [Titles of Articles are printed in heavier type. The names of authors of Aircraft in War, 558-the term ' aerial supremacy,' ib.-the air Airships for military purposes, 559. Atlantic Cable, proposed, 138-cost Australasia, self-governing colonies B. Balfour, Rt Hon. A. J., M.P., Beaumont and Fletcher, The Benoist-Hanappier, L., Le Drame British South Africa Company, grant 196. Brougham, Lord, on the achieve- Bulgaria, relations with Greece, 487, Bulgarians, character of their rule in Bullen, A. H., The Works of Bulthaupt, Heinrich, 'Dramaturgie Burton, Robert, 'History of the Butterfield, Mr, his estimate on the C. Cables, British, under foreign con- Callendar, Prof. H. L., his address Canada, views on the proposed Carlill, James, 'The Carnot Family,' Carnegie Commission, evidence on Carnot Family, The, 339-at Nolay, Case, Prof. R. H., 'The Plays of Cecil, Algernon, 'Some Reflections Cecil, Lord Hugh, Conservatism,' Chamberlain, Rt Hon. A., M.P., on Chopin, his friendship with George Cowper, W., his letter to J. Hill on D. Darwin, Charles, 'The Origin of Darwin, Sir Francis, extract from his presidential address to the Dawson, Richard, 'The Progress of Deissmann, A., 'St Paul,' 47. Dowson, M. E., 236. See Palmer. Dunlop, Robert, 'The English in E. England, the currency policy, 468- England, the Reformation, 129- 'Erewhon,' The Author of, 152- ་ Eucken, The Philosophy of, I, |