service periods of one week each. The old plan of exempting only sons from the conscription was abandoned, and the State agreed to indemnify families which were deprived of their means of support by the service of only sons. When the States General entered upon its session in September Queen Wilhelmina delivered a speech from the throne which was remarkable in that the most important legislation she proposed dealt with social and moral questions. Thus, measures were announced against gambling and drunkenness; there was a plan to extend obligatory accident insurance among laborers; and a law was being prepared to deal with compulsory insurance against sickness. and old age. The Swedish Riksdag began consideration of an army reform bill in January, 1901. Many months of discussion, amendment, and compromise were required before the measure finally won the approval of both Chambers. In its final form provision was made for an increase. in the pay of soldiers. As to time of service, it was agreed that the infantry, the fortification artillery and engineers, and the train should actually serve for two hundred and forty days-one hundred and fifty days as recruits, and thirty days in each of the three ensuing years. The cavalry, the field artillery, and the field engineers were to give three hundred and sixty-five days to the service-two hundred and eighty-one days as recruits, with two annual repetition courses of fortytwo days each. This plan was adopted. Army reform was not the only important legislative question in Sweden. the Government Accidents Insurance Bill. measures of the year were a bill against usury, a bill establishing legal procedure, and a bill encouraging the larger use of peat as fuel. The questions of national bank reform and the conservation of shipping interests were prominently before the Riksdag. The Legislature passed The change of Ministers in Spain, early in March, bringing the Liberals to power, with Señor Sagasta as Premier, was followed by measures for the restriction of unauthorized religious orders. The problem was, in the first instance, administrative rather than legislative. Most of the monks and many of the regular parish priests were believed to sympathize with the Carlist movement, which was showing signs of renewed strength, and the Government promptly insisted upon the submission to it of complete records of the activity of the religious orders REFORMS IN SIAM 165 that had not been recognized by the concordat of 1851. The question was not brought to a focus in the Cortes until the session reopened in October, after the summer recess. A sharp parliamentary struggle then began, the Clericals demanding larger immunity from Government control. The Sagasta Ministry was, however, more than strong enough to hold its own. Señor Sagasta made it clear that Spain treated the clergy more liberally than did any other country. The moderate restriction of the orders was a necessity for public safety. Japan had some difficulty during the early months of the year with the question of land tenure by foreigners. There was a treaty stipulation that "existing leases in perpetuity, under which property is now held in the [foreign] settlements, shall be confirmed, and no conditions whatsoever, except those contained in such existing leases, shall be imposed in respect of such property." Now, Japanese law did not recognize the title of "perpetual lease," but the foreign residents insisted upon this form of title, and after some negotiation the Diet passed a special act to cover the situation. In Siam several reforms were carried through. A new land registration system was adopted, with an idea of making title secure and establishing boundaries beyond doubt. A copyright law was issued. CHAPTER VIII CONFLICTING NATIONAL ELEMENTS Every strong Government naturally opposes any tendency toward the limitation of its authority. The unification of conflicting national elements within its boundaries is an essential policy, and this end is sought either through arbitrary methods of control or through conciliation. Unfortunately, conciliation seldom proves successful; a firm hand appears to be necessary, for national feeling is persistent. Germany resorts to harsh restrictions to Germanize the Poles; Russia uses questionable measures to Russianize the Finns; England scarcely knows what course to take with her Irish; in Austria, where conflicting nationalities are of comparatively equal strength, the difficulty of conciliation is apparent. And yet the inharmony of part of a body politic is a source of weakness to the whole. But how is a conflicting national element in any country to be brought into line? Russia's method, as seen in Finland, is to take away the remnants of popular liberty and reduce all the inhabitants to a common level of subjection. Germany's method is to Germanize the schools; to insist upon a full official use of the German language; to scatter the young army recruits from Alsace and Lorraine, through Prussian or Saxon regiments, or to send the Polish soldiers to Bavaria -in other words, to take the young men from their familiar surroundings and let them lose their national identity in a multitude of imperial Germans. These methods involve many injustices. How completely they succeed in the long run cannot be said. Irish Agitation The grievances of the Irish people have never been unheard for want of voices to declare them. The Irish agitation has centered on two aims-home rule and the abolition of landlordism. Meanwhile THE AGGRESSIVE NATIONALISTS 167 there has been of late years in Ireland a definite and promising attempt to revive national feeling, the movement being artistic and intellectual as well as political, industrial, and commercial. The Irish members of Parliament have kept the situation before the British people. During the session of 1901 these Nationalist members were unusually aggressive. They were not able to carry measures for themselves, but they were strong enough to make trouble; and they were shrewd politicians. Being unable to secure the passage of their bills, they ingeniously obstructed business during the first part of the winter by demanding divisions of the House on minor questions, taking up so much time in this way that, if it had been continued, the House would never have got through with its necessary work. During the debate on the King's Speech from the Throne the Irish members offered two amendments, both of which failed to pass. The first, moved by John Redmond, leader of the Irish forces in the House, declared that the existing system of land tenure in Ireland was unsatisfactory and that the only solution of the land question lay in a system of compulsory sale of the land to the Irish tenants. Under the existing Purchase Acts, as Mr. Balfour, the Government leader, pointed out, one-tenth of the Irish land had gone into the possession of peasant proprietors. But the Nationalists insisted that the process was too slow, and that it was accompanied by much injustice on the part of the Land Commission. Mr. Redmond asserted, apparently on good grounds, that ninety-five per cent. of the Irish people desired compulsory sale. But the Government maintained the opinion that such a plan would be very hazardous. The second Irish amendment declared that the use of the machinery of justice to hamper the operations of the United Irish League ought to cease, since the aims of the League were commendable. In defending the amendment, which he himself introduced, William O'Brien said that the main objects of the League were to stimulate peasant proprietorship and to secure the agricultural development of large tracts of fertile land which were now in the possession of graziers. The League, he said, had been guilty of virtually no crimes; nevertheless, the Government officials lost no opportunity to lay crimes at its door. Opponents of the Nationalists answered Mr. O'Brien with assertions that the League used intimidation and other forms of tyranny, though it was difficult to establish actual proofs of its illegal methods. This amendment, like Mr. Redmond's, was voted down by a large majority. Several times during the session the Irish members caused sensational outbreaks in the House. In the course of a discussion of Boer War issues on February 19, J. O'Donnell arose and began an address in the Irish language. The Speaker called him to order, saying that to address the House in the Erse tongue was an unknown practice. Mr. O'Donnell persisted, but was finally shut off. In the brief debate that followed, John Redmond said that there was no rule to prevent any member from using the language that was most familiar to him. He recalled that he had once heard a Maori member of the New Zealand Parliament address the New Zealand House in the Maori language. The Speaker replied that, though there was no rule on the subject, precedent was all against a member of Parliament speaking in any other tongue than English. Mr. O'Donnell declared that he would repeat his attempt at every opportunity and would desist only when suspended for disorderly conduct. The historic Erse language was spoken and understood by more than a million people. The efforts of the English to obliterate the language were, he held, part of the policy of destroying Irish nationality. The dilatory tactics employed in the House by the Irish members, led the majority to apply rules of closure, limiting debate. An enforcement of this policy was followed by a disgraceful scene. About midnight on March 5 the Government moved the closure on a vote of a large appropriation for education. The Irish section of the bill had not been debated when the closure was applied, or at least it had received too little discussion to satisfy the Nationalists. So, when the division was taken, the Nationalist members refused to leave their scats, and shouted, "Gag! Gag!" Twice the Chairman urged the recalcitrants to go to the lobby, and on their persistent refusal he reported the situation to the Speaker, who had been hastily summoned. The Speaker named twelve members as guilty of refusing to obey the order of division, and the House promptly carried a motion to suspend the members thus named. The suspended members refused to withdraw, and the Sergeant-at-Arms was instructed to enforce the order. Then arose a great uproar. The Sergeant-at-Arms called a number of police |