independence, the representative of England directed cannon upon the Assembly, and he called up troops to overawe them.

In spite of this, however, the memorials poured in signed by 6,591 enfranchised men against, and only 587 enfranchised men for the annexation.

From the date of the annexation, in April, 1877, till 1880, the Boers contented themselves with peaceable protests and petitions, to induce the English Government to restore them their independence; for they had read the speeches of Mr. Gladstone, where he said "that the annexation of the Transvaal was dishonorable, and should be repudiated," and throughout the Transvaal it was felt that if Mr. Gladstone came into power, the hour of their deliverance was at hand.

Unfortunately, high as the hopes of the Boers had been raised, the more bitter was their disappointment when they found that the advent of Mr. Gladstone to power did not bring them nearer the goal of independence, for which they were prepared to sacrifice their lives, and the war followed as an inevitable consequence.

Happily, by many efforts of kindred associations, by large public demonstrations at Birmingham, Leeds, and other places, and Memorials from various parts of England, the Government of Mr. Gladstone were induced to reverse the policy of their predecessors, and to adopt pacific methods, conciliation and negotiation for a settlement of the dispute.

They were not dismayed either by the disaster at Majuba Hill, though it added greatly to their difficulties; and it must ever remain an honourable and dignified act, that when the cry of vengeance was raised, they resisted that cry, and refused to continue the war, but bravely persevered in the negotiations for peace, even in the face of defeat, and finally succeeded in concluding a preliminary Convention with the Transvaal Government, which was ratified by the House of Commons in July, 1881, by a majority of 105, which, far from being a humiliation to England, reflects upon her the highest renown, and especially

on the statesmanship of the Prime Minister of England, W. E. Gladstone, who in noble language declared :

"That the honour of England does not require the putting down of the rebellion first, in order afterwards to negotiate with the Boers. * * * *

“The honour of the English nation demands that without further bloodshed to expiate the wrong committed in 1877, she should recognise the independence of the Transvaal, and proclaim her wish to live in friendship with a brave people, which has proved itself worthy to be the pioneers of d civilisation against the despotisms of Africa." OF THE

UNIVERSITY

CALIFORNIA

PARLIAMENTARY AND OTHER EFFORTS.

uring the Session of 1881, Mr. Richard brought before Parliament the subject of British Representatives abroad, and on the 29th April he submitted the following motion:

"That the power claimed and exercised by the representatives of this country, in various parts of the world, to contract engagements, annex territories, and make war, in the name of the nation, without authority from the Central Government, is opposed to the principles of the British Constitution, is at variance with recognised rules of international Law, and is fraught with danger to the honour and true interests of the country."

The Prime Minister (Mr. Gladstone), whilst sympathising with the aim and spirit of the resolution, pointed out the difficulties to carry it out in such an Empire as ours, and considered that the first step required was a reform of the Central Authority itself, and that the most potent influence for restraining the aggressive action referred to, was by mutual influence exercised on the Crown, the Government, and Parliament. Sir George Campbell, Mr. Rylands, and Mr. Lyulph Stanley supported the resolution, and on a division Mr. Richard ran the Government close, being 72 against and 64 for, a narrow majority of 8.

At the close of the Parliamentary session of 1881, Mr.

Richard attended the ninth annual Conference of the Association for the Reform and Codification of the Laws of Nations held at Cologne, 18th and 19th August, and at one of the sittings, under the presidency of Sir Travers Twiss, he read a paper on "The Recent Progress of Arbitration," in which he dealt firstly with the objections raised against. its application, and then proceeded to present the cases of Arbitration from 1871 to 1881, of which he enumerated fourteen instances, which supplied ground for encouragement and hope.

On Mr. Richard's return to England, he attended and took part in an important Conference of the Friends of Peace for the Northern Counties, under the presidency of Canon Jackson, (a truly Christian prelate of the Church of England,) held at Leeds in November 1881, for the purpose of considering firstly, the anti-Christian nature and tendency of War; secondly, the best means of solving international difficulties without resort to War; and thirdly, the enormous evils of standing armies.

Papers were read by Dr. Spence Watson on the antiChristian nature and tendency of war; by the Rev. Thomas Green, on the duties of Christian Ministers, and peoples in relation to war; and by Mr. Edward Butler on the enormous evils of Military establishments and Standing Armies, and at the close, the writer of each paper proposed a resolution in accordance with the subject; and on the first resolution, proposed by Dr. Spence Watson, and seconded by Mr. Arthur Pease, M.P., which declared that war is un-Christian, a hindrance to the Gospel, and that the principles of Christian morality are as binding on nations as upon individuals, Mr. Richard addressed the Conference in its support.

A public demonstration was held in the evening, in the Albert Hall, at which Mr. Alderman Tatham presided, and again Mr. Richard was to the fore, and delivered a rousing speech in support of the following resolution:

"That the enormous armaments maintained in Europe are a

discredit to civilisation, a danger to liberty and peace, as well as an intolerable drain upon the resources of the industrial classes; and in the judgment of this Meeting, statesmen are called upon to make a persistent effort to arrest this tremendous evil."

During the year 1881 Mr. Richard also addressed a Town Hall Meeting at Reading, on the "War System of Europe," presided over by Mr. George Palmer, the member for the Borough; also at Leicester on October 6th on "International Armaments, or, International Arbitration," presided over by the Mayor, Mr. Alderman Bennett, and the opportunity was taken by the Workmen's Peace Society of the town, to present him with an address of welcome, which recounted, in gratifying terms, his labours for Peace and goodwill among nations, and his consistent support of the principles of civil and religious liberty.

During the Session of 1880, Mr. Richard took part in the debate on the Opium question, introduced by Mr. J. W. Pease, to put a stop to the India-China traffic in Opium, and against the raising of the revenues for the Indian Exchequer thereby.

On 30th June, the second reading of the Sunday-closing Bill for Wales, was brought into Parliament by Mr. John Roberts, and Mr. Richard seconded the motion, and in so-doing he referred to the favourable operation by an array of figures of the Forbes Mackenzie Act for Scotland, from 1852 to 1880, and of the Irish Sunday-closing Act, since it was passed in 1878, and he claimed a similar Act for Wales, especially on the ground of the great preponderance and the strong manifestations of Public opinion in its favour, and because the Bill proposed to deal with a great evil that was corrupting the people, and exercising disastrous influence upon their highest interests.

The Government not opposing the Measure, it was read a second time, and finally passed into law.

For many months after the General Election of 1880, the House of Commons was the scene of stormy debates and strange episodes, on the subject of admission, either by oath or affirmation, of Mr. Bradlaugh, and it was not until the 1st

July that the vexed question was finally settled, by the Government introducing a resolution, which was proposed by Mr. Gladstone, to the following effect :—

"That every person returned as a Member of this House, who may claim to be a person for the time being by the Law permitted to make a solemn affirmation or declaration instead of taking an Oath, shall henceforth be permitted, without question, to make and subscribe a solemn affirmation in the form prescribed by the Parliamentary Oath's Act 1866, as altered by the Promissory Oath's Act 1868, subject to any liability by statute."

Mr. Richard, as the spokesman of the Nonconformists in the House supported the resolution, mainly on the ground that it was in the direction of civil liberty, of the abolition of all those religious tests which operated against the various sections of the Nonconformist and Roman Catholic body for so many generations, and he earnestly appealed, from the beneficial influences that have resulted from these Acts of Toleration, to extend still more the privileges of the Constitution as the best means to secure the stability of the State, and to increase four-fold the prosperity of the Church of England.

During the progress of the Burials Bill in Committee Mr. Richard frequently spoke, and ere the close of the Session he had the satisfaction of seeing placed on the Statute Book, a Measure, that both in and out of Parliament he had for many years manfully struggled for.

Besides the debates referred to, in which Mr. Richard took part, he addressed questions to the Government on the Wars against the Basutos, and the Ashantees; questions also on religious liberty in the Channel Islands, upon the relations of the Ruler of Berar with India, and on the subject of the Sovereignty of the Solomon Islands.

THE EGYPTIAN WAR.

Few if any recent events in the public career of Mr.