Chapter IV: The Political Struggle and Its Close (1)

The brief Whitsuntide recess was a time of gloom and anxiety alike for politicians and for the people at large. It was overshadowed by the almost certain prospect of a national lock-out in the building trade and by the sinking of the Canadian Pacific liner, _Empress of Ireland_, the greatest disaster, except the loss of the _Titanic_, in the history of the mercantile marine (Chron., May 29). Politically the situation was becoming more and more critical. Ministers had lost much of their prestige both in the country and in Parliament; one Minister had gone; another had failed to find a seat; of seven bye-elections since the session began they had lost four; they were suffering from the effects of Labour and Nationalist estrangement, and their supporters in Parliament were divided on the Budget, the "Federal solution" of the Irish question, the treatment of the incipient rebellion in Ulster, and the policy exhibited in the introduction of the Amending Bill. A general election towards the end of July was freely predicted; but, while a Liberal victory might have provoked an explosion of rebellion in Ulster, an indecisive result or a Unionist victory would almost certainly have led to prolonged and grave disturbance. In Ulster there were Church parades of Ulster Volunteers, militant speeches, popular demonstrations, and every sign of determined preparation to resist Home Rule. Sir Edward Carson, who spent the recess in the province, said (at East Belfast, June 2) that he "had come to make arrangements for the final scene"; that he "was going to have more Mausers"; and that he had scant faith in the Amending Bill. It was not surprising under these circumstances that several deputations, including Liberal and Labour working-men, and sent over, generally by Unionist aid, to see the condition of affairs in Ulster for themselves, declared themselves converted to Unionist views. On the other hand, the probable consequences of the triumph of those views were indicated by the growth of the National Volunteers. They were stated to number nearly 130,000, of whom 5,000 had joined in the last week of May; their numbers were estimated at 41,000 in Ulster, 42,000 in Leinster, 27,000 in Munster, and nearly 19,000 in Connaught; drilling was going on daily, and they were assured of the assistance of many retired military officers of repute. The movement had begun independently of the Nationalist party (A.R., 1913, p. 267), and was stated by its leaders to be non-political; but the Nationalist leaders were now endeavouring to secure its assistance and to obtain control. The position was described by Viscount Milner (at Rothwell, May 30) as "smouldering war"; and trustees and others were transferring securities from the North of Ireland to Great Britain for safety, while preparations were being made in England for the reception and housing of Ulster Protestant refugees.

Speaking at Criccieth, however, on June 2, to members of the Bristol Radical Association who had come on a day's excursion, the Chancellor of the Exchequer showed that the Government stood firm. It would definitely reap the full harvest of the Parliament Act, and would decline to dissolve until the existing Parliament had carried the measures which the people had empowered it to carry. Were the Parliament Act swept away, a Labour Parliament in five years' time might find itself confronted by a powerful plutocratic Second Chamber more firmly entrenched than ever. No Government dissolved Parliament for the loss of a few bye-elections. The real rock ahead for Liberalism was not the "little temporary trouble" in Ulster, but the dissensions between Labour and Liberalism. Ipswich had been lost owing to this dissension, and to its occurrence in North-East Derbyshire. The nation as a whole wanted to go forward, and to go faster, and in the villages the land programme was creating enthusiasm.

A host of Unionist speeches and impressive demonstrations took place at the week-end (June 5, 6) at Hull, at Newcastle, at Eastbourne and elsewhere; and at a garden party at Mr. Joseph Chamberlain's residence at Birmingham Mr. Austen Chamberlain spoke, and Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, in a bath-chair, received the greetings of a few local Unionist leaders. But these speeches merely conveyed the impression that the Ulster crisis was becoming graver. On the other hand, the Lord Chancellor, at the combined dinner of the Russell, Palmerston, and Eighty Clubs at Oxford, while recognising Sir Edward Carson's efforts to keep the peace, said that his Ulster army had caused the raising of the National Volunteers; both forces were illegal and unconstitutional, but the Government had decided, he thought wisely, to leave events to take their course. As to the Amending Bill, the Government were prepared, as the Premier's speeches had shown, to make offers towards a settlement, and to consider suggestions from the other side. Two days later the Archbishop of York pleaded earnestly in _The Times_ for some form of exclusion of Ulster accompanied by a scheme of devolution; and on June 10 an earnest appeal was published by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York against Disestablishment both in Wales and generally, partly on the ground of the need of a National Church, for which they were prepared to agree to a larger measure of self-government.

Parliament reassembled on June 9, and began by giving a second reading to three non-contentious measures--the National Insurance Act, 1911 (Pt. II.), Amending Bill, and two Milk and Dairies Bills, for England and Scotland respectively. The first named was described by the President of the Board of Trade as designed to remove administrative difficulties, to diminish the working cost, and to remove certain delays inevitable in the first administration of a new Act of the kind. He gave particulars (too detailed to be reproduced here) and said that the Bill would not increase the total charge on the Treasury, but would give relief to employers and workmen, and might lead to the extension of the Act to new trades, and to the extension of the benefit or reduction of the contribution. He had been surprised at the small number of grievances under the Act; it had not only stimulated organisation among working-men, but had enabled many employers to increase the stability of employment and to regularise their work. Some of the Labour members' speeches were much less optimistic, but the Bill passed its second reading without a division. The Milk and Dairies Bill, introduced by the President of the Local Government Board, empowered that Department with the approval of the Board of Agriculture, to make regulations preventing the supply of contaminated or dirty milk, which would be laid before Parliament before becoming operative. Means would be provided for tracing and stopping the source of diseased milk, and for punishing the real adulterator, and a single inspection would replace the existing multiple inspections. Similar precautions would be applied to imported foreign milk. The Bill was supported by Mr. C. Bathurst (U., _Wilts, Wilton_) and other members, and criticised in detail by Mr. Forster (U., _Kent, Sevenoaks_) and Mr. Astor (U., _Plymouth_), who suggested various amendments, and, after a reply by the President of the Local Government Board, was read a second time without a division. So, after a very brief conversation, was the corresponding measure for Scotland.

The Post Office Vote was further discussed, according to promise, on June 10. Sir Henry Norman (L., _Blackburn_) complained of the delay in establishing the Imperial wireless chain (A.R., 1912, p. 199), and ascribed the loss on the telegraph service largely to the old-fashioned methods in use. Mr. Joynson-Hicks (U., _Middlesex, Brentford_) said that the badness of the telephone service--of which there had been countless complaints since the transfer to the Post Office--was largely due to the discontent of the staff. Other members laid stress on the postal servants' grievances, and Sir T. Whittaker (L.) and Mr. Ramsay Macdonald (L.) suggested that a special and permanent Board should be set up to deal with them, representing the Government, the Departments, and the employees. The Postmaster-General promised to set up a Committee or Commission to inquire into the future relations of the State with its employees, and to take action on its report, partly to free members from political pressure and to ensure a competent and impartial tribunal. A reduction of the Vote was defeated by 275 to 221.

Previously Major Archer-Shee (U., _Finsbury, Central_) had obtained leave under the ten-minutes' rule, to introduce a Foreign Companies Central Bill, requiring foreign companies raising money in the United Kingdom to comply with the requirements of British company law--a measure occasioned by the circumstances of the flotation of the American Marconi Company, and thus a sequel of the Marconi scandal. It got no farther.

Next day, on the Home Office Vote, the House discussed the pressing and vexatious problem of the treatment of militant suffragism. Wargrave Church, near Henley, a picturesque edifice containing historic monuments, was burnt down on the night of May 31; the same gang were responsible for an attempt a few hours later to set fire to a country house near Windsor; the services in St. Paul's, Westminster Abbey, and the Brompton Oratory were disturbed by women protesters against forcible feeding; a picture was destroyed in the Doré Gallery; and at the King's Court (June 4) a lady fell on her knees when passing Their Majesties and cried out, "Your Majesty, won't you stop torturing women?" They took no notice, and she was carried out. She proved to be Miss Mary Blomfield, daughter of an eminent architect and a descendant of a famous Bishop of London. Two days later an empty house was burnt at High Wycombe; and, among minor disturbances, windows were broken by women at Criccieth during Mr. Lloyd George's speech (June 2), and would-be interrupters of Sir E. Carson in Ulster were all but lynched. Miss Sylvia Pankhurst was rearrested (June 10) in the East End while heading a deputation of suffragists to Parliament, though part of it reached the Houses of Parliament and saw the Liberal Chief Whip, who naturally gave them no satisfaction. To repress these outrages, "cat and mouse" treatment had evidently proved ineffective; but the offices of the militant organisation at 17 Tothill Street, Westminster, were raided (June 9), and it was hoped that the names might be obtained of subscribers to the funds, and that they could then collectively be made pecuniarily responsible for the damage done.

The possible methods of combating militancy were the topic principally discussed on the Home Office Vote (June 11). Previously the Home Secretary, in reply to questions, had stated that no general relaxation of prison rules had been made for militant offenders, and that no official statistics of arson by them were available. In moving a reduction of 1001 in the Vote, Lord Robert Cecil (U., _Marylebone, E._) referred to the number of the outrages recorded (_Times_, June 4; pp. 112, 116), and said that the gravest circumstance was the open defiance of the law. What was going on in Ireland might be rebellion, but this was anarchy; the public irritation was increasing, and was venting itself on peaceable suffragists. He believed the militants' leaders now cared more for the existence and power of their society than for the ultimate success of its propaganda. The followers, however, where they were not paid to commit outrages, were acting from honest motives. They were devoted to Mrs. Pankhurst, and she and her daughters were the people almost wholly responsible. But the continuance of militancy was largely due to the repeated mistakes of the Government. Repudiating the suggestion that the suffragist members should postpone their efforts till militancy had ceased, he strongly advocated deportation, and welcomed the design attributed to the Government to attack the militants' funds. He suggested, also, that the French Government should be asked to take proceedings against Miss Sylvia Pankhurst.

The Home Secretary said that the phenomenon they had to deal with had no precedent in history. The number of women actually committing crimes was small, the number of sympathisers with them extremely large. But the number of militants committed to prison in 1906, the first year of the agitation, was 31; in 1909 it was 156; in 1911, 188 (six being men); in 1912, 290 (two being men); in 1913, 183, and in the current year 108. The "Cat and Mouse" Act had therefore greatly reduced the number of offences, but these had become much more serious. He did not think the irritation which was the aim of the campaign would recoil on the Government. Dealing with the recent acts of rudeness to the King, he said that while all subjects had the right of petitioning His Majesty in respectful language, there was no right to a personal audience of him; the Home Secretary's duty was to submit petitions to him and advise action on them, and they were presented even if the action requested was illegal, unconstitutional, or impracticable. The militants' action had been an effective advertisement, and he wished that the Press would not give it prominence. On the other hand, many of the fires attributed to the suffragettes were really cases of ordinary crime, and the whole number was an insignificant percentage of the total. He discussed the four alternative methods proposed of treating the militants. (1) To let them die was the most popular, but he had the authority of a great medical expert for saying that they wished, and actually tried, to die in prison. Such deaths would be the greatest possible incentive to militancy, and, as they multiplied, there would be a violent reaction against the Government. Even supposing the necessary Act were passed relieving the prison officials of responsibility, a humane prison doctor could not let a woman die whose only offence had been obstructing the police. (2) Supposing they were deported, say to St. Kilda, if it were not treated as a prison they would be speedily rescued; if it were, they would still refuse food. (3) To treat them as lunatics would require medical certificates, which would not be given. (4) To give them the franchise was hardly a remedy for the existing lawlessness. They were, in fact, more severely punished by their hunger-and-thirst strikes than by imprisonment. Statistics showed that the "Cat and Mouse" Bill had been effective. Of the eighty-three persons discharged under it, fifteen had given up militancy, six had fled the country, twenty were in hiding, possibly abroad; the rest, mostly women who had obstructed the police in the recent procession to Buckingham Palace, were either legally at large or were at addresses known to the police. Just before the Act came into force, a report had been made to him showing that the women coming into prison were physically defective; they were sent there to die, and the offenders were paid to commit crime. The Act had been effective in diminishing the number of crimes, but not their seriousness, which naturally increased as the movement was combated. As to other possible steps, the militants' funds were doubtless lodged in banks abroad, but the raids on the militants' society's offices had provided the Government with evidence enabling them, they hoped, to proceed against the subscribers and make them personally liable for the damage done. Criminal proceedings might also be possible, and the insurance companies would doubtless bring actions besides. The militants, he declared, lived only by the subscriptions of rich women, who paid their tools 30_s._ or 2_l._ a week to go about and commit outrages. If the means of revenue of the Women's Social and Political Union could be totally destroyed, the power of Mrs. Pankhurst and her friends would be ended.

In the subsequent debate the Government was severely criticised for its vacillation and ineffective action; other speakers dealt with the maltreatment of ponies employed in mines, street accidents in London, and police pay. The debate was adjourned.

While Mr. McKenna was concluding his speech, about 5.30 P.M., a bomb exploded under the Coronation Chair in Westminster Abbey, but fortunately did only slight damage to the Chair and the famous Coronation Stone. It had probably been deposited by some member of a large party which was being conducted over the Abbey by a verger; and two innocent foreign lady tourists were detained for a short time by the police, and protected from the crowd. The bomb was made of two domes of a large double cycle bell, wrapped round by wire, containing a chlorate explosive and iron nuts; and it was hung over the back of the Coronation Chair. The criminal was not discovered.

It must be added that a joint protest against militancy was issued on June 12 by the National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies and the Conservative and Liberal Unionist Women's Franchise Association, declaring militant methods to be "a negation of the very principles for which we stand," as making physical force the ultimate basis of government. This view was emphasised next day by Mrs. Fawcett at a suffrage meeting; and a similar manifesto had been issued on June 11 by the Women's Liberal Federation. But a bomb, which did little damage, exploded on June 14 in St. George's Church, Hanover Square; and a solicitor's clerk (June 13) was fined for conveying to a suffragist prisoner an emetic drug intended to nullify the effects of forcible feeding; thus so weakening the patient as to secure her immediate release.

Meanwhile the gun-running in Ulster, and the efforts of the British "Covenanters" to avert the coercion of the Unionists, had temporarily transferred the Home Rule controversy to the platform. A group of Liberals, among whom Sir William Byles (_Salford, N._) and Mr. Neil Primrose (_Cambs, Wisbech_) were conspicuous, were holding meetings in the great towns to strengthen the hands of the Government against incipient rebellion; and the Covenanters undertook a campaign against "the coercion of Ulster" in Scotland, of which the chief features were Mr. Bonar Law's speeches at Inverness (June 11), to an audience of 6,000 drawn from all parts of the Highlands, and at Glasgow next day at St. Andrew's Hall. There was little new to be said, but in the Inverness speech, described by the _Spectator_ as one of the best fighting speeches that Mr. Law had ever made, he appealed from the House of Commons to the people, and reiterated the charge that Ministers had "torn open the old wounds" of Ireland to secure themselves a majority. He charged the Government with provoking the prevalent spirit of lawlessness by acting as dictators in the name of the King; he elaborately attacked their contention that Home Rule was before the electorate at the last general election; and even had they had a mandate for it, he said, the projected resistance of Ulster had completely changed the situation. Moreover, they had not redeemed their pledge to give the country a reformed Second Chamber, which would certainly have forced an appeal to the people. In spite of the Prime Minister's declaration of 1906, he was dealing with Home Rule without an independent majority. The Government would not appeal to the country either because they knew they would be defeated or because of a bargain with the Nationalists. There were two sections of them--the drifters and the gamblers; the latter had been let loose by Mr. Churchill's speech at Bradford, followed by a concentration of force against Ulster greater than any made by Great Britain since the Crimean War. They were saved by the accident of the resistance of the Army. The cry of "the Army against the People" was started by the Labour members, who had been bought by the Government through their salaries. The Unionists had appealed, not to the Army, but to the nation. He dwelt at length on the results of the thirty-eight bye-elections, in which the Unionists had gained eleven seats, and the Coalition majority had fallen off 40 to 50 per cent. It was a conflict between the Government and the nation, and the nation was bound to win. As at the siege of Derry, the Ulstermen had been shut off from British help by the Parliament Act. He appealed to the people of Great Britain to break the boom.

Next day at Glasgow Mr. Bonar Law amplified his speech, especially in regard to the Ulster situation. He repeated his charges against Ministers of subservience to the Nationalists, and described the proposal of exclusion by counties as insane. It meant that Ulster, which then was strong, should lay down its arms and come in when weak.

An incident of this campaign was an Irish Nationalist attempt to break up a Unionist demonstration, 25,000 strong, on Woodhouse Moor, near Leeds (June 13), at which the Duke of Norfolk and Lord Milner were among the speakers; but the attempt was a failure. Efforts were made--notably at a meeting two days later at Oxford--to advocate a search for a "Federal solution." But the campaign did not affect the attitude of the Government.

The Plural Voting Bill finally passed the Commons on June 15, Mr. Sanders (U., _Somerset, Bridgwater_) moving the rejection. Little remained to be said; Mr. Sanders mentioned that when Mr. Gladstone was Premier a proposal to abolish plural voting found only forty supporters; the President of the Board of Education replied that the plural vote had been abused since 1885 through increased facilities of transport. Ministers were quite ready to negotiate with the Opposition to secure "one vote, one value." Later, Lord Hugh Cecil revived the charge of dishonourable behaviour against the Government in connexion with the Franchise Bill fiasco (A.R., 1913, pp. 20-24). Their honour was "post-Impressionist" and smudged. Eventually the rejection was negatived by 320 to 242.

This subject was now worn out; but Home Rule was entering a new phase. A Provisional Committee, mainly self-elected, was about to devise a constitution and appoint leaders for the Irish Volunteers (A.R., 1913, p. 267). The Nationalist leaders felt, like Sir Edward Carson in Ulster, that the force must not continue uncontrolled; and Mr. Redmond (June 9) issued a statement announcing that his party, which had thought the movement premature, had been converted by the events at the Curragh and the gun-running in Ulster, and for the past six weeks had given it their support. Since then it had "spread like a prairie fire"; and he suggested that the existing Provisional Committee should be immediately strengthened by the addition of twenty-five representatives nominated by the Nationalist party and in sympathy with its policy and aims. The reorganisation might then be completed, and a Conference might elect the permanent governing body. This proposal was not at once accepted by the Provisional Committee; and on June 12 Mr. Redmond issued a further manifesto, urging the Nationalists--who were 95 per cent of the force, though only a minority of the Provisional Committee--to organise county committees independent of that body. The Nationalist party, he warned the Committee, would not submit to dictation on questions of policy. The members of "Sinn Fein" and other advanced Irish patriots resented this interference, and Unionist spectators did their best to promote a breach. But the local leaders generally saw that the union was necessary, and therefore favoured Mr. Redmond's intervention. The combination of the Volunteer and the Nationalist forces tended necessarily to strengthen the influences at work in Ireland, both against the exclusion of Ulster and for the revocation of the prohibition of the import of arms (p. 66), of which the validity had been upheld (June 15) on appeal by the Dublin Court of King's Bench, though only by two Judges to one.

The new development was discussed in both Houses on June 16. A day earlier the House of Lords had been told that the Amending Bill would be introduced in the following week and the second reading of the Government of Ireland Bill put down for June 30. Complaint was made by the Opposition that the conversations between leaders, on which the Amending Bill was to be based, had not taken place; and on June 16 the Marquess of Lansdowne called attention to the position and to the delay in producing the Amending Bill. After saying that he distrusted "triangular" conversations, in which Ministers had to submit the proposals made them to the Irish Nationalists, he ascribed the Amending Bill to fright on the part of the Government. They were drifting towards an overwhelming catastrophe. The Amending Bill ought to have been introduced long ago in the Commons, and the House of Lords, the constituencies, and the House of Commons--through the suppression of the suggestion stage--had all been defrauded. The two Bills were to be carried, one by Nationalist votes, the other by those of the Ulster members. The Amending Bill, if limited to the terms offered on March 9 (p. 39), would not be acceptable. The Unionists in that House would accept an Amending Bill to avoid civil war, but would take no responsibility for it.

The Marquess of Crewe said that the delay in the Amending Bill was caused by the desire that it should represent an agreement. The conversations would be quadrangular rather than triangular, as the views of British and Ulster Unionists did not agree. The delay might have been avoided had that House given the Home Rule Bill a second reading and amended it, for under the Parliament Act the second reading in that House did not imply assent to the principle. The Lords could amend the Amending Bill into any shape they pleased, and he hoped the measure would pass in a form which, though perhaps in some respects acceptable to no one, would receive general acquiescence. He thought no body in Ireland wanted to engage in conflict, so that the Government was still wise in refraining from interference. Viscount Milner complained that no conversations had yet taken place; this was partly contradicted by the Marquess of Crewe, but it eventually appeared that there had only been "communications," and after Lord Macdonnell had declared that the Volunteer forces did not desire to fight each other, and several Unionists had spoken in the same strain as their leader, the subject dropped.

In the Commons on the same evening Lord Robert Cecil (U.) moved the adjournment to call attention to the growing danger caused by the existence of the two Volunteer forces and the failure of the Government to deal with the situation. He said that the Irish Volunteers were ready and even anxious to fight Great Britain, and existed to secure and defend Home Rule. In proof of this latter statement he quoted a recent speech by Mr. Devlin, and he declared that it demolished all the safeguards in the Home Rule Bill. The Prime Minister had said the day before he hoped that when Home Rule became law the activity of both forces would be diverted into constitutional channels; but the Government were simply drifting. When the Ulster Volunteers were formed they should either have made concessions or prepared to coerce Ulster; were they going to submit to the National Volunteers or resist them, and were they going to make real concessions in the Amending Bill? The position was a scandal to the Government and to civilisation. Mr. Amery (U.) said that the position in Ireland was paralleled only in Albania. The only way out was to go to the people. The Chief Secretary for Ireland replied that the drillings of the two forces were legal with the permission of two magistrates; so was carrying arms, with a proper licence. It would be difficult to prove that the purpose was seditious to the satisfaction of a Belfast or Donegal jury. The history of Ireland showed the vanity and futility of trying to suppress the expression of public opinion by British State prosecutions. The creation of one Volunteer force entailed that of the other. The Ulster gun-running was almost as much admired among the Nationalists as among the most fervent Protestants; many strong opponents of Home Rule were proud of the inclusion of many old soldiers and fine young men in the Nationalist Volunteers; a feeling might quite possibly arise in favour of a united Ireland. The Volunteer movement itself did not add greatly to the dangers of the situation; discipline and the ability to use firearms were good things, and discipline under responsible men did not readily lead to action against the law. He hoped a solution would be found of the existing difficulties; the Government must continue in their path of securing for the Irish people responsibility for the conduct of their own affairs. Mr. Bonar Law said that no strong Government would have submitted for a moment to Sir Edward Carson's challenges to put down the Ulster Volunteers. The Government had done nothing because they knew the people were not behind them, and to interfere with the Ulster Volunteers would have brought about an election. Pending an election, the British Unionist party must support Ulster. The Government were still drifting. Mr. Dillon (N.) said the Volunteers of the South had arisen spontaneously, and for purely defensive purposes. They were prepared to maintain the law, because it was going to do justice to Irish liberties. When the Ulster Volunteers realised that 250,000 Nationalists were enrolled, they would be slower to break the peace. The Government had taken the right course in abstaining from coercion; Nationalist Irishmen who had undergone it knew its effect. After speeches from Sir W. Byles (L.) and Mr. Neil Primrose (L.), who complained of Mr. Churchill's _volte face_ (pp. 52, 87), the motion was rejected by 288 to 223.

It may be added that the Nationalist addition to the Committee, giving the party substantial control, was effected at the end of June, and that a "Defence of Ireland Fund" was started in July to purchase arms and ammunition for the force.

The day following this debate (June 17), the attention of the House was diverted to a development of the Government's policy of oil fuel for the Navy (A.R., 1913, p. 167), which caused misgivings in both political parties, more especially among advanced Liberals. A concession obtained in 1901 from the Persian Government, with the consent of certain local chieftains, had passed in 1909 to the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (a subsidiary of the Burmah Oil Company) and gave it the exclusive right for sixty years to work oil deposits and prospect for oil throughout Persia, except in Khorasan and the provinces bordering on the Caspian--where, however, there was no sign of oil. The Government had now contracted, on terms which were (very properly) kept secret, with the Anglo-Persian Company for a large supply of oil fuel for the Navy during a term of years; and, to enable it to control the company's management, it proposed to invest 200,000_l._ in the debentures, and 2,000,000_l._ in the ordinary shares, the capital to be applied to the improvement of the pipe lines, tanks, etc., necessary to the fulfilment of the contract. The existing pipe line ran from Tembi, near Shustar, by Wais and Ahwaz, to Muhamrah and Abadan Island at the mouth of the Karun River, the site of the refinery. An expert Commission under Admiral Slade, and including three eminent geologists, had reported favourably on the scheme; the upper sections of the pipe line were policed by the Bakhtiari tribes, the lower sections and the refinery would be protected by the Sheikh of Muhamrah. As a business arrangement the plan seemed excellent, but the properties in question were practically all in the neutral sphere under the Anglo-Russian Agreement (A.R., 1907, p. 375), and Sir Edward Grey (A.R., 1908, p. 25) had seemed inclined to avoid taking risks in that region. A protest meeting of persons interested in the petroleum trade had been held in the City on June 5; but in other quarters it was held that the risks of local disorder or interruption of the supply in war time might be serious, or that the step might provoke Russian jealousy and so lead further towards the dismemberment of Persia.

The arrangement was discussed (June 17), on the resolution in Committee of Ways and Means required as the basis of the necessary legislation. The First Lord of the Admiralty said that oil was necessary for the Navy, and the question was solely the policy and soundness of the proposed arrangement. The Government would not depend on oil supply from any one quarter; coal would for many years continue to be the main motive power of the Fleet; oil would be purchased from companies in all parts of the world, British or foreign; the home supply of shale oil would be further developed, and experiments made for the production of liquid fuel from shale and coal, and support would be given to the search for new oilfields in the Empire. An unlimited amount of oil was obtainable if the Government was willing to pay for it and had command of the seas. The oil reserve obviated any fear of an oil famine in the first days of war. During war, oil from this field could easily be brought by the Suez Canal or the Cape. The problem was really the price during peace. There were two dominant oil corporations, the Standard Oil, and the Shell and Royal Dutch. The only notable independent company was the Burmah Oil Company and its offshoot, the Anglo-Persian. In the past few years the price paid for oil by the Admiralty had more than doubled; and the Anglo-Persian field had been kept in view since the previous Unionist Administration, when Lord Strathcona came forward, at the instance of the hon. member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman), to keep the company commercially independent and British, A Special Commission had reported; the northern field, near Shustar, would suffice for Admiralty requirements, but besides that the Government got control of an oil region of 500,000 square miles, some of the indicated sources being near the sea or the Indian border. A great military Power could only cut off the supply as an incident in a world-wide war, and the only effect on the Navy would be that the price of its oil would be higher. Local disturbances could do even less, and the development of the district would tame the wild tribes and strengthen the Persian Government. The Admiralty must have power to control an oilfield somewhere, and neither Trinidad nor Egypt offered a practical alternative, nor would Scottish shale oil be adequate for years. The Government took 200,000_l._ in debentures and 2,000,000_l._ in shares. This latter sum would be used in developing the company. The Government would obtain control and would also be the company's principal customer. The company would supply less than half the total amount needed for the Navy, and the prices would be on a sliding scale according to the profits. The money would come from the Consolidated Fund--l,500,000_l._ diverted from the New Sinking Fund by the Finance Act of 1912, and 750,000_l._ representing the Old Sinking Fund for 1913-14. The oil was necessary for the Navy, and the criticisms came from representatives of the Shell Company. The only difficulty of the Admiralty with this company was price. It was easier to pay what it asked and let the matter alone; but Parliament must decide between taking a fair commercial risk and the certainty of overcharge following monopoly.

Several members from both sides remarked on the difficulty of defending the wells and the danger of fresh complications resulting in Persia; the Foreign Secretary, in reply, made little of the first objection, and said that the Russian Government had not been consulted, because the contract was earlier than the Anglo-Russian Agreement. The Government would encourage production from the home fields and research to make it available. Later Mr. Pretyman (U.) said that it was at the instance of the Admiralty under the Unionist Administration that the Anglo-Persian Oil Company had not been sold to a foreign syndicate, and that Lord Strathcona and the Burmah Oil Company had undertaken to form an exploration company. Lord Strathcona had characteristically only asked one question--Was it in the interest of the Navy that the scheme should go on and that he should take, part in it? Mr. Dillon (N.) also anticipated that the risks would be too great; Lord Charles Beresford (U.) said that the scheme was "a purely speculative gamble," because the Admiralty had built oil-driven ships before they had oil storage. Mr. S. Samuel (U., _Wandsworth_) protested against the attack on the Shell Company. The resolution was carried by 254 to 18.

In the intervals of these exciting debates some ordinary business was done. The Vote for the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries (344,027_l._, the largest on record) was briefly debated on June 16. The President of the Board referred in his statement to the outbreaks of foot and mouth disease, which had stopped the export trade in breeding stock to Argentina. He indicated that the outlook was brightening; but swine fever was far more serious. Experiments were being made in its treatment; research scholarships were being created in veterinary science. The small holdings movement was not going to break down. There were 11,000 small holders, and 1,400 holding under associations. On June 13 193,000 acres had been or were being acquired, over 4,000,000_l._ had been invested, and 65,000_l._ was being paid in rent of the land hired for the purpose by local authorities. Over 6,000 approved applicants had not yet been satisfied, and 90,000 acres would be required to meet them. Comparatively few labourers had acquired small holdings, their wages being so low that they could not accumulate the necessary capital. After referring to the work of the Agricultural Organisation Society, to premiums paid for breeding stock, and to the desire for scientific knowledge, he said that agriculturists were being repaid some of the money taken from them by the Budget of 1909. Mr. C. Bathurst (U.) and other speakers complained of the restrictions in connexion with swine fever; but the debate was cut short by the discussion on the Irish Volunteers and never resumed.

On the Local Government Board Vote the debate (June 18) dealt mainly with the housing problem, and Sir A. Griffith Boscawen (U., _Dudley_) moved a reduction of 100_l._ in order to call attention to the administration of the Housing Act. He complained that the Government omitted to house their own employees (_e.g._ postal servants and navvies at Rosyth) and that Mr. John Burns, when President of the Board, had neglected to remedy administrative difficulties, and that local authorities had been incited to close houses while provision was not made for rehousing. This latter charge was endorsed by Lord Henry Cavendish Bentinck (U., _Nottingham, S._) and Mr. H. W. Forster (U., _Kent, Sevenoaks_). The latter said that one cause in rural districts of the deficiency in housing was the permission given, very properly, for the retention of cottages by occupants past work. The new President of the Board said that under the Act of 1909 the local authorities had compelled owners to repair 130,000 houses unfit for habitation, and in the current year to the end of May loans had been sanctioned amounting to 979,000_l._ for building new houses, while in four years (1910-13) the loans sanctioned amounted to 1,400,000_l._ During the Unionist rule of 1886-1905 only 2,000,000_l._ in all had been spent on building new houses, and in the rural districts 47,000_l._ on 233 new cottages. He promised a Housing Bill sanctioning larger loans to local authorities for rehousing. Of town planning, which was equally important, about ninety schemes, dealing with 200 square miles, had come before the Board, and 142 other schemes had not yet reached it. He touched also on health administration, nursing, new Poor Law circulars, one requiring that children over three years old should not be kept in the workhouse, another contemplating relief to widows with children, and advising that the relief should be adequate and the unity of the family respected, and he foreshadowed an increase in the number of women inspectors. He mentioned also the clearance effected of houseless poor from the Thames Embankment by directing them to charitable agencies, and successful efforts for the diminution of vagrancy. An Intelligence Department was to be established by the Department to report periodically on housing, land, tuberculosis, and health questions. Mr. Long (U., _Strand_) while commending this statement generally, regarded the part of it relating to housing as wholly unsatisfactory, and held that demolition had gone too fast under the Act of 1909. After other speeches, and a reply by the Secretary of the Board, the reduction was negatived by 233 to 106.

Outside Parliament, meanwhile, two notable advances in existing social movements must be chronicled. The Labour movement seemed to be entering on a new stage with the approval by the Conference of National Railwaymen at Swansea (June 18) of the projected alliance of their union with the Miners' Federation and the Transport Workers' Federation. The exact details were left for future adjustment and the settlement was subject to final completion by a National Conference. Several of the speakers described the combination as a reply to the establishment of the fund of 50,000,000_l._ to fight trade unionism; and Mr. Thomas, M.P. (Lab., _Derby_), warned the members against hastily using it for sympathetic strikes (A.R., 1913, p. 255). It should be resorted to only as a last resource.

The other advance was due to a section of the militant suffragists, whose activities otherwise continued to estrange popular feeling; a deputation waited on the Prime Minister of six working-women from the East-End of London, which was sent by Miss Sylvia Pankhurst's organisation, the East-End Federation of Suffragettes (June 20). It was headed by Mrs. John Scurr, and accompanied by her husband, recently the Socialist candidate for Ipswich, and by Mr. Lansbury (A.R., 1912, p. 245), and the statements of its members as to their conditions of life and labour evidently much impressed the Prime Minister. Mrs. Scurr said they were asking for a vote for all women over twenty-one. The Prime Minister complimented them on their presentation of their case, which was, he said, that the economic conditions of a community like East London could not be relieved by legislation or administration unless women had votes. Some improvements, he said, had been made by the Trade Boards Act, and by the appointment of women as factory inspectors, and other problems referred to admitted of no speedy remedy. But he agreed with them fully on one point: the franchise, if given to women, should be given on the same terms as men. In conclusion, he promised to consult the Home Secretary as to the case of Miss Sylvia Pankhurst.

But less remote means of improving social change were contemplated by the supporters of the Budget.

Speaking at Denmark Hill on June 20, amid some disturbance through suffragist interruptions, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, after declaring that the Government would not tolerate the exclusion of Ulster, said that the Budget carried on the Government's policy of strengthening the national defences against possible enemies abroad and actual enemies at home--poverty, disease, unhealthy homes, the suffering arising from bad social and economic conditions; and a fair contribution had been levied on wealth. Replying to a prophecy just made by Mr. J. J. Hill, an American railway magnate, that "the false humanitarianism of British social legislation" would destroy the sources of wealth in Great Britain, he declared that since the recent social legislation had passed there had been unprecedented prosperity, and that "the Power that governs the world does not punish with bankruptcy" nations that do kindnesses to the old, the feeble, the broken, and the sick. While Trust magnates were looking on with dismay, the great democracies of the West were looking towards Great Britain with a new hope. Beaten at home, "these American buccaneers" were coming over to stop the deluge at its source, but they had failed and would fail again.

But the Budget, as embodied in the Finance Bill, was threatened not only by the opposition of the rich but by the rules and precedents of Parliamentary practice. On June 15 a deputation of more than thirty Liberal members (mostly very wealthy), led by Mr. Holt (_Northumberland, Hexham_) had protested to the Prime Minister against the invitation to the House to sanction fresh taxation before it had approved of the objects on which the proceeds were to be spent. Dissatisfied with his reply, they issued a protest (June 17) urging that the new taxation should be deferred until the passing of the Bill establishing the machinery for separate assessment of site values and improvement values, since, should a Unionist Government take office in the interval, the valuation would be dropped, and the temporary grants, repugnant to all Liberal principles of finance, would become permanent features of the financial system. Unless the valuation Bill passed, moreover, the Government would be unable to pay to the local authorities any of the money provided by the new taxation. Either it would be hastily devoted to some new purpose, or it would pass to the Sinking Fund. Neither application would have been contemplated by Parliament when voting the Budget. They did not object to taxing those best able to bear it, but money should not be voted unless its objects were determined and the machinery for raising it was in existence.

Mr. Gibson Bowles had attacked the Finance Bill on somewhat the same lines in _The Times_; and Mr. Asquith had promised the dissentients that the Commons would not part with the Finance Bill (imposing taxes) until the Revenue Bill (securing the allocation of the proceeds) should have passed the Lords; but the completion of both Bills within the four months' limit laid down by the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act (A.R., 1913, p. 86) was seen to be impracticable. And, when the Finance Bill came before the House on June 22, Mr. Cassel (U., _St. Pancras, W._) asked whether it was in order, inasmuch as it went beyond the money resolution on which it was based, which did not cover either the proposed allocation of grants in relief of rates to local authorities or the reduction of the charge on the National Debt; and Sir F. Banbury (U., _City of London_) raised other points, one being that the Bill increased the "transferred sum" under the Home Rule Bill, and was thereby out of order as going beyond its title. The Speaker dismissed this latter point; in regard to the others, matters could be set right by introducing a new resolution in Committee of Ways and Means, citing a precedent of May, 1894; but he deprecated the recent practice of including in the Finance Bill matters not purely financial. In moving the second reading, the President of the Local Government Board said that two principles of the Bill were that new sources of income should be provided for local authorities, and that personalty should contribute to local taxation; but, as a local income tax was, for reasons which he specified, impracticable, the Bill adopted an alternative method. About 38,000,000_l._ annually, or one-third of the total expenditure of local authorities in the United Kingdom, would eventually be provided under the Bill from the Exchequer. Education, public health, poor-law services, and main roads, were of national concern as well as local, and the central authority should see that they were well administered, and that the relief given should be given to the part of the rating which fell on local improvements, not to that on bare land values. The existing system of rating adopted "the methods of the Eastern taxgatherer." The rates would be levied in two parts--on land value, and on building and improvement value, and in the current year the Revenue Bill would provide for the collection of the information necessary to enable the division to take place in 1915. The case of the Liberal dissentients could be met by procedure. An instruction would be moved to divide the Bill into two parts, one containing the provisions relative to the new taxation and the National Debt, the other those relating to the new grants to local authorities. Both Bills and the Revenue Bill would be proceeded with. This would unfortunately mean the abandonment for the current year of the temporary grants on the new basis to local authorities. The increased taxation to meet these would be unnecessary, and the income tax would only be 1_s._ 3_d._ in the pound. This was a postponement, not a release.

Mr. Holt (L.) abandoned an amendment in the sense of the dissentients' protest, but objected both to the huge expenditure on armaments and to the excess of the actual over the estimated cost of recent social reforms. Members themselves, he thought, were in fault for pressing for more expenditure. It was increasing more rapidly than income, and a decline in trade was at hand. He and his friends did not object to the character of the new taxation; direct taxation was preferable to indirect; but it would be impossible to pass the Finance Bill as it stood and the Revenue Bill by August 6, as required by the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act. It invited obstruction, which would be met by the guillotine closure. He and his friends, therefore, would cordially support the revised programme of the Government.

Mr. Long (U., _Strand_) congratulated the dissentient Liberals on their success. The great Budget was crumbling already. But was there any law left in the House? Income tax was being collected at a rate for which there was no Parliamentary authority; what would be done where it had been already collected "at the source"? Would the Irish proposal (to increase the "transferred sum") be abandoned as well as the English? The Unionists had thought of moving to adjourn the debate, but had preferred to state their case for further information at once. Every one wanted social reform, but were they not really burdening the weak? The Treasury had become a spending instead of a supervising department, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer one of the most powerful causes of public expenditure. In every department of public expenditure there was an enormous increase, due either to hasty legislation or to want of control by the Minister whose duty it was to exercise control. Employment on estates was diminishing, and the increase in the death duties imposed unequal burdens. He was unable to understand what the rating proposals were. By thus changing their plan the Government had insulted the House. Later the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained that only some 50,000_l._ had been collected in regard to the 1_d._ of income tax now dropped, and the banks would adjust the matter on the next dividend payment. Some Budgets had been altered while before the Commons, _e.g._ the wheel and van tax in 1890.