Chapter IV: The Political Struggle and Its Close (2)

The House adjourned early in view of the King's Birthday dinners, and next day (June 23) Mr. Hayes Fisher (U., _Fulham_) moved an amendment expressing regret that the promised grants to local authorities were not to be made in the current year, and condemning the new system of valuation by which these grants were to be conditioned. He agreed with the views of the dissentient Ministerialists about the Bill (p. 128) and suggested that money might be found by taxing imports; the Port of London Authority already charged dues on 2,200 articles. Would the Chancellor repeat his Ipswich speech now? He strongly protested against central control of valuation. Mr. Cassel (U.) seconded the resolution. Among later speakers, the Secretary for Scotland said that the only difference to the local authorities would be that they would not receive the four months' grants during the current year. Mr. Healy (I. N.) attacked the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the bases on which the grants were allotted to Ireland. Mr. G. Roberts (Lab., _Norwich_) said his party profoundly regretted the capitulation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The President of the Board of Education said that there was no danger of the abolition of free education. Next day (June 24) Mr. J. F. Hope (U., _Sheffield, Central_), in a speech characterised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as fresh and interesting, suggested that 200,000_l._ a year might be saved on payment of members, and the Development Commission and the Road Board might be abolished. The Estimates should be sent to a special Committee for scrutiny. He favoured higher import duties on foreign luxuries and a graduated tax on amusements. He feared for local freedom and knowledge in administration. After other speeches, the Chancellor of the Exchequer replied. He said that nothing had been said about the taxes; reduction of expenditure had been suggested on armaments, but it had no support, at any rate from the Opposition, and on the Development Commission and Road Board, but nearly all the expenditure on the former had gone to agriculture, and the primacy of Great Britain in roads was due to the tax on motor petrol. The Opposition had constantly pressed the Government to spend millions to relieve the ratepayers; when this was attempted, they tried to wreck the Bill. The industrial districts were strangled with rates due to absolute necessities, such as education; the projected readjustment of the grants would save some of those hardest pressed between 1_s._ and 2_s._ in the pound. Housing, which had been so often pressed, could not be undertaken unless the rates were relieved, and yet members rummaged in the dustbins of ancient precedents for obstacles to the Budget proposals. The truth was, the Opposition wanted to obstruct, for they had rather do the job themselves. Interference with local authorities had a precedent in the case of education and the existing valuation by overseers was a farce. The separation of improvement values from site values was regarded as insane, but it worked well in British Columbia. When the Colonies proposed to tax corn they were our kith and kin; when they taxed land they were lunatics. The abolition of the sugar tax had been suggested, but the penny was wanted, and abolition would mean an increase next year on the income tax. Those who voted against the Bill would be voting against means to increase the efficiency of the people and make a stronger and more enduring State.

Mr. Austen Chamberlain (U.) said that the Chancellor's speech gave no idea of the Bill, and he seemed not to have read the amendment. The relief of rates being of the utmost urgency, it was dropped, with trifling exceptions, for the current year, and made contingent for the next year on the passage of other Bills and a system of valuation of which the main features were still obscure. The proposals as to settled estate duty broke a bargain. Social reform could not be conducted regardless of its cost, and it was only on domestic expenditure that economies were possible. After protesting against the attack on Mr. Cassel for defending the rules and practice of the House, he said it was the conditions imposed by the Chancellor which made it impossible to give the strangled municipalities relief. Were the grants intended to relieve rates or to extend municipal activity? He recalled the Chancellor's speech at Ipswich, and described his electioneering as a crude form of bribery of a kind, for a less serious instance of which a Liberal Whip had been obliged to apologise.[1] He protested against centralised control as tending to extravagance, and attacked the valuation scheme. It was the Chancellor who by his attacks on property, adopted "the methods of the Eastern taxgatherer." He was using his conditions of relief to cover up the mess he had made.

After other speeches on that day and the next, the Prime Minister rose (June 25). He began by remarking that the predictions of financial disaster owing to increased expenditure and so-called confiscatory taxation had been made when the Corn Laws were repealed, when succession duties were begun in 1853, on Sir William Harcourt's Budget in 1894, and on the Budget of 1909. But since 1894 there had been the largest investment of capital recorded in British history; the capital which had gone abroad had found itself subjected to far larger exactions than in Great Britain; and the experts had been refuted by experience. Between 1905-6 and 1914-15 national expenditure had risen by 57,000,000_l._ Of this, the Navy had taken 18,000,000_l._, the Civil Service, including social reform, 30,500,000_l._, of which 20,000,000_l._ were due to old-age pensions and insurance, and 2,500,000_l._ to Imperial expenditure on education. The revenue derived from taxation had increased in the same time by 41,000,000_l._; the non-tax revenue, mainly from the Post Office, by 11,000,000_l._, or nearly 50 per cent. In 1905-6 direct taxation produced 50.3 per cent. of the tax revenue, indirect 49.7 per cent.; the proportion now was 59.5 per cent. to 40.5 per cent., and of the latter only a little more than 7 per cent. was derived from the non-sumptuary taxes. This Mr. Asquith treated as an argument against using the 1_d._ taken off the income tax to reduce the sugar duty.

Meantime Great Britain, almost alone among nations, had been reducing her national debt. In principle he had always been a rigid economist, but expenditure on the Navy certainly could not be reduced, and that on social reform was likely to increase. Treasury control was in fact being vigorously exercised; the mainspring of additional expenditure was in the Commons, which had largely expanded the scheme of old-age pensions and other social reforms. The increase in indirect taxation had been wholly in sumptuary taxes. As to direct taxation, income-tax law had become to the ordinary man a Chinese puzzle, and he repeated that there ought to be a thorough revision of the system of collection. As to the present problem, the injustice of the existing system of local rating was unquestionable, and a local income-tax, which he would have preferred, being impracticable, the fairest way to reach personalty was through the income tax and supertax payers. That was the first principle of the Chancellor's proposals, the second was that the grants must be accompanied by security for efficiency, which would involve no interference with local autonomy; the third was that the increased subvention to local authorities should be accompanied by a new system of valuation. Every one admitted that the existing system was unfair and ineffective. They desired to assist the local authorities with expert advice. The need for expenditure on these objects was much more urgent than the relief of the sugar duty. The Government meant to obtain in the current year three distinct things: (1) the maintenance intact of the provisions for necessitous school areas, feeding of school children, nursing, measures against tuberculosis, and national insurance; (2) statutory authority for a more generous system of payment of grants during the next financial year; (3) statutory authority for a new system of valuation separating site from improvement value. Anyone who voted for the amendment was tending to put off social reform.

The subsequent speeches exhibited in various ways the dissent among a section of Liberals from the proposals of the Government. Eventually Mr. Bonar Law rose. After saying that the change in the Budget was really due, not to the Speaker's ruling, but to the Liberal dissentients, he remarked that the plan for relieving local rating conflicted with the Report of the Committee, and asked why, if the separate valuation of site value was so simple, it was not put into the Bills? Because Ministers generally would only agree to an inquiry. He then elaborately attacked Mr. Lloyd George's financial methods. The Chancellor ignored regularity in procedure; he utterly failed to control expenditure; he ignored the maxim that taxes should not be imposed which involved an excessive cost of collection; and he and other new Liberals promised, not retrenchment, but extravagance. With the Chancellor of the Exchequer extravagance was a principle. He was trying to use Budgets to correct the inequalities of wealth. That could not be done by taxation. The Chancellor's theory of life was based on the strictest system of predestination. It was mere luck whether one was industrious and thrifty or an idler and wastrel, and so the duty of the former was to support the latter. Mr. Bonar Law closed by warnings against the excessive taxation of the rich and against depleting the resources of the country in regard to tax revenue and loans in time of war.

The Attorney-General, in the course of a brief reply, remarked that nothing was now heard of Tariff Reform; and the amendment was then rejected, but only by 303 votes to 265, and the second reading agreed to. One Liberal voted with the Opposition, as did seven Independent Nationalists; thirty-five Labour members abstained, and it was only the Nationalist vote that saved the Government from defeat. It was felt that they, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in particular, had received a severe check; and the confusion caused by the provisional collection "at source" of the 1_d._ on the income tax now dropped was only increased by the instructions sent out by the Treasury.

The aim of the framers of the Budget was eloquently set forth by the Lord Chancellor at a National Liberal Club dinner on June 26. There had been three great Budgets, he said, dealing respectively with the past, the present, and the coming generation. Old Age Pensions in 1908, national insurance, which was raising the level of the people, in 1911, and the pending Budget of 1914. This latter was productive expenditure. Since 1868 the total national income had risen from 860,000,000_l._ to 2,400,000,000_l._, while the cost of government had risen in about the same proportion, from 70,000,000_l._ to 207,000,000_l._ Everywhere democracy was demanding a larger share of the total wealth produced, and the demand was partly met by the relative decline of indirect taxation (p. 132). It was necessary to meet the decrease of the birth rate--itself not wholly an evil--by reducing infant mortality, which amounted to 128 per 1,000 in the first twelvemonth of life, and still-births, which were 150 per 1,000, half of them due to syphilis, which accounted also largely for deaf mutes and deformity, and many due to phthisis. Mothers, therefore, must be looked after and trained; at school the child must be cared for in body and mind, it must be encouraged, and its parents assisted, to choose a definite career; continuation schools must prepare their pupils for trades; and the ablest pupils should have a chance of university education. The Budget would have been impossible ten years earlier; the growth of science had made it possible; and he hoped some day to see a Ministry of Public Health. He laid stress on the curriculum of German continuation schools and the need of equality of opportunity. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a short speech, said that the Lord Chancellor had had a large share not only in framing the Budget, but in its initiation and inspiration. Had the taxes imposed been larger, the majority of thirty-eight would have been doubled. The Unionists were determined to defeat land reform, and absolute Ministerialist unity was necessary to frustrate their design.

We must now turn to the House of Lords, where the Government of Ireland Amending Bill was introduced on June 23 by the Marquess of Crewe. After regretting that his statement as to communications with the Opposition leaders had been misinterpreted (p. 122) he said that the Bill was introduced to meet the religious forebodings of Ulster and its fears regarding the business capacity of the men of the rest of Ireland. The exclusion of Ulster was clearly not liked by the Opposition leaders or the Nationalists, and Disraeli had repudiated the doctrine that Ireland was two nations. The Government had had a preference for giving autonomy to Ulster, but this the religious forebodings of the Protestants precluded. To exclude the whole of Ulster was impossible; it would be not a "clean cut," but a "ragged cut," owing to the great Roman Catholic majorities in Donegal and Cavan. The Bill would, therefore, embody the Prime Minister's offer of March 9--_viz._, that within three months after its passing any Ulster county should be entitled to take a poll, and if there was a majority for exclusion, the Government of Ireland Act should not apply to it. The exclusion would be for six years from the first meeting of the Irish Parliament. At the end of that period there would be, not automatic inclusion, but obligatory reconsideration. It would be unfair to leave the question of exclusion to be then fought over again from the beginning or postponed by other questions. The civil government of those areas would be exercised by the Lord-Lieutenant through such officers of departments as he might direct by Order in Council; a Minister of the Crown would deal with Irish business in Great Britain; no members of Parliament would go to the Irish House of Commons, but every constituency in the excluded area could send a representative to the House of Commons; the Joint Exchequer Board would take the cost of Irish services for the whole of Ireland, would divide them in proportion to population, and that portion which was due to be paid to the included area would be deducted for the purposes of the excluded area, and in addition to that it would be necessary to give the Board power to vary the charges in those cases in which it was possible. With respect to judicial arrangements, where any cause was tried, or where the party to any cause was ordinarily resident in the excluded area, he could claim to have his case tried either by one of the existing judges or by some judge appointed by His Majesty in pursuance of this section. Arrangements would be made for the allocation of civil servants to carry out the necessary duties in the excluded area. He invited amendments, and declared that, whatever modifications were made in the existing state of things, the Government would not hold the Opposition responsible. The Marquess of Lansdowne expressed his profound disappointment with the Bill. The separate treatment of Ulster was fore-doomed to failure, and the time limit was intended to avoid a confession of failure by the Government. The Bill would not suffice to avert civil war. If the Prime Minister's terms were insufficient on March 9, they were doubly insufficient after the appearance of the Irish National Volunteers. The Government seemed to expect that the Opposition would make the Bill workable, but was not this undignified on their part? Apparently the Bill itself was to be amended by Orders in Council. Earl Grey regretted the refusal of the Prime Minister in the autumn of 1913 to entertain the offer of the Opposition leaders to consent to a Federal solution. In the Dominions the universal opinion was that he was not a free statesman. Even now, the Government should summon a Constitutional Convention to consider the questions of Ireland and of the Second Chamber. Otherwise the sooner a general election came the better, but he hoped that the Unionist leaders would undertake, if returned, to summon a Convention and be guided by its recommendations. The Bill was read a first time.

The Welsh Disestablishment Bill had been read a first time in the House of Lords on June 23; but the second reading was deferred until after the appointment of a select committee moved for by Viscount St. Aldwyn on June 25, and agreed to by the Government. This Committee was to inquire (1) whether the constitution of the Convocations of the Church of England had ever been altered by Act of Parliament without the assent and against the protest of Convocation, and (2) whether the memorials attributed to Welsh Nonconformists against disendowment represented a real and increasing objection to it among them. Viscount St. Aldwyn referred to the recent protest of the Convocation of Canterbury against the separation of the Welsh dioceses, pointing out that this separation might set up a breach in the spiritual unity of the Church in the case, for example, of the pending revision of the Prayer Book, and suggested that, notwithstanding the Bill, the Archbishop might still summon the Welsh Bishops and clergy to Convocation, or they might come of themselves. As to disendowment, the opponents of the Bill had become keener, and the support of it was waning. The Committee could conclude its labours during the session. The Marquess of Crewe agreed, rather doubtfully, to the proposal; the Archbishop of Canterbury welcomed it, laying stress on the great services rendered by Convocation, which the Bill now proposed to mutilate. Other Peers were favourable, the Bishop of St. Asaph denouncing the "dishonourable balance-sheet" which gave the sum alienated from the Church at 51,000_l._ a year, whereas it was really 157,000_l._ The Bishop of Hereford, however, thought the purpose of the motion would be regarded as dilatory. The Select Committee, nominated July 2, consisted of the Marquess of Bath, the Earls of Halsbury and Crawford, Viscount St. Aldwyn, and Lords Barnard, Stanley of Alderley, and Courtney of Penwith; and the opposition to the Bill was further emphasised meanwhile by a demonstration in Victoria Park, London (June 27).

During these Parliamentary conflicts the King and Queen had paid a brief visit to the Midlands (June 24-26) as the guests of the Duke and Duchess of Portland at Welbeck Abbey. An official reception at Nottingham, a lunch with Lord and Lady Middleton at Wollaton Hall, and a tour of various hosiery, lace, and cotton factories, filled the first day; a visit to Mansfield and the surrounding coal-mining district the second; on the third their Majesties opened the King George Dock at Hull, and the chief magistrate of the town was permanently dignified with the title of Lord Mayor. Everywhere their reception was enthusiastic, and, as usual, they conversed with the workers and visited some of them in their homes.

The following week saw the first step towards a great catastrophe. The murder of the heir to the thrones of Austria and Hungary at Sarajevo on Sunday, June 28, was destined to change the whole course of European history; but, for the moment, it merely shocked and horrified public opinion in Great Britain, and the apprehensions it aroused were limited to the fortunes of the Dual Monarchy and the peace of the Near East. It was only referred to parenthetically in the rambling debate on the Foreign Office Vote (June 29), from which, indeed, but one fact of importance seemed to emerge--that the British Government was beginning to protest against the forward policy of Russia in Persia. After various speeches, chiefly about Persia, whose desperate position, financially and otherwise, was insisted on, but also on other topics, the Foreign Secretary made a comprehensive reply. He began by expressing his personal sympathy with the Dual Monarchy and its Imperial family in view of the assassination of the heir to its thrones, mentioning the goodwill of the late Archduke to Great Britain and the pleasure he and his consort had derived from their visit to the King in 1913. Every Foreign Minister in Europe knew the support given by the life of the Emperor of Austria to the cause of peace. The settlement of the Panama tolls question was due, not to any British diplomatic pressure or _finesse_, but to the respect of President Wilson for treaty rights. As to the Persian oil concession, Great Britain had got no rights which did not exist before the Anglo-Russian Convention. It was improbable that the oil wells would require military protection, and new developments would naturally be near the coast. No new obligation could be placed on Japan under the alliance with Great Britain unless disturbances in the region were the result of causes operating much more widely. The arrangement gave no increase of imperative obligation; the oil could not be got within the British dominions, and where, outside it, could it have been got with fewer and less dangerous commitments? The Government desired that the Anglo-Russian Convention should not be the means of further diminishing the independence and integrity of Persia, and had begun to discuss the existing situation under the Convention with the Russian Government. The financial situation in Persia was very serious, the control over expenditure being weak; but the Government, while not proposing to lend money for general expenses, had decided to advance 50,000_l._--half from India--to prevent the gendarmerie officered by Swedes from collapse. It would be secured on the Customs. The Baghdad railway would stop at Basra, and so would not unsettle the position in the Persian Gulf; the rights of Messrs. Lynch on the Euphrates were assured, and there would be a Turkish company, half British, and with a British casting vote. Turkey also recognised the _status quo_ in the Persian Gulf, and Great Britain would agree to an increase of 4 per cent. in the Turkish Customs duties, _i.e._ to 15 per cent. In Armenia the Inspectors-General would have wide powers, enabling them to realise the desired administrative reforms. The Powers were not prepared to set up an International Commission for the protection of minorities in the Near East. The root of the difficulty in Armenia was that the thing was beyond control. He would not send British troops, but if other Powers did, Great Britain could not well object. The working of the condominium in the New Hebrides was being reviewed by a conference, and the publication of papers might lead to friction. After touching on the opium conference at the Hague, he said that greater Parliamentary control of treaties could hardly be discussed on the Foreign Office Vote. Their reference to a Committee of the House would be undesirable. Incidentally, he ridiculed the statement that in 1911 Great Britain had been within twenty-four hours of war.

Next day Addresses to the King were moved in both Houses, requesting His Majesty to express to the Emperor of Austria their abhorrence of the crime of Sarajevo, and their profound sympathy with the Imperial and Royal Family and the Governments and peoples of the Dual Monarchy. In moving the Address in the Commons, the Prime Minister described the murder as "one of those incredible crimes which almost make us despair of the progress of mankind." The victims, recently guests of the King, had "left among all those who had the privilege of seeing and knowing them a gracious and unfading memory." He spoke of the example set to other rulers by the almost unparalleled assiduity of the aged Emperor in the pursuit of duty, as the unperturbed, sagacious, and heroic head of a mighty State, "rich in splendid traditions, and associated with us in this country in some of the most moving and precious chapters of our common history," and tendered, in the name of the Commons and the nation, "our most heartfelt and most affectionate sympathy," Mr. Bonar Law, in seconding, said that no living Sovereign enjoyed in fuller measure than the aged Emperor the respect, confidence and love of his people. In the Upper House the Marquess of Crewe described the Emperor as "the most dignified and lonely figure in the waste places of the world"; and the Marquess of Lansdowne laid stress on the impression of "manliness, simplicity of character, ability, and interest in public affairs" left by the murdered Archduke during his visit to India in 1893, and his appreciation of the stupendous difficulty of governing a country so composite as the Austrian Empire.

In this connexion it may be added that on June 11, in reply to an inquiry from Mr. King (L., _Somerset, N._) as to the existence of an Anglo-Russian naval agreement, or negotiations to that end, the Foreign Secretary had distinctly replied in the negative, saying that the Prime Minister's answer of the year before (A. R., 1913, p. 70) still held good, and that, if any agreement, were concluded modifying it, such an agreement, in his opinion, should be laid before Parliament.

The dignified tributes to the murdered Archduke were followed in the Commons, by a storm. In Committee of Supply on the Treasury Estimates, Mr. J. F. Hope (U.) attempted to revive the Marconi scandal by moving to reduce the Premier's salary as a protest against a recent refusal by him to warn Civil servants against speculation in stocks. Despite repeated calls to order, Mr. Hope managed to mention Lord Murray, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Sir Rufus Isaacs; Major Archer-Shee (U.) added fuel to the flame; the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not allowed by the Chairman to reply by citing "more pertinent illustrations"; the Prime Minister treated the suggestion that a warning was needful as a reflection on the honour of the Civil Service, and ultimately the reduction was negatived by 274 to 122.

The rising excitement of the Opposition was partly accounted for by the increasing difficulties of the Government. The Finance Bill was taken in Committee on July 1 and 2; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer had already found that the course of his plans must be cleared and their burden lightened by dropping its second part and putting the additional grants to local authorities into the Revenue Bill. This was announced in the House on June 29. On July 1 the President of the Local Government Board moved an instruction empowering the Committee to provide for amending the law relating to income tax (including supertax), death duties, and the National Debt. This was intended mainly to enable members to discuss grievances relating to the taxes in question, but Mr. Cassel (U.) moved to extend it so as to empower the Committee to deal with grievances affecting general taxation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a bitter speech, opposed this as an obstructive manoeuvre; Mr. Austen Chamberlain, who described him as "a bad loser," said that the amendment was designed to revert to the old procedure of discussing grievances before imposing fresh taxation--a procedure imperilled by the practice adopted in 1913 of dividing the Finance Bill; for the second part of that Bill might be dropped, or delayed too late for adequate discussion. Eventually, however, the amendment was rejected by 271 to 185; another amendment moved by Sir F. Banbury, excluding the National Debt from the purview of the Committee--in order, he said, to prevent the reduction of the Sinking Fund--was defeated also by 276 to 182. In Committee, amendments (1) to graduate the tea duty _ad valorem_, and (2) to give a preference of 1_d._ per lb. to tea grown in the British Empire, were rejected, after discussion, by 241 to 130 and 258 to 165 respectively. On the first, Mr. Snowden (Lab., _Blackburn_), speaking for the Labour party, said that _ad valorem_ duties on tea were barred by insuperable difficulties, and that, while his party disapproved of indirect taxation, they would support the Bill as intended, broadly, to increase direct taxation. On the second, the Attorney-General pointed out that 270,000,000 lb. of tea came from British India and Ceylon, 11,000,000 lb. from China and 31,000,000 lb. from other countries.

Next day (July 2) the Chancellor of the Exchequer moved an amendment reducing the income tax from 1_s._ 4_d._ to 1_s._ 3_d._ (p. 130). He explained that the alternative lay between taking off this additional penny and reducing the older taxation. But the amount saved by postponing the grants to local, authorities would not suffice to relieve the death duties, or to take off the sugar duty, and the income taxpayer, especially in the lower rates of income, deserved relief more than the payer of supertax. The inconvenience of the change to bankers had been greatly exaggerated, and, as soon as they had been officially told to deduct 1_s._ 4_d._ on dividends till the House otherwise ordered, the position became simple. The reduction was passed after a long debate by 251 to 56. The Committee was resumed on July 13 after the introduction of the guillotine (_post_, p. 146).

Meanwhile the debate on the second reading of the Amending Bill had begun in the House of Lords on July 1. After a preliminary objection by Lord Willoughby de Broke, that it proposed to amend a non-existent Act, had been overruled by the Lord Chancellor, Lord Morley of Blackburn moved the second reading. The Bill, he said, afforded a better solution than Earl Grey's proposed Convention; had it not been introduced, Home Rule would have been wrecked by the sectarian prejudice which hampered the Union at its outset. The Government believed there could be no better opportunity for discovering the common ground existing in Parliament for attaining an effective peace in Ireland. The situation in Ireland had a historic base for which neither party could escape responsibility. As to exclusion, no part of Ulster was homogeneous. The National Volunteers had dispelled the illusion that the masses in the South and West of Ireland had lost their care for Home Rule. The danger was that the constitutional agitation for self-government might give place to the older methods of violence and disloyalty. He hoped the House would have no hand in promoting the change.

The Marquess of Lansdowne described the Bill as a "freak Bill," fit for a museum, and wholly inadequate to avert a calamity. Exclusion, on its merits, had probably no friends at all; and the form of it in the Bill was futile and vicious. It had been accepted by the Nationalists only because they thought Ulster would refuse it; so that the original proposal was insincere. The plan of voting by counties was most unfortunate, for in some of the counties Roman Catholics and Protestants were almost equal, and the voting would set up a saturnalia of intimidation and corruption. The time limit was vexatious and superfluous. After criticising in detail the system of government for the excluded areas, he said that the Opposition would not resist the second reading, but would move amendments in regard to the area excluded, the duration of the exclusion, and the conditions of government in the excluded area. But any revision of the Government of Ireland Bill was hopeless, and they would not deal with minute points of the Amending Bill, but leave the Government to make it "watertight." They would be misrepresented and misunderstood, but failure of this last effort might mean an irremediable misfortune to the country. When Æneas descended to Hades, the final and most dread of all the spectres he met was War. But they would support the second reading as that of a makeshift emergency measure meant solely to gain time. The meshes of the Parliament Act left them no other way, but, were a better way offered, they would be ready to explore it. They fully recognised that there was a great Irish problem, requiring to be handled with courage and sympathy, and that they could not adopt a policy of mere negation or destructive criticism.

Viscount Bryce, as an ex-Chief Secretary for Ireland, pointed out that the Lord-Lieutenant would have to act on the advice of the British, not the Irish Minister, and thought future Irish parties would be formed on different lines. Personally he would have preferred to give certain northern areas local autonomy, with an appeal to England against any measure which they thought objectionable. He defended the provisions as to exclusion, while admitting the great difficulty as to areas.

The Archbishop of York said that a general election would now give no chance of a settlement; and he suggested a Statutory Commission in two sections, to consider devolution from the point of view respectively of Ireland and of the United Kingdom. They had suffered all along from shortness of view; let Parliament stand aside and allow the Irish people to come to an agreement. The chances, however, were not propitious.

After other speeches, Lord Willoughby de Broke moved the rejection of the Bill. The Home Rule Bill might never become an Act. The Irish policy of the Government had broken down, and with it the Parliament Act, and they were asking the despised House of Lords to help them out. Nobody wanted the exclusion of Ulster, and to vote for it was to support a Parliament in Dublin. He spoke strongly for the maintenance of the Union. Lord Macdonnell urged that the problem might be solved by proportional representation and Home Rule within Home Rule, rather than by exclusion. Of later speakers, the Earl of Mayo, opposing the Bill, did not believe in the danger of civil war.

The debate was resumed next day (July 2) by the Marquess of Londonderry, who asked whether the Prime Minister would tell Mr. Redmond that the Government would insist on the acceptance of the far-reaching amendments invited by the Marquess of Crewe? If not, the House had better reject the Bill. Lord Wimborne, in a vigorous speech, charged the Unionist party with having exceeded their constitutional rights in their opposition to Home Rule. The Government did not admit any imperfection in their main Home Rule measure, nor their inability to put it into operation. They were not asking for relief; they did not believe that the provisional government that was contemplated was practicable, or that the electors would tolerate it. They proposed temporary exclusion only to enable passions to cool and apprehensions to be allayed. The salvation of Ireland must be won in Ireland, and he hoped all parties would work together for a solution. The Earl of Dunraven said that the only solution was by conference. The essence of the Amending Bill was apparently that Ireland must be governed by Orders in Council. As the provisions of the Bill as to Customs and Excise did not apply to the excluded areas, the confusion would be inextricable and the administration impracticable. Still, he would vote for the second reading in the hope that the Bill might be shaped into something that would avert a catastrophe. Viscount Midleton condemned the provocative character of Lord Wimborne's speech, and said that they must hope that the Bill would avert civil war, but an election must follow, and then both Bills must be revised. He asked that (1) the minority should be assured impartial trials; (2) attention should be given to the land question; (3) the graduation of taxes common to Ireland and Great Britain should not be different in Ireland, and provision should be made against the discriminating taxation of land. Even so, the Opposition would not accept the Bill, but they would pass it from patriotic motives. Lord Islington, a former Colonial Governor, favoured a Commission of Inquiry to devise amendments along with the passing of the two Bills. The Earl of Halsbury felt that the Bill should be read a second time to avoid civil war, though he would have naturally voted for its rejection. Lord Sydenham favoured a Statutory Commission, or some other effort towards settlement by Consent. Lord Courtney of Penwith said that unless the Nationalist and Ulster leaders would consent to a Conference, a Royal Commission would defer the solution under circumstances which gave no prospect of eventual accomplishment. He pleaded for "Home Rule within Home Rule." Among later speakers, the Duke of Abercorn (an Ulster Volunteer) said the whole of Ulster would have to be excluded without a time limit, and the Earl of Crawford, who described the Bill as "vague, nebulous, and amorphous," said that the six years' limit was not a truce, but a provocation, and the whole of Ulster must be excluded. The suggestion of a statutory convention was too vague. The Earl of Denbigh, as a Catholic Unionist, scouted the idea of religious persecution, but opposed Home Rule as weakening Great Britain. He supported the Bill as gaining time.

The debate was resumed and concluded on July 6. Viscount Milner commented on the lukewarmness of the Ministerialists towards the measure, and, while approving of a Conference as an entirely fresh start towards solution, urged the Government to facilitate such a fresh start by a general election or a referendum. The Amending Bill, however, might be useful if it were so entirely remodelled as to reassure the Ulstermen, and nothing would do that but a frank and complete assurance at once that they would never be subjected to the authority of an Irish Parliament and Executive without their own consent. If Ulster remained free to decide, she might conceivably some day join the rest of Ireland, but to conquer her would make a united Ireland impossible, and, were the Army and Navy employed to do it, the British Empire would not long survive the shock. The Amending Bill was a temporary expedient which might tide over an interval of great danger. He feared nothing could be done for the Unionist minority in the South and West of Ireland, though he hoped for some relief to them by proportional representation, and indirectly by inducing the Nationalists to treat them well in order to attract Ulster. He therefore supported the Bill. Earl Roberts said that to use the Army to force the Home Rule Bill on Ulster would mean its utter destruction. He denied absolutely that the Army had conspired with the Unionist party to defeat the Home Rule Bill. The Army had no politics, but this was no mere political crisis, but one which affected the roots of our national existence. Following the example set by Viscount Wolseley in 1893, he had warned the Government, and subsequently the Prime Minister, that any attempt to use the military forces of the nation to coerce Ulster would break and ruin the Army. Discipline, as in the British Army, might override human nature under almost every imaginable circumstance, but there was a stratum in every one which was impervious to it. The solution must be taken in hand at once, and the consequences of delay might be irreparable.

After several Irish Peers had either condemned or very reluctantly accepted the Bill, Earl Curzon of Kedleston summed up against it. After dwelling on the paradoxical character of the situation, he declared that the debate had shown (1) that the Bill was forlorn and friendless, and they were really discussing another and an undefined Bill; (2) that exclusion was thoroughly unpopular, and was only considered as a makeshift; but if it were to come, "better a clean cut than a cut with ragged edges and festering lips." He looked forward to a reunited Ireland, managing some portion of her local affairs, but subject to the Crown; but that could only be accomplished by Irishmen themselves; (3) the debate had shown that no ultimate settlement could be found but by a Conference. An immediate Conference seemed impracticable and relief had to be provided for the immediate emergency. The Amending Bill, which he called a Peace Preservation Bill, and the Home Rule Bill, would prove unworkable, and a Conference would have to come. Meanwhile, did Ministers still propose to adhere to the impossible time-limit and the even more impossible scheme of voting by counties?

The Marquess of Crewe, summing up for Ministers, replied to a number of questions of detail raised in the debate. Bills not yet law had been amended or repealed by other Bills in 1851 and 1907. As to judicial proceedings, the parties to them in the excluded area were safeguarded at all stages. For the excluded area an independent Land Commission must be established. The question raised by Lord Midleton as to income tax and supertax had no bearing on the exclusion of Ulster, but the Government did not apprehend oppressive taxation by the Irish Parliament. Customs and Excise were not mentioned because it was felt that no splitting up of Ireland could be permanent. All serious amendments would be considered, but what was called "looking facts in the face" ignored the existence of Nationalist Ireland. Were Ulster totally excluded, would the Opposition guarantee Ireland and Great Britain against civil conflict? A Conference would be impossible if it pre-supposed the scrapping of Liberal policy, but otherwise, if it took place between leading Irishmen and were backed by strong public opinion, it would be the best augury for some permanent arrangement.

The second reading was passed by 273 to 10.

The resumption of this debate had been preceded by tributes from the leaders on both sides to the memory of the most conspicuous figure in the Unionist party for the twenty years preceding 1906. Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, disabled in that year by paralysis, had since then made but few and brief public appearances, and on July 2 he had passed away painlessly at his home at Highbury, near Birmingham. He was buried on July 6 at the Key Hill Cemetery at Birmingham, after an impressive funeral service at the Church of the Messiah (Unitarian), conducted, at his own desire, by the Rev. Prof. Jacks of Manchester College, Oxford. The church was filled with representatives of the City Council and of local institutions and political associations; vast crowds lined the streets, and messages of sympathy were sent from the King, the King of Spain, the President of the French Chamber, the Dominions, and all parts of the world. Meanwhile a memorial service, held at St. Margaret's, Westminster, was attended by representatives of the King, foreign Powers, and the Dominions, and by many members of the Cabinet and the two Houses. In the House of Lords, three hours later, the Marquess of Crewe spoke of Mr. Chamberlain's greatness alike as a Colonial Secretary, as a debater, and as "the greatest civic figure ever engaged in British politics," as well as of his "serene family life "; the Marquess of Lansdowne bore witness to his merits as a colleague and a leader, and Viscount Milner testified that Mr. Chamberlain was "an incomparable chief." The House of Commons marked the occasion by adjourning for the day, after the Prime Minister and the actual and former leaders of the Opposition had paid their tributes to the memory of a great Parliamentarian and promoter of the Empire. The Prime Minister, analysing Mr. Chamberlain's Parliamentary career and character, said that neutrality was impossible to a man of his temperament and convictions. He was the pioneer of a new generation, and a new type of personality in the House, introducing and perfecting a new style of speaking, and giving the impression of complete and serene command of his material and himself. The Prime Minister further touched on Mr. Chamberlain's genuine sympathy for the victims of the strain of social and industrial life, on the imaginative quality that touched his ideals in the larger issues of national policy, on his unsurpassed confidence and courage, and on his generosity as an antagonist. It was fitting that within those walls, where the echoes of his voice seemed still to linger, they should suspend for a few hours the clash of controversy and join in acknowledging their common debt to his life and example. Mr. Bonar Law expressed the gratitude of the Opposition for Mr. Asquith's tribute. Mr. Chamberlain, he said, was his hero when he entered Parliament, and had continued so, and he described him as a great fighter and a great friend. Two principles were at the basis of his political action--a desire to improve the condition of the people, and an intense, perhaps almost aggressive, national pride. He almost alone had changed the whole spirit of the reciprocal relationship of different parts of the Empire, and had thus laid strong the foundation on which others might build. Mr. Balfour added his tribute, as one of the very few left who had served with Mr. Chamberlain in Cabinets. The future historian, he thought, would think of him mainly as an Imperial statesman. As Colonial Secretary he had done the greatest work that had ever fallen to a statesman in Great Britain. He had recognised that the Dominions must be treated with absolute equality, and that there must be a bracing feeling of common patriotism. He was a great idealist, a great friend, a great orator and a great man.

This commemoration of a great Parliamentarian had secured a day's intermission in party strife, but it broke out afresh on July 7, when the Prime Minister moved that the remaining stages of the Finance Bill should be limited to seven days. He pointed out that ten and a half days had been spent already on various stages of the Budget, and, under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913, the Finance Bill must become law on August 4, while standing orders required the Estimates to be disposed of by August 5. Of the sixteen Parliamentary days (omitting Fridays as not full days) available before August 5, six and a half were needed to Supply, and seven given to the Finance Bill would leave two and a half for contingencies. He reviewed the progress made, promising a day and a half for the new clauses, and said that if there were ever a Tariff Reform Budget, there would certainly have to be an allocation of time for it. He would prefer that such allocations should be the duty of an independent tribunal, and hinted that the committee then sitting on procedure might make them so. Mr. Bonar Law (U.) moved an amendment repudiating and condemning, as a dangerous innovation, proposals for the curtailment of discussion on measures tending to impose heavy burdens of new taxation. He pointed out that the main business of the House was finance, and that a guillotine had never before been imposed for the Finance Bill. The Government might suspend the 11 o'clock rule, and use ordinary and kangaroo closure. The Government had taken every precaution to ensure that they would be short of time. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had despised the real work of his office, and had used the Exchequer to help electioneering. Several Liberals defended the proposal as necessary, though Mr. Leif Jones (L., _Notts, Rushcliffe_) and, later, Mr. D. Mason (L., _Coventry_) spoke against it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer declared that the experience of the Budget debates in 1909 showed that closure was necessary. Other and more important Budgets, _e.g._, those of 1842 and 1860, had produced similar attacks on the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that of 1842 was only discussed for sixteen days. He agreed, however, that better methods of examining the Budget might be found. Mr. Balfour (U.) said that, while it was true that the art of obstruction had been perfected, the difficulty arose mainly from the fact that more members were able and eager to speak than formerly, and that the constituencies watched them more. The Government should have found a remedy long ago. With the guillotine, no Minister was required to explain, or even to understand, his Bill. The amendment was rejected, but only by 269 to 263, many Liberals abstaining, among them the group who had followed Mr. Holt (L.) in objecting to the Budget (p. 128). The majority of 269 contained but 181 Liberals, the rest being Nationalist and Labour members. Various amendments involving an extension of time were defeated that day and the next by majorities varying from 79 to 124, and finally the motion was carried by 265 to 175 (July 9).

The rest of the week in the Commons was devoted to less contentious business. On the Board of Trade Vote (July 9) the grievances alleged by members concerned chiefly the mercantile marine, London traffic, and the absence of official statistics in regard to agricultural wages, which Mr. Peto (U., _Devizes_) demanded in order to facilitate a correct judgment on the land controversy before the general election. The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Burns), in reply, promised these statistics by January, which would be quite time enough for the election. For the mercantile marine, he said, existing sight tests must be maintained, for the safety of life at sea. As to health, he had noticed that from 1891 to 1911 the death-rate in that calling fell only from 4.9 to 4.7 per 1000, as compared with falls in the Navy from 4.7 to 2 per 1000, in the Army from 9 to 3.6 per 1,000, and in the civil population of ages corresponding to those in these callings from 8 to 4.7 per 1000. This might be accounted for by the men coming from a poorer class than formerly, or from an inferior class to those represented by the Army, Navy, and industrial population. He had appointed an expert Inquiry Committee. Much had been done, meanwhile, to increase the number of cargo steamers having hospitals. He promised closer inspection, preferring good administration to bad legislation. The pending International Convention on timber deck loads would only be frustrated if, as some members desired, questions as to other deck loads were introduced. With London traffic the concern of the Board of Trade was purely statistical and historical, but, with 600 people killed annually and 20,000 injured, something must be done. He would report the views expressed to the Prime Minister. After further discussion, the Vote was agreed to.

The debate on the Foreign Office Vote (p. 137) was continued next day (July 10), according to promise. A number of questions were raised by various members on both sides; and Mr. Bonar Law introduced a party note by scornfully remarking that the Foreign Secretary had been lectured on the duty of keeping peace throughout the world, when his ability to do so at home was doubtful. Sir E. Grey ignored this taunt, and after commenting on the vast amount expected from the Foreign Office by members, replied specifically on the points raised. He repelled the charge of inaction as to railway concessions in Asia Minor and China; he had much rather that concessions should be given willingly than obtained under pressure. He believed that under the new agreement as to navigation on the Euphrates and Tigris the British position would be better and more secure. He was not in favour of securing the survey of the Muhamrah-Khoramabad railway by force, or of pushing British trade or concessions at excessive cost. As to the oil concession the British position was the same as in regard to trade in Southern Persia. After dealing hopefully with a pending arrangement regarding Chinese railway concessions, with the Portuguese West African labour question, and other matters, and specially acknowledging the release by the Portuguese Government of nearly all its political prisoners after a popular agitation in Great Britain, he mentioned that the Dutch Government had just invited Great Britain to send a representative to an International Committee in June, 1915, to draw up a programme for the Hague Conference. As to expenditure on armaments, direct suggestion of reduction was resented on the Continent, and neither it nor the improvement of the relations of the Great Powers had produced much result. Great Britain was not responsible for the increase, the most notable part of which had been military, not naval. He saw no remedy except the interference of public opinion when things became intolerable. The Government would do its best to encourage reduction, but not by direct suggestion. He looked rather to the promotion of good relations with other Powers. After a speech by Mr. Dillon the Vote was agreed to.