Chapter II: The Session Until Easter (1)

In spring-like weather and brilliant sunshine the King, accompanied by the Queen, drove in state to open Parliament on Tuesday, February 10. The crowds on the route were greater than usual, and the occasion was marked by no untoward incident, suffragist or otherwise. The ceremony in the House of Lords was even more numerously attended and more brilliant than in former years, and the King's Speech was listened to with profound attention, rewarded by the significant paragraph, read by His Majesty in measured tones, dealing with Home Rule.

The Speech opened with the usual statement that relations with foreign Powers continued friendly, and went on to express pleasure at the King's coming visit to the French President, and to the opportunity thereby afforded him of testifying to the cordial relations existing between the two countries. Reference was next made to the recent consultation with the other Powers respecting the settlement of Albania and the Ægean Islands, with the view of giving effect to resolutions adopted by the Powers during the Ambassadors' Conference in London, and to the measures adopted for erecting the new administration in Albania. The Baghdad Railway and Persian Gulf problems were, it was intimated, likely to be solved satisfactorily. Gratification was expressed at the signature of the Convention on the safety of life at sea, and a Bill carrying out its provisions was promised; and regret at the drought, fortunately limited in area, in India. The Estimates were promised, without the usual reference to economy. The Bills to be passed under the Parliament Act were dealt with as follows:--

"MY LORDS AND GENTLEMEN,--The measures in regard to which there were differences last session between the two Houses will be again submitted to your consideration. I regret that the efforts which have been made to arrive at a solution by agreement of the problems connected with the Government of Ireland have, so far, not succeeded. In a matter in which the hopes and the fears of so many of my subjects are keenly concerned, and which, unless handled now with foresight, judgment, and in the spirit of mutual concession, threatens grave future difficulties, it is my most earnest wish that the goodwill and co-operation of men of all parties and creeds may heal dissension and lay the foundations of a lasting settlement."

Bills were also promised reconstituting the Second Chamber; carrying into effect those recommendations of the Royal Commission on Delay in the King's Bench Division which required the concurrence of Parliament; providing for Imperial naturalisation (prepared in consultation with the Dominion Governments); authorising public works loans to the Governments of the East African Protectorates; dealing with housing, national education, juvenile offenders; and, should time and opportunity permit, providing for other purposes of social reform. The Speech concluded with the usual invocation of the Divine blessing.

In both Houses the Opposition had determined to emphasise the gravity of the situation in Ulster by at once moving an amendment to the Address, humbly representing "that it would be disastrous to proceed further with the Government of Ireland Bill until it has been submitted to the judgment of the people." There had been rumours of coming disorder in the Commons; but they were falsified. Mr. Long (U., _Strand_) moved this amendment, after the Address had been moved by Mr. W. F. Roch (L., _Pembroke_) and seconded by Mr. Hewart (L., _Leicester_). Before Mr. Long rose the Speaker, in reply to Mr. Ramsay Macdonald (Lab., _Leicester_), ruled that the usual general debate might follow the impending discussion.

The debate covered much well-worn ground, but it resulted in a marked sense of relief. Mr. Long asked how the Opposition could consider the legislative programme of the Ministry in the face of a threatened civil war; but his speech was distinctly temperate. Incidentally he mentioned that there was grave anxiety in the Army and Navy, but he believed that the Unionists, whenever they had been asked, had advised the members of the Services to do their duty.

The Prime Minister, after reminding the House that when the Bill was introduced he had offered to consider further safeguards, if suggested, for Ulster, pointed out that in the earliest stages of the Parliament Bill it was contemplated that that measure should be applied to the Home Rule Bill (A. R., 1910, p. 87 _seq._). The Unionists said that during the general election of 1910 Ministers had indulged in a gigantic system of mystification; he did not think that in all the annals of anthropology there had ever been a case in which a myth had so quickly crystallised into a creed. He himself had made it clear that the first use of the Parliament Act would be to carry the Home Rule Bill. The recent bye-elections showed a somewhat increased majority for Home Rule. The average elector was not seriously excited. A dissolution would admit that, so far as concerned Home Rule--the Parliament Act was an absolute nullity, and, of its three conceivable results, a stalemate would not improve the prospects of a solution, a Unionist majority would be faced with the problem of governing three-fourths or four-fifths of the Irish people against their will, and a Liberal victory would not lead the Ulstermen to drop their resistance. Would the Unionists, in that case, acquiesce in the passing unmutilated of the Government of Ireland Bill? He did not believe any such guarantee could be given. His conclusion was that if the matter was to be settled by a general agreement, it would be much better settled than by "a dissolution here and now." The King's Speech had mentioned the "conversations" between leaders; they were, and must remain, under the goal of confidence, The one satisfactory feature about them was that the Press had been completely at sea as to what was going on; and, though they had not resulted in any definite agreement, he did not despair. The language of the King's Speech ought to find an echo in every quarter of the Chamber. After touching on the proposed exclusion of Ulster, and Sir Horace Plunkett's plan (p. 18), he said that the Government recognised that they could not divest themselves of responsibility of initiative in the way of suggestion, but suggestions must not be taken as an admission that the Home Rule Bill was effective; they would be put forward as the price of peace,--meaning thereby not merely the avoidance of civil strife, but a favourable atmosphere for the start of the new system. There was nothing the Government would not do, consistently with their fundamental principles, to avoid civil war. He agreed that there ought to be no avoidable delay, and the Governments when the necessary financial business had been disposed of, would submit suggestions to the House.

The debate was continued for some hours by Liberal and Unionist members. Mr. Austen Chamberlain was not very responsive to the Prime Minister's concessions; but Sir Edward Carson next day (Feb. 11) was more conciliatory. In an impressive speech, which later speakers recognised as contributing to the change in the situation, he emphasised the extreme gravity of the statement in the King's Speech, and the inability of the House to meet the situation by amending the Bill. The Prime Minister gave no indication of the steps proposed, and he thought the Government was manoeuvring for position. Its proposals could only be made by an amending Bill. The insults offered to the Ulstermen had made a settlement far more difficult. Ulster must go on opposing the Bill to the end whatever happened; but if its exclusion were proposed, it would be his duty to go to Ulster at once and take counsel with the people there. But if the Ulstermen were to be compelled to come into a Dublin Parliament, he would, regardless of personal consequences, go on with them in their resistance to the end. The Government must either coerce Ulster, or try in the long run, by showing that good government could come under the Home Rule Bill, to win her over to the care of the rest of Ireland. He did not believe that Mr. Redmond wanted to triumph any more than he did, and one false step taken in relation to Ulster would render for ever impossible a solution of the Irish question. Hoping that peace would continue to the end, he declared that, if resistance became necessary, he would not refuse to join in it.

Mr. John Redmond (N., _Waterford_) said he shared to the full the anxiety expressed in the King's Speech for an amicable settlement, The Prime Minister had created a new situation by accepting responsibility for the Government in initiating proposals for such a settlement; while accepting the situation to the full, he thought the responsibility for the initiative might fairly have been left to the Opposition. He ridiculed Sir E. Carson's statement that the only course possible for the Government was an amending Bill--which would at once come under the Parliament Act--and assumed that the Prime Minister meant procedure by suggestions under that Act. In view of the numerous suggestions daily being made, the Prime Minister could hardly make proposals at once. He wished to shut the door in advance on no suggestions, but he examined critically the possible exclusion of Ulster, pointing out that what was meant was presumably the four north-eastern counties, in which, he contended, 37 per cent. of the population were Home Rulers. None of the Ulster members desired the exclusion of Ulster, and Irish Unionist opinion was against it, The Nationalists asked only that the concessions proposed should be consistent with the main principles of the Bill, and that, as a _quid pro quo_, there should be peace and consent. He was anxious to remove every honest fear, however unfounded, and would consider in the broadest and friendliest spirit any proposals the Government might make.

Later the Chief Secretary for Ireland, referring to a statement by Lord Hugh Cecil that the Unionists would treat the United Kingdom as one country, said that there was a new Ireland--not necessarily Home Rule or Nationalist, but "the renaissance of a nation." He had noticed, even in Sir E. Carson's speech, a feeling as of an Irishman speaking to Irishmen. The great difficulty was that the Government, in finding a solution, exposed itself to the taunt that it was yielding to force. He hoped for a national solution.

After other speeches, including one from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who summed up for the Government,--

Mr. Bonar Law (U., _Lancs., Bootle_), after again admitting the responsibility of the Opposition in countenancing resistance, confined himself to the speech of the Prime Minister. If the threatened calamity happened, the Prime Minister alone would be held responsible. At any rate, no popular mandate was given for the armed coercion of Ulster, and, if Ulster was to be coerced, the order should be given by the people themselves. The Prime Minister's proposals should have been made at once. His speech had changed the situation; he admitted that the Bill could not be imposed on Ulster without provisions for its protection, and that Ulster had a special identity justifying its separate treatment. If his proposals failed of acceptance, there was no alternative but to leave Ulster out. Ulster had claimed not to veto Home Rule for Nationalist Ireland, but to resist the right of Nationalist Ireland to govern her. If any kind of Home Rule was possible, the exclusion of Ulster was the only solution. If the Bill were sincerely meant as part of a general scheme of devolution, of which there was no evidence, let Ulster be left out till it was complete. The Nationalists had committed themselves against the exclusion of Ulster, and, so far as he could judge of Ulster and speak for the Unionists of Great Britain, such efforts as "Home Rule within Home Rule" would do the greatest harm; they would be made to be rejected, merely for the Government to improve its strategical position. Ulster was determined on resistance, on principle. Serious people no longer talked about "bluff." The Prime Minister knew that the passing of the Bill would be the signal for an outbreak of civil strife of which no man could foresee the end. Leave out Ulster, and automatically the danger of civil war ceased; or the Government might avoid it by submitting their proposals to the people. The Parliament Act, however, was used by Ministers to make themselves dictators. It was said that the Opposition were opposing Home Rule to defeat that Act, but until Parliament met the day before the Government could have submitted its proposals to the people, and if the people were behind them the Act would not have been interfered with. The Government won the last election by the cry that the will of the people must prevail; what they meant by the Parliament Act was that their will was to prevail even against the will of the people. A general election won by the Government would change the situation both for the Unionists and for Ulster, and would give the Government the moral force they lacked. Or let them take a referendum on Home Rule, and if the decision were adverse they could go on with their other measures under the Parliament Act. If the coalition did not then hang together, it would show that the legislature did not represent the opinion of even the majority of its supporters. If they went on now there would be bloodshed in Ulster, and an appeal to the people must follow, and then how would the people regard them? The game was up. They must either make proposals removing the resistance of Ulster, or submit themselves to the judgment of the people.

The amendment was rejected by 333 to 78. There was a majority for it among the members representing Great Britain of three, but some twenty Liberals and Labour men were absent.

In the House of Lords, after the Address had been moved by Lord Glenconner and seconded by the Earl of Carrick, the Opposition amendment was moved by Viscount Midleton; but the debate added little to that in the Commons, and only a few points can be mentioned here. Lord Morley of Blackburn put the Government case in reply to Lord Midleton; Earl Loreburn, while holding that the exclusion of Ulster would not effect a settlement, thought that certain other additional safeguards might be given it; the Marquess of Lansdowne, while declaring himself not much enamoured of the exclusion of Ulster, said that if its complete exclusion were accompanied by safeguards for the Unionists outside Ulster, he was prepared to consider the proposal; Earl Roberts said briefly that the use of the Army to coerce Ulster was "unthinkable"; and, after three days' debate, the amendment was carried by 243 to 55.

Meanwhile the Commons had passed to the Labour amendment moved (Feb. 12) by Mr. Ramsay Macdonald (Lab., _Leicester_), praying that the Governor-General of South Africa should be instructed that the Indemnity Bill should be reserved under Clause 64 of the South Africa Act, 1909, until after a judicial inquiry into the circumstances of the proclamation of martial law and the scope of the Bill, especially the provision relating to the deportation of the trade union leaders. In moderate language, the mover contended that, on the information available, which had been carefully sifted and contained the whole case of the Union Government, the proclamation of martial law was not justified. Incidentally he described the Syndicalists as the greatest enemies of organised labour; but he said that the meeting which resolved on the general strike was perfectly peaceful. Convictions might have been obtained under the sedition law, but the South African Government had no evidence, and wanted, by one comprehensive swoop of illegality, to stamp out trade unionism. The deportation clause was really a Bill of Attainder, and undesirable aliens should be defined by legislation; then test cases could be raised by the deported leaders. One did not desire to interfere with the powers of the self-governing Dominions, but the Empire was faced with the problem of Imperial citizenship. If British citizens were not to carry their historical rights with them, the Empire could not retain its present place of honour.

The Colonial Secretary (Mr. Harcourt, _Lancs., Rossendale_) made it clear at once that he would not pronounce any judgment on the action of the South African Government. British Imperial citizenship did not exist; the phrase was too literal a translation of _civis Romanus sum_; what did exist was British subject-hood, entitling the possessor to the protection of his Sovereign through the Executive, but giving him no rights of entry or licence in any part of the Empire if he attempted to violate the laws a Dominion was competent to pass. The circumstances and laws of the various Dominions differed widely from those of Great Britain; in South Africa the native and mining population occasioned special dangers; and the Empire might easily be smashed by meddling and muddling with Dominion affairs. He reviewed the disturbances from the Rand strike onwards (A.R., 1913, p. 416 _seq._), and said that the Union Government, regarding martial law as essential, advised Lord Gladstone to sign the proclamation establishing it, and he very properly assented, on the assurance that Parliament would be asked to ratify it and pass an Indemnity Bill. His consent to the expulsions was neither sought nor obtained, but he had been informed beforehand that it might be necessary to deport a dozen men, and that they were aware of the strong feeling this would excite, and would not do it without urgent necessity. There were precedents for the inclusion of such a clause as the deportation clause in the Indemnity Bill. Lord Gladstone was in the position of a constitutional sovereign; moreover, had he refused his assent, the Ministry would have resigned, no other could have been found, and he would have remained a solitary and powerless figure, with no resources but the Imperial troops. Nagging criticism of the Dominions' conduct of their internal affairs was the worst cement for the democracies of the Empire. Lord Gladstone retained the full confidence of the British Government. The Indemnity Bill must be left to the South African Parliament. He cited a case in Natal (A.B., 1906, p. 403) as showing the sensitiveness of the Dominions, pointed out that expulsion of undesirable aliens was not unfamiliar in South Africa, and added that the Empire was held together by a silken cord; twist this into a whiplash, and the crack of the lash would be the knell of the Empire. Sir George Parker (U., _Gravesend_), who had Canadian and Australian experience, thought the Colonial Secretary had overstated the sensitiveness of the Dominions; but little was added to the debate by the subsequent speakers, and the Labour party was urged from both sides of the House to withdraw the amendment, as a division might be misunderstood in South Africa. On their refusal, it was rejected by 214 to 50.

Another Labour amendment was then moved by Mr. Brace (L., _Glamorgan, S._), regretting the absence of reference in the Speech to the increasing number of railway and mining accidents and of any promise of legislation dealing with them. He gave the figures of fatal accidents to miners in the United Kingdom in 1913--461 from explosions of coal gas, 614 from falls of ground, 400 from miscellaneous causes--and declared that the Coal Mines Regulation Act of 1911 was not being carried out. He indicated the reforms desired by the Miners' Federation, which included an inspector with a salary of 200_l._ for every 5,000 workmen, involving an annual cost of 40,000_l._ Mr. Wardle (Lab., _Southport_) dealt with the accidents to railwaymen; the fatal accidents had fallen considerably since the Act of 1900, but the non-fatal accidents in 1912 were 27,947. The Home Secretary replied as to mining accidents, pointing out that the number per thousand men had been reduced in forty years by more than one half; the recommendations of the Royal Commission had been more than carried out, and the number of inspectors doubled in four years. He intimated that a further increase would be necessary, and promised a small amending Coal Mines Bill, but could not promise early legislation carrying out Mr. Brace's suggestions. Next day Mr. Thomas (Lab., _Derby_) showed that the greatly increased railway traffic was being carried out by fewer men, and attributed the increase of accidents to the speeding-up system, and the inability of the Board of Trade to enforce its recommendations. He complained, also, of the action of the Midland in connexion with the Aisgill disaster (A.R., 1913, p. 200). The men's case was endorsed by Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck (U., _Nottingham, S._); and the Secretary to the Board of Trade, in the unavoidable absence of the President, while admitting that the number of accidents in 1913 was alarming, and might be due to the decrease of the staff, contested Mr. Wardle's contentions, but admitted that there was a case for inquiry whether the Act of 1900 was sufficient. The debate was continued by a number of members, nearly all advocating the men's case; and, after a conciliatory speech by the Under-Secretary to the Home Office, Mr. Brace, in view of the Ministerial undertakings and of the opportunity he would have of incorporating his proposals in the Bill dealing with mines, asked leave to withdraw his amendment. Lord Ninian Crichton-Stuart (U., _Cardiff_) protested against the withdrawal, and the Unionists challenged a division. The Labour party, however, were not disposed to risk injuring the Ministry; most of them voted against their own amendment, some others abstained, and it was rejected by 239 to 73, amid the jeers of the Opposition at the Labour members' lack of independence.

Mr. Leif Jones (L., _Notts., Rushcliffe_) then moved an amendment regretting that no specific reference was made in the Address to the "long promised and greatly needed" measure of temperance reform for England and Wales. The licence reduction scheme under the Act of 1904 had failed, and drinking and the number of convictions were increasing. Why should there not be an autumn session to carry a new Licensing Bill? The Prime Minister made a sympathetic reply, repeating his declaration of 1911, that it was the intention of the Government to legislate on the subject within the lifetime of the existing Parliament; but it would do more harm than good to introduce a first-class controversial measure which must be dropped.

Two days earlier (Feb. 12) important changes were announced in the Ministry. Lord Gladstone's wish to retire from the Governor-Generalship of South Africa, for purely domestic reasons unconnected with the recent troubles, had been known for some time past; he was to be succeeded by Mr. Sydney Buxton, President of the Board of Trade, who was shortly afterwards created Viscount Buxton, and was succeeded in his office by Mr. John Burns; the Presidency of the Local Government Board vacated by the latter was filled by Mr. Herbert Samuel; Mr. Hobhouse became Postmaster-General; Mr. C. F. G. Masterman succeeded him as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and was succeeded as Financial Secretary to the Treasury by Mr. E. S. Montagu, Under-Secretary for India, a post now taken by Mr. C. S. Roberts (_Lincoln_). These changes involved bye-elections at Poplar and Bethnal Green, which were sure to be hotly contested. Otherwise they were regarded as somewhat strengthening the Cabinet.

The debate on the Address was resumed in the Commons on Monday, February 16, with an Opposition amendment demanding that, in view of the growing hostility to the Established Church (Wales) Bill, it should not be passed till after submission to the people at a general election, or to the electors of England and Wales by a Referendum. Two days earlier a protest, stated to be signed by 15,321 adult Nonconformists in St. Asaph diocese, had been sent to the Prime Minister against the proposals to deprive the Church in Wales of her unclosed ancient churchyards and of 157,000_l._ a year of her ancient endowments. Of the signatories, twenty-nine were stated to be ministers or preachers, 158 deacons, and eighteen magistrates, and in many country parishes more than half the Nonconformists had signed. Stress was laid on this petition by Mr. Ormsby Gore (U., _Denbigh District_) in moving the amendment, and also on the silence observed on the Bill in the King's Speech, and by the Ministers; on the demonstrations against it, and on the fact that it had been passed only by Nationalist support. No meetings in its support had been held in England, and those in Wales had been failures. Ministers desired to establish a precedent for further spoliation of the Church. The Home Secretary replied by pointing to the aggregate Liberal majority of 4,221 in the three bye-elections in Wales since the introduction of the Bill, and the prominence of the issue in the Bolton election (A.R., 1913, p. 244). After insisting that the subject was before the electorate in 1910, he remarked that it was strange that Nonconformists should choose a diocese for their area, and that the chief promoter was a well-known Conservative. He asked the House to suspend judgment on the petition. After other speeches, Mr. Balfour (U., _City of London_) admitted that the vote of the Welsh members was a _prima facie_ argument that the Welsh people supported the Bill, but the doctrine that a Bill should pass the House of Commons for Wales if it were backed by a majority of the Welsh people was subversive of Parliamentary government. Besides this was not only a Welsh question. But his object was to point out the injustice of the Parliament Act in connexion with the Bill. The Prime Minister's argument, that a measure brought in under that Act and not supported by the people would lead to discussion and intimations to their representatives that it was distasteful to them, had had great weight with the people, but the Government had purposely prevented the electors from concentrating their minds on any one measure by bringing in several, and by starting other agitations. He insisted that the Bill was fundamentally a religious question, and that the tendency was to see that the greatest religious interests were not bound up with sectarian differences, and would not be helped by sectarian plunder. Eventually the amendment was defeated by 279 to 217.

The value of the petition having been questioned, a deputation from its signatories waited on the Prime Minister on March 4. All those present, save Mr. Ormsby Gore and the Bishop of St. Asaph, were Nonconformists, many had seldom or never been to London, and some spoke in Welsh. They dealt, however, mainly with generalities, and the Prime Minister ascertained that none of the ministers or deacons who had signed had come. In reply, he regretted that they had not proceeded by petition to Parliament, inferred that, as they dealt only with disendowment, the Nonconformists of the diocese supported disestablishment, from which disendowment was inseparable, and concluded that, having given no detailed objections, they had not advanced their case.

To return to the House of Commons; a Tariff Reform amendment followed, moved by Captain Tryon (U., _Brighton_), regretting that the Government refused to modify the fiscal system by (1) adopting Imperial Preference, so far as practicable without imposing fresh duties on imported foodstuffs; (2) a moderate duty not exceeding an average of 10 per cent. _ad valorem_ on foreign manufactured goods, in order to safeguard the stability of British industries and provide revenue for the assistance of agriculture and social reform. The mover laid stress on the increasing financial needs of the country, on such concessions to Protectionism as the encouragement offered to agriculture in East Africa, and the protection virtually accorded to beet-sugar and cocoa, and on the fact that the reduced American tariff was more than twice as high as the tariff proposed. After other speeches, the Solicitor-General described the proposal as "an anæmic fragment" of full-blooded Tariff Reform. The agricultural industry was in open revolt against it (p. 8), and effective Imperial Preference was impossible without taxing raw material and food. The farmer would be burdened by the rise in the prices of the goods he used, and the relief of his income tax from the new revenue would be trifling. The rise in prices had been very general, though least in Free Trade England; but agricultural wages had not risen correspondingly. Mr. Bonar Law (U., _Lancs., Bootle_) quoted a Consular Report of 1909 to show that wages in Germany had more than kept pace with the rise in prices; maintained that a system similar to that proposed existed in Belgium, and was approached by the new American tariff; and declared that, while the tariff might slightly raise the prices of goods used by the farmer, the revenue resulting would be used to relieve the unfair burdens on agriculture. The plan would bring in at least 10,000,000_l._ of additional revenue, the average of 10 per cent. being got by putting a higher rate on articles of luxury; and it would give security in the home market and Colonial Preference. Canada, he added, was rapidly becoming industrial. The amendment was rejected by 283 to 200.

The day following (Feb. 17) a lengthy amendment was moved by Mr. Royds (U., _Sleaford_), of which the substantial import was a complaint that no legislation was foreshadowed to remedy the adverse influence of the Budget of 1909 and of the land agitation on working-class housing, the building trade, and agricultural development. The mover, in a very clear speech, well supported by evidence, showed that under the existing conditions there was an actual shortage of cottages, and there would soon be a house famine in towns. The official land valuation then in progress was worthless, and the break-up of estates was causing a feeling of insecurity among tenant farmers. Among subsequent speakers, Mr. Ellis Davies (L., _Carnarvonshire, Eifion_) pointed out other factors in the decline in building, such as the rise in interest and cost of materials, and the increase m local rates; and Mr. Lane Fox (U., _Yorks., W.R., Barkston Ash_) suggested the appointment of a Royal Commission. The Chancellor of the Exchequer replied that such a body was apt to present a conflict of large interests, and the small holders and agricultural labourers would not come forward. The Opposition were getting nearer to a practical acceptance of the case made out by the Land Inquiry. Since the Budget of 1909, he showed by figures, agricultural wages had increased, the price of land had risen, and unemployment had lessened, especially in the building trade. There had been a "house famine" since 1884. The number of cottages built by private enterprise had gone down, partly through the rise in interest and prices of material. The first step was to see that the municipalities investigated thoroughly the conditions in their districts, and this would be done by the President of the Local Government Board. Then the aggregate deficiency must be ascertained, and the Government must consider how far public credit must be pledged. The problem was largely one of transit, and this the President of the Board of Trade was investigating. Mr. Pretyman (U., _Essex, Chelmsford_) traversed the Chancellor's statements, pointing out that many men had left the building trade altogether, and that there was generally no difficulty in acquiring land for housing. He denounced the Chancellor's personal attacks on the Dukes of Sutherland and Montrose. Among subsequent speakers, Mr. Pollock (U., _Warwick and Leamington_) vigorously attacked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the President of the Board of Agriculture, who protested against this attack being made when the Chancellor was unable to reply, was much interrupted, both directly and by audible comments, necessitating the Speaker's intervention. He defended the land policy of the Government in connexion with agriculture, laying stress on its actual progress, and on the work of the Development Fund. After a reply from Mr. Long (U.), the amendment was rejected by 301 to 213.

The next amendment, moved (Feb. 18) by Mr. Barnes (Lab., _Glasgow, Blackfriars_), regretted that there was no mention in the Address of the recent deplorable events in Dublin, and no promise of an impartial and representative Commission of Inquiry into the conduct of the police. Recriminations in this debate had been expected between the Irish and Labour parties, and Unionist support of the amendment compelling the Labour party to vote against it as before, to avoid upsetting the Government, but these expectations were unfulfilled. Mr. Barnes stated that the Labour party demanded an impartial inquiry, and compensation to those whose houses were forcibly entered by the police. The Commission was not of the kind promised by the Chief Secretary, its reference was too narrow, and the workers would not appear before it, and such disturbances as took place were really caused by the police. Mr. Brady (N., _Dublin, St. Stephen's Green_) explained that the members for Dublin had not intervened in the dispute because they had not been invited to do so; the only inquiry in which the Irish people would have confidence was one set up by a Home Rule Parliament and Executive. Mr. Booth (L., _Pontefract_) denounced the conduct of the inquiry, at which he had been present, and, after other speeches, the Chief Secretary for Ireland said that he had been unable to get a judge or some one with the confidence of the police to serve on the Commission, and a representative of the working classes could not have been put on alone. He had, therefore, to fall back on appointing lawyers of high character and position, previously engaged in police inquiries, and he believed the people of Dublin were satisfied with the Commission. He strongly defended the Dublin police. The rioters were hooligans, the enemies of all citizens. The police misbehaviour in Corporation Buildings was confined to seven or eight men at most. The amendment was rejected by 233 to 45.

Sir John Bethell (L., _Essex, Romford_) then moved an amendment complaining of the unfair distribution of its funds by the Road Board. He said the West of London was felt to be favoured at the expense of the East. The new Financial Secretary of the Treasury said that department had no control over the Road Board, but there was no evidence of unfairness; the money was allotted roughly according to population, Scotland having more than its share owing to the large foreign tourist motor traffic. The Opposition objecting to the withdrawal of the amendment, it was defeated by 268 to 55.

The Address debate was concluded next day (Feb. 19), when Sir J. Spear (U., _Devon, Tavistock_) moved an amendment desiring a rearrangement of local taxation so as to provide from Imperial funds a larger sum towards the cost of education and the maintenance of main roads. The local authorities, he pointed out, were raising 65,000,000_l._ a year for national or semi-national services, and receiving only 22,000,000_l._ from the State. The Chancellor of the Exchequer fully admitted there was a case for the amendment. As to roads, he laid stress on the amount of traffic, chiefly by motor-vans, which came from outside a district and took away trade from the shopkeepers in it. He had expected to have a balance for the relief of local rates in consequence of the Budget of 1909, but the amount had gone on the increased equipment of the Navy, owing to the European situation. Effective steps, however, would be taken in the current year for the relief of local taxation. The burden of it was arresting municipal development. Details could not yet be given, but the more heavily burdened districts would receive larger grants, and greater guarantees would be taken for efficiency. Of later speakers, Mr. Long (U.) doubted whether anything could be done in the crowded current session, and the new President of the Local Government Board intimated that personalty must be made to contribute more to local taxation, and that "socially created" values might be dealt with by special legislation.

The amendment was withdrawn and another was moved by Lord E. Cecil (U., _Herts., Hitchin_), regretting that the Government did not propose steps for preventing the growing debasement of the standard of purity in public life; but the debate was cut short by the closure, which was carried by 285 to 168, and the Address was then agreed to.

Lord Robert Cecil's amendment had been put so late by the Speaker's selection as practically to preclude debate on it, and he had a further opportunity for discussing it; but the subject had been ventilated in the House of Lords by Lord Murray of Elibank's personal statement (Feb. 17), and by the debate on the motion originally put down by Lord Ampthill for a Select Committee to inquire into certain charges and allegations made in the Press against Lord Murray (Feb. 19). Lord Murray read his statement composedly amid signs of acute interest, in the chilling silence characteristic of the Upper House. The facts, he said, were fully known, and he could only confirm the statements made before the Commons Committee (A.R., 1913, pp. 80, 136). It ought to have occurred to him that his action was open to criticism, but his error was one of judgment, not of intention. His purchase for the party funds was an error of judgment, and he had taken over the shares for himself at the price he had paid for them, thereby incurring a heavy loss. His private transactions and those with the party funds were alike free from dishonour. He considered, on reflection, that his course of action had not been wise or correct, and he deeply regretted it; among the deepest of his regrets would be the thought that his action should have caused embarrassment to his party, but a fair judgment would hold that there was nothing in his mistakes to reflect in any degree on the honour and integrity of public life. He had tendered his resignation of his office in February, 1912, before he had ever heard of Marconis, and had only continued in office till the end of the session at the Prime Minister's urgent request.

The further consideration of Lord Ampthill's motion was postponed till February 19, when it was moved by the Marquess of Lansdowne, who said that Lord Murray's statement contained nothing to deter the Opposition leaders from carrying put their intention of moving for a Committee. His apology was the best of the Ministerial apologies; at any rate he did not compare himself to St. Sebastian (A.R., 1913, p. 154), but certain questions regarding his action as Chief Whip required further investigation. The Marquess of Crewe did not object, though he thought the Committee was demanded neither by the dignity of the House nor by the needs of the public service. The Committee was not appointed till March 9; it reported on April 30 (_post_, Chap. III.).

The Home Rule agitation, meanwhile, had not been stilled by the Royal Speech and the Prime Minister's promise. But compromise was in the air. The _Westminster Gazette_ (Feb. 16) suggested the appointment of a Statutory Commission of both parties to devise a permanent reconstruction of the government of the British Isles, following on a provisional settlement in Ulster, and a fresh form of compromise was suggested by the publication (Feb. 18) of an open letter to Mr. Asquith from Mr. Frederic Harrison, the veteran constitutional lawyer and Comtist, urging the adoption of a scheme which he had suggested privately to the Prime Minister in 1913, and which might be established, subject to reconsideration after a general election. Under it Ulster would have a separate Committee elected by its constituencies, with complete financial, legislative and administrative powers, and subject only to the Imperial Parliament and the King in Council. As a general election would not afford a clear issue, Mr. Harrison advised that the Home Rule Bill should be submitted to a referendum at once. On the other hand, an influential meeting of City men (Feb. 18) passed a resolution, moved by Lord Rothschild and seconded by Lord Goschen, declaring the Bill impossible to carry into effect. Mr. Balfour and Sir Edward Carson addressed it, the former saying that since 1905 Ireland's old wounds had been "torn open" in the name of good government, and saying that nothing but "a clean cut" would avoid civil war; the latter mentioning that the position was detrimental to the relation of Ulster firms with the great English discount houses, "but we are bearing it cheerfully, and would bear a great deal more." He and his friends, he added, had just authorised an expenditure of 60,000_l._ to 80,000_l._; and he called on the City to stand by them.

The bye-elections, though throwing little light on the feeling of the electorate as to Home Rule, dealt an awkward blow to the Government (see _post_, Chron., Feb. 18, 19, 20). In South Bucks, indeed, the Unionist majority fell off slightly as compared with the last contest in January, 1910, but the Liberals had expected to do much better, and their disappointment was ascribed to the abstention of chairmakers on strike at High Wycombe (p. 10), and to the recent settlement in the constituency of some 1,800 well-to-do residents, a class generally Unionist. But in Bethnal Green, Mr. Masterman, who was standing for re-election on his appointment, (p. 27) was defeated, owing to the intervention of a Labour candidate, by a majority of 24; and in Poplar, where there was also a Labour candidate, the Liberal majority was decreased by 1,551 as compared with December, 1910. True, the Unionist at Bethnal Green was returned by a minority of the constituency, and this contest had been largely fought on the Insurance Act, which bore hardly on casual labour--indeed, complaint was made in the Commons (Feb. 16), though apparently not with justice, that a scheme dealing with casual labour at the London docks was launched in the middle of the election contest, and Mr. Bonar Law intimated to the Unionist candidate that a Unionist Government would be prepared to appoint a Committee to consider whether the Act might not be put on a voluntary basis. But, as at Reading in 1913, the results showed that the Labour extremists were quite ready to defeat the Government, although they might not disapprove of its general policy.

These results were not such as to hasten the disclosure of the Ministerial plans; and the Opposition were unsuccessful in pressing for it (Feb. 25), by a resolution moved by Mr. Falle (U., _Portsmouth_), when a Liberal amendment moved by Captain Pirie (L., _Aberdeen, N._), awaiting the proposals with confidence and hope, was carried by 311 to 238. Nor were they much more successful next day with a resolution moved by Mr. G. C. Hamilton (U., _Cheshire, Altrincham_), for the appointment of an impartial Committee to study the working of the Insurance Act and the possibility of substituting a voluntary system. Under this, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out, there would be a premium on the employment of uninsured persons; the Unionist policy, he said, was "Back to the workhouse." The motion was defeated by 283 to 199.

Several other debates in both Houses must be passed over; but one deserves special notice. In the House of Lords (Feb. 23) the Earl of Selborne had moved a resolution to the effect that a contribution to party funds should not be a consideration in inducing a Minister to recommend a person for an honour to the King. Both sides accepted it, and it was carried with slight modification; but the practice was generally regarded as a consequence of the party system, which needed money to educate the democracy. Lord Willoughby de Broke and Lord Ribblesdale told amusing stories of applications for honours; the mover suggested that recommendations should be supervised by the Privy Council, Viscount Milner said that the grounds for conferring the honour should be stated; Lord Charnwood moved an amendment in favour of inquiry by a Royal Commission; but the leaders on both sides deprecated this course, the Marquess of Lansdowne arguing that checks on abuses might be left to the Sovereign and his advisers to devise.

Outside Parliament, other questions were being pressed on the attention of the Government. A deputation from the Trade Union Congress had waited on the Prime Minister a fortnight earlier (Feb. 11), with resolutions advocating railway nationalisation and electoral reforms--including adult suffrage irrespective of sex--and protesting against compulsory military service and undue increase of armaments. His reply did not much advance matters; and protests were raised against his refusals to receive woman suffragist deputations from 342 Labour organisations represented at a great meeting at the Albert Hall (Feb. 14), from a deputation of Scottish municipal authorities two days later--though ten of its members were received by his secretary--and a third deputation a week afterwards. This latter refusal led to a protest meeting in Parliament Square, and the arrest of Messrs. Nevinson, Laurence Housman, Harben, and two ladies, who refused to be bound over and received one day's imprisonment. A militant young lady assaulted Lord Weardale, mistaking him for the Premier, at Euston; and the sentence on another (Miss Phyllis Brady, Feb. 24), of eighteen months' imprisonment for firing Lady White's house at Ascot, was followed by the burning of Whitekirk Church, East Lothian. The claims of compulsory military service were pressed on the Premier by a deputation from the National Service League, comprising Earl Roberts, Sir Evelyn Wood, and various eminent civilians, partly on the ground that "in the considered words of the First Sea Lord, the Navy alone cannot now protect this country against invasion." The Prime Minister, however, replied that the First Sea Lord had authorised him to repudiate these words and had stated that his language had been misconstrued; and he intimated that the view supposed to be implied had been negatived by the investigation of a Sub-Committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence. Physical training for youths from fourteen to eighteen, as advocated by the League, would be good, but it would not reach the wastrels, who were useless for military service.

These matters, however, were eclipsed in immediate interest by the arrival (Feb. 24) of the _Umgeni_ at Gravesend with the deported Labour leaders from South Africa. They had refused at Las Palmas to say anything till they had discussed the position with the chiefs of British Trade Unionism; and great preparations had been made for their welcome and support. Labour leaders and journalists were awaiting them at Gravesend; but they unexpectedly refused to land anywhere except in South Africa, and for many hours all arguments were vain. The conversations were at first conducted over the ship's side with the British leaders in a launch; but eventually Messrs. Bowerman and Henderson were allowed to go aboard, and persuaded them to come ashore after delivering a signed protest against their deportation to the captain of the _Umgeni_. Two days later they were entertained at dinner at the House of Commons; next, at a great meeting at the London Opera House (Feb. 29), at which some of them spoke, it was announced that counsel's opinion would be taken as to the legal position of the South African Government and the steamship company, and, if possible, proceedings would follow, and resolutions were passed pledging British labour to help. And on Sunday, March 1, a demonstration in Hyde Park in their support was attended by one of the largest crowds ever seen in London. One or other of the deportees spoke at each of the nine platforms, and a resolution was carried urging the Government to refuse its assent to the Indemnity Bill till the wrongs of these and other workers in the dispute were righted. Later, it was announced that they would go back to South Africa, and would be assisted by Mr. Tom Mann and other English trade unionists in perfecting their organisation.

Meanwhile another seat had been lost to Ministers by the wholly unexpected return of the Unionist candidate in Leith Burghs (Chron., Feb. 26), though only through the presence of a Labour candidate. In view of the strike of 1913 the Liberal-Labour split was not unnatural, and there was actually a slight decrease in the Unionist poll as compared with 1910. But no Unionist had been returned for the constituency since 1832, and the Unionists were exultant, though, taking the poll as a whole, the majority for the Government programme was over 3,000.

In the following week (March 2) the Prime Minister's statement of his Home Rule proposals was fixed for March 9; a Unionist private member's motion pressing for it was consequently dropped. The need of an early disclosure was emphasised by the publication (March 3) of a British Covenant, with eminent signatories, including Earl Roberts, the Duke of Portland, Viscounts Halifax and Milner, Lords Aldenham, Balfour of Burleigh, and Lovat, Professors Dicey and Goudy, the Dean of Canterbury, and Mr. Rudyard Kipling. It stated the signatories' conviction that the claim of the Government to carry the Home Rule Bill without submitting it to the judgment of the nation was contrary to the spirit of the Constitution, and declared that, if it were so passed, they would hold themselves justified in taking or supporting any action that might be effective to prevent it from being put into operation, and more particularly to prevent the armed forces of the Crown from being used to deprive the people of Ulster of their rights as citizens of the United Kingdom.

The week preceding the Prime Minister's momentous announcement was occupied largely by skirmishes in other fields. The Supplementary Navy Estimates, of 2,500,000_l._, which had caused some disquiet among the advanced Liberals and the Labour party, were taken on March 2. Postponing his general defence of Admiralty policy to the debate on the Naval Estimates for 1914-15 the First Lord of the Admiralty limited himself to defending the main items of the Estimate, (1) 500,000_l._ increased expenditure on the oil reserve; (2) 260,000_l._ on the new aircraft programme; (3) increase in dockyard wages and prices of victuals and clothing, nearly 200,000_l._; (4) about 450,000_l._ due to the earlier beginning, announced on June 5, 1913, of three battleships in the 1913-14 programme, owing to the delay in the Canadian Naval Aid Bill; (5) 1,000,000_l._ owing to the more rapid building by contractors of ships already authorised. (1) The standard of oil reserve was carefully fixed, and kept as secret as even the standard of reserve of ammunition; but the oil stored was enough for over three years' peace consumption of the Fleet in commission and one year of war. All the oil burnt in the current year, and five-sixths of that burnt in 1914-15, would be used in ships built before he became First Lord. The Admiralty had acted throughout on the highest expert authority. (2) The air service, in which Great Britain had been late in starting, and which eventually would considerably reduce other classes of naval weapons, was to be increased in consequence of a careful investigation in July, 1913. Four airships, one a Zeppelin, had been contracted for with Messrs. Vickers, an Astra-Torres airship had been ordered in France, and three semi-rigid Forlamini airships--a very promising design--from Messrs. Armstrong. An additional airship shed had been built in Chatham, and one in Norfolk. This was modest as compared with France and Germany, but in view of British superiority in seaplanes it was sufficient. Of the 260,000_l._, 200,000_l._ would be the year's portion of a total expenditure on airships of 475,000_l._ and the rest would be for seaplanes. (3) The increase in wages was necessary to keep pace with that in other shipyards, and the increase of prices in victualling and clothing was automatic. (4) and (5) The acceleration of the ships replacing those from Canada would be set-off by lessened expenditure in 1915 and 1916; the over-earning by the contractors had been foreseen by him in introducing the Navy Estimates for 1913. There were many factors of uncertainty in shipbuilding, and delay of one part reacted on others. It was absurd to charge the Admiralty with miscalculation in the matter. To have asked for more in the original estimates would have given a false idea of expansion. He absolutely denied the story that he had given orders to accelerate construction in August, 1913; he had neither the will to do so nor the power. To retard construction was impracticable and undesirable. The House should demand good reasons for the building of every ship asked for; having done so, it must accept liability for the cost.

Mr. Lee (U., _Hants, Fareham_) denounced the system of returning unspent balances to the Treasury as tending artificially to swell the Naval Estimates, and tempting an astute Minister like the First Lord to under-estimate, The situation with regard to oil fuel was disquieting, and he expressed anxiety also about the shipbuilding programme. On the other hand Mr. Ramsay Macdonald (L., _Leicester_) declared that the Estimates were not really supplementary, but began a new programme, and he regarded the British and other Governments as the victims of a careful plan of the international armament firms, A reduction, moved by Mr. D. M. Mason (L., _Coventry_), was rejected, after further debate, by 237 votes to 34.