Part 1 — CHAPTER IV. THE POLITICAL STRUGGLE AND ITS CLOSE. (continued 2)

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.

In the intervals between dealing with the Amending Bill the House of Lords disposed (on June 30 and July 7) of the Council of India Bill, a measure attributed (though inaccurately) mainly to Mr. Montagu, late Under-Secretary for India, and carrying out the developments of Liberal policy indicated in 1913 (A.R., 1913, p. 187 seq.). The salient feature was that the Council of the Secretary of State for India, which was now to contain from seven to ten members instead of from ten to fourteen, must always include two natives of India, to be chosen by the Secretary of State from a panel nominated by the Indian elective members of the Viceroy's Council and the Provincial Legislative Councils. Changes were also made in the working rules of the Council, partly to expedite its business, and one, which was severely criticised, provided that it should meet not, as heretofore, weekly, but only when summoned by the Secretary of State. The actual rules of procedure were extremely cumbrous, and it appeared from Ministerial statements made in the debate that it took nearly a month to get the most ordinary piece of business through the Council, and that in fact the Secretary had often, for practical purposes, to come very near evading the law. The Bill had been supported by a deputation from the Indian National Congress, though some organs of native opinion held that the elective provisions did not go far enough. It was strongly opposed both in The Times and by Peers with Indian experience, including Lords Ampthill and Harris; and Earl Curzon of Kedleston moved its rejection, as diminishing that element in the Council that possessed administrative experience, rendering procedure by Committees impossible, and making the Secretary of State into an autocrat. The presence of Indian members he thought entirely desirable, but the methods of selection would bring in platform speakers rather than competent advisers on questions of administration. The opposition to the Bill had gathered force by the second day's debate (July 7) when it was strongly defended by Lord Morley of Blackburn, and Lord Reay, and opposed no less strongly by Lords Ampthill, Harris, and Sydenham, Earl Roberts, and Viscount Midleton, while Lord Faber commended its proposals for simplifying financial business, and other Peers urged the House at least to give it a second reading. Lord Courtney of Penwith had desired to refer it to a Select Committee, but in spite of these arguments, and an able defence by the Marquess of Crewe, it was rejected on second reading by 96 to 38.

Next day (July 8) the Lords proceeded completely to transform the Amending Bill. They struck out, by 158 to 35, the provision that any county in Ulster might vote itself out of the Home Rule Scheme for six years, the Earl of Selborne, who moved this deletion, laying stress on various complications which the provision would set up, and explaining that, as an advocate of the Referendum, he desired that it should not be associated with an experiment that could only end in disaster; and Lord Killanin said that if no time-limit were imposed, Ulster would be free to come in voluntarily. Next, the House rejected, by 196 to 20, Lord Macdonnell's scheme for establishing in Ulster "Home Rule within Home Rule," in the form of local administrative control through an Ulster Council elected by proportional representation. To this Council would be transferred the Departments concerned with education, local government, and agriculture and technical instruction, and possibly portions of others. The expenses incurred by the Ulster Council would be provided by the Irish Parliament, or, in default, deducted from the transferred sum by the Joint Exchequer Board. The Marquess of Crewe said that the proposal would be rejected by the various parties to the controversy; Earl Loreburn, Lord Courtney of Penwith, and, later, Viscount Bryce supported it; the Lord Chancellor, while admitting that the exclusion of Ulster was a most unfortunate solution, said that the Government only proposed it because the Opposition were deaf to all appeals. The latter were forcing the country into proximity to a great danger. They hoped soon to take office, but had no clear idea how they would deal with the situation.' To this Earl Curzon of Kedleston retorted that they at any rate had a consistent policy and would not flinch from the issue. After this division the Marquess of Lansdowne moved an amendment permanently excluding the whole of Ulster from the operation of the Home Rule Bill, advocating this course as the most likely way to avert a conflict, though the Opposition could not guarantee that it would do so. The Archbishop of Canterbury thought that a division based on religious differences was the worst possible, and that only a geographical division was practicable. Lord Macdonnell protested strongly against the exclusion of Cavan, Donegal, and Monaghan from the control of the Irish Parliament, but the amendment was passed by 138 to 39. Among other amendments passed one substituted a Secretary of State for the Lord-Lieutenant as the executive authority in the excluded area. Another reduced the representation of Ireland in the Imperial House of Commons from 42 members to 27. A third, moved by the Earl of Halsbury, continued the existing method of judicial appointments and of appeal, to the House of Lords instead of to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as provided in the Bill. This was supported next day by several Unionist Peers, the Earl of Desart urging that under Home Rule one party would be permanently in power, that the Judges would therefore be under special pressure, and that attacks on a Judge would probably have the sympathy of the Irish Parliament. The Marquess of Crewe urged that the amendment would be a slight on the Irish Government; the Marquess of Lansdowne supported it, partly as tending to reassure the Unionists outside Ulster. It was passed by 166 to 42. An amendment by Lord Macdonnell, making the administration of the Land Purchase Acts a reserved service, was next adopted. The Marquess of Lansdowne supported it, but explained that the Opposition had limited themselves to framing amendments to the provisions intended to avert civil strife, and had, therefore, abstained from attempting to protect minorities outside Ulster. The Marquess of Crewe intimated that, if the Bill were altered after discussion between the Houses, the alteration need not be confined to Ulster. Lord Macdonnell then proposed a scheme for proportional representation in the Irish Parliament; but the question, after debate, was deferred to the Report Stage. Some other amendments were negatived; one, moved by the Earl of Kenmare, was passed, keeping the Royal Irish Constabulary under the Imperial Government; and a new clause, moved by the Earl of Selborne, provided that nothing in the Home Rule Bill should prejudicially alter or affect the powers and rights of any person in the excluded area.

Meanwhile the Labour and suffragist disturbances continued to promise fresh complications. The London builders' dispute had resisted all attempts at settlement; and a strike similar to those which had caused the dispute arose at Woolwich Arsenal (July 3), where an engineer in the Carriage Department refused to erect machinery on a concrete base prepared by a non-unionist. At first only the men in certain departments were called out, but by July 6 over 10,000 had ceased work. On July 7, however, the Prime Minister stated in the House that the contract under which the base had been laid ran from 1912 to 1915, that no question as to non-union labour under it had been raised previously, and that the men had left work without notice. A Court of Inquiry, however, was appointed—two representative employers, two trade unionists, and Sir George Askwith as Chairman, and on July 9 the men returned to work.

Though this fresh extension of the Labour unrest was happily checked, the Suffragist militancy which was gradually estranging public sympathy did not abate. On July 3, Ballymenoch House, near Belfast, was burnt, the damage done being estimated at 20,000l.; an attempt was also made to burn Carmichael Church, Lanark, and on July 9 to destroy Robert Burns's birthplace at Alloway. A day earlier Mrs. Pankhurst had recovered sufficiently to visit the militant headquarters, and to submit to rearrest as the prelude of her ninth hunger-and-thirst strike; and two women (whose behaviour in court was disorderly) had been convicted of conspiracy to destroy windows, and sentenced to three months' imprisonment, while a sentence of two months had been passed on the printer of the Suffragette. The King's visit to Scotland had occasioned futile and fatuous attempts to gain the Royal attention by throwing leaflets into the carriage or shouting protests (during his visit to the Clyde) through a megaphone; and on Mrs. Pankhurst's arrest, a bomb was deposited in St. John the Evangelist Church, Westminster (July 12); the depositor, however, was arrested, and no harm was done. Nevertheless there was a strong feeling that the true remedy for the agitation had not been found, and it was intensified by the publication of a letter from the Bishop of London (Times, July 5), in which, however, he disclaimed support of militancy. But two real successes were obtained by the promoters of the "emancipation" of women. On July 9 the Representative Church Council of the Church of England (consisting of the members of the Convocations and the Houses of Laymen of the two Provinces) decided by a large majority of clergy and a small one of laymen to give women votes in the elections of Church Councils and enable them to sit on parochial councils; and on June 17 deputations from societies connected with the protection of women and children obtained from the Home Office a promise of favourable consideration of the appointment, for special duties, of women police.

While all these causes seemed tending to set up a great crisis, the King and Queen, with Princess Mary, had been spending a busy week in Scotland (July 6-13). Making Holyrood Palace their headquarters, they paid a state visit to Glasgow (July 7) where the King laid the foundation-stone of the new Municipal Buildings, opened a new block at the Royal Infirmary, and were received at the University; next day they visited the Fairfield shipbuilding yard at Govan, where His Majesty walked underneath the hull of the super-Dreadnought Valiant, in course of construction, and visited H.M.S, Benbow, completing; the day following they witnessed the stages of manufacture of the 15-inch gun at Parkhead Steel Works, visited Lord Newlands (who marked the occasion by giving 25,000l. to the Western Infirmary) and the Duke of Hamilton; next day they visited Dundee and Perth, and on the Saturday Dunblane Cathedral, Stirling Castle, and the ruined ancient palace of Linlithgow. On the Sunday they attended service at St. Giles's Cathedral, Edinburgh, and on Monday returned to London. Everywhere they were enthusiastically welcomed, and, save for the few futile militant interruptions, the visit was an entire success. The King, as the Spectator remarked, was enabled by these visits to know his own country better than the best informed of his subjects.

However, less pleasant matters were soon to engage His Majesty's attention. The "historic Twelfth" was approaching, in Ulster; the Ulster Unionist Council was to take the opportunity of meeting (July 10); and on the previous day Captain Craig, M.P., made a statement, in the course of which he read the preamble to the Constitution of the Ulster Provisional Government. This document declared that, trusting to Divine aid, the signatories, "the people of the counties and places of Ulster represented in the Ulster Unionist Council," undertook to resist to the utmost the claims of an Irish Nationalist Government to exercise powers over them hitherto exercised by the Crown and the Imperial Parliament, and resolved to ignore the Irish Parliament, and to assume and exercise within the Ulster area, pending the restoration of direct Imperial Government, all powers rendered necessary by the withdrawal of such Government for the maintenance of peace and order and the protection of the rights and liberties of His Majesty's subjects; but such powers were to be exercised in allegiance to the King and in trust for the Constitution, to the intent that the Ulster area should continue an integral portion thereof. The laws in force, other than the Home Rule Act, would be maintained and all judges and others acting under the direct authority of the King protected. After contrasting the aims of the Nationalist and of the Ulster leaders, Captain Craig added that the outlook was as dark as it could be. This view was emphasised by the landing of machine guns for the Ulstermen, and of consignments of arms for both sides, and by the announcement that "rest stations" were being arranged in England for Ulster refugee women and children, at Eaton Hall and elsewhere; while the National Volunteers were stated to number 200,000. On July 10 Sir Edward Carson had an enthusiastic welcome at Belfast, and he and Mr. Long, addressing a meeting of Ulster delegates, left the impression that the moment of supreme crisis was at hand. Possibly through the confidence of the rank and file in their leaders, the celebrations of the Boyne anniversary on Monday, July 13, though more numerously attended than ever, passed off without disturbance. Seventy thousand men marched from Belfast to Drumbeg, where Sir Edward Carson again emphasised Ulster's determination to resist; "Give us a clean cut," he said, "or come and fight us."

Liberal journals stated that Lord Northcliffe's newspapers, in particular The Times and the Daily Mail, were making the most of these demonstrations by means of a host of special correspondents and photographers, and an important Unionist paper, the Birmingham Daily Post, also thought the alarm exaggerated. But the House of Lords increased the impression already produced by its treatment of the Amending Bill. The Report Stage was disposed of on July 13. An amendment was negatived which was proposed by Lord Weardale, modifying the provision for the exclusion of Ulster by enabling a poll to be taken on the question upon a requisition from 10 per cent. of the electors in any four counties; and then Lord Macdonnell renewed in a simplified form his proposal for proportional representation, by moving that each constituency in the Irish Parliament should return not less than three members. He advocated this in the interest of the Unionists outside Ulster. Viscount St. Aldwyn supported this scheme; Viscount Bryce held that it was a corollary to the exclusion of Ulster; but the Marquess of Crewe objected to making the Irish Parliament a corpus vile for experiment, and Viscount Morley of Blackburn doubted if Irish peasants would understand the "single transferable vote." On a division being challenged, the leaders on both sides abstained; and no "Not Contents" appeared. The amendment, therefore, was declared carried.

On the third reading next day, the Marquess of Crewe pointed out that the exclusion of Ulster raised, in a new form, the difficulty of governing Irish Nationalists from Great Britain, which had been somewhat masked by the concessions of certain Unionist Ministers in the past to Irish ideas. He reminded the House that the Irish Councils Bill of 1907 was accepted reluctantly by the Nationalist leaders, but rejected by their followers, and hinted that legislation could not depend solely on the legislators; politics were not a game of chess. The Marquess of Lansdowne, reviewing the Bill as amended, declared that the coercion of Ulster was dead. Lord Joicey, as a Liberal Peer, protested against the refusal of the Government to assist in altering the Bill. But the interest of the debate lay mainly in a new clause moved by the Earl of Dunraven, after the Bill had been read a third time without a division, providing that the Home Rule Act might be suspended by Order in Council until a Commission had reported on the relation of Ireland to other parts of the United Kingdom. He desired, he said, to avoid "the horror of the dismemberment of Ireland," ensure a stable peace, and indicate the line of a future final and satisfactory settlement. Viscount Morley opposed the amendment as against the whole spirit of the Constitution, and treated, the action of the Peers as only an elaborate way of rejecting the Home Rule Bill. The Archbishop of York and Lord Ribblesdale supported the amendment; Earl Beauchamp indicated that, while the Government could not accept a Statutory Commission, they would, if there were any desire for it, agree to a voluntary conference. The Marquess of Lansdowne held it undesirable to put the Constitution in the melting-pot on the chance of getting Ministers out of a purely domestic difficulty in Ireland, and refused to accept the amendment as a substitute for the Unionist demands; were they conceded, an inquiry might be of advantage. The clause was then added to the Bill without a division.

Thus the main changes in the Home Rule scheme effected by the Bill were as follows: Ulster was entirely and permanently excluded from the Home Rule scheme, and was to be administered by a Secretary of State through offices and departments different from those exercising authority under the Home Rule Bill, and set up by Order in Council, subject to the acquiescence of both Houses of the Imperial Parliament. Ulster would continue to send members to the Imperial Parliament, in which Irish representation would be reduced to twenty-seven. Judges would be appointed as under the existing system, and the appeal from Irish courts to the House of Lords would continue. Land purchase would be reserved, so would the Royal Irish Constabulary, and the Lord-Lieutenant would control the Dublin metropolitan police.

The House of Lords next day continued its protest against the Parliament Act by rejecting (July 15) the Plural Voting Bill. The debate was, however, languid. The Marquess of Crewe, in moving the second reading, hoped that the inherent impropriety of plural voting would have in any case led Ministers to introduce the measure; the party advantage it gave was, in fact, only occasional, and unknown before 1884. He repeated the promise (p. 84) of a Redistribution Commission. Lord St. Audries said that such promises were idle; the general election would come as a thief in the night, and would find the Redistribution Bill in bed. In fact, most plural voters had but two votes, one for their residence and one for their place of business or their University, and agriculture, commerce, and industry should be adequately represented. Lord Newton traced indirectly to the Bill the militants' agitation, stimulated by the juggling over the Franchise Bill in 1913, and the Irish crisis, as the general election was being postponed till the plural voter was abolished. Earl Grey held that the Bill aggravated the existing inequality of representation. The Marquess of Lansdowne said that the debate was unreal. The authority of the Government in the country was waning, and they hoped the Bill would save something out of the wreck. The second reading was postponed by 119 to 49.

This division, of course, meant little; and it was clear that the Government and the majority of the Commons would not accept the Lords' transformation of the Amending Bill. But the division on the guillotining of the Finance Act had left the Government weaker, and they had been compelled to strain their supporters' patience by announcing a new session "in the early winter" after a Prorogation in August, to enable the essential provisions of the Revenue Bill to be carried in time for the insertion of the grants to the local authorities in the next Estimates. Before the Prorogation they would take the Amending Bill, the Indian Budget, and the resolutions on the Reform of the House of Lords.

For the moment, they proceeded with the Committee stage of the Finance Bill (July 13, 14, 15, 16), but only a brief notice of a few features of it is possible here. An amendment moved by Mr. Worthington Evans (U., Colchester) to allow a payer of supertax to deduct the duties on mineral rights and undeveloped land from his sources of income, on the ground that he would otherwise be paying part of his tax twice over, was defeated by 257 to 115, the Chancellor of the Exchequer rejecting his arguments; and he was also unsuccessful in his opposition to the provisions regarding income tax in respect of property abroad, which he contended would be ineffective as well as unfair. He outlined, indeed, an ingenious method of evasion, and contended that it was unjust to tax income which never reached Great Britain, but was reinvested abroad, as also income already taxed in the country of its origin. From both sides of the House the unfairness of the provisions was insisted on; and an amendment moved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, intended to afford some relief to insurance companies and others who had habitually invested abroad the proceeds of their foreign investments, was carried by 280 to 190. Next day (July 14) on the clause altering the estate duties (p. 95) the usual complaints were made of the incidence of the death duties on large estates, especially agricultural estates; and Sir A. Henderson (U., St. George's, Hanover Square) declared that the necessity of selling stock to meet them was one cause of the fall in Stock Exchange securities, which he estimated as aggregating over 1,000,000,000l. since 1909. The critics were reinforced by Mr. Balfour (U.) who contended that the tax came out of capital, and might thus decrease employment suddenly where the estate was that of a great landlord or manufacturer; besides, it was diminishing the national emergency reserve. The Chancellor of the Exchequer replied that the money had to be found, and savings were diminished whether it was raised by death duties or by income tax; if expenditure on defence, education, or public health were inadequate, securities would then depreciate also. The fall in them had been heavier abroad, and also at home before 1905. Some of the burden must come out of capital; Germany got it thus, but from the living. The clause was passed by 301 to 207. On the clause abolishing settlement duty and relief in respect of settled property (p. 95), an attempt was made by Mr. Cassel (U., St. Pancras) to prevent its retrospective application where estate duty had been paid before the passing of the Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, invoking the example of Pitt, contended that each generation had a right to adjust its own taxation. Members on both sides strongly condemned the clause, Mr. Bonar Law citing as a parallel Mr. Larkin's "To hell with contracts" (A.R., 1913, p. 208). The Solicitor-General said that the Government proposed, first, that the full settlement estate duty that had been paid should be repaid; next, that during the whole of the period over which that duty failed to frank the estate interest should be allowed on the amount. He contended that it was a fair equivalent. The amendment was rejected by 297 to 208, and the clause passed by 295 to 204.

The following day (July 15) attempts were vainly made to extend the relief in cases of quick succession to property where it consisted of land or a business, first, by removing this limitation so as to take in personalty, next, by extending the five years' interval allowed between payments of the entire estate duty to fifteen. The former the Chancellor of the Exchequer found too costly; the latter was rejected on a division by 297 to 175. An attempt by Sir F. Banbury (U.) to prevent the reduction of the annual charge for diminution of the National Debt from 24,500,000l. to 23,500,000l. (p. 95) was rejected, after a long discussion, by 281 to 176. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that, while the greatest previous reduction of the Debt—Mr. Goschen's—had been 39,000,000l. in six years the Liberal Government had effected a reduction of 103,000,000l. The retort was made, of course, that it had also increased expenditure permanently by 40,000,000l. annually, and some of the money, it was contended, was wasted—on the land valuation and payment of members, for instance. Next, the relief to be given to married persons in respect of income tax was challenged as inadequate by Mr. Cassel (U.) and other members. A new clause in the Bill provided that income tax and supertax should be assessed, charged, and recovered on the incomes of husband and wife separately, as if they were not married. This met two grievances—that the husband was called on to pay tax on his wife's income, but could not recover it from her (A.R., 1913, p. 224), and that the wife could not make a return or claim abatement; but it did not meet a third and far more general grievance—that their two incomes were still added together and treated as one, so that they paid more than two persons with equal incomes living together unmarried. The Chancellor of the Exchequer argued against any concession on this head, but agreed that there should be special exemption for married people, and the clause was adopted. Next day, however, attempts were made so to amend it as to modify or relieve this grievance. An amendment providing that the separate incomes of husband and wife should be treated as one for purposes of exemption or abatement only when they together exceeded 500l. was rejected by 267 to 139, partly as involving too great a sacrifice of revenue; another, preventing a husband's goods from being liable for distraint for his wife's income, was also rejected by 271 to 166. A new clause providing that private firms, like companies, should not be taxed on profits made abroad, was criticised as enabling such firms to escape taxation by transferring their business abroad. The Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted this was done already, but not often enough to make it worth while to stop it, and the clause was adopted by 225 to 95. Another amendment, providing for deductions in respect of inherently wasting assets, was rejected by 208 to 113, and, after the rejection of other amendments, the Committee stage was completed under the guillotine.

Next day the usual "Massacre of the Innocents" took place, but subsequent events so increased the numbers that the list need hardly be given here. In the evening the Chancellor of the Exchequer dealt with the situation at the annual Lord Mayor's dinner to bankers and merchants at the Mansion House. A quieter period of trade, he said, was opening; but in twenty years the international commerce of the country had doubled, the clearances of the London banks had trebled; in 1914, 160,000,000l. of new capital had been issued in London, as against 125,000,000l. in 1913. Trade depressions were now shorter, and there were healthy signs. He referred to the great progress set up by British capital, comparing its effect to irrigation in the Sudan; and he mentioned that in fifty years 3,700,000,000l. of British capital had been advanced for development, though in war and war preparations the world's expenditure during the past ten years had been 4,500,000,000l. He looked to finance to arrest this "creeping catastrophe." But peace was needed at home also; there was the industrial crisis, as to which he was hopeful, and the Irish crisis, and the two together would set up the gravest situation Great Britain had had to face for centuries. It was, the duty, therefore, of responsible men of all parties to work for peace.

But the Irish crisis was approaching a climax. The Amending Bill, as transformed by the Lords, was to be taken in the Commons on Monday, July 20; it was certain that it would be accepted neither by the Nationalists nor by Ministers; but a minority in the Cabinet, said to number four out of nineteen, were alleged to favour concessions to Ulster beyond those originally embodied in the Bill. Conferences between the different leaders were held informally, and on July 17 the Cabinet met twice, A great naval display had been arranged at Spithead on the occasion of the test mobilisation; the King was to leave London to review the Fleet at 9.30 A.M. on Saturday, July 18; but he was detained till the afternoon, and various communications passed in the morning between him and the Prime Minister. The two, however, travelled together to Portsmouth, where the most powerful Fleet ever assembled, numbering some 200 vessels in all, was drawn up in eight lines, extending over some twenty-two miles altogether, and manned by some 70,000 officers and men. The forces afloat were supplemented by five squadrons of four seaplanes each, with a squadron of eight aeroplanes, and four airships. The King was able to witness the illumination of the Fleet on Saturday evening; on Sunday he visited some of the ships informally; on Monday the ships moved to sea past the Royal yacht, as did a procession of aircraft, and, after witnessing tactical exercises, the King returned to London late on Monday evening. The display and assemblage proved to have an unforeseen value.

The curtailment of the King's visit was explained by the momentous revelation made by The Times on Monday morning, July 20, that His Majesty had issued invitations for the following day to a Conference on the Ulster question at Buckingham Palace, consisting of two members each from the Government, the Opposition, the Nationalists and the Ulster Covenanters. This step was believed to have been initiated by the King, but taken with the knowledge and consent of the Ministry, though without previous consultation with the leaders of the Nationalists or of either the British or Ulster section of the Opposition. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would represent the Ministry; the Marquess of Lansdowne and Mr. Bonar Law the Unionists of Great Britain; Mr. John Redmond and Mr. Dillon the Nationalists; Sir Edward Carson and Captain Craig the Ulstermen. It was rumoured that the Government, though not prepared to accept the transformed Amending Bill, had virtually abandoned the time-limit, and were ready to exclude from the operation of the Home Rule Act not only Armagh, Down, Derry, and Monaghan, but parts of Fermanagh and Tyrone. The dispute now centred, therefore, on the question whether parts of these latter counties should be excluded or the whole.

The Amending Bill was postponed pending the Conferences; and the Prime Minister in announcing the postponement (July 20) repeated the statement of The Times, adding that the Speaker would preside. Mr. Bonar Law announced that the Opposition leaders had "loyally accepted" the King's command; Mr. Redmond, while disclaiming responsibility for the calling of the Conference, said that he had "of course accepted" likewise. Mr. Ginnell (I.N., Westmeath, N.) asked, as an independent Irish Nationalist, what authority the Prime Minister had to advise the King to place himself at the head of a conspiracy to defeat the decision of the House; but Mr. Asquith and the Speaker ignored the question. In the House of Lords, Lord Courtney of Penwith asked for assurances that the Government took the responsibility for the Conference, and that the final decision would rest with Parliament; and the Marquess of Crewe made a satisfactory reply.

The action of The Times was severely criticised, as tending to jeopardise the success of the Conference; but its information, as the Prime Minister assured the House, was not derived from official quarters, and seemed to have been obtained by inference from the movements of Ministers and of the King. The Conference itself was received with misgiving by the Nationalists, the Labour party, and a section of the Liberals, the first named feeling that they could not go much further in concession, the two others suspecting that the King had initiated it, and in so doing had exceeded the limits set by constitutional usage to the powers of the Crown. It had been rumoured that the King had intimated that he would not sign the Home Rule Bill except in conjunction with an Amending Bill; so that the Unionists need only make the Amending Bill impossible to ensure a crisis, ending probably in the dismissal of Ministers and a general election. The Daily News called the Conference "a Royal coup d'état"; the Labour party's views were expressed by Mr. J. H. Thomas (Derby) in his constituency on July 21. He objected to it as a deliberate attempt to defeat the Parliament Act, and also because two rebels had been invited to take part; Labour leaders who had used such language would have been arraigned at the Old Bailey. Liberal feeling was manifested at a meeting of members on that day, summoned in order to express anxiety for the supremacy of Parliament; but a more moderate resolution was passed, declaring that the party was determined to stand by the Nationalists, and that the Government should not appeal to the constituencies before completing the whole of its programme under the Parliament Act.

The misgivings of the Liberals were heightened by the speech with which the King opened the Conference at Buckingham Palace at 11.30 A.M. on Tuesday, July 21. It was as follows:—

Gentlemen,—It is with feelings of satisfaction and hopefulness that I receive you here to-day, and I thank you for the manner in which you have responded to my summons. It is also a matter of congratulation that the Speaker has consented to preside over your meetings.

My intervention at this moment may be regarded as a new departure. But the exceptional circumstances under which you are brought together justify my action. For months we have watched with deep misgivings the course of events in Ireland. The trend has been surely and steadily towards an appeal to force, and to-day the cry of civil war is on the lips of the most responsible and sober-minded of my people.

We have in the past endeavoured to act as a civilising example to the world, and to me it is unthinkable, as it must be to you, that we should be brought to the brink of fratricidal strife upon issues apparently so capable of adjustment as those you are now asked to consider, if handled in a spirit of generous compromise. My apprehension in contemplating such a dire calamity is intensified by my feelings of attachment to Ireland, and of sympathy with her people, who have always welcomed me with warm-hearted affection.

Gentlemen, you represent in one form or another the vast majority of my subjects at home. You also have a deep interest in my Dominions oversea, who are scarcely less concerned in a prompt and friendly settlement of this question. I regard you, then, in this matter as trustees for the honour and peace of all.

Your responsibilities are, indeed, great. The time is short. You will, I know, employ it to the fullest advantage, and be patient, earnest, and conciliatory, in view of the magnitude of the interests at stake. I pray that God in His infinite wisdom may guide your deliberations so that they may result in the joy of peace and honourable settlement.

Unfortunately, the "responsible and sober-minded persons" referred to were taken by the Westminster Gazette (and many readers) to be the Ulstermen and their aiders and abetters; and the Manchester Guardian feared that the King had been "unduly alarmed by the reports of certain of his unofficial counsellors," with consequences that might be serious (for the Constitution) unless he henceforth listened to his official advisers only. Unionist papers pointed out that a host of prominent people, independent of party politics, had talked of civil war, and the Prime Minister, in reply to questions, expressly took the responsibility for the speech, and interpreted His Majesty's words as meaning merely that apprehension of civil strife had been widely entertained and expressed by responsible and sober-minded persons, "among whom I may, perhaps, include myself." The House laughed, but the Liberal objectors were not wholly satisfied. There was some resentment felt, too, at the selection of Buckingham Palace for the Conference. But this, at least, protected the members from journalistic enterprise.

While the Conference was sitting the House of Commons took, among other business, the Report stage of the Finance Bill; but the minds of members were mainly elsewhere. Among the unsuccessful attempts made to obtain alleviations of the income-tax law we may mention proposals (a) to exempt lands and property occupied by any charity, which was asked for especially in the interest of residential hostels at the newer Universities; (b) treating income arising from capital earned by the recipient as unearned income; (c) providing that income from British Colonial investments should be assessed to income-tax and supertax after deduction of any Colonial income-tax; (d) providing for deduction from the taxed income of sums spent in the education of children; making provision for the case of insurance against death duties; (e) exempting income neither taxed nor received in the United Kingdom. Some slight concessions, however, were made by the Government; but a fresh attempt to avert the abolition of the settled estate duty was also unsuccessful. On the first day, complaints were made of the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but, on his arrival, he explained that he was detained by a duty not of his own seeking, but which he had no option but to accept.

The debates were cut short by the guillotine, and the third reading followed on July 23. Mr. Austen Chamberlain remarked on the change in the character of the Bill, and regretted the increase of the death duties, the treatment of settled estates, and the raiding of the Sinking Fund. As to the effect, welcomed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in breaking up landed estates, he desired to see many more small estates, especially occupying ownerships, but he thought the effect would be felt rather by those of moderate size than by the great ones; estates would be starved, and the taxpayers would feel themselves unjustly treated, and attempt evasion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was eminently fair when doing business, but, when convinced that he could not afford to give way, he mis-stated his opponent's case, and showed himself a master in irrelevancy. The new arrangements affecting the Finance Bill deprived the House of its control of finance, and took away its opportunity of reviewing the whole field of taxation. He laid stress on the growth of expenditure, and predicted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would himself convert the country to fiscal reform. The President of the Local Government Board replied that the Bill had set up a better graduation of the income-tax system, including supertax; out of 1,215,000 income-tax payers 214,000 still paid virtually less than 1d. in the pound, and 750,000 less than 6d. As to the provision for reduction of debt, he doubted whether the taxpayer was not being asked for too much. The Liberal Budgets marked a new departure in finance—a march against preventable poverty. After other speeches, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the new proposals had been fully discussed, and the Opposition had had difficulty in finding speakers. The changes in the Bill were a proof that the Commons still controlled finance. He defended the death duties, and thought that the financial interests of the world were feeling alarm at the total expenditure of 350,000,000l. a year on armaments; he saw signs of reaction, but the movement must be cosmopolitan. It was a duty to raise money for social reform. After further debate, the Bill was passed without a division.

The Conference meanwhile had failed. It met on four successive days (July 21-24), beginning at 11.30 A.M., and closing at 12.30 or 1 P.M.; and there were latterly frequent consultations between various political leaders. A large and attentive crowd, mainly, however, of idlers, and kept by the police at a convenient distance from the Palace, watched the arrival and departure of its members, and cheered them all impartially; and Mr. Redmond and Mr. Dillon, who walked back on the second day through Birdcage Walk, were enthusiastically cheered at the Barracks by the Irish Guards, whose honorary Colonel, it was noticed, was Earl Roberts, a decided Unionist. Two suffragists, Lady Barclay and the Hon. Edith Fitzgerald, attempted in vain to enter the Palace during the Conference, in order to submit the claims of women to the King. As was expected from the first, no solution was reached. After the final meeting on July 24 there was a Cabinet Council, and the Prime Minister announced the failure at the close of the sitting of the House of Commons. He read the official report, signed by the Speaker, stating that the possibility was considered of finding an area to be excluded from the operation of the Home Rule Bill, and that the Conference, "being unable to agree, either in principle or in detail, on such an area, brought its sittings to a conclusion." Mr. Asquith added that the Amending Bill would be taken on July 28.

It was stated that the deadlock arose over the exclusion of Fermanagh and Tyrone, and especially as to whether Tyrone, in which the Nationalist voters were slightly the more numerous, should be allowed to vote itself out by "a bare majority." The personal relations of all the members it was stated, had been excellent, and each set had genuinely attempted to appreciate the difficulties of the others. It was thought that the Ministerialists, and even the Cabinet, might split. The First Lord of the Admiralty and four other Ministers were said to favour further concessions to Ulster, and the situation was described as almost desperate.

It was made even worse, however, two days later by a daring act of gun-running, leading to an affray in Dublin between the populace and British troops. On Sunday morning, July 26, about a thousand National Volunteers, some unarmed, others armed with long staves, assembled at Fairview, two miles from Dublin on the Howth road, and started, apparently on a route march, to Howth. Arriving there at midday, they marched to the pier, where a white yacht, steered (it was said) by a lady, had just arrived. Those with staves guarded the entrance to the pier; the rest, assisted by Boy Scouts, unloaded 2,500 Lee-Enfield rifles and 125,000 rounds of ammunition. Each Volunteer shouldered a rifle; the balance was loaded into motor cars and distributed to hiding-places throughout the county. A policeman and some coastguardmen were prevented from interfering, and the latter telephoned to Dublin. Mr. Harrel, the Assistant Commissioner of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, after sending out a large force of constables, telephoned the facts to the Under-Secretary at 2 P.M., and was directed to meet him at the Castle at 2.45; but he did not do so, having gone to the barracks, where he requisitioned, on his own responsibility, two companies of the King's Own Scottish Borderers, who were sent to Fairview by tram. The Volunteers on their return were met at Clontarf by a body of police and 160 soldiers; the police were ordered to disarm the Volunteers; some refused, and were arrested by the soldiers; others succeeded in disarming the Volunteers in front, after a scuffle in which two soldiers were wounded by pistol-shots, as well as three Volunteers and a policeman; hereupon the Volunteer leaders ordered a parley, during which the rear ranks of their own body dispersed, taking their rifles with them. Meanwhile the Under-Secretary, not finding Mr. Harrel, had left a Minute directing him that forcible disarmament of the Volunteers should not be attempted, but that their names should be taken and the destination of the arms traced. Later the troops, on their way back to Dublin, were stoned in Bachelors' Walk by a mob; their commanding officer expostulated, and some of the rear-rank men, losing patience, fired without orders; three of the crowd were killed (including one woman) and thirty-two wounded, and a number of the soldiers were severely injured with stones. At 10.30 P.M. a crowd attacked the gate of the barracks, but were driven off by the police.

Statements on these events were made in both Houses on Monday, July 27. In the Commons the Chief Secretary, replying to a question from Mr. Redmond, read the Minute left by the Under-Secretary for Mr. Harrel, and stated that the latter had been suspended, and that an inquiry into the conduct of the military would be held at once; and, in answer to Mr. Devlin, he stated that on the previous Saturday 5,000 men, with five machine guns, had marched through Belfast, that General Macready, the military magistrate, was then in the city, and that the police had not been ordered to interfere. The subject was debated as a matter of urgent public importance that night, after a statement by the Foreign Secretary on the European situation (post, p. 167) which was rapidly becoming graver, and an announcement by the Prime Minister of the further postponement of the Amending Bill, since the Nationalist party, which had arranged a conference for that day to consider it, had had its attention taken up by the events in Dublin. A brief and non-party discussion on minor naval votes also preceded the debate.

In moving the adjournment, Mr. John Redmond condemned the Arms Proclamation, and stated that on June 30 he had written to the Chief Secretary, declaring it a failure and likely to lead to collision between the Nationalists and police. He went on to refer to the march of the previous Saturday through Belfast, and asked who was responsible for this monstrous attempt to discriminate in the administration of the law. Where was Mr. Harrell's chief, Sir John Ross of Bladensburg, who had proved himself thoroughly incompetent during the strikes of 1913? After referring, in impartial terms, to the shooting, he demanded from the Government—the suspension and trial of Sir John Ross, an immediate inquiry into all the facts, a judicial and military inquiry into the action of the troops, with (if they were found guilty) proper punishment; removal of the regiment from Ireland; revocation of the Arms Proclamation; and finally, and very emphatically, an impartial administration of the law.

The Chief Secretary agreed that no distinction could be made in the treatment of the Ulster and Nationalist Volunteers, and spoke of Mr. Harrel's "act of extraordinary indiscretion." Mr. Harrel had taken the whole responsibility, but if Sir John Ross were associated with the act, he ought to be suspended also. He dissociated the Volunteers wholly from the shooting and from the attack by the mob, and referred the question of the removal of the regiment to the Prime Minister as Secretary for War.

Mr. Bonar Law declared that the question put to Sir John Ross was most improper; he could not now say it was wrong to suspend Mr. Harrel, but why did not the Under-Secretary send after him? The Government in Ireland had hunted out a scapegoat to save their own skin. The incident was only possible because the Government had abrogated authority in Ireland and had ceased to govern. He did not blame the Nationalist Volunteers, but the Government, for the first time in history, refused to carry out the law and yet continued to hold office. They did not vindicate the law because Mr. Redmond would not let them. The Government had never been able to make up their minds as to their proper policy and risk their fate on the consequences.

The Prime Minister replied. He was not going to follow the example of the Opposition leader, who was "a past master of vituperation," but, as Secretary for War, he put in a plea for the troops. They were exposed to great provocation, and what happened, much as it was to be lamented, was not a fitting subject for condemnation. After promising a full inquiry, he refused to see that it was unfair to ask Sir John Ross whether he associated himself with his subordinate. "It is a question put to me once a week." When Mr. Harrel acted, the proclamation against the importation of arms had already exhausted itself. He denounced the attacks on the Under-Secretary, and said that the importation of arms was relatively of minor importance. If the proclamation was maintained, it should be impartially applied. The real crux of the question was in the attitude of the Government and the Opposition to the maintenance of the authority of the law. The Opposition had greatly increased the inherent difficulty of governing Ireland by proclaiming that violation of the law was a cardinal virtue. Till an agreement was reached as to respect for law, the Unionists, when they came in, would find the government of Ireland an impossible task.

Mr. Balfour shared Mr. Bonar Law's suspicions as to the Minute, and thought the whole story had not been told. The Government had been persistently blind to the feelings of Ulster, and now were up against facts. They had taken and kept power, and had allowed the whole system of law, order, and government to crumble. Every one knew that Ireland had been brought into a condition from which it seemed almost impossible for any courage, statesmanship, or heroism to extricate it.

After other speeches, Lord R. Cecil (U.) moved the closure, which was defeated by 249 to 217. The motion was thus talked out, and a division averted on the main question. It might have imperilled the Government.

It was elicited next day that, as Mr. Balfour apparently had divined, Sir James Dougherty's Minute had in fact been written at 5 P.M., after the affray was over, but that it contained the instructions which Mr. Harrel, had he waited, would have received three hours before. But the occurrence was already obscured by events of greater moment. The Commission, appointed a week later, consisted of Lord Shaw, Mr. Justice Molony, and the Rt. Hon. W. D. Andrews, a retired Irish judge; and the story may be ended here by stating that its Report (published Oct. 1) declared that the employment of the police and military was illegal, that General Cuthbert, who allowed the military to be used, was wrong in doing so, that they were not justified in firing, and that the twenty-one soldiers who fired did so without orders, but believing that they had them.

At the time, however, it seemed possible that this affray, coupled with the dispute over the Amending Bill, might bring about complications delaying the establishment of Home Rule; and an enthusiastic demonstration of Liberals, Labour men, and Nationalists, held at the London Opera House on July 29, demanded that the Government should complete their legislative programme and thus secure the effective operation of the Parliament Act. Sir James H. Dalziel (Kirkcaldy) presided; Mr. Neil Primrose (Cambs, Wisbech), Mr. Rowlands (Dartford), and Mr. Devlin (Belfast, W.) were among the speakers, and there were 50,000 applications for admission. Incidentally the Chairman mentioned—what soon became obvious—the very grave effect produced on the international situation by the reports that civil war was impending in Ireland.

In the interval before the resumption of the debate on the Amending Bill, the House dealt, more briefly than usual, with the Colonial Office Vote and the Education Vote (July 28) as well as with other non-contentious subjects needing no special notice here. On the Colonial Office Vote the points raised were dealt with by the Colonial Secretary in his reply as follows: He must decline to give information as to future policy in Somaliland which would be useful to the Mullah; but they were getting 450 camel constabulary and 400 of the Indian contingent, of whom 150 would be mounted and would strengthen the camel corps. Burao would be occupied by the new commandant early in September, and they would then enable the friendlies to reoccupy their grazing at the mouth of the Ain Valley. He would not decrease the existing native reserve lands in East Africa. As to Tasmania, he had only laid down the rules generally regarded as binding on a Governor, and Sir W. Ellison-Macartney's appointment was based on his work as a Civil Servant and irrespective of politics. The incident, he thought, was closed. The South African Native Lands Act was the outcome of a commission appointed by Viscount Milner, and was temporary; Parliament ought not to intervene except on proof of gross injustice to natives, and there had been none. The Malaya Dreadnought was not a tribute, but a voluntary gift from allies; the taxation of the Malay people was practically nil. He gave encouraging figures as to the decreasing consumption of opium in the British possessions in the Far East, but it was ominous that large quantities of cocaine and morphia had been seized. As to the Ceylon excise, the Government proposed to put up an experimental distillery in each district to get rid of the existing distilleries, but they might be directed by private enterprise, though not at the cost of creating vested interests. The supposed increase in the consumption of arrack was due to the gradual cessation of illicit drinking. He suspended his decision as to the Chartered Company's Charter pending consultation with Lord Gladstone.—The Vote was agreed to.

On the Education Vote, after criticisms and comments had been passed on various points in the Board's policy by several members, the President of the Board of Education paid a tribute to the memory of Sir William Anson, and bore testimony to the efficiency of the staff of the Department. Among other matters of interest, he touched on school hygiene, mentioning that 317 education authorities had established medical inspection, in which 1097 medical men, eighty-four women, and 300 specialists were engaged. Half the children needed dental treatment, and the expenditure on the medical service had increased from 47,000l. in 1912-13 to 175,000l. in 1914-15. For mental and physical defectives there were 365 schools, and the grants were increased. They had 945 places in open-air schools for ailing children, but 500,000 children needed them. Provision was made for feeding 358,000 children, but they hoped to be able to contribute half the cost to local authorities by a supplementary grant of 77,000l. Physical training was invariably part of the course, and England was behind no nation in providing for it. He mentioned also schools for mothers, play-grounds, and a projected grant in 1915-16 of 50,000l. to aid local authorities to deal with epidemics. There was no evidence that the teaching of the three R's had generally deteriorated; the children were more alert and responsive, and happier at school than ever. The wastage of teachers could only be met by making the career more attractive. Lodgings for women teachers were a difficulty, and hostels for teachers were the only solution. The State would find two-fifths of the cost. Children left school just when a good teacher could do most for them, but he thought the prosperity of the country from the point of view of education was assured.

Amid all the prevalent excitement, little attention could be paid to the Report of the Welsh Land Inquiry Committee (July 27). This body, of which Sir A. Mond (L., Swansea) was chairman, had been appointed at the request of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to inquire into and report on the special circumstances of Wales in respect to land tenure and agricultural conditions, and the Report, which claimed, fairly enough, to be judicial and dispassionate, contained some 350 pages of documents and comment, leading up to the following main conclusions. Legislation was urgently needed in the interests of agriculture; the crops, except in roots, were much poorer than in England, partly from the inferior productiveness of the soil, but largely through insecurity of tenure, and also because of high rents, fear that rent would be charged on tenants' improvements, inadequate compensation, and onerous conditions of tenants' agreements. The Committee recommended absolute fixity of tenure, and the establishment of a Land Court with power to fix fair rents and settle reasonable conditions of tenancy. The rural housing conditions were deplorable; there were often not enough cottages, and in no district was there an ample supply of suitable cottages large enough for an average family. The effect was bad for health and morals. The administration of the Small Holdings and Allotments Acts was unsatisfactory and varied greatly in different counties, and the machinery was too cumbersome. At the end of 1912, 1,100 approved applicants were still waiting for land.

The Amending Bill was to be taken on July 30; and its prospects had been perhaps improved by the remarkable pamphlet published a week earlier by Sir Horace Plunkett, announcing his conversion to Home Rule (post, Chap. VI.). But all domestic difficulties were rapidly being obscured and effaced by the rapid gathering of war-clouds in Central Europe. The news of the Dublin shooting was published the same day as that of the rejection by Austria-Hungary of the Serbian reply to her ultimatum; and between question time in the House of Commons and the excited debate on the affray later on that day (July 27) party strife was visibly suspended in both Houses, while substantially identical statements on the European situation were made respectively by Sir Edward Grey and the Marquess of Crewe. The former, replying to a question by the leader of the Opposition, stated that, after hearing of the Austro-Serbian rupture, he had asked the French, German and Italian Governments, through the respective British Ambassadors in their capitals, if their Ambassadors might meet in Conference in London; he had also asked the Austro-Hungarian and Serbian Governments to suspend operations meanwhile. It appeared next day that Italy and France accepted at once; but Germany refused the British invitation, alleging that negotiations between the several Governments would be preferable; Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia and seized Serb vessels at Orsova; and Russia prepared (July 28) to mobilise fourteen Army Corps. Under these circumstances The Times (July 29) urged British parties to "close ranks" and suspend their strife, that the Government might devote all its energies to limiting the area of the war. Sir Edward Grey, it declared, was indispensable as Foreign Minister; and the Ulster question might be provisionally settled by the exclusion of Fermanagh and Tyrone from the Home Rule area. That day, however, the situation became graver; seven Stock Exchange firms failed; and the Prime Minister could only tell the Commons that the Government were doing their best to "circumscribe the area of possible conflict." But on the day following (July 31) he announced that the Amending Bill must be postponed. In an impressive speech to a profoundly attentive House, he stated that the issues of peace and war were hanging in the balance, and with them the risk of a catastrophe of which it was impossible to measure either the dimensions or the effects. It was, therefore, of vital importance in the interest of the whole world, that Great Britain, who had no interests directly at stake, should present a united front and be able to speak and act with the authority of an undivided nation. Hence they would deal with necessary non-controversial business. Mr. Bonar Law agreed, saying that it should be made clear that British domestic differences did not prevent members from presenting a united front in the councils of the world; and that he spoke not only for the Unionists, but for the Ulstermen.

Next day, however (Aug. 1), the situation became worse. German troops were preparing to invade France; Russia had proclaimed a general mobilisation; martial law was consequently proclaimed in Germany; in Great Britain steps were taken to guard magazines, railway bridges and tunnels, and dockyards; the booms defending British naval ports were placed in position; and telegrams from the Dominions exhibited their eagerness to aid the mother country by sending troops. In London, the Stock Exchange, an hour after its opening, was closed sine die; business was active at Lloyd's in insurances against war risks; the Cabinet met in the morning, and the Prime Minister in the afternoon was received by the King. Ministers cancelled their week-end engagements, and, just before the House rose, the Prime Minister stated that the news from Germany indicated that she would follow Russia in mobilisation. Next day the bank rate was advanced to 10 per cent.—its highest point since the Overend-Gurney crisis in May, 1866; the Cabinet met twice, and a conference was held between some of its members, including the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the financial situation; and the King, as a last effort to preserve peace, sent a direct personal telegram to the Tsar, offering mediation, which arrived, however, after Germany had declared war on Russia.

Unwonted and varied excitement characterised Sunday, August 2. Throughout the country prayers for the preservation of peace were offered in the churches, in accordance with a suggestion made some days earlier by the Archbishops, and also in Nonconformist places of worship. In Trafalgar Square a "war protest meeting" organised by Mr. Hyndman, Mr. Ben Tillett, Mr. Keir Hardie, Mr. Barnes, M.P., and other prominent representatives of Socialism or Labour, passed a resolution calling on the Government to take every step to secure peace, and on the workers of the world to use their industrial and political power to avert war; but it was interrupted by a large dissentient element, which, however, ultimately seceded peacefully and held a "patriotic" meeting at the Admiralty Arch. During the day the Cabinet met twice, and frequent informal conferences were held between Ministers; and it was stated that the divisions of opinion previously existing among them disappeared in the course of the day almost entirely. The King held a Council at 4.30 P.M., and it was announced, first, that the Government had taken control of all wireless telegraphy, next that a "moratorium" of a month was established for certain bills of exchange; and the Admiralty called out the Naval Reserves, including naval and marine pensioners under the age of fifty-five, and the Royal Volunteer Reserve. On the announcement of this last step, through the medium of special late Sunday editions of various newspapers, a crowd of some 6,000 people marched up the Mall to Buckingham Palace, where it sang the national anthems of Great Britain and France. The King and Queen were called for, and came out to acknowledge the greetings of their enthusiastic subjects.

Next morning London awoke to a new kind of Bank Holiday. The morning papers announced the Germans' violation of the neutrality of Luxemburg and their invasion of France and their ultimatum to Belgium; many of the railway excursion arrangements had perforce been cancelled; and the streets were thronged by disappointed excursionists, reinforced by others who had come in from the country for further news. Miniature British and French flags found a ready sale in the streets; special editions were issued of the evening papers; crowds gathered outside Buckingham Palace and Whitehall, impartially cheering Ministers and Unionist leaders. In the City a conference of bankers and merchants invited the Government to extend the Bank Holiday for three days by proclamation; the House of Lords had been hastily summoned; but interest centred in the Commons.

Here, indeed, as in the country, the attitude of a large section of the Liberals was still uncertain. Many of them condemned all wars, or almost all, as criminal; many more held that the Foreign Office was prejudiced against Germany, and abhorred the notion of fighting to preserve the balance of power in Europe, or to strengthen Russia, reputed a far less civilised Power than Germany, and the historic foe of the British Empire in India. Protests against any departure by Great Britain from neutrality were specially noticeable in the Manchester Guardian and the Daily News; and manifestoes in a similar sense were issued by various groups of important personages; the Bishops of Lincoln and Hereford, the British Neutrality Committee, and others. A group of learned men, chiefly belonging to Cambridge University, declared that war against Germany in the interest of Russia and Servia would be "a sin against civilisation"; and the Labour Leader appealed to "the organised workers" to demonstrate everywhere that the war must be stopped. But these views were greatly modified, not only by the news of German action in Luxemburg and Belgium, but by a statement published on the Monday afternoon with the authority of the German Embassy, intimating that, if Great Britain remained neutral, Germany would undertake not to attack France in the north by sea, nor to make warlike use of the Dutch or Belgian coasts. Thus, it was contended, Great Britain, as a neutral, could aid France as well as by going to war. This offer was felt to be ridiculous; and the conversion of the vast majority of those Liberals who were still adverse to war was completed by the speech delivered in the House of Commons by Sir Edward Grey. It was described by Lord Lansdowne as "of rare courage," and The Times declared that it would remain memorable in the history of the world.

The centre of interest lay in the Commons, and Sir Edward Grey's speech practically served for both Houses. All questions to Ministers were postponed, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced, without notice, a Postponement of Payments Bill, supplementing the Moratorium proclamation (p. 169) by empowering the Government to declare a general moratorium on occasion. By agreement, it was passed through all its stages at once; indeed, but for a protest from Mr. McCallum Scott (L., Glasgow, Bridgeton) it would not even have been read. The Bank holiday was prolonged for three days; but the stoppage was not to involve a general suspension of work and wages.

Then Sir Edward Grey spoke. He said that Ministers, then as always, had worked for peace, but in vain. As to British obligations he had told the Russian Foreign Minister in 1908 that he could promise no more than diplomatic support, and in the existing crisis, till the day before, he had promised nothing more. During the general election of 1906, at the crisis which led to the Algeciras Conference, he had been asked if, should a Franco-German war break out, Great Britain would give armed support; he had replied that he could promise nothing which would not be fully supported by public opinion, but, if war were forced on France through the Anglo-French entente regarding Morocco, British public opinion would rally to her support. The French Government had then suggested conversations on this support between military and naval experts; and he had agreed, after consulting Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, Lord Haldane, and Mr. Asquith—since he could not, owing to the general election, consult the Cabinet—on the understanding that such conversations should in no way bind the Government. In the Agadir crisis he took the same line, and on November 22, 1912, he exchanged letters with the French Ambassador to this effect, but agreeing that if either Great Britain or France had grave reason to expect an attack by a third Power or a menace to the general peace, both Governments should consult whether they should co-operate and what measures they should take in common. But the British Government remained perfectly free to decide whether it should intervene. In the Morocco question, however, it was pledged to diplomatic support; in the existing crisis France was involved because of its obligation of honour to Russia, which did not apply to Great Britain, a Power which did not even know the terms of the Franco-Russian alliance. But in view of the Anglo-French friendship, let every man look into his own heart and construe the extent of the British obligation for himself. In view of that friendship, the French Fleet was concentrated in the Mediterranean, and if, in a war which France had not sought, her unprotected coasts were bombarded, he felt that Great Britain could not stand aside. And, from the point of view of British interests, suppose the French Fleet withdrawn from the Mediterranean and Italy involved in the war, Great Britain, if she now stood aside, might be exposed to appalling risks. He had, therefore, on the previous afternoon given the French Ambassador an authorised assurance that, if a hostile German Fleet came into the Channel or North Sea the British Government would give France all the assistance in its power. He had just heard that the German Government would be prepared, were Great Britain pledged to neutrality, to agree that the German Fleet should not attack the northern coast of France (p. 170); but that was far too narrow an engagement. There was also the question, hourly becoming more serious, of the neutrality of Belgium. In 1870 Prince Bismarck had acknowledged the sanctity of the Treaty of 1839, and the Government could not take a narrower view of its obligations than Mr. Gladstone's Government took in 1870. He had asked in the previous week the French and German Governments whether they were prepared to respect that neutrality; and he quoted the replies: France had promised to do so, Germany had delayed replying. Belgium had promised neutrality. But Germany had sent Belgium an ultimatum; and the British Government had been asked in the past week whether an assurance would satisfy it that Belgian integrity would be preserved after the war. It had replied refusing to barter away its interests or obligations in Belgian neutrality. The King of the Belgians had that day telegraphed to King George, appealing to the British Government to safeguard the integrity of Belgium. Great Britain had great and vital interests in the independence of Belgium, and integrity was the least part of that independence. Compliance with the ultimatum would be fatal to that independence, and that of Holland would then perish also. If Great Britain stood aside, ran away from her obligations, and merely intervened at the end of the war, her material force would be of little value, in view of the respect she would have lost. She would suffer terribly in the war in any case, but if she stood aside, she would be in no position after it to prevent Europe falling under the domination of one Power, and her moral position would be such as to have lost her all respect. The Fleet was mobilised, the Army was mobilising, but no engagement had yet been taken to send abroad an Expeditionary Force. The one bright spot was Ireland. The feeling there made the Irish question a consideration that need not be taken into account. Unconditional neutrality was precluded by the commitment to France and the consideration of Belgium. To stand aside would be to sacrifice the good name of Great Britain without escaping the most serious economic consequences. The forces of the Crown were never more ready or more efficient; the Government had worked for peace to the last moment, and beyond it; when the country realised the situation, they would have its united support.

Mr. Bonar Law promised emphatically the full and unhesitating support of the Opposition, mentioning also, as another bright spot, the certainty of that of the Dominions. Mr. John Redmond, in a speech that made a profound sensation, declared that the events of recent years had completely altered the Nationalist feeling towards Great Britain. He recalled the support given by Catholics to the Irish Volunteers in the eighteenth century, and said that the Government might withdraw all its troops from Ireland: her coasts would be defended by her armed sons, and the Nationalist Volunteers would gladly join in doing so with their brethren of the north. Mr. Ramsay Macdonald (Lab.) contended that the Foreign Minister had not shown that the country was in danger, the Crimean and South African Wars were fought on the plea of British honour; and the conflict could not be confined to the neutrality of Belgium. The Labour party wanted to know what would happen to Russia, and the annihilation of France was impossible. He admitted that the feeling of the House was against his followers, but they held that Great Britain should have remained neutral.

The sitting was suspended till 7 P.M., when the Royal Assent was given to the Postponement of Payments Bill, and the debate was continued discursively, several Liberal and Labour members condemning, and others supporting, the course taken by the Government. Eventually Mr. Balfour pointed out that all this was "the mere dregs and lees of the debate," and would be misunderstood abroad as representing the opinion of the House. He urged that it should be ended, and after a few words of protest from Colonel Seely (L.) the advice was taken.

Next day the proceedings in the Commons commenced with a momentous statement by the Prime Minister, embodying the earlier telegrams in the series, of which the substance is given below; the outstanding Votes in Supply were then passed, and a Message was read from the King announcing the Proclamation calling out the Army Reserve and embodying the Territorial Force; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer outlined the scheme of the Government for insurance against war risks, so as to secure the continuance of overseas trade. It had been devised by an expert sub-committee of the Imperial Defence Committee, and conditions in the shipping trade had changed since such insurance had been discountenanced by an expert Committee in 1908. Details cannot here be given; but, substantially, the State took 80 per cent. of the risks on vessels trading oversea (which were mainly insured through three great mutual societies) and received 80 per cent. of the premiums, charging no premium on vessels on a voyage on the outbreak of war, and allowing the cancellation of a policy if a voyage were delayed by the Admiralty. For cargoes a State Bureau was opened, to insure cargoes despatched after the outbreak of war. A flat rate was to be charged, subject to certain variations from time to time, and a strong Advisory Board established. Mr. Austen Chamberlain (U.) and Mr. A. Henderson (Lab.) approved the scheme, the latter urging the Government to consider the organisation of distribution; but here, as it proved, there was no need for alarm.

Meanwhile the Government prepared actively for war in other ways. It assumed the control of the railways, vesting it in a Committee of General Managers under the Board of Trade; it took over the two Dreadnoughts completed and nearly completed in Great Britain for Turkey, and the two destroyer leaders building for Chile; Field-Marshal Sir John French was appointed Inspector-General of the Forces, and it was understood that he was to command the Expeditionary Force; and Admiral Sir John Jellicoe was appointed to the supreme command of the Home Fleets, with Rear-Admiral C. E. Madden as his Chief of Staff. The King, too, issued a Message to the Overseas Dominions expressing the "appreciation and pride" with which he had received the Messages from their respective Governments. "These spontaneous assurances of their fullest-support," the Message continued, "recall to me the generous, self-sacrificing help given by them in the past to the Mother Country. I shall be strengthened in the discharge of the great responsibility which rests upon me by the confident belief that, in this time of trial, my Empire will stand united, calm, resolute, trusting in God."

In the country generally the action of Germany and Sir Edward Grey's statement had driven the great mass of the Liberal and Labour parties to agree that war was inevitable and just. In the Ministry some members were still unconvinced. On Monday, August 3, four members of the Cabinet, it was said, still advocated peace; by next day there were but two, Lord Morley of Blackburn, Lord President of the Council, and Mr. John Burns, President of the Board of Trade. They, however, resigned office; but it was stated that they had decided to do so independently and at different stages of the controversy, and largely to avoid hampering the freedom of the Cabinet in a great emergency. Their example was followed by Mr. Charles Trevelyan (Yorks, W.R., Elland), the Secretary of the Board of Education. These three were replaced respectively by Earl Beauchamp, Mr. Runciman, and Dr. Addison.

The breach between Germany and Great Britain became definitive on Tuesday, August 4. Following his statement of the previous day in the Commons, Sir E. Grey telegraphed in the morning to the British Ambassador in Berlin, protesting against the violation of Belgian neutrality by Germany, and asking for an immediate reply. Before it came he received official Belgian intimations that the violation had already been announced to Belgium and had taken place. The German Government also telegraphed to the German Ambassador in London, instructing him to repeat most positively the formal assurance that, even in the case of an armed conflict, Germany would under no pretence whatever annex Belgian territory, and that she had disregarded Belgian neutrality to prevent what was to her a question of life or death, the French advance through Belgium. Thereupon the British Government sent an ultimatum to Berlin, asking for an unequivocal assurance that Germany would respect the neutrality of Belgium identical with that given the week before by France both to Belgium and to Great Britain, and for a satisfactory reply by midnight to it, and to Sir E. Grey's telegram of the morning; otherwise, the British Ambassador was instructed to make what was, substantially, a declaration of war. Late that night this request was refused: and on Wednesday morning, August 5, Great Britain found herself called to be once more the saviour of Europe.

FOOTNOTES: