CHAPTER III.

FROM EASTER TO WHITSUNTIDE.

The brief Easter holiday was fortunately favoured by fine weather, and there was a large exodus of pleasure-seekers from the great towns; but the usual conferences of workers in various employments served mainly to exhibit the variety of the prevalent unrest. The Independent Labour party, in conference at Bradford, passed by 233 to 78 a resolution declaring Cabinet rule inimical to good government, and demanding that, in order to break it up, the Labour party should be asked to vote only in accordance with the principles for which that party stood. A report on the relations of the Liberal and Labour parties had previously been subjected to a "frank and friendly" discussion in private, but much dissatisfaction was exhibited in the debate on the resolution above given at the alleged subservience of the party to Socialism. The conference also passed a resolution in favour of uniting with the Fabian Society and the British Socialist party, originally the Social Democratic Federation; but it declined to allow its candidates to call themselves "Labour and Socialist," for fear that adherents of the moderate section would stand as "Liberal-Labour" or "Progressive Labour" candidates. The party funds were very low, and there were various indications that many working-men had lost interest in political means of reform. The speakers at the preliminary meetings, especially Mr. Snowden and Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, were greatly interrupted by militant suffragists. At the Elementary Teachers' Conference a resolution favouring women's suffrage was declared outside the scope of the union, and a subsequent attempt to annul this decision was defeated amid disorder. At Conferences of postal employees, a number of grievances were ventilated.

Some of the grievances of the Civil Service were dealt with in the Report, published April 14, of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service (A.R., 1912, Chron., March 14; Chairman, Lord Macdonnell). It was a strong body, containing prominent members of Parliament, leading University tutors, and women and others with special knowledge; and it issued a Majority Report, signed by the Chairman and fifteen Commissioners, and a Minority Report, signed by three, but qualifying rather than diverging widely from the views of the majority. The Commission had still to examine the Foreign Office, the Diplomatic Service, and the legal departments. Briefly, the majority recommended that, as to patronage, when an appointment was made from outside the Service, the reasons for it and the history of the candidate should be given; the general control of the Service should be exercised by a new special department within the Treasury; the existing five classes should be replaced by three, the First Division being called "Administrative" and recruited as before; the method of appointment should be harmonised with the national system of education; transfer between different departments should be permitted, so as to facilitate promotion; and there were a number of recommendations with regard to women, including equal pay with men where the work and efficiency were really equal, and compulsory retirement on marriage. The Commission discountenanced political action by Civil Servants, and recommended a special inquiry into the subject of the political disabilities by persons of experience in industrial conciliation and arbitration.

The House of Commons reassembled on Easter Tuesday, April 14, and devoted the week mainly to practical legislation. The East African Protectorate (Loans) Bill passed through Committee without amendment, after some unsuccessful opposition to its details, chiefly on the part of Independent Liberals. The Criminal Justice Administration Bill was read a second time (April 15), amid general approval, and was referred to a Standing Committee. The Home Secretary explained that its object was to reduce the number of commitments to prison by allowing not less than seven days for the payment of a fine of less than 40_s._, the fine to include all Court fees; to recognise societies for the supply of probation officers, and to hand them money provided by Parliament towards their expenses; to amplify the Borstal system; and to introduce other smaller changes. The Dogs Bill, exempting dogs from vivisection, was read a second time on April 17. A protest against it signed by eminent scientific authorities had been published; but Sir F. Banbury (U., _City of London_), who moved the second reading, justified it on the ground that the dog was the special friend of man; and he reminded the Ministerialists that, when the house of their Chief Whip was burnt, the alarm was given and the lives of the inmates saved by the barking of a dog. The Bill was opposed by representatives of Cambridge, London, and Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities (Mr. Rawlinson, Sir P. Magnus, and Sir Henry Craik) in the interest of physiological research. The only substitute for a dog for certain purposes, it was said, was a monkey, and its price was prohibitive. Without inoculation of dogs, Sir H. Craik stated, the existing great knowledge of tropical diseases could not have been reached, nor could Carrel have conducted his experiments on heart surgery. Dr. Chapple (L., _Stirlingshire_) added that operations as carried on in Great Britain were painless, and hydrophobia had been abolished by experiments on dogs, not by the muzzling order. The Under-Secretary for the Home Department suggested, as a compromise, that the use of dogs should not be permitted unless it could be shown that no other animal was available. The Bill was passed, after closure, by 122 to 80, and was sent to a Standing Committee; but its opponents destroyed it, first by refusing to make a quorum, and afterwards by extensive amendments; and it was dropped on June 30.

Two other debates of the week deserve brief notice. On April 15 Mr. Leach (L., _Yorks, W.R._, _Colne Valley_) moved a resolution that in future no member should, unless by leave, speak in the House for more than fifteen minutes, or in Committee for more than twenty. Ministers, ex-Ministers, and movers of Bills and resolutions to be excepted. Sir A. Verney (L., _Bucks_, _N._) moved an amendment that members should signify to the Chair the time they would take, and should be reminded when they exceeded it. It was generally admitted to be desirable that more members should speak, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, in a sympathetic speech, recommended that the subject should be left to the Committee on Procedure. Sir P. Banbury (U.), opposing the motion, talked it out.

Next day, in Committee of Supply, there was a debate on housing conditions in Ireland. Mr. Clancy (N., _Dublin Co._), who began it, pointed out that over 20,000 families in Dublin lived in one-room tenements, breeding-places of tuberculosis; but of 5,500 houses only seventy-three were owned by members of the Corporation, the owners of the rest were frequently poor, and could not pay for repairs or demolition. The Corporation had housed 2.5 per cent. of the population. Unionist members contrasted the conditions in Dublin with those in Belfast, and the Chief Secretary for Ireland showed that the evil was largely the result of overcrowding and low wages, but could not promise State aid. Nothing could be worse, he said, than an attempt to combine Manchester principles with little patches of philanthropic Socialism. True, they had built labourers' cottages, but that was a corollary of Land Purchase. The people did not choose to be moved to the suburbs. Eventually the resolution was talked out.

The second reading of the Established Church (Wales) Bill was debated on April 20 and 21 in a rather small House. The rejection was moved by Lord B. Cecil (U., _Herts_, _Hitchin_). The attack on the Church, he maintained, had been lifeless; now that individualist theories of the State had decayed, what was wanted was more Establishment--the national recognition of religion; and personally, he would gladly see extended to Nonconformist bodies all the privileges, if they were privileges, possessed by the Church of England. Voluntaryism--the theory that a Church ought to depend on the day-to-day contributions of its members--was absolutely dead; at any rate, the Nonconformist bodies were all seeking endowments. After contesting the stock Liberal arguments for Welsh Disestablishment, he said that, apart from the thirty-one Welsh members, the evidence was that the majority of the Welsh people was adverse. Besides petitions, meetings, and addresses, there was the petition of over 103,000 Nonconformists, many of them Liberals, against the Disendowment clauses of the Bill. People had been deterred from signing it by the threat that they would lose their old-age pensions. The Church, as a whole, would not suffer, but some of the curates would, and the Nonconformists would rue their work.

The motion was seconded by Mr. Hoare (U., _Chelsea_) and opposed by the Attorney-General, who ridiculed the idea that Wales was adverse; and read a letter from a Welsh rector stating the writer's conviction that the majority of the Welsh clergy were in favour of the Disestablishment clauses, and that, if the leaders of the Church party would accept the Government's offer of commuting life interests, the loss would readily be made up by Church people, and the result would be a message of peace to Wales and a blessing to the Church as a spiritual institution. The Nonconformist petition had been worked up in rural places by Conservative landlords and agents, and many of the signatories (though in this he did not impute blame to the organisers) had signed to protect themselves and their homes. Speaking as "half a Welshman," whose youth had been spent amid the tradition of Welsh Nonconformity, he said that the movement for Disestablishment was bound up with Welsh nationalism. The case for Disendowment depended, not on the historical origin of tithe, but on the difference between the mediæval and the modern Church, and no scheme had ever been more fair and moderate.

Later Sir Alfred Mond (L., _Swansea Town_) stated that at Newport, Mon., the Nonconformist petition was organised by four vicars, a curate, a Tory agent, and a Tory councillor; and that harrowing tales were told about churchyards being ploughed up.

In the debate next day Mr. Balfour eloquently appealed to the Welsh people to be more concerned with the great things they shared with the English people than with the relatively small things they held by a separate tenure. Granted that the Church had deservedly lost much of her earlier position, why should she be disestablished and disendowed? If Disestablishment meant dismemberment, why were the Welsh members to settle it alone? What good would Disestablishment do? On the central question of the Bill, Disendowment, weight should be given, not to Welsh sentiment, but to sound principles of jurisprudence, relating to corporate property, and these the Bill violated. The United States Supreme Court had decided that in Virginia Disestablishment did not involve Disendowment. The Parliament Act was passed to carry Home Rule and Welsh Disestablishment; it now seemed that these reforms were to be carried to justify the Act. The country was turning against them. There was something grandiose about the Irish policy of the Government, but the Welsh Bill was thoroughly mean.

The Prime Minister asked on what grounds Mr. Balfour asserted that the country had changed its opinion. No question had had such a hold on the Welsh mind for the best part of two generations. Deference and concession, in matters of local concern, to strong local sentiment were among the first conditions of vivifying and sustaining Imperial strength. To the vast majority of the Welsh people the Welsh Church was not a national institution, but four dioceses in the Province of Canterbury. The Nonconformist deputation (p. 28) were all in favour of Disestablishment, and were very vague as to the Disendowment effected by the Bill. Against Establishment he cited the case of the United States. The Bill dealt with ancient endowments, given to the Church for charitable and educational, as well as for religious, reasons; it had a precedent in the Irish Church Act, carried by one of the greatest and most devout Churchmen of the time, and both parties had impartially used the released endowments for the most secular purposes conceivable. What was to prevent the continued community of action of the four dioceses with the Church of England? The Welsh Nonconformist farmer would gain the sense of religious equality which he and his forefathers for two centuries had looked upon as essential to the completion and quickening of their national life.

Later, Mr. Bonar Law (U.) after commenting on the unreality of the debate, said that if the Church was alien to the Welsh temperament, it was the fault of the latter. The Church was the only denomination in Wales which was increasing its membership. The Irish Church was disendowed on the ground that the money was not being properly used. He did not think it would be possible to replace the endowments; one of the first acts of the next Unionist Government would be to restore them.

After a reply by the Home Secretary, who said that if the voluntary subscriptions to the Welsh Church were increased from their actual figure of 300,000_l._ to 345,000_l._ annually its income would be the same as before, the second reading was carried by 349 to 265.

But the dominant question was still that of Ulster, and the echoes of the outcry over the alleged plot had continued, and had been reinforced by fresh revelations. Easter week saw a series of reviews by Sir Edward Carson of the Ulster Volunteers--of the South Antrim Regiment at Antrim Castle, of those encamped at Clandeboye, of 2,500 men of the North Belfast Regiment, and of some 3,000 from North Derry. Everything was done to make the ceremonies impressive, and Sir Edward reminded the Volunteers at Antrim, in words that afterwards acquired an unexpected significance, that they were out not for war but for peace, and were all willing at any moment to tender their services to the King, the symbol of the unity of the Empire. On April 17 the Ulster Unionist Council issued a statement purporting to give the "actual facts" as to the recent military operations and the plans of the Government. The War Minister and Sir A. Paget had been in correspondence and personal consultation (March 15-19), and on March 20 the latter addressed the Irish generals, summoned by telegram. He then stated that the Government had determined to undertake active military operations against Ulster, and had made the offer already mentioned (p. 56) to the officers; General Gough had thereupon resigned. Later on that day Sir A. Paget set forth to a meeting of generals and staff-officers the outlines of the plan of operations. The troops guarding the depots at Armagh, Omagh, Carrickfergus, Enniskillen, and Dundalk were being strengthened, the Victoria Barracks at Belfast, untenable as being commanded by houses, were being vacated, and the inmates ordered to Holywood; and the barracks at Newry were being prepared for use by the advance corps of the operating forces. The Third Cavalry Brigade was to advance and occupy the bridges and strategic points on the Boyne; the Fifth Division was then to occupy these and release the cavalry for a further advance; the Sixth Division was to move up from the South of Ireland to take the places occupied by the Fifth Division; a force of 10,000 was to come from Lichfield and Aldershot, and these, with Artillery and Army Service and Army Medical Corps, would bring up the strength of the total force participating to 25,000. Belfast was to be blockaded by sea and land, two destroyers had been sent to take troops to Carrickfergus and keep open communications between Carrickfergus Castle and Holywood Barracks, two flotillas of destroyers were ordered to Belfast, and a battle squadron was ordered from Arosa Bay to the North. The Army was not to begin the fighting; the police would seize arms concealed by the Volunteers; this would inevitably lead to bloodshed, and then the Army and Navy would be called in. He spoke of "battle" and of "the enemy," and, as an inducement to one regiment reluctant to join, said that when the enemy had been located this regiment would be sent to suppress a disturbance "arranged" in Cork.

The Unionists found in this statement a complete confirmation of their views on the plot; the Liberal Press scoffed at it, the ex-War Minister solemnly declared (April 18) that his whole aim had been a peaceful settlement; and the Financial Secretary of the War Office (at Coventry, April 18) said that there was "not one shred of truth in the document." On April 21 Mr. Bonar Law asked for "a judicial inquiry" into the military movements in question; the Prime Minister replied that the proper course was to move a vote of censure, and offered a day; Mr. Bonar Law asked if the Prime Minister was afraid to have the facts tested on oath. Stormy scenes took place during the next few days at question time in the Commons; a Liberal motion was put down calling on the Opposition leader to substantiate his charges or withdraw them; and, after seeing Sir A. Paget's account of his conversations with his officers, issued, with other documents, as a White Paper on April 22, the Opposition decided to move for an inquiry into the attempt to impose Home Rule on Ireland by force. This motion was debated on April 28.

The White Paper contained much new matter as to the orders to the Third Battle Squadron (p. 60), and it was elicited in Parliament (April 22) that the Prime Minister had only learnt of these orders on March 21, and had then caused them to be countermanded; it contained, also, Sir A. Paget's account of his conversations with his officers. He had said that he was ordered to carry out certain "moves of a precautionary nature," which the Government believed would be understood to be precautionary and would not be resisted, but which he thought would set the country and Press ablaze and might lead to active operations against organised bodies of the Ulster Volunteers; and he explained the "concessions" to officers. He had to know before the second conference (pp. 56, 81) whether the senior officers held that "duty came before other considerations," and therefore he said that any officer who would be unable to obey the orders to be given him should absent himself from that Conference. But he had no intention of ascertaining the intentions of subordinate officers. He merely wished them to be informed of the exemptions, and of the penalty for refusal of officers not exempted to obey orders. But four of the seven generals misunderstood, and thought that officers not prepared to do their duty were to say so, and would then be dismissed from the service. Most of the officers of the Fifth Division, and those of the Third Cavalry Brigade, were thus misinformed (with a slight difference in the latter case). He regretted the misapprehension, for which he alone was responsible.

Pending the debate on the proposed motion, the Army Annual Bill went through Committee (April 23) and Mr. Keir Hardie (Lab., _Merthyr Tydfil_) moved an amendment making it unlawful to employ troops in labour troubles unless all the available police force had first been called out, and then only with the consent of three resident magistrates. He also desired that the troops should not carry firearms, but batons, and should be under civil law. The Prime Minister, pointed out that the latter proposal was out of the question; the law was contained in the Report on the Featherstone disturbance (issued Dec., 1893) and no new practice should be established. Military interference should be as infrequent as possible, and happily the police was more efficient than fifty or a hundred years earlier. The amendment was ultimately ruled out of order.

Meantime the King and Queen had returned President Poincaré's visit of 1913 by a brilliantly successful visit to Paris. Favoured by fine weather, they left Victoria Station, April 21, with a suite including the British Foreign Minister, crossed from Dover to Calais in the Royal yacht _Alexandra_, escorted by the cruisers _Nottingham_ and _Birmingham_, and were met _en route_ by two French cruisers and a flotilla of torpedo boats and submarines. At the Bois de Boulogne station they were met by the President of the Republic and Madame Poincaré, with various high officials, and drove into Paris amid enthusiastic crowds. At the State banquet at the Elysée the same evening President Poincaré remarked that the day was the tenth anniversary of the conclusion of the Anglo-French _entente_, and that the agreements then made naturally gave birth to a more general understanding, which was and would thenceforth be one of the surest pledges of European equilibrium. He was confident that, under the auspices of the King and the King's Government, these bonds of intimacy would be drawn daily closer, to the great gain of civilisation and universal peace. The King's reply was cordial, but studiously non-political. He said that, thanks to the close and cordial relations resulting from the agreement, the two countries were able to collaborate in the humanitarian work of civilisation and peace. The programme of the visit included, besides this State banquet, a review at Vincennes on the Wednesday--a magnificent spectacle--followed by a banquet at the British Embassy and a gala performance at the opera; a visit on the day following to the races at Auteuil, a banquet given by M. Doumergue, the Premier, and the exchange of costly presents, the King giving the French Republic some fine bronze medallions taken from a statue of Louis XIV. during the first Revolution, and purchased by King George III. Sir Edward Grey had meanwhile conferred with the French Premier, and it was officially stated that various questions affecting the two countries had been taken into consideration, and the identity of view of the two Ministers on all points had manifested itself. While placing on record the results of the policy pursued by the two Governments together with that of Russia, the two Ministers were completely agreed that the three Powers should continue their constant efforts for the maintenance of the balance of power and of peace. Some publicists in both countries desired that the _Entente_ should develop into an alliance; but the British Government was still reserved. The visit itself, however, greatly strengthened the good feeling between the two nations; "the State functions," as _The Times_ remarked, were "conducted with a dignified splendour which no Court in Europe could excel," and which greatly impressed the British people; the King, on landing at Dover, declared that he and the Queen could never forget the warmth and hospitality of their reception, and it was clear that Their Majesties had won a popularity in Paris at least equal to that of King Edward VII.

Before the Opposition motion for an inquiry into the Ulster "plot," the Plural Voting Bill was read a second time (April 27). The rejection was moved by Mr. Hume Williams (U., _Notts, Bassetlaw_) and seconded by Sir J. Randles (U., _Manchester, N. W._) and supported by the usual argument that the Bill would alter only one anomaly, and that not the greatest, in the representative system, for the benefit of the supporters of the Government. The Colonial Secretary replied that the various Bills dealing with the subject had been killed by the Lords or the ladies, and there was no time to pass the other reforms desirable in the election laws. The penalties under the Bill were less than those imposed by the Tories in the County Councils Act. In 1906 every Liberal member had received a direct mandate to establish one man, one vote. He added that redistribution of seats was made possible by the Home Rule Bill, and should be passed by consent; and later the President of the Board of Trade promised that, if the plural vote were abolished, the Government would confer with the Opposition leaders as to the terms of appointment of a Redistribution Commission. He suggested single-member constituencies of approximately equal population, and indicated that details should be left to the Commission. The second reading was carried by 324 to 247.

The debate on the motion for an inquiry into the "plot to coerce Ulster" followed next day; but a new phase in the crisis had been revealed.

On March 9 a small Norwegian steamer, the _Fanny_, had taken aboard two members of the Ulster Unionist Council at Dysart, Fife; and at the end of the month she was reported from Berlin to be shipping rifles from a lighter, towed from Hamburg by a steamer, off Langeland, Denmark. Her papers were taken by the port authorities for examination, and she left without them. The arms, it was suggested, were for ex-President Castro's use in Venezuela, and it was afterwards stated that they were for Mexico. But Sir Edward Carson had intimated (March 13) that preparations were in hand; and on the night of April 24-25 some 35,000 rifles and 3,000,000 cartridges were landed at Larne from a steamer temporarily bearing the historic name _Mountjoy_, possibly (though this was denied) the _Fanny_, and were then distributed throughout Protestant Ulster by motor-lorries and motor-cars. About 10,000 of the rifles and much ammunition were also transhipped from the _Mountjoy_ into the _Roma_ (commandeered at Larne by Ulster Volunteers) and another steamer, and landed on the Down coast. Some 12,000 men in all were engaged in the landing. Volunteers guarded the roads, the telegraphs and telephones were interrupted, the coastguards were powerless, and the Custom officers and the police were ingeniously prevented from learning of the movement in time to interfere effectively. Every detail of the scheme had been admirably organised, and nothing was heard of it at Dublin Castle till noon on April 25.

Warships were now posted on the Ulster coast to stop further gun-running, and military measures were expected; and the Prime Minister was bombarded with questions in the House on April 27. Most of them had reference to the alleged "plot" against Ulster; but in reply to a question from Mr. Lough (_Islington, W._) as to the gun-running and the steps to be taken by the Government, Mr. Asquith replied that in view of this grave and unprecedented outrage the Government would take appropriate steps without delay to vindicate the authority of the law, and protect officers and servants of the King and His Majesty's subjects in the exercise of their duties and the enjoyment of their legal rights.

Other angry questions followed next day (April 28) and then the debate opened on the Unionist motion for an inquiry into the "plot." But it took an unsuspected turn. Various Liberal amendments had been put down to the effect that in view of what had happened subsequently (_i.e._ the gun-running) the Government would be supported in whatever measures it might take. Mr. Austen Chamberlain moved the motion, which demanded a full and impartial inquiry, in view of the "incompleteness and inaccuracy" of the statements of Ministers and of the continued failure of the Government to deal frankly with the situation. He reviewed the course of events since the Prime Minister's offer of March 9, referring to Mr. Churchill's Bradford speech, the incidents at the Curragh, the Prime Minister's statement of March 22 (which, he said, was misleading), and he complained that information was still withheld--the police reports on which the Government had acted, the instructions given to Sir A. Paget at the War Office, his address to his officers in Dublin and at the Curragh. He charged the First Lord of the Admiralty with inventing an elaborate story to support his account of Lord Morley's connexion with the peccant paragraphs, and said that Colonel Seely was only the tool of more astute and unscrupulous colleagues. [Popular rumour had specified the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.] He commented on the application for field-guns for the Fleet, the appointment of Sir Nevil Macready as virtual Military Governor of Belfast, and said also that the Government had "seized important strategic points." His charges against them were: (1) That they took measures, not against a few evilly disposed persons, but on the basis that conciliation was hopeless till they showed overwhelming force; (2) that the protection of stores was only a pretext; (3) that they insisted on movements which Sir A. Paget thought dangerous after he had done all he thought necessary to protect stores; (4) that the warships' movements were part of the larger plan never avowed by the Government, but applauded by their followers; (5) that the withdrawal of troops from Belfast could only be so explained; (6) that Sir A. Paget's announcement to his officers, that he would have 25,000 men, was not compatible with the story that only a minor movement was contemplated. For his own honour the Prime Minister should have a judicial inquiry.

The First Lord of the Admiralty, whose opening words raised a scene, described the resolution as resembling "a vote of censure by the criminal classes on the police." The Statute Book applied to the action of the Unionists language far stronger than any they had the wit to use against Ministers. The Conservative party was committed to naked revolution, to tampering with military and naval discipline, obstructing highways and telegraphs, overpowering police and coastguards, piratical seizure of ships, and imprisonment of the King's servants. The democracy, who were urged to be patient, were learning how the party of law and order cared for law and order when it stood in the way of their wishes. And what of India, in view of the "devastating doctrine" of the Opposition leader? He did not wonder the old Conservatives were uncomfortable, but there was another section, which had instigated the resolution, and postponed "law and order" till it had to deal with Nationalists and Labour men. This section's lawlessness, if it succeeded, might convince Irish Nationalists that Ireland never gained anything except by force. The Orange Army was being used to destroy Liberal reform by setting up the veto of the force in place of that of the Peers. Coming to the substance of the motion, the First Lord treated the precautionary measures as consequent on the failure of the Prime Minister's offer for a settlement. Those who were preparing civil war were aiming at the subversion of Parliamentary government. The movement of the Fleet, decided upon on March 11, had reference to the general Irish situation. The protection of the depots was a separate question; they contained from thirty to eighty-five tons of ammunition, and were scattered about unprotected. The only ships used were two scouts, to avoid moving troops through Belfast, and two boys' training cruisers were diverted in the belief that the Great Northern Railway of Ireland would refuse to carry the troops, which it ultimately consented to do. The Government also made a confidential survey of the whole military position in Ireland. The War Office and Admiralty were constantly considering quite hypothetical contingencies, but here Sir A. Paget thought that the authorised movements might lead to far larger consequences. The Government did not accept his views, but it was a good fault to be over-cautious. He scornfully declined to give details of the precise measures to be taken against potential insurgents, but said the contingencies considered were: (1) an armed attack on the depots or the troops marching to protect them; (2) the measures to be taken if a Provisional Government were set up at Belfast. No movements were authorised, but Sir A. Paget was assured of support in any contingency, and if British troops were attacked it would be the duty of the Government to chastise the assailants. The use of force rested with the Opposition. The Government would not use it till it was used against the representatives of law and order. They had an absolute right to make much greater movements. The talk of Civil War came from the Opposition. Did they think it was to be all on one side? References had been made to his Bradford speech; he held to it, but asked whether they could not reach a better solution. Let them look at the danger abroad; foreign countries did not know that at a touch of external menace we should lay aside our domestic quarrels, but why could men only do so under the influence of "a higher principle of hatred"? Why could not Sir E. Carson say boldly, Give me the amendments I ask for to safeguard the dignity and interests of Protestant Ulster, and I in my turn will use all my influence and goodwill to make Ireland an integral unit in a Federal system?

This suggestion made a good impression, but the speech was followed by stormy scenes. Mr. Mitchell Thomson (U., _Down, N._) endeavoured to fix a charge of untruth on the Home Secretary, who had said, before the revised White Paper was published, that there was nothing further to add; Lord Charles Beresford (U.) described the First Lord as "a terrible failure" when in the Army; and Sir R. Pole-Carew (U.) also made a very provocative speech. Later Colonel Seely stated that Sir John French had told him the day before that "As part of a strategic movement such movements [as the precautionary movements taken] would be idiotic," and that Sir A. Paget had been assured in reply to an inquiry that he should have all the troops necessary if grave disorder arose. If that were a plot, no Government which did not make it was fit to remain in office. A new situation, however, had been caused by the gun-running, and the law must be vindicated at all costs.

The debate was resumed next day in a much more conciliatory tone. The Prime Minister said that the First Lord's closing suggestion had been made on his own responsibility; but he added that he was personally in sympathy with it. Mr. Balfour (U.), however, was less conciliatory. He described the First Lord's speech as "an outburst of demagogic rhetoric," and reviewed the history of the "plot" from his own standpoint, saying that the Government had found it necessary to protect the stores by preparations almost as extensive as those of the United States in Mexico. He found discrepancies in the accounts, and intimated that the Government had adopted the odious _rôle_ of the _agent provocateur_. Challenged by the First Lord to produce evidence of provocation, he said the evidence was in his speech, and they might have an inquiry. Civil war would be alike justifiable and ruinous; but the First Lord's suggestion seemed to have the promise and potency of a settlement which would avoid it. He thought nothing could do so save the total exclusion of North-East Ulster. The Government seemed afraid lest this should be regarded as a party triumph. He would not so regard it. For the greater part of his own political life he had been defending the Union. He had hoped for the removal of grievances, for the growth of a common hope, a common loyalty, confidence in a common heritage, between the islands, under a common Parliament. For that he had striven and worked; if the result was that a separate Parliament should be established in Dublin, he should regard it as the mark of the failure of his life's work.

Later, Sir E. Carson (U.) after reading from a Belfast trade unionist manifesto to show the gravity of the crisis, and laying stress on the weakening it entailed in the position of Great Britain abroad, said that he would not quarrel with the matter or the manner of the First Lord's proposal. He referred to his speech at Manchester (A.R., 1913, p. 249) to show that they would not complain if Ulster got equal treatment with other parts of the United Kingdom, and said that he was not very far from the First Lord. He would say that, if Home Rule passed, his most earnest hope would be that it might be such a success that Ulster might come in under it, and that mutual confidence and goodwill might arise in Ireland rendering Ulster a stronger unit in the Federal Scheme. But that could only be brought about by goodwill. All he wanted was loyally to carry out his promises to those who had trusted him, and to get for them terms preserving their dignity and their civil and religious freedom.

Subsequently Mr. Bonar Law (U.), after defending his own strong language by reference to that of the Unionist leaders in 1886 and 1893, and the action of Ulster and the Unionist support of it by the American War of Independence, and Mr. Gladstone's concession to the Boers after Majuba, urged the Government to realise and meet the position before bloodshed came. Restating the Opposition view of the "plot," and criticising discrepancies in the official accounts, he described one of the orders as "suited to the Napoleonic genius of the commander at the Sidney Street siege" (A.R., 1911, p. 2). But the Unionists were really thinking of the finding of any tolerable way out of an impossible position. They were ready to consider seriously the Federal solution, and he was quite prepared to agree to a renewal of the "conversations" (p. 5). If the Prime Minister preferred to deal with Lord Lansdowne or another Unionist, he would let no _amour propre_ stand in the way.

The Prime Minister said that they had learnt from the Opposition leader the flimsy and contemptible character of the Opposition case. An undefined and unknown body was to be set up to inquire into a mare's nest. The grounds alleged were that the Government had withheld information and had given misleading information. Since his re-election he had answered at least 500 questions on this matter; the time-honoured practice of the House had been degraded in a manner reminiscent of the worst traditions of the Old Bailey. Having gone through that experience with as much good temper as the conditions permitted, he gave fair notice that after the next day he would answer no further questions on the matter. As to the charge of giving misleading information (through _The Times_) he had not mentioned that besides the small cruisers there were eight destroyers. The Cabinet had authorised the ordering of the battle squadron to Lamlash ten days earlier than the precautionary movements, and the two movements were independent of one another. He heard that the order had actually been given on Saturday (March 21) and suggested, in view of the public excitement, that it should be countermanded. This was done, and his statement on Sunday night was the strict truth. He did not know about the destroyers till some days later. After defending himself as to a charge of misleading the public as to the questioning of officers, he described the "plot" as one of the absurdest stories in the annals of mankind. Having made a conciliatory offer to the Ulstermen, would the Government, have engineered a plot for their provocation? He briefly summarised the Government's account of the measures described as the "plot," and remarked that an Opposition whose leader said it might be the duty of officers to disobey the law, and which had been admiring a "piratical adventure," had never presented a flimsier case against a responsible Government. But the debate would be remembered for the speeches of Mr. Balfour and Sir E. Carson. He did not think settlement would be successfully attempted by bargaining across the House, and every one must be brought in, Ulstermen and Nationalist. It must be accepted with sincerity by all the parties concerned. He took note of Mr. Bonar Law's statements, and fully recognised that his speech was meant to help a settlement. That spirit the Government entirely reciprocated. He would never close the door on any means of reaching a settlement, provided it secured the sincere assent of those mainly interested.

The motion was rejected by 344 to 264. The Nationalists were said to be rather disquieted at the tone of the Ministerial speeches.

The negotiations for a settlement were now privately resumed, and the hopes of their success had been strengthened by the smooth passage through the Upper House of the Army (Annual) Bill (April 27, 28). There had been frequent rumours that the extreme Unionist Peers would either throw it out or seek to insert a clause forbidding troops to be used to force Home Rule on Ulster--a course which would have so delayed the measure as gravely to imperil the discipline of the Army throughout the Empire; but the design, if it had ever been seriously contemplated, was abandoned, possibly because of the explosion of wrath occasioned by the belief that the Army was being used as a political instrument by the Unionists. But the Marquess of Lansdowne, at the annual meeting of the Primrose League at the Albert Hall (May 1), was not altogether encouraging. The first part of his speech was an elaborate attack on the Government. He detected signs of a "chastened spirit" among Ministers, but they were not sufficiently their own masters to make an effective proposal. He carefully defined the attitude of the Opposition, insisting that they maintained their objection to Home Rule and the temporary exclusion of Ulster, but they were ready to examine a federal solution provided that Ulster could find an honourable and acceptable place in it, and that it was consistent with the interests of the rest of the United Kingdom. And Mr. Balfour and Viscount Milner, at a meeting next day at Coventry, were pessimistic. Mr. Balfour spoke of the recognition by some Ministers of "the clean-cut separation of the North-East of Ireland from any scheme of Home Rule"; and "the clean cut" passed into a catchword.

One of the stock bases of attacks on Ministers, meanwhile, had been further undermined by the unanimous Report (issued April 30) of the Select Committee of the House of Lords which had investigated the charges against Lord Murray of Elibank (p. 32). The accusers, the proprietors of the _Morning Post_ and Mr. Leo Maxse of the _National Review_, had been required by the Committee to formulate their charges, and did so in print. No other charges were considered, though letters were received making allegations against Lord Murray which no one attempted to substantiate. The principal charge was substantially that in regard to his purchase of American Marconi shares at 2_l._ each from Sir Rufus Isaacs on April 17, 1912 (A.R., 1913, p. 72), he had acted in a way which in his position was dishonourable; in this and in his other purchases (for his own account in the open market on May 22, and for the Liberal party fund on April 18, 1912) the Committee found that he had acted without sufficient thought, but acquitted him of dishonourable conduct. The latter purchase was not, as was suggested, made from any one representing the English company. With his choice of trust investments the Committee had no concern. He ought, however, to have given his successor as Chief Whip full information as to his purchase of shares for the party fund, and to have had full information as to his dealings in American Marconis laid before the Commons Committee. Three other charges were wholly rejected: (1) that he used his position as Chief Whip to avoid discussion of the Marconi contract in Parliament; (2) that he bought railway stock for the party funds during the coal strike, knowing that a settlement was pending which would send it up; and (3) that he had given time to Mr. Fenner, the stockbroker, in order to avoid inconvenient disclosures. He had taken on himself a loss of 40,000_l._ He had admittedly committed errors, but had done nothing reflecting on his personal honour. But there ought to be an absolute rule prohibiting stock speculation to any person holding public office.

To return to Parliament, the Post Office Estimates were discussed in the Commons on April 30. The Postmaster-General stated that the expenditure was 26,150,000_l._, an increase of 1,770,000_l._, due to the increased pay of the employees. The estimated revenue was 31,750,000_l._, but the debt was 31,600,000_l._ The postal service proper showed a profit of 6,250,000_l._; the telegraphs a loss of 350,000_l._, the telephones a profit of 300,000_l._ Pay of employees would be increased by about 2,000,000_l._ partly because of the Report of the Holt Committee (A.R., 1913, p. 255). But there would also be a minimum wage of 22_s._ per week for every full-time employee in Great Britain. The Post Office dealt with 3,470,000,000 letters yearly, and the surplus of its savings bank deposits over withdrawals was 12,000,000_l._ and the profit 160,000_l._ annually. He recommended legislation against the transmission of betting circulars, of which vast quantities were sent by English bookmakers established in Switzerland. The subsequent debate dealt mainly with the alleged inadequacy of the Holt Report; the Committee had found that the cost of living had risen 11.3 per cent., but had awarded a rise of wages averaging 4-1/2 per cent. at once, and eventually 7 per cent. Mr. Pointer (Lab.) said the postal servants would accept the decision of a Board of Arbitration on this portion of the Report. Mr. Holt (L.), Chairman of the Committee, condemned the claim of the employees for a 15 per cent. increase. The discussion was resumed later (_post_, p. 116).

The next business of importance in the Commons was the Budget; but, before proceeding to it we must, as usual, supplement the particulars already given by a brief view of the Civil Service Estimates, summarising from the accompanying Memorandum of the Secretary to the Treasury.

CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

Net Total, 1914-15. Original Estimates, 1913-14. Increase. 57,065,816_l._ 54,988,318_l._ 2,077,498_l._

In the Abstract and throughout the detailed Estimates comparison was made, according to the usual practice, with the total grants made for the service of the year 1913-14 in the Appropriation Act, 1913; these grants, including the Supplementary Estimates for 578,555_l._ presented to the House of Commons on July 24,1913, showed a net total of 55,566,873_l._, and on this basis of comparison the Estimates for 1914-15 showed an increase of 1,498,943_l._

The number of classes had been reduced by one, Class VIII. (Old Age Pensions, Labour Exchanges, Insurance, etc.), which had appeared for the first time in 1913, having been merged in Classes VI. and VII., but the number of votes was the same as the original number for 1913-14. There were a number of minor readjustments of the Votes.

CLASS I.--PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.

1914-15. 1913-14. Increase. 3,744,769_l._ 8,617,459_l._ 127,310_l._

The figures for 1913-14 included supplementary grants of 31,930_l._ and 197_l._ transferred from Class IV. (Education, Science, and Art). The large public offices in course of erection for the Board of Agriculture, the Public Trustee, a new Stationery Office, etc., and the growth of the Postal Service, had made a substantial increase of expenditure inevitable. In conformity with an undertaking given to the Public Accounts Committee, "Urgent and Unforeseen" works were differentiated in the various Votes from those of a minor character. In regard to the Houses of Parliament, provision was made for additional accommodation for members on the upper floor, and for the repair of the roof of Westminster Hall. A sum of 2,800_l._ was allotted in respect of the maintenance of Tintern Abbey, recently transferred to the custody of the Office of Works.

CLASS II.--SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS.

1914-15. 1913-14. Increase. 4,690,433_l._ 4,448,534_l._ 241,899_l._

The 1913-14 figures included supplementary grants for 32,550_l._ and transfer of 45_l._ from Class IV., 1. The increase was mainly due to the Boards of Control for England and Scotland respectively, to be set up under the Mental Deficiency Acts of 1913. The Estimate for Mercantile Marine Services included 13,000_l._ to cover the cost of British participation in the proposed International ice service in the North Atlantic. Increases on other votes were due respectively to expenditure on schemes recommended by the Development Commission (to be repaid out of the Development Fund), to increase of staff at the Friendly Societies Registry and the Office of Works, and to provision against foot and mouth disease in Ireland.

CLASS III.--LAW AND JUSTICE.

1914-15. 1913-14. Increase. 4,768,634_l._ 4,642,346_l._ 126,288_l._

This increase was almost accounted for by the additional provision for Reformatory and Industrial Schools, and by the growth of charges connected with land purchase in Ireland.

CLASS IV.--EDUCATION, SCIENCE AND ART.

1914-15. 1913-14. Increase. 19,911,506_l._ 19,799,388_l._ 112,118_l._

The 1913-14 figures included supplementary grants of nearly 155,000_l._ net. The increase was due to the growth of the cost of education throughout the United Kingdom. Part of it was due to the expansion of the work of the school medical service. In the Vote for Scientific Investigation 5,000_l._ was provided as a first instalment of a grant of 10,000_l._ to Sir Ernest Shackleton's Antarctic Expedition.

CLASS V.--FOREIGN AND COLONIAL SERVICES.

1914-15. 1913-14. Increase. 1,836,917_l._ 1,514,349_l._ 322,568_l._

In the Vote for Colonial Services there was an increase of nearly 40,000_l._, due largely to an augmented grant in aid to Somaliland for defence against the Mullah. Only 10,000_l._, however, was required as a grant in aid to Uganda. A vote of 220,000_l._ for the Persian loan represented the amount required to make good the sums advanced to the Persian Government in the three preceding financial years, to provide the funds needed to maintain order.

CLASS VI.--NON-EFFECTIVE AND MISCELLANEOUS.

1914-15. 1913-14. Decrease. 1,076,907_l._ 1,083,321_l._ 6,414_l._

Several Votes had been transferred to Class VII., and the title altered. Under International Exhibitions 19,750_l._ was included in respect of the Exhibitions at Leipzig (books) and Paris (art furniture).

CLASS VII.--OLD AGE PENSIONS, LABOUR EXCHANGES, INSURANCE, ETC.

1914-15. 1913-14. Increase. 21,036,650_l._ 20,460,926_l._ 575,724_l._

The figures for 1913-14 included supplementary grants of 347,650_l._ and 14,653_l._ transferred from Class VI. The Votes connected with National Health Insurance showed a net increase of 512,211_l._ Part of this was due to the increased grants for treatment of tuberculosis, part to provision for a large temporary staff to deal with the claims of societies for reserve values--a work taking eighteen months to two years. The increase in the Old Age Pensions Vote was 110,000_l._ as compared with 400,000_l._ in the previous year, and the anticipated increase of pensioners 16,000 as against 27,000. The increases in earlier years were exceptional.

REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.

1914-15. 1913-14. Increase. 30,847,915_l._ 28,898,720_l._ 1,949,195_l._

The Inland Revenue Estimate showed a net increase of 176,670_l._, mainly due to acceleration of the completion of the valuation under the Finance (1909-10) Act of 1910. The Post Office Estimate showed a net increase of 1,772,510_l._, due largely to increases in pay following the recent recommendations of the Holt Committee.

The Budget, which had been postponed because the Chancellor of the Exchequer had temporarily lost his voice, was taken on May 4. It had been awaited with special interest in view of the Prime Minister's pronouncement at Oldham as to the income tax (A.R., 1913, p. 252) and of the promises of a revision of the system of Imperial grants in aid of local taxation (A.R., 1913, p. 58; 1911, p. 22). In view of the Ministerial attitude to food taxes, insurances had been effected against reduction or abolition of the sugar duty at premiums rising since March from 10 to 30 per cent., and also, at lower rates, against reduction or abolition of the tea, coffee, and cocoa duties, and increase of those on alcoholic liquors. But the Budget proved to be less sensational than was expected.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer began by pointing out that his forecast of 1913 had been more than justified (A.R., 1913, p. 102). Trade had reached its highest point, unemployment its lowest, and hardly any other country had had a like experience. He had estimated an increased revenue of 6,000,000_l._; the increase had been unprecedented--9,441,000_l._ He had had, however, to meet Supplementary Estimates of 3,371,000_l._, against which were set savings in various departments of 1,500,000_l._ The deficiency he had to face was 1,860,000_l._ The increase of revenue enabled him to pay the Supplementary Estimates, wipe out the deficit, leave the 1,000,000_l._ which he had proposed to take from the Exchequer balances, and end with a surplus of 750,000_l._ The new taxes of 1909 had yielded 27,215,000_l._, the national income had increased since that year by 140 to 150 millions, and the national savings by 1,750,000,000_l._ The revenue from these taxes had sufficed for all their proposed aims except the relief of local taxation, and, but for increased naval expenditure, it would have sufficed for that likewise. In the current year the estimated expenditure was increased by 8,492,000_l._ and the conditions of revenue were very difficult to forecast. The total estimated revenue from existing sources was 200,655,000_l._, the total expenditure, apart from the new projects, 205,985,000_l._, leaving a deficit of 5,330,000_l._ But the readjustment of the relations of Imperial and local finance had long been imperative. He referred to the Commission which reported in 1901, and to the pledge of the Government in 1908 (A.R., 1908, p. 42). Local authorities had immensely wide functions, but inadequate means; Parliament for forty years had almost annually imposed new powers on them, making hardly any provision to meet the cost. Rates in some districts had doubled in twenty or thirty years; slums could not be cleared because the cost was prohibitive (though this was not altogether a question of rates), and education demanded assistance. The existing system of rating was indefensible, discouraging improvements and very unequal in its incidence. A workman in a town paid about 5 per cent. of his income in rates, a supertax payer 1 or 2 per cent., a tradesman 9 and (in London) 13 per cent. The basis of taxation was too narrow, and the system of assigned revenues and of the Agricultural Rating Act had failed. Further and substantial aid from the Exchequer was necessary to save the municipalities from bankruptcy; but mere subsidies without conditions would be pernicious. There should be a national system of valuation for local taxation, involving the taxation of site values; the machinery for this existed already, and the effect would be to relieve owners who had spent heavily on improvements; but there must be a time-limit, or one might go back to the Roman period. The distribution of relief would give the greatest proportion of it to the most hard-pressed areas; the grants would bear a direct relation to the expenditure; the assigned revenues would be abolished, and efficient service would be a condition of the grant. These grants, for England and Wales in the first full year, would be: Poor law, 3,615,000_l._; police, 3,400,000_l._; criminal prosecutions, 120,000_l._; suppression of cattle disease, 71,300_l._; mental deficiency (optional provisions), 45,000_l._ additional; small grants under Shops and Employment of Children Acts, 22,500_l._; Reformatories and Industrial Schools, 22,000_l._ additional; Public Health, 4,000,000_l._ (first year, l,300,000_l._); Tuberculosis, Nursing, and Pathological Laboratories, 750,000_l._ The Education grant would be reconstituted on the principles sanctioned by the Kempe Committee (_post_, Chron., March 30), so as to give the greatest relief to the poorest districts and to those where the expenditure was highest. For the current year the increase--2,750,000_l._ for England and Wales only--would be confined to the necessitous areas. But besides this, the Exchequer would contribute half the cost of feeding necessitous school children, and give further grants for health work--physical training, open-air schools, crippled and feeble-minded children, and maternity centres, and for technical, secondary, and higher education. These grants for the first year would be 560,000_l._, the health grants 282,000_l._ For insurance, also, there would be further assistance, 1,250,000_l._ for the whole United Kingdom. Something would be done for deposit contributors, and health lectures would be established. The grant would be distributed on the "Goschen principle"--80 per cent, for England and Wales, 11 per cent. for Scotland, and 9 per cent. for Ireland, omitting education and police, which were almost exclusively paid for there by Imperial grants. The grant would begin on December 1, subject to the condition that legislation as to the basis of distribution, including valuation, should have passed in time. For the current year the new grants would increase the deficit by 4,218,000_l._, and he needed a margin of 252,000_l._ He had, therefore, to find 9,800,000_l._ The best method of equalising the burden was by a graduated income tax. A local income tax, according to experts, would not work; in Germany it drove away the men with large independent incomes. He would not interfere with earned incomes up to 1,000_l._ a year, but after that the scale would be: 1,000_l._ to 1,500_l._, 10-1/2_d._ in the pound; 1,500_l._ to 2,000_l._, 1_s._; 2,000_l._ to 2,500_l._, 1_s._ 2_d._; 2,500_l._ to 3,000_l._, 1_s._ 4_d._ On unearned income and all income above 3,000_l._ it would be 1_s._ 4_d._ The allowance for each child of 7_s._ 6_d._ in the case of incomes under 500_l._ would be doubled; and the 25 per cent. limit on deduction for repairs would be abolished. The supertax would begin at 3,000_l._ instead of 5,000_l._; the first 500_l._ would be excepted, the next 1,000_l._ charged 7_d._, the next 9_d._, the next 11_d._, the next 1_s._ 1_d._, the next 1_s._ 3_d._, and the remainder 1_s._ 4_d._ The total yield of this and the existing supertax would be 7,770,000_l._ in a full year. Incomes left abroad for reinvestment, which had been exempted actually by a decision of the Courts, would be included by means of declarations, with penalties and recovery when death duties became payable. The death duties would increase by 1 per cent. for estates between 60,000_l._ and 200,000_l._ and thereafter to a maximum of 20 per cent. for 1,000,000_l._ Relief would be granted, however, in cases of rapid succession to property, by remissions of estate duty on realty and stock-in-trade, varying from 50 per cent. if death occurred within one year of succeeding to property to 10 per cent. if it occurred within five years. The settlement estate duty would be abolished, and settled property treated like any other. These taxes together would produce 8,800,000_l._ for the current year, and he would fill the gap by taking a million from the Sinking Fund, seeing that the existing Government had paid off 104,000,000_l._ of debt and by 1915 would have paid off 114,000,000_l._ Direct and indirect taxation, which were equally balanced when the Government came into office, would now be 60 and 40 per cent. of the whole respectively. In conclusion, he claimed that the Government were honourably fulfilling pledges and taking a decisive step towards the greater happiness and efficiency of the people and the greater strength and honour of the land.

The complexity of the Budget proposals precluded immediate discussion. Mr. Austen Chamberlain condemned the proposal to have recourse to the Sinking Fund, partly in view of the new charges, amounting already to 21,000,000_l._, added by the Government under Old Age Pensions and Insurance alone. A number of questions were asked by other members, and answered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, after the resolution enacting the new income tax had been agreed to, the House adjourned early--at 7.15 P.M.

The following table shows the Estimated Revenue for 1914-15, compared with the Receipts of 1913-14.

--------------------------------------------------------------------| | Estimate | Exchequer | | 1914-15. | Receipts | | | 1913-14. | -------------------------------------|---------------|--------------| | £ | £ | Customs | 35,350,000 | 35,450,000 | Excise | 39,650,000 | 39,590,000 | Estate, etc., Duties | 28,800,000 | 27,359,000 | Stamps | 9,900,000 | 9,966,000 | Land Tax | 700,000 | 700,000 | House Duty | 2,000,000 | 2,000,000 | Income Tax (including Supertax) | 56,550,000 | 47,249,000 | Land Value Duties | 725,000 | 715,000 | Postal Service | 21,750,000 | 21,190,000 | Telegraph Service | 3,100,000 | 3,080,000 | Telephone Service | 6,900,000 | 6,530,000 | Crown Lands | 530,000 | 530,000 | Suez Canal Shares and Sundry Loans | 1,370,000 | 1,580,000 | Miscellaneous | 2,130,000 | 2,304,000 | |---------------|------------- | Total | £209,455,000 | £198,243,000 | | | | Borrowings to meet Expenditure | | | chargeable against Capital | 5,265,000 | 3,717,000 | --------------------------------------------------------------------|

The following table shows the Estimated Expenditure, 1914-15, compared with the Issues of 1913-14.

---------------------------------------------------------------------| | Estimate | Exchequer | | 1914-15. | Issue | | | 1913-14. | -------------------------------------------|------------|------------| | £ | £ | National Debt Services | 23,500,000| 24,500,000| Development and Road Improvement Funds | 1,545,000| 1,395,000| Payments to Local Taxation Accounts, etc. | 9,885,000| 9,734,000| Other Consolidated Fund Services | 1,706,000| 1,694,000| Army (including Ordnance Factories) | 28,885,000| 28,346,000| Navy | 51,550,000| 48,833,000| Civil Services (including Old Age Pensions)| 61,084,000| 53,901,000| Customs and Excise and Inland Revenue | 4,821,000| 4,483,000| Post Office Services | 26,227,000| 24,607,000| |------------|------------| Total |£209,203,000|£197,493,000| ---------------------------------------------------------------------|

The final balance sheet, 1914-15, as proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was as follows:--

+-------------------------------------++-------------------------------------+ | Revenue. || Expenditure. | +------------------------+------------++------------------------+------------+ | | £ || | £ | |Customs | 35,350,000||National Debt Services | 23,500,000| |Excise | 39,650,000||Road Improvement Fund | 1,545,000| |Estate, etc., Duties | 28,800,000||Payments to Local | | |Stamps | 9,900,000|| Taxation Accounts, etc.| 9,885,000| |Land Tax | 700,000||Other Consolidated Fund | | |House Duty | 2,000,000|| Services | 1,706,000| |Income Tax | 56,550,000||Army (including Ordnance| | | (including Supertax) | || Factories) | 28,885,000| |Land Value Duties | 725,000||Navy | 51,550,000| |Postal Service | 21,750,000||Civil Services | 61,084,000| |Telegraph Service | 3,100,000||Customs and Excise, | | |Telephone Service | 6,900,000|| and Inland Revenue | 4,821,000| |Grown Lands | 530,000||Post Office Services | 26,227,000| |Receipts from Suez Canal| ||Balance | 252,000| | Shares and Sundry Loans| 1,370,000|| | | |Miscellaneous | 2,130,000|| | | | |------------|| |------------| |Total |£209,455,000|| Total |£209,455,000| | | || | | |Borrowings to meet | || | | | Expenditure chargeable | ||Expenditure chargeable | | | against Capital | 5,265,000|| against Capital | 5,265,000| +------------------------+------------++------------------------+------------+

The Budget was well received by the Liberal and Labour parties, chiefly because of its expected furtherance of great social reforms; the Unionists strongly condemned the new valuation provisions and the increases of the supertax and of the death duties, and argued that it must encourage the policy of doles which, when practised by Lord Salisbury's Ministry, the Liberal party had condemned. Lord Esher, in a letter to _The Times_, put forward an objection savouring of a familiar economic fallacy, to the effect that it would diminish employment by causing the discharge of servants and others engaged in ministering to the luxury of the rich. Liberals retorted that the Unionists had intended to readjust Imperial and local taxation, partly with the revenue they expected from Tariff Reform; they had also made political capital out of the dangerous financial position of the friendly societies and the grievances under the Insurance Act of the casual labourer, and these evils the Budget proposed to remove. Thus the controversy made indirectly for a renewal of party conflict on the other pending issues.

The general Budget debate was taken on the resolution continuing the tea duty (May 6, 7, 11). Mr. Austen Chamberlain (U.) opened the attack, pointing out the disappointing yield of the new land taxes and the immense cost of their collection both to the State and to individual taxpayers, and also the enormous increase, present and prospective, of national expenditure, on which the Treasury, he said, had ceased to act as a check. In years of less prosperity and any serious complication this would involve great injury to the State--loss of credit, and of elasticity of finance. He regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had raided the new Sinking Fund, and held that an undue burden of taxation was being thrown on the rich. Let Liberals consider how the line could be drawn between the proposed taxation and that advocated by the hon. member for Blackburn [Mr. Snowden, a Socialist]. "Unearned" income might well be the result of labour and self-denial, and on incomes between 700_l._ and 1,000_l._ a tax of 1_s._ 4_d._ in the pound in peace time was a tremendous burden. The increase of the death duties interfered with provision for them by insurance, and the abolition of the settlement estate duty involved a breach of contract. An unjust burden must not be placed on the few because they were few. The real interest of the Budget, however, was in the other Bills it would entail on rating, valuation, insurance, education, and housing. The new Valuation Department would be very costly and far less satisfactory than the local assessment committees, and the effect of the Budget on the local authorities was quite uncertain. Its proposals marked the abandonment of the Liberal tradition of the extension of local responsibility and of retrenchment, and left no resources for war taxation.

The Financial Secretary of the Treasury (Mr. Montagu) replied that the new taxes mainly went to decrease existing burdens. The debt per head was lighter than it had been since the Napoleonic wars; in 1887 it was 20.11_l._ per head, in 1899 15.52_l._, and in 1914 15.37_l._ Relatively to the estimated wealth of the country it had diminished since 1906. Wealth had many political weapons besides the numbers of the wealthy, and the actual rate of income-tax paid was usually far below the nominal rate. National wealth grew much more rapidly than taxation. The valuation had greatly increased the yield from the death duties; and it was only fair that the Imperial taxpayer should have a substantial control over the expenditure of the money he found.

Of other speakers, Mr. Mills (U., _Middlesex, Uxbridge_) said, that national debt was being reduced out of national capital, and that the Budget would undermine the international position of the City in finance; Mr. Pretyman (U.), resuming the debate (May 7) bitterly complained of the burdens imposed on agricultural properties by the settlement and estate duties, denounced the treatment of the settlement duty as a disgraceful breach of a contract, made by Sir William Harcourt in 1894, and argued that, as the Bills appropriating the money could not be passed except in an autumn session, which it was officially stated would not take place, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have a large surplus at the end of the year. Mr. Snowden (Lab., _Blackburn_) heartily approved the new taxes, and predicted that in 1924 the Budget would have reached 250,000,000_l._ The nation could never before afford this expenditure so well, and the taxes, by furthering social reform, benefited landlords and employers. The Labour party would renew their demand for the removal of the taxes on food. Mr. Wedgwood (L., _Newcastle-under-Lyme_) mentioned that unless the local authorities were limited to using the grants for improvements, the Liberals who desired taxation of land values would block all other legislation, and Mr. Steel Maitland (U., _Birmingham, E._) said that what was wanted was not control by the Treasury but control of the Treasury.

On May 11, after further criticisms, the Chancellor of the Exchequer replied. He remarked that nothing had been said of Tariff Reform. The criticisms were "muddle-headed and contradictory"; the money raised would help employment in more effective ways than those it was supposed to injure. Grants in aid had been applauded and asked for by the Opposition, and the Agricultural Rates Act of 1896 had been financed out of the revenue from Sir William Harcourt's death duties. He admitted that the taxes on small incomes raised certain grievances, but the difficulty was that allowance on unearned incomes was hampered by collection at source. The case of widows with small incomes and children would be met by doubling the allowance made [under the Budget of 1909] for the children, and in other cases by extending rebates on application--which, however, would involve the establishment of a horde of officials. For incomes under 300_l._ the tax would be 1_s._ instead of 1_s._ 2_d._ As to the settlement estate duty he promised to consider one case--where a testator left a life interest in his property to his wife with reversion to the children; but as to the other taxes, there was really no criticism. The Government would insist, before the money was distributed, on a valuation differentiating between improvements and site value, and on a statutory provision that relief should be granted only in respect of improvements, not of site; till this could be done--in the second half of the financial year 1915-16--there would be provisional arrangements for distribution. He defended the expenditure as a good investment and spoke of "a 1_s._ 4_d._ extra insurance against revolution." His defence was severely criticised by Mr. Long (U.), but the Budget resolutions were agreed to by majorities varying from 81 (in the case of the tea duty) to 102 in the case of the tax on earned income, which was carried by 290 to 188. The members dividing numbered approximately 370 to 400.

Meantime a well-meant effort towards at least a provisional solution of the women's suffrage question was being attempted in the House of Lords by the Women's Enfranchisement Bill, conferring the Parliamentary franchise on those women--estimated at about 1,000,000--who possessed the municipal suffrage. The Earl of Selborne, in moving it (May 5), after condemning militancy as "not only criminal, but stupid," said that there were very few facts in dispute. Many of the most able and highly educated women earnestly desired the franchise, and even if many women did not, that was no reason for depriving those who did. Women would divide along the same lines as men. The anti-suffragists held at bottom that only the fit should vote, but in that case many men would lose the vote, and many women would have it. Instinct and character had to be considered more than fitness, and he thought women generally cared more for their religion and their country than men did. The Bill would therefore add to the stability of the State. The majority of those whom it would enfranchise were poor women--many of them widows with children--who had fought the battle of life and triumphed. Dominion and American experience was treated as irrelevant, but the human nature of women was the same. Women would be on the side of the angels against the political machine. Earl Curzon of Kedleston, opposing, held that the measure would weaken British prestige. Hitherto Bills affecting the franchise had always originated in the Commons. The great majority of the women admitted by the Bill would be unmarried, and if women were to be enfranchised at all, married women were the best qualified. Only 25 or 30 per cent. of the municipal women electors voted, and an insignificant number stood. To give women the vote would entail their admission to Parliament and the Cabinet. The militant organisation was widespread and powerful, and militancy was widely connived at by other organisations, such as the Church League for Women's Suffrage. Would it cease if women got the vote, or be carried into politics? The question was not of equality of the sexes, but of fitness to discharge public duties. The million would eventually be swollen to five or ten millions, and then women might combine as a sex against men. Lords Newton and Tenterden supported the Bill; so did the Lord Chancellor, partly on the ground of the need of women's help in industrial questions and social problems, notably in infant mortality and the decline of the birth rate. Militancy was a bad symptom which showed the need of action. Lord Ampthill opposed the Bill; the Bishop of London avowed himself a convert, in spite of the bomb placed under his throne (A.R., 1913, p. 112). The unrest was caused by a deep-seated feeling of injustice. The qualification for municipal bodies excluded all women but a tiny minority. Housing, the raising of the age of consent, and Sunday closing needed the support of women's votes. The Bishop of Oxford also strongly supported the Bill, eulogising the suffragist women. Next day Lord Courtney of Penwith supported the Bill "as a small experiment," dwelling on the progress made by the women's movement, not yet fifty years old, and dwelling on the action of women in School Board elections, on Royal Commissions, and in political work. Of later speakers, Lord Willoughby de Broke complained that the Press suppressed the public expression of the movement and so misled the public as to its strength; Viscount St, Aldwyn said that the municipal franchise was the least suitable basis for extension, and the Bill would be rejected by the electorate. He deprecated the increasing activity of women in political work. The Marquess of Crewe thought that, while the cause of women's suffrage was making progress, the country was not yet convinced. Amid laughter, he said that, regarding the Bill as a purely Conservative measure, he would give a purely party vote against it. The Earl of Lytton said that separate legislation for women implied their separate representation. There were five million women workers competing with men represented in Parliament. Women, he showed in detail, had given overwhelming evidence of their demand for the vote, and would be satisfied with any removal of the sex disability. The Bill would settle no more than that. He laid stress [being the brother of a militant] on the magnificent qualities wasted in militancy--courage, self-devotion, self-sacrifice--waste which could only be stopped by granting the demand. The Bill was rejected by 104 to 60.

Brief mention only can be made of two discussions on subjects unexpectedly illuminated by the later experience of the year. On May 6 Mr. Morrell (L., _Burnley_) moved a resolution in favour of negotiation for the abolition of the capture of private property at sea; and the Foreign Secretary specified the terms on which the Government would agree. And on May 13 Mr. Bird (U., _Wolverhampton_) moved a resolution demanding State provision against the danger of starvation and enforced capitulation in case of war. He claimed that six months' supply of wheat should be ensured, as the actual amount in the country was sufficient for only six weeks, except just after harvest, when sixteen weeks' supply existed, and he advocated a scheme of free storage, suggesting also reduced taxation on grain-growing land and the building of swift grain ships. A scheme of Government insurance of food-carrying ships was suggested in the debate. The President of the Board of Agriculture indicated that such a scheme was under examination, and further that the question of supply had been carefully studied, and that it had been ascertained that there need be no anxiety in war time, provided the arrangements made for distribution were carried out. The chief source of security must be the Navy. Both motions were talked out.

The monotony of the political struggle was somewhat relieved by the state visit of the King and Queen of Denmark (May 9-13), who were received alike by their Royal relatives and by the people of London with all possible honour and goodwill. Both Kings laid stress in the speeches at the state banquet at Buckingham Palace (May 9) on the growth of commercial and friendly intercourse between the two nations; so did the King of Denmark and the Lord Mayor at the entertainment given by the City Corporation at the Guildhall (May 12); the Order of the Garter was conferred on the Danish monarch, the visitors were entertained at a gala performance at the opera, and presented with an address by the Common Council. The visit, however, had probably no great political significance.

The Parliamentary conflict was resumed when the Prime Minister introduced a resolution (May 12) to dispense with discussion on the Committee stage of the Home Rule, Welsh Church, and Plural Voting Bills, and on the financial resolutions necessary for the two former measures. The discussion on the financial resolutions, he said, had proved valueless in 1913; and the so-called "suggestion stage" was intended to apply only to exceptional cases--to the correction of some error or oversight, or to amendments consistent with the principle and purpose of the Bill in question. But the Opposition declined any responsibility for the Home Rule Bill, so that the consideration of suggestions was nugatory. The only proper way of carrying out an agreed settlement, for which he hoped, was by an Amending Bill. The House would be asked to give the Home Rule Bill a third reading before Whitsuntide, but the Government would go forward another step, and make itself responsible for an amending Bill, which might pass--perhaps not in its original shape--practically at the same time as the Home Rule Bill. As to the Welsh Church Bill, the suggested amendments, which seemed to have been put down as part of a concerted policy, would completely transform the Bill into a measure which the House could not accept. The House of Lords might amend these Bills if it liked, and the Commons would consider their amendments. To the Plural Voting Bill no amendments were suggested. The course proposed evoked protests from the Opposition, and Mr. Bonar Law (U.), in a bitter speech, declared that the Parliament Act had taken the interest out of the debates. Ministers did not trouble to attend, and great damage had been done to the House and still more to the representative system. The forces which would decide the Home Rule question were outside the House. He charged the Government with a change of front on the suggestion stage with regard to the Welsh Church Bill; whether they had it or not now depended on the House of Lords. It would be quite possible to let the Chairman select suggested amendments for discussion. As to the projected Amending Bill, he saw less hope of a settlement than there had been six months earlier; the Government must either (1) submit the Bill to the country, (2) coerce Ulster, (3) or exclude Ulster. While refusing all responsibility for Home Rule, the Unionists, if it were to be carried, would do their best to help the Government to carry it without civil strife. The only conversations of any interest would be those between the Prime Minister and Mr. Redmond. He attributed the Ministerial refusal to disclose the Amending Bill to Mr. Redmond's insistence that the Home Rule Bill should pass before Whitsuntide, so as to strengthen the Nationalist position. When it had passed, however, the Nationalist members would find it difficult to make concessions, and the Ulstermen would have no confidence that the Amending Bill would pass, and so there would be a real and unnecessary risk of bloodshed.

Mr. Gladstone (L., _Kilmarnock Burghs_) protested against the suppression of the suggestion stage for the Welsh Church Bill as a bad precedent and an encroachment on the independence of members. Later, Mr. Balfour (U.) said that the suggestion stage, for which the Speaker had had to improvise the machinery, was ill thought out at first and excessively difficult to work in practice. He complained that the House was asked to force through under the Parliament Act a Bill admittedly requiring amendment without knowing how it was to be amended. They were to vote without knowing what the real measure was which was being forced on the House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer retorted that, if every offer by the Government was to be treated as an admission that their proposal was defective, that was the way to promote civil war (a declaration which caused a stormy scene). He added that the proposals embodied in the Amending Bill were known to be those made by the Premier (p. 39), and that a suggestion stage on the Welsh Bill would be useless if, as had been intimated, the House of Lords meant to reject it. The Opposition wanted one, in order to waste time and to embarrass the Government. Mr. Redmond said that the Government had had another lesson as to the inevitable effect of making advances to the Opposition. He could not, however, approve of the Prime Minister's decision to introduce an Amending Bill even if the negotiations between the leaders should fail, and if one were introduced after such failure he held himself absolutely free to deal with it. It could not be passed except by agreement, and every fresh offer by the Government only hardened the Opposition, who had made no concession. He was prepared to run great risks and make great sacrifices for a peaceful settlement, but the position in which it was sought to put the Nationalists was unfair and intolerable. They had the consolation of knowing that the vision which had sustained them would be realised. (Mr. Redmond's closing words were greeted with prolonged Liberal cheers.) Later, Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen (U., _Dudley_) moved an amendment declining to restrict the time for discussing the remaining stages of the Home Rule and Welsh Church Bills till the Government had given an opportunity for discussing suggestions for amendment. Eventually this was rejected by 293 to 217; but, at the instance of Mr. Cassel (U., _West St. Pancras_), an opportunity was given for discussing the financial resolution under the Home Rule Bill. The Government's motion, thus amended, was carried by 276 to 194.

Just before the first of these divisions a Unionist victory was announced at the Grimsby bye-election, due to the death of Sir George Doughty (Chron., May 12). The Unionists retained the seat, but with a reduced majority, on a heavier poll than at the last general election; but the Liberal candidate, though no politician, was popular (as the late member had been) among the fishermen, and the Liberals had hoped to win.

The financial resolution necessary for the Welsh Church Bill was discussed for three hours on May 13. It authorised the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of any sums necessary to pay the principal and interest of money borrowed by the Commissioners for the purposes of the Bill--no money being available from the endowments taken until life interests began to fall in. The object of the resolution was to enable the Commissioners to borrow at a lower rate than they could have without this Treasury guarantee. It was still doubtful whether the Church would accept commutation, and the Opposition pressed in vain for the Commissioners' names. Ultimately an amendment omitting "principal" was rejected by 215 to 304, and the resolution was carried by 306 to 218.

The "Federal Solution" of the Home Rule problem was indirectly touched upon on May 15, when the second reading of the Government of Scotland Bill was moved by Mr. Macpherson (L., _Ross and Cromarty_). He explained that the Bill was practically the same as that of 1913 (A.R., 1913, p. 124), except for the inclusion of a clause giving the suffrage to women. It was not a Separation Bill, and the seventy-two Scottish members would remain at Westminster pending a complete scheme of devolution; but Scotland sought control of limited and local functions peculiarly her own. The Bill was the first plank in the Scottish Liberal programme, and devolution was supported by the Royal Convention of Scottish Burghs and was necessary to end the neglect of Scottish interests--especially education, the land law, and the fishermen's vote. Mr. W. Young (L., _Perthshire, E._), seconding, dissented strongly from the clause introducing women's suffrage. The Bill was opposed by Mr. Mackinder (U., _Glasgow, Camlachie_), who, while approving of devolution, objected to the retention of the Scottish members at Westminster, which would rivet the Liberal tyranny on England; the financial clauses would create friction, and Scotland would lose her influence on Imperial affairs. The objects of the Bill might be attained by a Standing Committee sitting in Scotland. Subsequently Mr. Clyde (U., _Edinburgh, W._) argued that industrial and trade legislation should be assimilated in England and Scotland, and that one Parliament could do this better than two. The two countries, however, might well revise their common administrative system. Mr. Balfour (U.) said that none of the supporters of the measure had dealt with its practical operation, and that nothing would be done by giving administrative or even legislative Home Rule to Scotland to facilitate the expression of Scottish nationality; it was only after the Union that Scotland showed what she could do in literature, art, government and war. The advocates of the Bill were mixing up two questions--separate administration and Scottish nationalism. A system of devolution was impossible if the different local Parliaments and Executives were to have different powers. If such crazy methods were adopted, how could the Imperial Parliament be relieved? England would not approve a system under which it would have less power to manage its own affairs than Scotland or Ireland. Claims would be made for the removal of restrictions in the Scottish Bill which were absent from the Irish, and then the Imperial Parliament would be again plunged into discussing the re-hash of our Constitution. The machinery established would tend further to disintegrate the Union. For devolution there must be a thought-out plan equally applicable to each several part of the United Kingdom. After a reply from the Scottish Secretary, who commented on the absence of Unionist Federalists, and described the question as simply one of administrative and legislative convenience, the Bill was talked out; but the speech of the Scottish Secretary, coupled with previous Ministerial utterances, led some Scottish members to press, though vainly, for the introduction of a Government Bill.

The Welsh Church Bill finally left the House on May 19, after two days' debate. In reply to a question, the Home Secretary announced the names of the Commissioners--Sir Henry Primrose, Sir William Plender, and Sir J. Herbert Roberts (L., _Denbighshire, W._). (Only the first named accepted a salary--1,500_l._ annually.) The Report of the financial resolution and the resolution suppressing debate on the Report stage of the Bill were carried on the previous day, each by precisely the same numbers (298 to 204), and then, on the third reading, the rejection was moved by Mr. Hume Williams (U., _Notts, Bassetlaw_). He laid stress on the demonstrations and "miles of petitions" against the Bill, and said that it had only been carried by the Nationalist vote. What good, he asked, would Disendowment do to any one? Mr. E. Wood (U., _Ripon_), seconding the rejection, quoted the Dean of Ripon, a Liberal and Broad Churchman, as saying that the Bill would intensify the difficulties in the co-operation of Churchmen and Nonconformists, and laid stress on the danger of weakening the Church in the struggle for social reform and the conversion of the heathen. Mr. W. Jones (L., _Carnarvon, Arfon_) said that the Nonconformist quarrel was not with religion or with the Church, but with Establishment. Petitions only showed what a grand thing the ballot box was. In all the great divisions on the Bill, if the Ulster members were eliminated as well as the Nationalists, the British majorities ranged from 27 to 42. The movement for separation of Church and State originated in the Welsh religious revival, which had transformed the moral, religious and intellectual life of the people. The endowments were wanted for the nation; and he laid stress on the multiplication of Welsh Nonconformist and Welsh Anglican Churches, without State endowment, in London, Liverpool, North America and Argentina. Young Churchmen in Wales were going to the national Colleges instead of to Lampeter, and, after the Bill had passed, a great religious spirit apart from Anglicanism and sectarian domination would flow and commingle for the regeneration of Wales. In the second day's debate, the Home Secretary announced that the King had placed his interests in bishoprics and other ecclesiastical dignities and benefices in Wales and Monmouthshire at the disposal of Parliament; and then the Under-Secretary for the Home Department spoke. He said that unless the Welsh dioceses were separated from the Province of Canterbury the English Church would predominate in governing the Welsh Church. By ending the traffic in the cure of souls, giving more power to the laity, enabling congregations to choose their own clergymen, and helping to reconcile national sentiment to the Church, the Bill would do good. What with the fabrics, the rectories and vicarages, the movable property, and the income left to the Church, capitalised, the Church would retain a capital of 10,000,000_l._ for 200,000 communicants. The Church desired to retain its Establishment and endowments, and to be free from State control. Lord Hugh Cecil (U.) said that there was nothing behind Disestablishment but the will of the Welsh representatives; Welsh Nonconformity was only 103 years old and was in a state of flux. He laid stress on the prospective injury through Disestablishment to religion in other countries, and described the Bill as immoral and unjust. Later Mr. Cave (U., _Surrey, Kingston_) contended that the House had a right to have the suggestion stage, and that, even had the suggestions been accepted by the House of Lords and the Bill rejected there, they would have been part of the Bill sent up for the Royal Assent. The endowments were not given to "the Church," or in trust, but for religious purposes, and to secularise them broke the _cy-près_ rule. On disendowment no Parliamentary majority was even relevant, The Chancellor of the Exchequer, after commenting on Mr. Cave's first point, said that disendowment followed inevitably on Disestablishment. The Opposition claimed at once that the Church was endowed as a great national institution and as a sect. Would not the pious founders have been shocked to learn that their gifts were being used to support a married clergy? The title was not legal but Parliamentary, and much of the property was derived from an Act of Parliamentary spoliation. The payment of stipends to ministers was the least of the functions recognised by the founders, and Parliament was recognising the trusts and restoring them. Mr. F. E. Smith (U.) declared that the Welsh could long ago have had Disestablishment without disendowment; they were after the money, and he noted that the Government had not attempted to deal with lay impropriators. The Bill was passing by a bargain with the Nationalists. The Home Secretary, in his reply, said that the Church was being disendowed because it held national property. Half the parochial endowments belonged to parishes with 27,800 communicants, some with less than five, the other half to parishes with 163,000. After Disestablishment, the total income of the Church if the voluntary subscriptions remained constant would be 511,000_l._ instead of approximately 556,000_l._ as in 1906. The loss of 45,000_l._ would be met by amalgamating parishes. The Bill would restore freedom to the Welsh Church. The third reading was carried by 328 to 251.

The financial resolution requisite for the Home Rule Bill was the subject of a stormy debate next day (May 20). The President of the Local Government Board explained its meaning and effect. It proposed to authorise the payment into the Irish Exchequer each year of a fixed sum based on the cost of the services to be administered by the Irish Government on the passing of the Bill, _plus_ a subsidy of 500,000_l._ annually. The President of the Local Government Board explained that in 1912-13, when the Bill was introduced, Irish revenue amounted to 10,600,000_l._, expenditure on Irish services to 12,600,000_l._--a deficit of 2,000,000_l._ But the increased revenue due to the pending Budget was estimated for 1915-16 as follows: Income tax, 185,000_l._; supertax, 175,000_l._; estate duty, 75,000_l._ As about 35,000_l._ of this was arrears, the normal yield of the new taxes in Ireland would be 400,000_l._ The additional grants would be in all 765,000_l._,--education, 112,500_l._; other services, 517,500_l._; Post Office wages, 3,000_l._; tuberculosis nursing and laboratories, 65,500_l._; insurance, 65,000_l._; collection of duties, 1,500_l._ After the Budget changes in 1915-16 the revenue would be 11,450,000_l._, the expenditure 14,150,000_l._, and the deficit 2,700,000_l._ No calculation, he told Sir E. Carson, had been made as to the amount of the new grant which would go to additional purposes in Ulster. The grants would be handed over to the Irish Parliament to dispose of as it pleased. He was much questioned by members, and Mr. T. Healy (I.N.) declared that Ireland was being tricked and over-taxed, while Mr. A. Chamberlain said that the Government were increasing the grievance that the Home Rule Bill was supposed to diminish--that Ireland had to keep up to the level of England, the richer country. Every time the burdens on Great Britain were increased, a heavier subsidy was to be paid out of British taxes to Ireland. The Chancellor of the Exchequer replied, saying that under Home Rule it would be possible to leave local services to the local Parliament. If money was to be raised from Ireland, it must be treated like Great Britain in distributing the funds, Ireland had been contributing 1,800,000_l._ to Imperial taxation; she was now getting 2,000,000_l._ After an amendment moved by Sir F. Banbury, providing that the payment in connexion with Irish services should not fall on the British taxpayer, had been rejected by 305 to 213, the resolution was carried by 303 to 215.

The remaining stages of the Home Rule Bill were to have been completed next day, May 21, but they were deferred through an outburst of passion on the part of the Opposition. At question time the Prime Minister, in answer to inquiries, stated that the Home Rule Bill would be introduced in the House of Lords, but he could not name the date, and refused to anticipate the disclosure of its contents there by a statement in the Commons. This course, he told Mr. Bonar Law, would be contrary to all Parliamentary precedent. This was resented by the Unionists and by some Liberals, among them Mr. Hogge (L., _Edinburgh, E._). After the Report of the money resolution (p. 107) had been carried by 316 to 228, and the Bill reported to the House without amendment by 316 to 227, Lord R. Cecil (U.), amidst a rising storm, moved the adjournment of the debate, on the ground that the Bill was to be passed before the House knew how it was to be amended. These amendments might change its whole character. The procedure of the Government was an insult to the Commons. Either they had not yet made up their minds, or they knew that their proposals would imperil the progress of the Bill. Mr. Worthington Evans, seconding, said the Government hoped again to raise the cry, "Peers _versus_ People." The Prime Minister said that the language of the two last speakers would be appropriate if they were the dominant party dictating terms of surrender to an impotent minority. The Home Rule Bill had passed all its stages by substantially undiminished minorities, and represented the deliberate and considered judgment of the Commons. In its principle, details, and machinery it was a wise and statesmanlike measure; whenever the Government made any proposal towards peace it was treated as a hypocritical sham. Still they had made proposals in order to remove any possible sense of injustice and coercion, allowing the people to vote as to whether any would come in. But they must have as a preliminary the firm and deliberate judgment of the House on their main proposals. For that reason, the Amending Bill was to be introduced in the House of Lords. They had been told that whatever was done, that House would reject the Home Rule Bill. It would be waste of time to ask the Commons to spend weeks in elaborating suggestions which might be summarily rejected. The last voice in the matter would be that of the House of Commons. Mr. Bonar Law retorted that the Commons, after all, represented the people. If the Home Rule Bill was wise and just, why amend it, and why was the Commons not to know how it would be amended? He himself believed that the Prime Minister desired a peaceful settlement, but considered only what would give him a majority. He had gone back at Leeds on his speech at Ladybank (A.R., 1913, pp. 243, 219), and in his proposals on his speech on the Address (pp. 39, 21). He would not let the House know the proposed amendments because the Nationalists would not let him. They meant to pass the Home Rule Bill, and force the Prime Minister to use all the forces of the Crown to drive loyal men out of the Union. The course adopted was an insult to the Commons. A discussion of the third reading of the Home Rule Bill was an absurdity, and he could see absolutely no use in taking part in it. Among subsequent speakers, Mr. A. M. Scott (L., _Glasgow, Bridgeton_), Sir H. Dalziel (L., _Kirkcaldy Burghs_), and Mr. Pringle (L., _Lanarkshire, N.W._) protested against the withholding of the terms of the Amending Bill, and Mr. Amery (U.) was sharply and repeatedly rebuked by the Speaker.

The motion for adjournment was rejected by 286 to 176, and Mr. J. H. Campbell (U., _Dublin University_) came forward to oppose the third reading of the Home Rule Bill. Before he had uttered a word the Unionists started a concerted cry of "Adjourn, adjourn." After it had continued for five minutes the Speaker rose, and asked the Opposition leader whether this was with his consent and approval. This unexpected and unprecedented question provoked an outburst of protest from the Opposition, and Mr. Bonar Law, after the cheers that greeted his rising had at length subsided, replied, speaking evidently under great excitement, "I would not presume, Sir, to criticise what you consider your duty. But I know mine, and that is not to answer any such question." The Opposition cheered savagely and waved handkerchiefs and papers, and the Speaker suspended the sitting in view of the grave disorder. The Opposition cheered their leader wildly as he passed out; some of them shouted taunts at the Ministerialists; one, carried away by excitement, stood before the Prime Minister and shouted abuse at him; the Liberals and Nationalists, meanwhile, laughed good-humouredly and made no response to the Opposition taunts. When the Prime Minister went out, however, they rose and cheered him enthusiastically.

The disturbance was thought to have been preconcerted, possibly in the lobbies during the division on the motion for the adjournment, and to have been suggested by Mr. Bonar Law's concluding words on that motion. At any rate it was in conformity with advice long ago given by the _Observer_ (A.R., 1912, p. 156).

Moreover, the North-East Derbyshire bye-election (Chron., May 20) resulted in a Unionist success, due, indeed, to a split between the Liberal and Labour parties, whose joint aggregate poll had increased largely as compared with that of December, 1910, though the Unionist poll had also somewhat increased. But still it meant a Unionist gain, to be followed by many others if the split were not speedily closed. Again, a keen electoral contest was in progress at Ipswich (Chron., May 25). For the seat vacated by the sudden death in the United States of Mr. Silvester Horne (L.), Mr. Masterman, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and recently defeated in Bethnal Green, was the Ministerial candidate, and the struggle in an always uncertain constituency was so acute that both Sir Edward Carson and the Chancellor of the Exchequer went down on the last day to speak for their respective sides. The former laid stress on the determination of the Ulster people to resist Home Rule, and declared that he had never been so proud of his leader as he had been on the occasion of the scene in the House; the latter declared that the scene was part of a deliberate plot for destroying representative government, because the Tories saw that the people meant to use it for their own redemption. Ipswich had 1,700 old-age pensioners; it was getting 21,400_l._ a year on that head, 35,000_l._ out of the Insurance Act, and some 15,000_l._ out of the new Budget; the weary and the heavy laden in all climes were looking with hope to England. All this, of course, the Unionists denounced as a direct appeal to the cupidity of the people. And, in an essentially working-class constituency, the Liberals lost the seat. Not only was Mr. Masterman defeated by 532 votes on a poll of 12,675, but the combined Liberal and Socialist vote was 137 below that given to the Unionist victor.

Possibly the Unionist satisfaction at this new success helped to intensify the calmer feelings brought by the week-end, and by the diversion of the attention of members to a non-party measure, the Weekly Rest Day Bill. At any rate, when the House reassembled on Monday, May 25, it reverted to its best traditions. After the introduction, amid enthusiastic Unionist cheers, of the two new members, Major Bowden (U., _Derbyshire, N.E._) and Mr. Ganzoni (_U., Ipswich_), the Speaker made a personal explanation. He now understood that the Opposition had had some reason when they interrupted the debate on May 23 to expect that a statement would be made by the Prime Minister; and with regard to the Opposition leader he was betrayed into an expression he ought not to have used. He did not mean to imply that Mr. Bonar Law was responsible for the demonstration, and he was sure that he might always look to the leaders to maintain order. He suggested that the Prime Minister should give further information as to the Amending Bill. Mr. Bonar Law expressed his gratitude to the Speaker for his generous statement, and then the Prime Minister, after associating himself with the tribute paid by the Opposition leader to the dignity and impartiality of the Chair, stated that the Amending Bill would give effect to the terms of agreement if arrived at, and, if not, to the proposals outlined on March 9 (p. 39). Mr. Bonar Law, while acknowledging the conciliatory tone of the Prime Minister's speech, held that it had not altered the situation. The strain on the minority was more than they could stand. The climax was reached then, when the House was asked to give a final verdict on the Irish policy of the Government without knowing what it was. It was useless to discuss the third reading. Ring down the curtain, the sooner the better. The Government had the power to carry their Bill through Parliament, but not in the country.

The Prime Minister replied with dignity that he held his office not as the slave of taskmasters, but by the consent and with the confidence of the majority of the House. He contrasted the ample opportunities of debate enjoyed by the Opposition since 1906 with the position of the Liberals in the preceding Parliament, and declared that it was because the balance had been redressed against the Liberal party that the Opposition took up its present attitude. The Amending Bill was introduced, not because Ministers thought the Home Rule Bill imperfect, but for the sake of peace.

Mr. W. O'Brien (I.U.) denounced the "resurrecting of the House of Lords" and the introduction of the Amending Bill as designed merely to put off the day of disillusion. So long as it was clogged by an Amending Bill, partitioning Ireland, it was a Bill for the murder of Home Rule.

The third reading was passed by 351 to 274. A scene of great Nationalist enthusiasm followed. Then, after a brief and discursive debate on the occasion of the adjournment, the House adjourned for the Whitsun recess.

Two Liberals (Sir Clifford Cory and Mr. Agar-Robartes) voted against the Bill, and Mr. Pirie abstained, as did the eight Independent Nationalists. Three Nationalists and two Labour members were absent through illness.

Mr. Redmond that evening told a representative of the _Freeman's Journal_ that "the Union, as we have known it, is dead," and that, while no amendment of the Bill was desired by either the Government or the Nationalists, it was worth paying a great price to ensure that the Bill should come into operation peacefully. He appealed earnestly to Irish Unionists for a conciliatory discussion of points on which they required further safeguards. There was no disorder, as had been feared, in Ulster; but the strain was severe, and Sir Edward Carson, speaking at Mountain Ash, South Wales, three days later, declared that the third reading was only the first act in a gruesome tragedy, and that the Government would only hold Ulster as a conquered province, if at all.

Two minor Bills, described by the _Nation_ as "signs of a new spirit of freedom sweeping powerfully through the world," proposed respectively to prohibit the traffic in recommendations for titles and honours, and to permit any holder of a peerage or baronetage to disclaim it by deed poll lodged in the Chancery Division, in which case it would lapse. The former was introduced by Mr. O. Locker-Lampson (U., _Hunts, Ramsey_), the latter by Mr. Ponsonby (L., _Stirling Burghs_). Neither got very far, and the former was not quite untinged with party politics; but they at any rate marked a reaction against a craving for artificial distinctions which had reached proportions hitherto unknown in English life.

More definite signs of social change were exhibited in the series of further outrages by militant suffragists. As usual, some were very grave in character, others merely vexatious and even childish, but all were carried out with great determination by women for whom the punishments provided by the law appeared to have no terrors. On April 17 the pier pavilion at Yarmouth had been burnt down, apparently through the explosion of a bomb; on April 28 the Bath Hotel at Felixstowe, just made ready for the season, was also burnt, the damage being estimated at 35,000_l._; on May 4, at the first public view of the Royal Academy Exhibition, a portrait of Mr. Henry James, the novelist, presented to him by his admirers and painted by Mr. Sargent, R.A., was damaged with a chopper by Mrs. Mary Wood; a week later (May 12) a similar outrage was committed on Herkomer's portrait of the Duke of Wellington in the same exhibition; at the gala performance in honour of the King of Denmark at the Italian opera (May 11) there were unsuccessful attempts to interrupt the performance by addressing King George V.; while on May 14 the houses of Lord Lansdowne and Sir Edward Carson were picketed by suffragists to emphasise the contention that the Ulster leaders should also be treated as in revolt. A few days later a cricket pavilion was burnt at Harborne, near Birmingham (May 15), and a like fate befell the grandstand and offices on the Birmingham racecourse; and on May 21 a deputation of women, in defiance of the principles of British constitutional government, attempted to force their way to Buckingham Palace to present a petition against forcible feeding to the King. The police had formed a cordon around the Palace, and a crowd had naturally assembled; the procession appeared suddenly to emerge from it near the top of Constitution Hill, and the painful and distressing spectacle was presented of a conflict, before a jeering crowd, between a group of women and the police. Sixty-six women and two men were arrested, and, for the most part, was sentenced to be bound over to keep the peace; they refused to be bound over, and were sentenced in default to one day's imprisonment. Others, sentenced to longer terms of incarceration, were speedily released after hunger-and-thirst strikes. Mrs. Pankhurst, who had appeared in the front of the procession, was rearrested, but released again after four days' thirst-and-hunger strike, and her arrest was the signal for fresh outbursts. The day after it five very valuable Italian pictures at the National Gallery were damaged, as well as a picture by Mr. Clausen, R.A., at the Royal Academy; and hence the National Gallery, the Wallace Collection, the Tate Gallery, and a few days later the Watts Gallery near Guildford, were closed till further notice. Again, at a special _matinée_ of "The Silver King," attended by the King and Queen (May 22), a woman stood up and addressed His Majesty as "Russian Tsar"; another interrupter had chained herself to her stall; and others in the galleries showered suffragist literature on the audience. Next day Mr. Lavery's portrait of the King in the Royal Scottish Academy was damaged, and an attempt was made to cut off the aqueduct supplying Glasgow with water from Loch Katrine; but the criminals in this last case escaped. Finally, windows were broken at Buckingham Palace on May 27. The two Felixstowe incendiaries were sentenced at the Suffolk Assizes (May 29) respectively to nine months and two years' imprisonment, but the "Cat and Mouse Act" afforded them a certain, though painful, escape. A more efficient method of suppression was foreshadowed by the raiding of a flat on May 21 at Maida Vale, where several women and a man were arrested, and stones, hammers, and choppers were seized. Two days later, the offices of the Women's Social and Political Union in Kingsway were raided also, and the secretary was charged with conspiring with the inmates of the Maida Vale flat. The accused persons, following the example of the Felixstowe criminals, behaved outrageously in court, and their conduct and, indeed, the whole of the outrages, probably gave a severe set-back to the suffragist cause.

The Labour outlook, too, continued alarming. The railway servants' leaders decided on May 16 to demand the recognition by the companies of their trade union, a forty-eight hours' week, and an increase of wages in all grades by 5_s._ weekly; and in the building trade, the ballot taken upon an offer of compromise by the employers, which the men were advised by their leaders to accept, resulted, on the contrary, in its rejection by 21,017 votes to 5,705. The struggle was causing extreme suffering, and was kept up with a determination ominous of its long continuance. And behind all these signs of multifarious social unrest loomed the spectre of civil war.