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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The debate was continued next day, when there was a stormy scene over a reduction proposed by Lord R. Cecil (U.) in order to call attention to the housing of the Admiralty labourers at Rosyth. The Chairman was charged with unduly favouring the Government, and an attempt at a snap division was defeated by Mr. Leif Jones, who spoke amid continual disorder. Eventually the reduction was defeated by 272 to 132, and later the First Lord, in a general reply, denied that there had been any acceleration of the shipbuilding programme, and said that there was no prospect of "breaking the armaments ring" by getting armour from competing firms abroad. He would do so if he could (a statement which roused protests) or would start a State factory, but this latter would involve a heavy capital charge. The Vote was agreed to.

Another basis for an attack on Ministers was still found in the Insurance Act. Mr. Bonar Law declared that it was insolvent (March 2); and three days later in Supply it was assailed by Mr. Worthington Evans (U.) and other members, who contended that some of the societies would be unable to pay the minimum benefits, that the drug fund was overspent, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was concealing the facts and using the powers of the Commissioners to influence bye-elections. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made a spirited defence, adding that the State was not bound to make up the deficiencies of badly managed societies. Married women's sickness was a difficulty, and in certain trades, e.g. mining, even slight illness stopped work and produced a sickness claim. After a vigorous reply by Mr. Bonar Law, and other criticisms and counter-criticisms, the Government was supported by 242 to 174. A more interesting debate had been set up by a Labour resolution, moved by Mr. A. Henderson (March 3), asking for an extension of the Act to certain other trades and an inquiry into the provision disqualifying for unemployment benefit workmen unemployed through a Labour dispute. The new President of the Board of Trade promised an extension during the current year, and, while regarding the provision in question as vital, held that means might be taken to settle more definitely when disqualification began. The resolution was adopted.

The confidence of the Government in its programme was shown by the cordial acceptance (March 4) of a motion proposed by Mr. E. Jones (L., Merthyr Tydvil)for a Select Committee on the redistribution of seats, with an amendment moved by Major Morrison-Bell (U., Devon, Honiton) inserting "immediate" before redistribution. The President of the Local Government Board pointed out that Home Rule would remove the great obstacle—the provision of the Act of Union that Ireland should have 100 members "for ever,"—and proportional representation, as was asked by a Unionist member, would be included. It would probably take the form of giving additional members to the larger constituencies, and electing them on a transferable vote. Mr. Long (U.) gave a somewhat qualified assent, and the motion was agreed to.

This skirmishing was followed (March 9) by a new stage in Home Rule problem. Amid intense interest, the Prime Minister announced the projected concessions to Ulster in moving the second reading of the Home Rule Bill. Repeating that the Government adhered firmly to this measure, he said that they were specially anxious that the new regime should start with the best chance of success. Whether Home Rule as embodied in the Bill were carried or rejected, the outlook was very grave. A settlement must involve the acceptance of a Legislature and Executive at Dublin, and of some form of special treatment for the Ulster minority. Dismissing as impracticable Lord Loreburn's suggestion of a round table conference without any preliminary basis of agreement, he referred to the conditions he had laid down at Ladybank (A.R., 1913, p. 219) and to the unsuccessful conversations, which would remain absolutely confidential, between himself, Mr. Bonar Law, and Sir Edward Carson. These at any rate brought out the difficulties, and he and his colleagues had devised three ways of attempting a solution. (1) "Home Rule within Home Rule," exemption of a part, provisionally undefined, of Ulster from the administration of a Dublin Executive, with a veto, for that part, subject to an appeal, however, to the Imperial Parliament, on the application to it of legislation pressed by the Legislature in Dublin. But this none of those concerned would accept. (2) Sir Horace Plunkett's plan, which the "conversations" had anticipated,—an option for the Ulster counties to separate themselves from Home Rule Ireland after a time. (3) Exclusion of Ulster, to which there were grave objections in any form. A middle course, the Government held, might be found in provisional exclusion; and they proposed that any county in Ulster, including the county boroughs of Belfast and Londonderry, might vote themselves out on the requisition of, say, one-tenth of the Parliamentary electors, for a term of six years from the first meeting of the Irish Legislature in Dublin. This, he showed at length, would give time to test the working of the Irish Parliament, and within the six years there would be two general elections in Great Britain, in 1915 and 1920. The counties excluded would come into the Home Rule scheme automatically at the end of six years, unless the Imperial Parliament determined otherwise. Their representation in that Parliament, and as far as possible their administration, would continue unchanged meanwhile. Financial and administrative adjustments would be necessary, and would be set forth in a White Paper to be published the next day, but he hoped to work out the details with something like general co-operation. The proposals were put forward as the price of peace. He appealed for their dispassionate consideration, referring to the traditions of "give and take" in the British nation which had made it the pioneer of popular government.

Mr. Bonar Law (U.) said that if, as he feared, these proposals represented the last word of the Government, the position seemed to him very grave. The Government might conciliate Ulster by submitting the Bill to the judgment of the electors. He must leave Sir Edward Carson to speak for Ulster; but the Ulstermen were asked to destroy their fortress, and to come in when they were weak. Remove the Ulster question, and the general election would be fought on entirely different lines; even if the Unionists won the first election and changed the law, the next might reverse their decision. He feared that the concessions were being made unwillingly and too late; that the offer was being made to be refused. Let the Government put their proposals in a Bill and submit it to the people by a referendum.

Mr. Redmond (N., Waterford) regarded the proposals as the extreme limit of concession. If they were accepted, they would elicit the real opinion of Ulster, which would surprise many people both there and in Great Britain; and, long before the period of exclusion had expired, the fears of Ulster would have been disarmed by the moderate and tolerant government exhibited in Dublin. The Nationalists could only acquiesce in the proposals if they were frankly accepted by their Ulster opponents. Otherwise it was the duty of the majority in the House to proceed forthwith with the Bill, to pass it without delay, and to face firmly and with all their resources any movement to overawe Parliament or subvert the law by the menace of force.

Mr. W. O'Brien (I.N., Cork City) said that the Ministry seemed to have picked out the one concession intolerable to any Nationalist. He protested against "chopping an ancient nation into a thing of shreds and patches," and urged the Government to try to get a better settlement through a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons.

Sir E. Carson (U., Dublin University) who, being ill, spoke under great difficulties, declined to accept Mr. Redmond's promises, and declared that nothing had happened since the introduction of the Bill to abate the loathing with which it was regarded by every Irish Unionist. They would never agree, whatever benefits were offered to Ulster, to the sacrifice of the people of the South and West. Something was gained towards a peaceable solution by the admission of the principle of exclusion; but Ulster wanted the question settled at once and for ever, "We don't want sentence of death with a stay of execution for six years." The whole Ulster organisation would have to be kept up, and all the old questions would remain, while the attention of the British electorate would be diverted to other matters. Would the Government agree that Ulster should stay out until Parliament otherwise ordered? If not, they did not really mean exclusion as a safeguard. The period of six years was fantastic; a whole new system of government would have to be set up for it; but, if the time limit were removed, he would feel it his duty to go to Ulster and call a Convention. Did the country mean to allow the Forces of the Crown to be used to coerce men who asked only that they might remain with it?

Mr. Ramsay Macdonald (Lab.) said that the Labour party would accept the proposed compromise as the price of peace in spite of the great difficulties it entailed in factory inspection and other matters; and Mr. T. Healy said that he preferred to have no Bill rather than the Government proposal, which he regarded as Finis Hiberniæ. Exclusion would be permanent, the severance complete, there would be reprisals and boycotting, and the American Congress would be urged to put a tariff on Belfast goods. Mr. A. Ward (U., Herts, Watford), as a back-bench Unionist, welcomed the proposals as a great concession and urged their consideration in good faith.

The debate was adjourned sine die to give time to finish the necessary financial business; and public interest centred on the reception of the Bill outside. The White Paper (issued March 10) added little to Mr. Asquith's outline of his proposals; and the Irish Unionists both in Ulster and Dublin, as well as in Parliament, were very unfavourable. The Dublin Nationalists also were against the time limit, which, it may be remarked, was believed to have been extended at the last moment to six years, having previously been fixed at three. In the City, however, and among independent observers, opinion was decidedly hopeful. That Donegal, Cavan and Monaghan would decline exclusion was certain, and that Fermanagh and Tyrone would do so was highly probable; but the areas of Protestant and Catholic population by no means coincided with those of the counties, nor did the religious division, especially among the Protestants, with that between Unionism and Home Rule.

While these proposals were under consideration in the country the House dealt with the Army Estimates, published March 5. Their total amount was 28,845,000l.; a net increase as compared with 1913-14 of 625,000l., which was almost accounted for by (1) the new schemes of pay for regimental officers and of promotion from the ranks (140,000l.), and (2) the development of the Air Service (480,000l.). As the Secretary of State's memorandum pointed out, when allowance was made for the automatic growth of pension charges and for the 1,000,000l. provided for aviation, the effective cost of the Army was actually less than in 1907-8, when there was a reduction of 2,000,000l. in the Estimates, and only 250,000l. more than in 1909-10, when it was at its lowest since the South African War. Since 1905-6 the expenditure from loans had come to an end, but the general level of prices had risen by some 20 per cent. The total regular establishment, the memorandum continued, showed an increase of 800 men, half due to the growth of the Military Wing of the Flying Corps, half to additions to the Garrison Artillery for home defence. After giving details as to cavalry and horses, and promising a new war organisation of this arm, the memorandum mentioned that there would be a shortage (of some 8,000 men at that time) in the Infantry owing to the abnormal number passing into the Reserve. As employment and emigration were also brisk and the Navy was competing for men, the gaps had not been readily filled, but better results were being obtained by modern methods of recruiting. The question was bound up with that of employment for ex-soldiers, into which a Commission was inquiring, with Sir Matthew Nathan as its chairman. The health of the Army, including that in India and the Colonies, was shown by figures to be very satisfactory. The new rates of pay for regimental officers took effect from January 1. An inquiry would be held into the conditions of the supply of cadets, which was disappointing. As to aviation, the personnel of the 5th and 6th squadrons would be complete by the end of March, and that of the 7th and 8th, as well as its equipment in aeroplanes, in the coming year. The lighter-than-air service being concentrated under the Admiralty, the Army airships had been handed over to the Navy on January 1. Satisfactory accounts were given of the progress in matériel of the air service. The strength of the Territorial Force on January 1, 1914, was 9,366 officers and 239,819 of other ranks, showing a decrease of 14,220, due to the retirement of time-expired men, whose number was large owing to the abnormal recruiting of 1909. The recruiting of 1913, however, showed a satisfactory advance, and more men had attended camp. Attendance was to be encouraged by an increased bounty. The National Reserve had increased by January 1, 1914, to 217,000. Particulars were also given as to the supply of horses, improvement of weapons and building works.

The table on the opposite page shows the net estimate of the several votes and the difference between the amounts for 1914-15 and those for 1913-14.

The Army Estimates were introduced by the War Minister on March 10. The cost of living and the air service, he said, would increase the cost of all armies per man; the number of men was less, the cost was more. The Regular Army showed a deficiency of 8,000, the Reserve a surplus of 13,000, so that on the whole number on mobilisation the surplus would be 5,000. At home there were 121,000 Regulars, abroad 117,000 (white troops recruited in the United Kingdom); and there was an Army Reserve of 146,000. On the declaration of war an Expeditionary Force of 162,000 could be mobilised very soon. To deal with a sudden emergency from oversea 50,000 men could be assembled in a few hours. Coming to the officers and men, he remarked that it was the first year of the new scheme of officers' pay, which would involve considerable promotion from the ranks—as there had been in the Peninsular War, and, according to Lord Wolseley, the principle was accepted in the British Army. By 1915 a scheme of education for such officers would have been devised. Recruiting gave some anxiety, but by advertising the advantages of the Army an increased number had been attained. But the Cardwell system, while good for the State, was bad for the men after their discharge, and of 24,000 men, of good character, who left the Army in 1913 employment had been found for only 16,000. A Committee, with Sir Matthew Nathan as Chairman, was studying the problem. In the Special Reserve, in spite of a reduction of the establishment owing to the extension of mechanical transport, there was a shortage of 13,000, which would continue; but the force was valuable as a half-way house for the Army. The Territorial Force was short of its establishment by 56,000, but 1913 had been its best year for recruiting. This, however, might be due to the rejoining of time-expired men, and further efforts were needed. The National Reserve numbered 217,000, of whom 13,000 had undertaken to serve in any part of the world in the event of a national emergency, and 45,000 within the British Isles, these latter being a set-off to the Territorial shortage of 56,000. Of horses the number needed on going to war was 102,000, the number available 375,000; the surplus extended to every class of horse, and was largest in the heavier type. Aviation was very costly, but might be made safer by the provision of money. One of the leading combatants in the Balkan War had said to him: "Had we had a single aeroplane, the whole history of Europe would have been altered." That army had, indeed, aeroplanes and men, but had not the organisation to ensure that an aeroplane and a man should be where they were needed. Great Britain, he showed, was not behindhand, and he appealed to farmers to provide landing-places. He also gave encouraging information as to the field-gun and the new rifle.

There was little time for criticisms that evening, and the most important were those of Mr. A. Lee (U., Hants, Fareham). He was dissatisfied with the arrangements for promotion from the ranks, and with the means of defence in the absence of the Expeditionary Force. The Report of the Defence Committee, too, should have been debated before the Army Estimates. Next day Mr. Baird (U., Warwickshire, Rugby) moved a resolution regretting the serious shortage in the Military Forces of the Crown, and inviting the Government to state forthwith its concrete proposals to deal with the situation. He insisted on the youth of a large proportion of the troops, and Sir B. Pole-Carew (U., Cornwall, Bodmin) added that naval experts now held that the Navy was unable to defend the British Isles. [His attack on the First Sea Lord's disclaimer (p. 35) led to a scene.] The War Minister, in his reply, declared that the British Army was much better trained and was much more formidable as a fighting machine than any Continental Army, and the Expeditionary Force was absolutely ready to go on an expedition. Great Britain was more ready for war than ever before. Eventually the motion was negatived, and next day in Committee the Under-Secretary for War gave an encouraging account of the arrangements contemplated for raising the numbers of the Special Reserve. A reduction was moved by Mr. Worthington Evans (U., Colchester), to call attention to the hardships suffered by men marrying "off the strength," in which case their wives and families received no allowances. The War Secretary announced that recommendations recently made after an inquiry conducted by Mrs. Tennant would be adopted, entailing an annual addition to the Estimates of some 60,000l. The reduction was negatived by 249 to 212.

The question of the ability of the Navy to protect the British Isles from invasion had been raised by the Earl of Portsmouth in the Upper House on March 10. He called attention to the First Sea Lord's Statement (A.R., 1913, p. 94) that the Fleet alone was not sufficient, and to the Prime Minister's explanation that the statement had been misconstrued (p. 35). What, he asked, did the First Sea Lord now mean? Lord Wimborne replied, on behalf of the Government, that the First Sea Lord had never used the word "invasion." Before his speech he had consulted the First Lord, and both he and the Prime Minister represented the views of the Admiralty and were in harmony with those of Mr. Balfour (A.R., 1905, p. 157 seq.). Neither arm was separately responsible for protection against invasion. The Army had to provide that no invasion could be undertaken with less than a considerable body of men; the Navy had to intercept such an enemy; these functions both arms, now as always, were competent to perform. After other speeches, the Lord Chancellor closed the debate, saying that the interpretation put on the First Sea Lord's speech had represented him as deserting the basic principles of naval strategy. What he had said fully accorded with the accepted principles of home defence.

Meanwhile a well-meant attempt at strengthening home defence had been made by Lord Willoughby de Broke's Territorial Forces Amendment Bill, of which the second reading was moved in the House of Lords on March 13. It proposed to form a new Imperial Force (supported by a 3d. income tax), composed of British subjects or domiciled aliens, whose service would be compulsory between the ages of sixteen and forty-five. It was confined to public school and university men, members of the higher professions, and men whose income from all sources was 400l. a year. Boys at school were to serve in cadet corps; between the ages of twenty-one and thirty there were to be annual periods of training; and at thirty the members would be liable to serve in great national emergencies. He believed the example set would induce extensive working-class enlistment in the Territorials. The impracticability of the Bill was exposed by Lord Newton (who moved an amendment in favour of universal service), and by the Lord Chancellor, who pointed out that a measure of taxation originating in the Upper House was not worth discussing, and that German experience showed that a large home army and a large overseas army were incompatible. Still, the Bill obtained considerable support on that and the two following days, less for its own sake than as a basis of discussion. Several speakers advocated compulsory cadet training; the Earl of Cromer pleaded for a non-party settlement, instancing Germany and France; and Earl Roberts and the Marquess of Lansdowne, while objecting to the class distinctions of the Bill, were eminently dissatisfied with the existing conditions of defence. In replying for the Government, Viscount Morley of Blackburn intimated that Mr. Asquith's Defence Committee of 1913-14 had come to the same conclusions as that of 1908 and Mr. Balfour's in 1905. The Bill was rejected by 53 to 34.

The debates on the Army Estimates had been interrupted by an attack on the Chancellor of the Exchequer (March 10) in the shape of a resolution moved by Sir John Randles (U., Manchester, N.W.), and seconded by Mr. Cassell (U., St. Pancras, W.), regretting his "repeated inaccuracies," and his "gross and unfounded personal attacks." The cases cited can only be briefly indicated. They were (1) the attack on the Duke of Montrose (p. 14); (2) the Duke of Sutherland's offer (A.R., 1913, p. 262), the executors' valuation having only been a rough estimate, less the amount of the mortgages; (3) the inaccurate attacks on ancestors of the Duke; (4) the Gorringe case (A.R., 1909, p. 181), where the "fine" was paid partly for the grant of a fresh and very valuable lease of other premises; (5) the statements (A.R., 1913, p; 248) as to St. Pancras, where there were 1,550 freeholders (instead of "about ten"), many of the largest being trustees. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made a spirited defence. Mr. Gorringe was paying for the value he had created, and his company were paying rates on it. In the Cathcart case, the Opposition had reduced the number of years' purchase from 920 to 750. In the Loch Arklet case, Glasgow had had to pay for 383 acres, not 19,000l. but 21,000l., more than thirty years' purchase of the whole 11,000 acres. In the Sutherland case, he read a poignant description of the clearances, written, as he told a Unionist inquirer, by Mr. Joseph Chamberlain; and claimed that the mortgages would not reduce the valuation to anywhere near 200,000l. Though his illustrations were questioned his case had never been challenged, and Mr. Long (p. 8) had accepted it. After a vigorous reply from Mr. F. E. Smith (U.), who incidentally mentioned that Mr. Lloyd George had suppressed the passage in his speech telling of the destruction of mangolds by pheasants (A.R., 1913, p. 212), the motion was rejected by 304 to 140, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer was enthusiastically cheered by his supporters.

In the following week, in an interval of the new phase of the Ulster crisis, the House began to deal with the Navy Estimates, issued March 12. They were the largest on record, amounting, according to the First Lord's introductory memorandum, to 51,550,000l., an increase on the total (including Supplementary) Estimates of 1913-14 of 2,740,700l. Of this increase 450,000l. represented increased pay and victualling for the larger personnel; 30,000l. automatic increase of the non-effective votes, 40,000l. was for fuel and fuel service, owing to the increased horse-power of the Fleet, and the continued building up of the oil fuel reserves; 300,000l. for development of air service; 750,000l. for increased earnings by contractors on Vote 8; 800,000l. for guns, torpedoes, and ammunition, of which 300,000l. was due to the acceleration of the three 1913-14 battleships. The new programme was composed of four battleships, four light cruisers, twelve destroyers, and a number of submarines and subsidiary craft. On April 1, 1914, there would be under construction thirteen battleships, one battle cruiser, sixteen light cruisers, thirty torpedo-boat destroyers, twenty-four submarines, and various oil-fuel and Fleet service vessels. Particulars were given inter alia of the New Zealand Division—where two light cruisers would be kept, and manned from the New Zealand Naval Force—and of the progress of the naval air service. A chain of seaplane bases was being established round the coast; five were already complete. Good progress had been made with the design of the seaplane, and certain standard types for war service were rapidly being developed. The practical utility of aircraft for war was increasingly evident, and experiments in connexion with bomb dropping, wireless telegraphy, and gunnery had been continuous. Action had been taken as to aircraft armament, and guns for action against aircraft were being mounted aboard ship.

The following is the abstract of the net Estimates for the different Votes, with the increases and decreases indicated in each case:—