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 2l. 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 40,000l. 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 26,150,000l., an increase of 1,770,000l., due to the increased pay of the employees. The estimated revenue was 31,750,000l., but the debt was 31,600,000l. The postal service proper showed a profit of 6,250,000l.; the telegraphs a loss of 350,000l., the telephones a profit of 300,000l. Pay of employees would be increased by about 2,000,000l. partly because of the Report of the Holt Committee (A.R., 1913, p. 255). But there would also be a minimum wage of 22s. 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 12,000,000l. and the profit 160,000l. 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 4½ 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.

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 6,000,000l.; the increase had been unprecedented—9,441,000l. He had had, however, to meet Supplementary Estimates of 3,371,000l., against which were set savings in various departments of 1,500,000l. The deficiency he had to face was 1,860,000l. The increase of revenue enabled him to pay the Supplementary Estimates, wipe out the deficit, leave the 1,000,000l. which he had proposed to take from the Exchequer balances, and end with a surplus of 750,000l. The new taxes of 1909 had yielded 27,215,000l., the national income had increased since that year by 140 to 150 millions, and the national savings by 1,750,000,000l. 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 8,492,000l. and the conditions of revenue were very difficult to forecast. The total estimated revenue from existing sources was 200,655,000l., the total expenditure, apart from the new projects, 205,985,000l., leaving a deficit of 5,330,000l. 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, 3,615,000l.; police, 3,400,000l.; criminal prosecutions, 120,000l.; suppression of cattle disease, 71,300l.; mental deficiency (optional provisions), 45,000l. additional; small grants under Shops and Employment of Children Acts, 22,500l.; Reformatories and Industrial Schools, 22,000l. additional; Public Health, 4,000,000l. (first year, l,300,000l.); Tuberculosis, Nursing, and Pathological Laboratories, 750,000l. 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—2,750,000l. 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 560,000l., the health grants 282,000l. For insurance, also, there would be further assistance, 1,250,000l. 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 4,218,000l., and he needed a margin of 252,000l. He had, therefore, to find 9,800,000l. 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 1,000l. a year, but after that the scale would be: 1,000l. to 1,500l., 10½d. in the pound; 1,500l. to 2,000l., 1s.; 2,000l. to 2,500l., 1s. 2d.; 2,500l. to 3,000l., 1s. 4d. On unearned income and all income above 3,000l. it would be 1s. 4d. The allowance for each child of 7s. 6d. in the case of incomes under 500l. would be doubled; and the 25 per cent. limit on deduction for repairs would be abolished. The supertax would begin at 3,000l. instead of 5,000l.; the first 500l. would be excepted, the next 1,000l. charged 7d., the next 9d., the next 11d., the next 1s. 1d., the next 1s. 3d., and the remainder 1s. 4d. The total yield of this and the existing supertax would be 7,770,000l. 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 60,000l. and 200,000l. and thereafter to a maximum of 20 per cent. for 1,000,000l. 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 8,800,000l. 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 104,000,000l. of debt and by 1915 would have paid off 114,000,000l. 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 21,000,000l., 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.

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

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

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 700l. and 1,000l. a tax of 1s. 4d. 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 20.11l. per head, in 1899 15.52l., and in 1914 15.37l. 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 250,000,000l. 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 300l. the tax would be 1s. instead of 1s. 2d. 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 1s. 4d. 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—1,500l. 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 10,000,000l. 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 511,000l. instead of approximately 556,000l. as in 1906. The loss of 45,000l. 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 500,000l. annually. The President of the Local Government Board explained that in 1912-13, when the Bill was introduced, Irish revenue amounted to 10,600,000l., expenditure on Irish services to 12,600,000l.—a deficit of 2,000,000l. But the increased revenue due to the pending Budget was estimated for 1915-16 as follows: Income tax, 185,000l.; supertax, 175,000l.; estate duty, 75,000l. As about 35,000l. of this was arrears, the normal yield of the new taxes in Ireland would be 400,000l. The additional grants would be in all 765,000l.,—education, 112,500l.; other services, 517,500l.; Post Office wages, 3,000l.; tuberculosis nursing and laboratories, 65,500l.; insurance, 65,000l.; collection of duties, 1,500l. After the Budget changes in 1915-16 the revenue would be 11,450,000l., the expenditure 14,150,000l., and the deficit 2,700,000l. 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 1,800,000l. to Imperial taxation; she was now getting 2,000,000l. 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 21,400l. a year on that head, 35,000l. out of the Insurance Act, and some 15,000l. 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 35,000l.; 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.