resolution emphasising the urgency of the question of national defence was discussed, but dropped because it was regarded as a platitude; and incidentally, Mr. W. T. Stead, in an indignant and pointed attack on the assailants of Sir John Fisher, suggested that Lord Charles Beresford would hang such persons at the yard-arm, and all of them would say "God speed the deed."

The delegates, both at the Conference and in conversationnotably in interviews published by the Daily Chronicle-declared themselves greatly impressed with the energy and vigour of the British people, as exhibited in the naval and military displays and the industrial centres. They had expected decadence, but, as one Australian editor said, after seeing what they had seen, they could not understand the pessimism of Englishmen about England.

66

In contrast with all this, the Morning Post on June 28 published a poem by Mr. Rudyard Kipling, "The City of Brass," denouncing a people who pulled down their national defences and weakened the well-springs of wisdom and strength, which are faith and endeavour." But "out of the sea rose a sign, out of heaven a terror," and they "passed from the roll of the nations in headlong surrender." The poem especially denounced the grant of a Constitution to the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies. But its extravagance defeated its aim.

To return to Parliament. The House of Lords had reassembled, after a four weeks' recess, on June 23; but the first business of importance was a somewhat unprofitable debate initiated by Lord Curzon of Kedleston (June 28 and 29) on the recent changes in Indian military administration (ANNUAL REGISTER, 1905, pp. 204, 212, 381, 383). Substantially it was complained by Lord Curzon, Earl Roberts, Viscount Midleton, and the Earl of Cromer, that the abolition of the Military Supply Member of Council introduced in 1905 tended to overload the Commander-in-Chief with work, to prevent his keeping thoroughly in touch with the Native Army, and to set up a military autocracy. Lord Morley of Blackburn, who spoke second, pointed out that the abolition was approved by Lord Kitchener and by General Scott, who held the post, and quoted and endorsed the dictum of the former that Indian military organisation was the key to some of the gravest military problems at home. Lord Macdonnell regarded the transfer of the duties of the Military Member of Council to the Commander-inChief as virtually illegal, and suggested that the Commander-inChief should have the whole control of the Army, make his own Budget subject to the Viceroy's orders, and give an account of his stewardship like a Lieutenant-Governor; and the Marquess. of Lansdowne generally endorsed the contentions of his followers. The interest of the debate was largely historical.

The debate on the Finance Bill was resumed on Monday, June 28, at the sixth line of Clause 1 (increment duty); but the limits of our space forbid even an enumeration of the amend

ments moved on that day and the next and rejected by majorities varying from 82 to 170. The discussion was often highly technical, and the amendments mostly aimed at establishing exceptions to the duty, or at postponing its incidence. Sir John Dickson-Poynder (L., Chippenham, Wilts) moved one amendment unsuccessfully; others were supported by a few Liberal members. The clause was closured by instalments. Certain concessions and explanations were promised, some of which will be specified later; and on Wednesday, June 30, the rejection of the clause was moved by Mr. Abel Smith (U., Hertford, Herts). He objected to the taxation of increment except on sale, to the levy of the tax on a theoretical capital value, and to the inclusion of agricultural land. After other speeches, Mr. Austen Chamberlain recapitulated the arguments against the clause, remarking that the Ministers who had defended the Budget on platforms were never present at the debates. He feared that the whole of the increment would hereafter be taken, and that the tax would be extended to other kinds of "monopoly" such as railways and gas-works. The tax would hamper the transfer of land and interfere with the building industry. He contested, also, the accuracy of the parallel cited from Frankfort-on-Main. He was followed by Mr. Masterman, Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board, who contended, despite Opposition protests, that some of the objections to the increment tax had been removed by the five days' debate. He defended it on the authority of all orthodox economists, and declared that the Government had sought to remove the difficulties felt in its working abroad; in Frankfort, for example, the taxation was retrospective. Safeguards had been promised in regard to agricultural land and against hardships arising on its first incidence, and he had the authority of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to promise favourable consideration for amendments intended to remove other hardships if any were shown to be probable. Lord Avebury's predictions as to the effect of the tax had been made, and falsified, regarding the effect of the death duties of 1894. Mr. L. Hardy (U.), however, denied that they had been falsified, and also urged the exemption of minerals as well as of agricultural land. After other speeches, Mr. Balfour contested the economic authority for the tax. Fawcett and Thorold Rogers had strongly opposed it; Mill had favoured either appropriating all the unearned increment or buying out the landlords. The Government, though they apparently did not know it, were depreciating the present value of land. Mr. Cobden had invested largely in land in the belief that its growth was regular, normal, and continuous, but he had to be extricated from his consequent financial difficulties by his friends. Mr. Balfour laid stress on the inconvenience caused by repeated revolutions to the multitude of persons who, especially in Scotland, might have an interest in a particular bit of land; and he inferred from the speech of the

Prime Minister (p. 146) that the Government would not hesitate to make buccaneering expeditions on the same principles into other provinces of property. This would instil the "poison of insecurity" into our general system, and check the growth of industry even more than inexpedient taxation.

Instead of replying, the Chancellor of the Exchequer (soon after 8 P.M.) moved the closure, to the great indignation of the Opposition. It was carried, however, by 260 to 114, and the clause as amended passed by 296 to 112.

The second clause, defining increment value, was then taken, and considerable time was spent in discussing a motion to postpone it, and on points of order. Various amendments were debated and withdrawn, some to be put in a new form at a later stage; and ultimately, the debate on an amendment moved by Sir J. Dickson-Poynder, substituting "capital value" for "site value" as the basis of assessment, was closured shortly before 3 A.M. and the amendment rejected by 164 to 34. The debate on the first subsection of the clause was then closured, to the great indignation of the Opposition, the Chairman, however, explaining that the only substantial amendment could be moved to a later clause, and after wasting an hour in a noisy scene, the House adjourned at 4.10 A.M. on July 1.

On the afternoon of that day the House passed to naval matters, and particulars of the naval works contemplated were given by Mr. Lambert, Civil Lord of the Admiralty, on the Report of the Navy Vote for works, buildings and repairs on July 1. He stated that the works at Rosyth were to be completed under the contract by March 1, 1916, a bonus of 8001. a week being offered for earlier completion; the new lock at Portsmouth in four years, with a corresponding bonus of 400l. a week; and two floating docks for ships of the largest size would be constructed for home waters. After other particulars he referred to the use of Norwegian granite at Rosyth, saying that British granite would have been 30 per cent. dearer. Under the preceding Government foreign granite had been freely used without disapproval. The subsequent debate was largely concerned with the delay at Rosyth, for which, according to Sir Charles Dilke, the late Government were mainly responsible. Mr. McKenna, in a general reply, mentioned that one of the new floating docks would be on the Medway. Previously Cromarty Bay or Scapa Flow had been suggested as a suitable station by Sir A. Bignold (U., Wick Burghs), and the latter was selected in November.

This debate was, on the whole, reassuring; but a multitude of other difficulties now beset the Government. From one embarrassment, indeed, which would have hampered them in the coming conflict with the House of Lords, they had saved themselves by the omission of peerages from the list of Birthday Honours (June 25); but they were faced with a serious industrial crisis, with the renewal of the naval agitation in the

new form given it by Lord Charles Beresford, with a fresh outbreak of the Suffragist agitation, and with several bye-elections consequent on a partial reconstruction of their own body. It had been announced on June 26 that Lord Fitzmaurice, owing to ill-health, had resigned the Chancellorship of the Duchy of Lancaster, and that his place would be filled by Mr. Herbert Samuel, Under-Secretary for the Home Department-a promotion which carried with it a seat in the Cabinet, and was regarded as a recognition of Mr. Samuel's successful conduct of the Children's Bill. The Master of Elibank, too, was appointed Under-Secretary for India in the place of Mr. T. R. Buchanan, who had resigned owing to ill-health. The consequent byeelections, together with that entailed by the lamented death of Sir A. Jacoby (L., Mid-Derbyshire), were dangerous for the Ministry. True, a reminder of the Unionist divisions was afforded by the fifth annual meeting of the Unionist Free Trade Club on June 29. The Earl of Cromer, as Chairman, insisted on the need of defending the Unionist Free Traders' seats in Parliament against "Confederate" intrigues. The danger was that, as in America, moderate men would be driven. out of politics. He approved only the foreign and colonial policy of the Government, declared himself in favour of a reform in the House of Lords and the introduction of the Referendum, and suggested that an alternative to the Budget might have been found by re-imposing the sugar duty coupled with further borrowing. He thought that the success of the extreme Tariff Reformers would lead to a decided reaction. Lord Hugh Cecil also spoke, and a resolution was passed threatening Unionist Free Trade retaliation on Tariff Reform Parliamentary candidates. But in most constituencies the Unionist Free Traders were a negligible body.

A new direction, moreover, seemed likely to be given to the naval agitation by Lord Charles Beresford's speech on June 30 at Merchant Taylors' Hall, under the auspices of the London Chamber of Commerce. He said, indeed, that nothing had been done to allay the anxiety caused by the warnings of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, and demanded a definite plan for defence; but he declared that though the position was more serious than was generally supposed, there was no cause for panic, and he condemned the "wild men" who proposed laying down two keels to Germany's one. His own programme included ten battleships to be finished by March, 1914; and, a year earlier, eighteen second-class cruisers, eighteen commerce protection cruisers, twenty-four "anti-destroyers," fifty-two destroyers, four floating docks, the making up of depleted stores, coal and ammunition, and the restoration of foreign repairing stations. He also desired 16,000 men to be added to the personnel of the Navy. The maximum cost of this new Navy would be 60,000,000/ He condemned the policy of the Admiralty in regard to the defence of trade routes. The meeting declared

the existing Naval programme inadequate and suggested a Naval loan.

Nothing came of this agitation; and some comfort was offered to pessimistic critics of the Army by the issue of a lengthy Memorandum of the Army Council (June 29) "in view of doubts lately expressed as to the effective strength of the Regular Forces and their readiness for war." This declared that the existing organisation of the Regular Army was based on the principles guiding the Localisation Committee of 1872 and directed to the organisation of the strongest possible expeditionary force. Since January 1 the Regular and Special Reserves had been increased by 1,330 and 3,900 men respectively, and since 1905 the numbers liable for service abroad had increased by 110,000 officers and men. Appended were reports by General Sir John French on the Army and the Territorial Forces, containing much careful and discriminating criticism, but decidedly commendatory on the whole both of the Regular and the Territorial Forces.

But though the Naval and Military alarmists might not affect the bye-elections, and the Unionist Free Traders were negligible in most constituencies, it was clear that the Suffragists would work actively against Ministers, and their activity was taking new forms.

One lady had succeeded on June 24 in stamping in indelible ink an assertion of the right of petition on the walls of the lobby of the House of Commons; and, after due notice, a deputation from them, headed by Mrs. Pankhurst, had again attempted to force an entrance to the Palace of Westminster on July 1. It was stopped at the entrance; the police were assaulted, and, after some hours of disorder, Parliament Square was cleared, and 108 women, some of them wellknown in society, were arrested, together with twelve men. On July 1 Mr. Keir Hardie asked the Speaker whether the right of petition to the Crown was not safeguarded under Clause 3 of an Act passed in the reign of Charles II., and whether the Sessional Order prohibiting the approach of petitioners to the Houses of Parliament was not therefore invalid as beyond the power of the House. The Speaker declined to pronounce on the point of law involved, but declared that it would be difficult to contest the validity of an order which had been passed for seventy years in its existing form. The cases were dealt with by the police magistrate on July 9 and 12 (post, p. 159).

Again, a serious industrial crisis was probable, owing to the difficulties involved in the readjustment of wages and methods of working under the Coal Mines (Eight Hours) Act of 1908, which was to come into force on July 1. In various Midland districts there were temporary difficulties lasting for some weeks, which need not be described in detail; but the danger was in South Wales and Scotland. In South Wales the masters proposed to introduce double shifts and to put the sixty hours (overtime) clause into operation (ANNUAL REGISTER, 1908, p. 145); the men objected to both proposals, urged that the double