shift system increased accidents, and eventually appealed to the Miners' Federation to take a ballot on the question of supporting their cause by a stoppage of work throughout Great Britain. This step was actually in contemplation when, on June 30, a settlement was effected by a Conference held at the Westminster Palace Hotel, to the effect that the owners should be free to propose any method of working without being met by the objection that it was a breach of custom or of the agreement setting up the Conciliation Board. Should the workmen allege such method to be dangerous, the question was to be referred to an arbitrator, chosen either by the representatives of masters and men on the Conciliation Board or, failing their agreement, by the Home Secretary. In Scotland, however, the dispute was a question of wages and went considerably further (post, p. 180). Moreover, public feeling was deeply shocked by the murder of Sir Curzon Wyllie, Aide-de-Camp to the Secretary for India, at the Indian Institute on July 1, at the conclusion of a reception. The murderer, Madhar Lal Dhingra, a young Hindu engineering student, was the son of a retired Civil Servant (who denounced "my cursed son"), but had become associated with Hindu extremists in London, and there was evidence that Sir Curzon Wyllie had kindly attempted to detach him from them. A Parsi physician settled at Shanghai, Dr. Lalcaca, endeavoured to interpose, and was also shot by Dhingra. The murder was promptly denounced both in India and in England; a meeting of natives of India was held at Caxton Hall, at which the Aga Khan, Sir M. Bhownagree, Mr. Ameer Ali (an ex-judge), and a brother of Dhingra signified-the last-named silently-their abhorrence of the crime; and it eventually became clear that it was the isolated act of a fanatic. But for the moment it was regarded, even by the Prime Minister (at Southport), as further evidence of the conspiracy of desperate Indian extremists against British rule. The assassin was tried and convicted at the Central Criminal Court and was hanged on August 17. But the meeting of the National Liberal Federation at Southport (July 1-3) showed that the Liberal spirit was undiminished. Strong resolutions were passed condemning the extreme advocates of an increase of armaments and welcoming franchise reform and demanding the destruction of the Lords' veto; and a public meeting in connection with the Federation was addressed by the Prime Minister on July 2. After brief references to other current topics, he said that the defeat of the Licensing Bill had made the Lords' veto the dominant issue in politics. He defended the land taxes at length, adopting a recent description of them by Professor Pigou of Cambridge as taxes on windfalls, and pointing out that they would be progressive and would involve valuation, and that this last was the real reason for the opposition to them. He referred to the efforts of Lord Avebury and Lord Cromer to suggest alternative Budgets, and remarked on the silence of the Tariff Reformers regarding the only real alternative. The Budget was both practical and morally and economically equitable. A welcome distraction from all these anxieties had meanwhile been afforded by a number of public functions which gave occasion for the presence of the King (post, Chronicle, pp. 22-24). The Royal tour afforded abundant evidence of the popularity of the monarch, as well as of the progress both of the public zeal for higher education and of the progress of the Territorial Force, which had been actively promoted in Lancashire by his host. The Naval Manoeuvres (July 1-5), though no information was given as to their progress officially, appeared to have exhibited considerable strategical skill. A "White" Fleet in the North Sea and a “Blue Fleet off the West Coast of Scotland were ordered to effect a junction, a "Red" Fleet in the Straits of Dover and at the Orkneys had the task of preventing it. Favoured by a fog, Admiral Jerram took the "White" Fleet through the Straits of Dover, captured several "Red" cruisers at the entrance of the Channel, baffled the rest by interrupting their wireless telegraphy signals, and effected the junction in the Atlantic. A final battle, however, was fought on July 4, in which the "Red" Fleet claimed the victory. The debate on the Finance Bill was resumed on Monday, July 5. On that day and the next amendments designed to attenuate the proposed increment tax were successively moved and rejected by substantial majorities, the debates, however, exhibiting some recalcitrance on the part of a few Liberal members. An amendment moved by Mr. Ridsdale (L., Brighton), designed to secure that the duty should not fall on increased values which were mere recoveries from a decline, was resisted as unnecessary by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and eventually rejected after closure by 248 to 77. To another, moved by Lord Ronaldshay (U., Hornsey, Middlesex), allowing for deduction of decrement of other land in the same ownership from the estimate of increment, the Attorney-General objected that a great landowner might set off decrement in Caithness against increment in Cornwall, and so gain an immense advantage over smaller landowners. It was rejected after debate and closure by 261 to 103. Another very lengthy and intricate amendment, moved by Mr. J. F. Hope (U., Sheffield), providing that the time during which the increment had accrued should be taken into account, was also rejected after debate and closure by 264 to 82. Among the further amendments unsuccessfully moved with the same general purpose as those already specified, one, moved by Mr. Pretyman, would have exempted the successive transferees of a lease from increment duty on re-transfer; the numbers were 219 to 98. After 1.30 A.M. the Opposition became restive, and attempted to postpone further discussion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was loudly cheered by the Liberals, declared that at this rate the Bill would take three Several groups years to pass; and the House sat till 3.55 A. M. The debate next day (July 6) was largely concerned with amendments designed to reduce the burden imposed by valuation on landowners, and its course was subsequently deprived of most of its historical significance by the transfer of the whole cost to the State. One estimate of the cost, however, was 18,000,000l. (quoted by Lord Ronaldshay); but such estimates were contested by competent Liberal authorities. Other amendments of interest were moved (1) by Mr. Pretyman, limiting the unrestricted powers of the Commissioners to decide on the valuation. In the debate it was urged that the valuation would be erratic and arbitrary, and the case of John Hampden was cited as a possible historical parallel to the position of landowners as against the Government. A concession as to the right of appeal, which was granted more fully later, was foreshadowed after a speech in favour of an extended right of appeal from the Commissioners' decisions delivered by Mr. Rufus Isaacs (L., Reading). This amendment was withdrawn. (2) An amendment moved by Lord R. Cecil provided that the deductions allowed in respect of sales should equal "any addition to the value caused by a general rise in prices estimated by reference to an index number fixed by the Board of Trade." The Chancellor of the Exchequer objected that taxes could not be made to run up and down according to an index number; Mr. Stuart-Wortley (L., Hallam, Sheffield) subsequently cited the revision of judicial rents in Ireland according to agricultural prices; but eventually it was rejected by 277 to 85. The spying of a "stranger"Mr. Adrian Lumley, an authority on land values, who was temporarily a Treasury Official-afforded some incidental evidence of Unionist irritation. Among other amendments moved on that day and the next one may be mentioned which was moved by Mr. Pretyman, and aimed at exempting agricultural land from the increment duty. The Chancellor of the Exchequer showed himself disposed to make concessions; but this and other amendments with the same object were rejected after spirited debates. Later in the session, however, the Opposition attained their aim. The distress in the Hebrides and in Glasgow (post, Chapter VI.) occupied the attention of the House next day on the vote for the Scottish Office; and an unsuccessful attempt was made by Mr. Lynch to move the adjournment to discuss Russian action in Persia as a matter of urgent public importance. Much apprehension had been felt on this subject, though happily it proved groundless; but it was not dispelled by the replies made in Parliament by the Earl of Crewe to Lord Lamington on July 5, and by Sir Edward Grey to Mr. Lynch and other Liberals on July 8. The motion, however, was barred by a "blocking put down by Mr. Rees (L., Montgomery Dis.), who had defended Russia in the House. Meanwhile the House of Lords had done some important business. On July 7 a Small Holdings and Allotments (Scotland) Bill nearly resembling the abortive measure of 1908 (ANNUAL REGISTER, 1908, p. 34) was read a second time on the motion of the Earl of Camperdown, though it was opposed by Lord Pentland on behalf of the Government as unworkable, and was dropped in the Commons. Next day the Earl of Portsmouth, who had been Under-Secretary of War under Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, raised the question of the competency of the Territorial Troops to meet an invasion in force, contending that expert opinion was coming to regard such a contingency as possible or even probable. Lord Lucas of Crudwell, his successor in office, replied that the Territorial Force would not be capable of meeting an invasion without training, but after training it would be as good as any troops in the world, or better. But it was of little use to discuss the question apart from the Navy. Next day three Government Bills passed their second reading a Trawling in Prohibited Areas Prevention Bill, forbidding the landing in the United Kingdom of fish caught in certain areas adjoining Scotland and Ireland, which eventually became law with some amendment; the Hops (No. 2) Bill (p. 115), prohibiting the use of hop substitutes in brewing, and of the importation of foreign hops except in marked bags-which was opposed as Protectionist by Lord Stanley of Alderley and Lord Courtney of Penwith-was passed by 62 to 5, but was eventually dropped in the Commons owing to similar Liberal opposition; and a County Courts Bill, which provided that any cases except divorce cases could be tried in the County Courts by agreement of both parties. (This was, however, destroyed in Committee on July 26 and withdrawn.) A Public-Houses Improvement Bill also passed its second reading on the motion of Lord Lamington, providing that a licensee might allow games and music and provide accommodation for solid refreshment, and that his doing so should be no reason for refusing the licence. Opposed by the Government, it never became law. The Irish Land Bill was taken in Committee in the Commons for the first of the eight days allotted (p. 138) on Friday, July 9. At the outset an attempt by Mr. Lonsdale (U., Armagh, Mid.) to have Part III., dealing with the congested districts, made into a separate Bill, was defeated by 120 votes to 40. Mr. J. Redmond (Ñ., Waterford) then proposed to omit from Clause 1 the subsection which increased the annuity under future purchase agreements to 37. 10s. (instead of 3l. 5s., the sum fixed by the Act of 1903). The object of the increase was to throw the burden of the loss on issuing land stock (p. 71) on the landlords and tenants instead of on the Development Grant or the ratepayers of Ireland; but Mr. Redmond maintained that the increase would gravely imperil the progress of purchase; some tenants would be paying 31. 5s., others 37. 10s. The development 1909.] Irish Land Bill.—Ministerial Changes.-Suffragists. [159 grant in 1902 had been meant as an equivalent grant to that given to England and Scotland for education; its amount was then fixed, but England and Scotland had since received an increase. The Ulster members supported the change; so did Mr. Wyndham, speaking for the Opposition leaders, and arguing that it must not be assumed that there need always be a loss on flotation, or that all Irish land must change hands under the Land Acts. Mr. Hobhouse explained at some length the objections of the Treasury to Mr. Redmond's amendment; and, after other speeches, Mr. Birrell pointed out that the loss on the issue of land stock was nearly 5,000,000l. and that the balance of the development grant, some 14,000l. annually, was all that stood between the ratepayers of Ireland and their liability for further losses. It might be true that it was part of the bargain preceding the Act of 1903 that the ratepayers should not suffer; but the Treasury was bound by the words of the Act. He did not think, however, that the predictions made by the supporters of the amendment would come true. Mr. Long denounced both the departure from the arrangement of 1903 and the curtailment of discussion; the amendment was rejected, but only by 184 to 149; a Government amendment increasing the rate of interest on advances to the Land Commission from the National Debt Commission to 3 per cent. (instead of 23 per cent.) was carried by 177 to 143, and the clause as amended was agreed to by 172 to 140. Few Liberals were present, and it was stated that the Labour members had averted a Government defeat. Earlier in the week (July 7) the Ministerial changes had been completed. Mr. Masterman (West Ham, S.) had taken Mr. Samuel's former post at the Home Office, and had been replaced by Mr. Herbert Lewis (Flint District) at the Local Government Board; Mr. Gulland (Dumfries) and Mr. Partington (High Peak, Derbyshire) had been appointed Junior Lords of the Treasury and assistant whips; and the bye-election campaigns were being carried on with the utmost vigour. Mr. Samuel's success at Cleveland (post, Chronicle, July 9) with a majority less by 1,065 votes than in 1906, was not a hopeful sign for Liberalism; and the fact that he had announced a Bill for the amendment of the Coal Mines (Eight Hours) Act during the contest was sarcastically challenged in the House as a corrupt practice (July 12). Mr. Chamberlain's birthday (July 8) was made the occasion for rallying the Tariff Reform forces; and the Women Suffragists were very active in all the byeelections. These latter, moreover, had scored a point by getting a case stated for the High Court as to the right of subjects to petition the Crown. (Their appeal was dismissed by the High Court on December 1.) The King had refused to receive a deputation from them himself, in view of constitutional practice (July 8); but it had been received by the Home Secretary; and the ladies had made a new departure by picketing the House of Commons in |