conditions under which he had been induced to undertake the command of the Channel Fleet in January, 1907, viz., that cruisers and torpedo craft should be at any time detached from the Home Fleet for training with the Channel Fleet, and that the Channel, Home and Atlantic Fleets should be periodically combined for training under the Commander-in-Chief of the Channel Fleet, the commander in war. One of these had been cancelled, the other not carried out. He complained, also, that vessels had been withdrawn for refit without replacement, that he had received impracticable strategical schemes from the Admiralty, and that his relief from his command was the result of his correspondence with the Board. The Committee, which consisted of Mr. Asquith (Chairman), the Earl of Crewe, Lord Morley of Blackburn, Sir E. Grey and Mr. Haldane, had taken evidence from him at twelve meetings, had submitted his evidence to Admiral of the Fleet Sir A. Wilson (of the Imperial Defence Committee) and examined this officer on it, had held sixteen meetings, and had had forty-eight papers before it. The Board of Admiralty had replied to Lord Charles Beresford that the dispersion of strength to which he took exception was practised by neighbouring Powers with weaker squadrons, and that the fighting strength (measured by the heavy gunfire) of the British Channel Fleet had always been equal throughout his command to the nominal strength of any foreign fleet in peace time, though the number of British units was less. The Board insisted on the overwhelming superiority and reserve strength of the British Navy, and on the rapid mobilisation and efficiency of the nucleus crew ships, and claimed that the plan he suggested was essentially carried out by their recent arrangements. As to the deficiency he alleged of small craft and destroyers, and as to the suitability of the destroyers, expert opinion was divided, but the Committee was satisfied there was no dangerous deficiency. In conclusion, the Committee declared that no danger to the country had resulted during the time in question from the Admiralty arrangements for war. Arrangements "defensible in themselves, but not ideally perfect," were hampered by the absence of cordial relations between Lord Charles Beresford and the Admiralty. It was intimated that

there were faults on both sides, and, in view of the expert differences as to naval strategy and tactics, the Committee looked forward to the further development of a naval war staff. Lord Charles Beresford (in the Times, Aug. 17) described the Report as a great satisfaction to him, contested the implied charge of indiscipline, and repeated that there was a dangerous shortage of medium cruisers and destroyers.

In the succeeding week the South Africa Bill passed the Commons, the native question being almost the sole subject of the debates. The speech of Colonel Seely in moving the second reading (Aug. 17) necessarily traversed familiar ground in its opening; but, coming to this question, he regretted the dis

N

qualification of men "not of European descent" for election to the Union Parliament, but said that its retention was vital to the Union, that an attempt to disfranchise the Cape coloured voters was improbable, unlikely to succeed, and liable to veto by the King (a reservation inserted by the wish of South Africa); and that the schedule regarding the transfer of the Protectorates protected native interests. Its omission might set up native unrest. Amendments, if made, must be referred to the Colonial Governments, and would cause delay and possibly bitter feeling. The lot of the natives would be happier under a central Government, and the Bill would give the whites a sense of security. The Union had been brought about by the South African leaders and Parliaments and by all parties in Great Britain, but the main credit was due to the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman for his grant of responsible government.

Mr. Lyttelton held that the black races were not the equals of the white, and that, responsible government once granted, the Colony must be trusted. It was unlikely that the Cape native voters would be disfranchised. The wishes of the natives should be consulted as to the transfer of Protectorates. He paid a tribute to Lord Milner's services, and recognised that the grant of self-government had brought about good-will sooner than might have been expected.

Sir Charles Dilke deplored the "colour-bar"; men like Dr. Abdurrahman were as competent legislators as any in that House. So did Mr. Molteno (L., Dumfriesshire)-who insisted, however, that interference would make the native question worse-Mr. Keir Hardie, and Mr. Ellis Griffith; Mr. Keir Hardie foreshadowed Labour amendments. Mr. Balfour, in a very impressive speech, declared that the coloured men could not be given equal rights without endangering the fabric of civilisation. He was not sure that the problem had been solved under the Cape Constitution, and the Imperial Parliament could not be allowed to control the Union Parliament. In view of the great and special difficulties in the way of Union, he intended to vote for anything stated by the Government to be essential for the success of the Bill. Amid loud cheers, he declared the Union "unexampled in history."

Mr. Asquith also laid stress on the danger to native interests involved by interference with the Union Parliament, believed that the Union would lead to a more enlightened native policy, and, though deploring the colour-bar, said that its removal by that House would wreck the prospect of Union. After other speeches, the second reading was passed without a division.

The Bill passed through Committee on August 19. Government whip issued to members had stated that Ministers could accept no amendment, and in this the Opposition leaders supported them; but there was a serious and earnest debate on the colour-bar." Sir Charles Dilke moved that four of the eight Senators should be appointed by the Governor-General (instead

of by the Governor-General in Council) so as to provide for the representation of native interests; Mr. G. Greenwood (L., Peterborough) proposed to strike out the word "reasonable" from the provision that certain Senators should be chosen mainly for their acquaintance with the reasonable wants and wishes of the natives; and Mr. Barnes (Lab.) proposed an amendment which would have deleted the colour-bar on Senators for the Cape and Natal. Mr. Asquith urgently appealed to the House not to wreck "a great work of reconciliation"; Mr. Balfour endorsed his appeal, and, after protests from Sir Charles Dilke, Mr. Harold Cox (who said that the clause as it stood would have excluded the founders of every great religion), Mr. Keir Hardie (who feared the effect on Indian loyalty), Mr. Ellis Griffith, and Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, the amendment was rejected by 155 to 55. The other amendments mentioned were not pressed to a division; nor were others, moved subsequently to elicit information. The third reading was then moved in an eloquent speech by the Prime Minister, seconded by Mr. Long on behalf of the Opposition, and carried with one dissentient (Mr. Lupton, L., Sleaford, Lincs).

Between the second reading and the Committee Stage of the South Africa Bill the land clauses of the Finance Bill had almost been disposed of in two long and occasionally excited sittings. The financial resolution authorising the payment of the expenses of valuation out of public funds was debated on August 17. Mr. Pretyman contended that landowners would still be put to considerable expense in testing the valuation, and that its cost for the current year would be 325,000l., whereas the new taxes would yield only 300,000l. To insert in a Finance Bill a proposal causing a loss of revenue could not be constitutional. If the valuation was to make the death duties more productive, the small squires would disappear. The land market was in a state of chaos. Mr. Asquith, on the contrary, declared it to be exceptionally brisk; the relief afforded to landowners had removed their grievance, and the necessity of testing valuations existed already. The estimate of the cost of valuation at 2,000,000l. was that of the Board of Inland Revenue after careful investigation. The constitutional argument would have prevented the imposition of the legacy and succession duties; and the yield of the taxes would be progressive. Land was constantly rising in London and the great towns, and the tendency to start factories in country districts would make the yield of the undeveloped land duty progressive. The resolution was carried, after closure, by 214 to 92.

Clause 15 (mineral rights duty) being postponed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer moved a series of amendments to Clause 16, transferring the cost of valuation to owners. The Opposition fought hard for the exemption from the valuation both of agricultural land and of other land which would not yet be taxable; and Sir E. Carson suggested that a revaluation in Ireland would

set up disputes between tenant purchasers and their landlords. But an amendment moved by Lord Robert Cecil establishing this exemption was rejected, after a long debate and closure, by 226 to 96.

Provision was made for the distinction of agricultural site value, at the instance of Mr. Salter (U., Basingstoke, Hants). The rest of the proceedings consisted of the discussion of Opposition amendments designed to modify the process or incidents of valuation, and of the acceptance of concessions made by the Government. Clause 16 was agreed to by 179 to 75. Clauses 17 to 21, covering subsidiary provisions as to valuation, were also disposed of, between 2.30 and 8.45 A.M., after the rejection of amendments which need not be particularised, the Government majorities being about 90 and the total of members taking part in divisions 200 to 240. There were, of course, protests against all-night sittings-notably from Mr. Balfour-and repeated attempts to report progress, but the discussion was goodhumoured throughout. Incidentally attention was called by an Opposition member to the presence of the President of the Board of Trade "in his pyjamas," which he wore (under other clothing) so as to sleep between divisions.

The next sitting (Aug. 18) lasted only till midnight, and Clause 27 was reached. Clause 22 provided for appeals from the Commissioners' valuation to a referee, who was to be experienced in land valuation; and the Chancellor conceded an appeal from the referees' awards to the High Court. An appeal was also allowed to the County Court where the valuation was below 500l. Ultimately the clause was carried by 203 to 53. On Clause 24, exempting lands held by a rating authority from land value duties, Mr. Pretyman and Mr. Balfour attacked the Government, the latter pointing out that County Councils held up land and the Woods and Forests Department "exacted blackmail" (p. 181) on reversions like private owners. Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out that the land held was bought at more than its value, and held for public purposes, and so was the money paid to the Department. The local authorities were not private landowners, they were the people. The amendments subsequently proposed were largely technical. Clause 25 was postponed.

The

The massacre of the innocents" (Aug. 20), besides some items previously noted, included two Milk and Dairies Bills for England and Scotland respectively, and provoked severe Opposition comments on Ministerial management. The next week the Irish Land Bill went through Committee, and most of the Liberals took a holiday. The Committee stage, begun July 9 and continued July 23 (pp. 158, 171), had been resumed on July 30, when Clause 5 had been carried by 266 to 53, after an unsuccessful attempt by Mr. C. Craig (U., Antrim, S.) to retain the 12 per cent. bonus of the Act of 1903-a proposal involving a cost estimated by the Financial Secretary of the Treasury at

3,000,000l. Clauses 6 to 13 inclusive were then carried under the guillotine. On August 23 Clause 14 was discussed. Under the "zone system" of the Act of 1903, a price agreed on between a landlord and tenants, if it lay between certain limits, was sanctioned without inquiry; this clause allowed the Commissioners to direct an inquiry, if they thought it requisite in respect of the security for the advance or of the equity of the price. Mr. Lonsdale (U., Armagh, Mid.) moved to delete this proviso as tending to encourage agitation. Mr. Dillon said that the average purchase price had risen since 1903 from 17 to 22 years' purchase; landlords forced it up by threatening to exact arrears of rent. Mr. Birrell cited the " Weir case," in which the Commissioners had had to make a large advance to buy economic holdings, with rents seven or eight years in arrear. For advances of public money arrears should not be taken into account. The amendment received strong Unionist support, but was guillotined and negatived by 177 to 29 and the clause carried by the same numbers. The clauses up to 33 inclusive were also carried after some divisions. Clause 17 allowed the Commissioners to sell any part of an estate, after settling prior claims, to any person to whom they thought an advance should be made. Mr. Birrell explained that the power was needed to facilitate migration; the Unionists opposed it, as tending to break up the grass farms for the benefit of the cattle-drivers, and block the relief of congestion. It was passed, after the rejection of a hostile amendment, by 178 to 31. Next day Nationalist divisions were exhibited on Clause 34. This, among other conditions imposed on proprietors of holdings receiving advances towards purchase, required that no such proprietor should purchase any other holding with similar assistance if the total advances to him for both holdings exceeded 3,000l. Mr. Maurice Healy (N., Cork City) held that this limitation would depreciate the property of tenant purchasers by making the bidders fewer at sales of holdings; Mr. Dillon supported it as preventing the "ranchers" from restoring the large farms-a speech which caused Mr. T. Healy to denounce him as the Nationalist Pope. The Unionists condemned the limitation, but a hostile amendment was rejected by 201 to 35, Mr. Birrell, however, consenting to raise the limit to 5,000l. The clauses up to 39 were disposed of after some discussion, but mainly under the guillotine; and on August 25 the proposed reconstitution of the Congested Districts Board was debated, Mr. C. Craig (U.) contending that it would open the way to friction, jobbery and corruption, and set up Home Rule in nine counties. Later, Mr. Butcher added that the working majority of the Board would be nominated by the United Irish League, the migrants' and cattledrivers' interests promoted, and the "congests'" misery perpetuated; Mr. Wyndham, that compulsory purchase should not be entrusted to an elective body, but controlled by a responsible Minister. Mr. Dillon welcomed the elective element,