some places by 30 per cent. The 488,000l. reserved for contingencies would be absorbed by supplementary estimates, and he must take 500,000l. more from the Sinking Fund, making 3,500,000l. against the 4,000,000l. suggested by Lord Cromer (p. 153). After some very moderate criticism from Mr. Austen Chamberlain, the debate was adjourned.

A slight diversion of public interest had meanwhile been caused by the execution of Señor Ferrer at Barcelona on October 13 (post, Foreign History, Chapter IV.), after a trial of questionable fairness, even allowing for Spanish methods of procedure. The demonstrations on the Continent had an echo in Trafalgar Square on Sunday, October 17, when some 8,000 or 10,000 persons were addressed in violent language by Mr. O'Grady, M.P., Mr. Grayson, M.P., and various prominent Socialists and others, some of whom violently denounced King Edward VII. and Sir Edward Grey for their non-interference. Two days later, in reply to questions in the Commons from Labour members, Sir Edward Grey explained that the Government could not interfere in or express opinions about the internal administration of other European countries when the interest of British subjects or treaty rights were not involved. An attempt by Mr. Grayson to move the adjournment in order to discuss the matter failed through insufficient support. Sir Edward Grey incidentally defended his conduct at the Sheffield Cutlers' Feast on October 21. Some people, he said, seemed to regard the Foreign Secretary as a sort of knight-errant; his primary duty, however, was to uphold the interests of his own country abroad, and so to understand the interests of other countries that a conflict of interests might be adjusted without breach of the peace. To regulate foreign relations by our opinion of the internal affairs of foreign countries could only result in mutual recrimination founded on imperfect and often erroneous information. Where Great Britain had large treaty rights and obligations, as in Macedonia and the Congo, the Government had not been and would not be backward. He added that before the Congo annexation was recognised, they must ask, Was a great part of the population compelled to labour most of the year under the guise of taxation, and was the country closed to trade? They hoped soon to know the result of M. Renkin's visit to the Congo (post, Foreign History, Chapter VII.), and if the existing situation was indefinitely prolonged, there must be undesirable complications.

Another side-issue was revived by Lord Charles Beresford's publication of a correspondence between himself and the Prime Minister (Oct. 25) in which he had complained that certain officers who had given evidence in his support in the naval inquiry (p. 192) had been placed on half-pay, although Mr. Asquith had promised that their career should not be prejudiced. Mr. Asquith had given explanations furnished by the Admiralty, which he repeated a little later (Nov. 1) condemning also Lord

Charles Beresford's action. The latter, however, declared both then and subsequently that a system of espionage, favouritism, and intimidation was ruining naval morale-a contention combated incidentally by Admiral Sir Percy Scott at a dinner of the Scottish Clans Association on November 6.

To return to the Finance Bill; five more days (Oct. 25-29) were occupied with the Report Stage. On October 25 the Chancellor of the Exchequer moved a new clause requiring the owner of land to furnish particulars of it to the Commissioners; an attempt made by Mr. Bertram (L., Hitchin, Herts) was defeated by 139 to 55. Then Mr. Austen Chamberlain moved that the information should be given "so far as required for the purpose of ascertaining any of the thirteen kinds of value mentioned in the Act." Among these he specified "site value, "original site value,' ""annual value," "rental value," "building value," and others, each different from the price in an open market. This amendment was treated by Ministers as mere sarcasm, and rejected by 164 to 56; and the other clauses were disposed of rapidly, after various modifications in the interest of the landowners had been made at the instance of the Government; the Opposition attempted to obtain further concessions, but in vain. The House adjourned at 8.5 P.M., having disposed of the land duties; next day it debated afresh the whole subject of the liquor duties on an amendment to strike out the clause imposing them moved by Mr. Younger (U., Ayr Burghs) and seconded by Mr. Faber (U., York), who contended that the trade and the revenue from it would be destroyed. Mr. Herbert Samuel (Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster) replied with a carefully prepared defence of the duties, insisting that they were needed for revenue, and closing with the reminder that they would still be lower than in many of the Colonies and the United States. Mr. Long replied that the proposals were improper in a Finance Bill, as speeches from members of the Government had shown. The small country hotels especially would suffer severely. Mr. Asquith replied that as to the argument of "bad finance," the consumption per head had indeed decreased, but not the average consumption per house, because the number of houses had decreased. The Government had started from a fiscal standpoint; they had said for many years that the existing scale was indefensible, and that if the State was entitled to exact from the lower valued houses duties on the 1880 scale, the more highly valued houses could not be let off with the existing derisory duty. As last year's proposals were rejected, the Government held themselves entitled to demand a fair return from the possessors of a valuable State monopoly. The Opposition had cited Mr. Gladstone; they built tombs for the prophets they had stoned. Let them say how they proposed to readjust equitably the relations of different classes of licence holders and raise an adequate contribution to the revenue. After other speeches, Mr. Sherwell (L., Huddersfield) elaborately

justified by figures the Government scheme. Mr. Balfour asked how 2,000,000l. could be got out of the trade without any real consequences to any of its members. The Government knew the financial situation last autumn, and yet then proposed to destroy this source of revenue. Ministers and their supporters had often stated that these proposals were another way of effecting the aim of the Licensing Bill. He insisted at some length that what Mr. Gladstone did in 1880 afforded no precedent; the licence holders were being unfairly treated, especially those in smaller houses in thickly populated areas. The amendment was rejected by 213 to 91. Other Opposition amendments were rejected that evening, and also next day, in a thin and tired House; but some concessions were made as to hotels and restaurants, and the licensing clauses generally were considerably amended in detail, at the instance of the Government. They were disposed of, and the death duties clauses were modified, chiefly in fulfilment of promises made by the Government in Committee. Unsuccessful attempts were made to abolish legacy duty for bequests from husband to wife, or conversely, and to lineal descendants, and also to delete the provision making gifts inter vivos within three years before the donor's death liable to death duties.

On Thursday, October 26, the income tax and super-tax were reviewed. On an unsuccessful amendment deleting the latter tax, moved by Sir H. Craik, Mr. Balfour, while regarding the tax as liable to abuse and involving danger, said that the class paying it was able to pay and not arbitrarily selected; in default of taxation on foreign imports, he rather preferred it to death duties. As to income tax, some concessions were made. On the tobacco duties, Mr. McArthur (U., Kirkdale, Liverpool) moved a mitigating amendment-seconded by Mr. Gwynn (N., Galway) -and said that the Budget had put out "one pipe in every ten." Mr. Hobhouse defended the duties by figures, saying that the decreased consumption was partly due to the provision of 1907 against juvenile smoking, and that the trade was recouping itself for the increase. Mr. Austen Chamberlain and Mr. Snowden opposed the duties, the latter in the interest of labour, but the Government proposals were sustained by 172 to 69. An attempt to reduce the excise on Irish tobacco by one-half led Mr. Austen Chamberlain to charge the Liberal party with encouraging the industry by Protectionism. The Chancellor of the Exchequer replied that Ireland had been treated exceptionally because of the long prohibition of tobacco-growing in it; the protection extended had been commuted into hard cash, and the grant given was 6,000l. a year, or more than the total value of the product-51,000 lbs. This was a significant exhibition of Protectionism. The amendment was rejected by 168 to 89.

The Report Stage was completed next day, October 29. The Government made some concessions in the duties on motor spirit and motor cars, and the Sinking Fund was reduced to

2,500,000l., the financial position exhibited by the revised estimates and that set up by the new duties receiving severe comments from Lord Robert Cecil and Mr. Austen Chamberlain. The Chancellor of the Exchequer mentioned in reply that he had mentally devoted a million to concessions, and anticipated that the consumption of whisky would fall by 25 or 30 per cent. through the new taxation; there were now far fewer arrests for drunkenness. Various attempts were made to amend the schedules in the interest of the trade, to reduce the duty on unstripped tobacco, and to exempt from the new duty tobaccos grown within the British Empire; but all were negatived by majorities of about three to two in a House of somewhat over 200. The close was hailed by loud Ministerial cheers.

The Bill being now in its final form, the Chancellor of the Exchequer described "the issues of the Budget" in the Nation of October 30. He rejoiced that one of the greatest struggles in Great Britain for upwards of 250 years should arise over a measure decisively raising some of the most important issues between Liberalism and Toryism-Free Trade or Protection; the taxation of necessaries, or of superfluities and monopolies; the avoidance, at national cost, of unmerited poverty and distress; the responsibility of the State for the organised development of the neglected wealth of the land. The Budget he regarded as part of a comprehensive scheme of fiscal and social reform, including unemployment and sickness insurance and rural development. Sir William Harcourt in 1894 had raised a huge revenue; but it was not hypothecated specifically, and had been squandered by the Tory Government. Had the 2,000,000l. granted to relieve agricultural rates been spent on agricultural development, rural transport, research and technical training, the agriculturists, the landlords and the nation would have profited more. The rest was frittered on armaments of which the South African War showed the futility. He aimed at raising an increasing revenue to be ear-marked for the Government schemes of social reform and national development. It was these schemes that chiefly alarmed the Protectionists, and he predicted an attempt to force fresh expenditure on armaments when the taxes were established. The Budget was only a beginning of needed land reform. "The intelligent foreigner who supplies the Tariff Reform party with ideas" (Mr. J. Ellis Barker, orginally Herr Otto Eltzbacher, in the Nineteenth Century) had pressed on his readers a scheme of State purchase; its success must depend on the price of the land, and the new State valuation must be the basis of all communal purchase. A fresh start was being given to Ireland; was nothing to be done for Britain? The future of the Liberal party depended on its courage and firmness in realising the people's hope.

'Mr. Ellis Barker replied that Mr. Lloyd George's plan meant State and municipal ownership, and that he also was "since more than ten years a naturalised British subject."

66

Meanwhile the Budget controversy outside Parliament had been considerably embittered by the fact that certain old-age pensioners on drawing their pensions had been told by men stationed outside the Post Offices that they would lose them under a Unionist Government. The Unionists, especially Mr. Balfour, denounced "this lie" in print, and some leading Liberal papers condemned it; but Mr. Ure, the Lord Advocate, who had been very prominent in advocating the increment tax, and had just seriously over-stated the compensation awarded to the Duke of Buccleuch when his river frontage was cut off by the Thames Embankment, argued in several speeches, especially at Newbury (Oct. 18), that Tariff Reform would not give sufficient funds to pay the pensions. An attempt by Mr. Remnant to move the adjournment of the House (Oct. 25) was barred by a blocking notice," intended, of course, to prevent a debate; and so Mr. Balfour took the opportunity of a luncheon given him by the National Union of Constitutional and Conservative Associations at the Constitutional Club (Oct. 26)-which was made a public function for the purpose-to denounce the "frigid and calculated lie" of which, he said, Mr. Ure's statement was a conspicuous example. He cited his own letter, written when the charge was first made, declaring that no Government could withdraw the pensions, any more than it could repudiate the National Debt; and he hoped Mr. Ure stood alone. Mr. Ure, however, repeated and amplified his statement at Doncaster on the same evening, pointing out that he did not question the sincerity and honesty of his opponents in desiring to secure oldage pensions and increase the Navy, but he did not think they could find the money if they rejected the whole Budget. Before 1905 they had failed to find it, and they were now committed to a scheme by which the money could not be raised. To a question in the House by Mr. Byles (L.) on October 27, the Speaker replied declining to allow the House to go into platform speeches; but Mr. Ure continued to be denounced by Unionists, while he got some Liberal backing.

Moreover, the Bermondsey election (post, Chronicle, Oct. 28) had resulted in a Liberal defeat. The selected Unionist candidate being in Australia, his place was taken by Mr. Dumphreys, a popular local candidate, who had been a working-man member of the London School Board, and was a strong Tariff Reformer. As the Free Trade vote was split between a Liberal and a Labour candidate, the result was claimed as a moral victory for the Budget; but it greatly encouraged the Tariff Reformers. Bermondsey had long suffered from the decline in its tanning industry, though this was said to have been attracted to various provincial towns by lower local taxation and cheaper water supply.

A Suffragist" outrage" marked the election; a Mrs. Chapin, an American lady residing in London, entered a polling station and hastily dashed a bottle containing "an alkaline solution of