declaration of policy opened a more hopeful prospect. The British agitation had been entirely disinterested and referred to a population towards which we had solemn treaty obligations. Should the change announced be that complete change which would ensure the welfare of the inhabitants and the full freedom of commerce, the Government would be ready and eager to recognise the annexation and support the Belgian administration in any way open to Great Britain as a treaty Power. The Japanese Ambassador, the Attorney-General, and Mr. Churchill were among the other speakers.

As the Lord Mayor rose to propose the toast of the King, a stained-glass window in the hall was broken, and a feminine voice exclaimed, "Votes for Women." Two Suffragists, Miss Paul and Miss Brown-one of whom carried a feeding tubewere arrested, and next day fined 51. each; as usual, they preferred imprisonment. (For the change in the character of the procession, see post, Chronicle, Nov. 9.)

The House of Lords sat once more in the week, advancing Bills of a non-contentious character, and then adjourned till November 23. During the lull in politics the Report on the Censorship of Stage Plays made its appearance (Nov. 11, post, Part II., Drama). At the close of the week, however, the Colston commemoration at Bristol gave Mr. Winston Churchill and Mr. Birrell an opportunity at the Anchor Society's banquet to warn the Lords against the rejection of the Budget, a step which, Mr. Churchill said, would seriously check the revival of trade and might cost the country 50,000,000l. ; while Mr. Long, at the Dolphin banquet, upheld the Lords' claims, and Lord Charles Beresford amplified his recent warnings, asking for 19,000 more men for the Navy, and for four more battleships, more medium cruisers and torpedo boats, dock accommodation, stores, and a war reserve of coal. He ridiculed the manœuvres of 1908 and 1909 and the naval reviews, and declared that the British people was being "drugged with falsehoods."

The visit of the King of Portugal (Nov. 15) slightly diverted public attention from the impending conflict. Conveyed from Cherbourg by the Royal Yacht Victoria and Albert with an escort of cruisers and destroyers, King Manoel was received in due state at Portsmouth with salutes from the great battleships. of the Home Fleet, and was accompanied by the Prince of Wales to Windsor Castle. He received the Order of the Garter; the interchange of Royal compliments at the State banquet (Nov. 16) was specially cordial, as was fitting with the representative of "our oldest ally in history"; and no less cordiality was shown at his reception by the Lord Mayor and Corporation of London on November 19, and by the crowds in the streets. The sympathetic interest with which the King's person was invested by his history and position was heightened by the rumours that he had come to select a bride and would soon

return to announce his choice; but of these there was an authoritative denial.

But the diversion could only be trifling. On November 16, the Marquess of Lansdowne gave notice that on the second reading of the Finance Bill he would move "That this House is not justified in giving its assent to the Bill until it has been submitted to the judgment of the country." The challenge was at once accepted by the Government. The Unionist Press had intimated that the resolution might be preparatory to negotiation for a compromise; but the Liberal speeches soon showed that this was impossible.

The issues, from a Liberal standpoint, were set forth by Mr. Churchill in accepting an invitation to Lancashire and Cheshire from the local Liberal organisation, in a letter of which the substance was expanded in his campaign (post, p. 261). The Unionist "unauthorised programme was outlined by Lord Milner at Poole on November 16. After denouncing Mr. Churchill's language, he said that Mr. Asquith, Sir Edward Grey, and Mr. Haldane gave one version of the Budget; Mr. Lloyd-George, at Newcastle, and Mr. Churchill, at Leicester, another, that it represented a new attitude of the State towards wealth. The extremists had "rushed" the Liberal party; whether they would succeed in rushing the country depended on the capacity of the Unionist party to upset the fictions circulated as to its own policy, of which the most dangerous and untrue was that they wished to shift the burden of taxation to the poor. He himself was a free-lance in politics, supporting the Unionists because they supported Tariff Reform, which the working-class would eventually carry. The best way to increase the workman's share of the produce was to increase the total product. But the work must be begun soon, or there would be no Empire left. He believed 20,000,000l. might easily be raised by import duties. He advocated State encouragement of small landholders, which required not only Tariff Reform, but credit facilities, co-operation, and better rural education. The Unionists would have to take over an immense burden of social reforms; part of these the Government had bungled, part it had done well. But they could not be carried without a majority in the House substantial alike in numbers and quality.

When the resolution was announced, the annual Conservative party conference was in session at Manchester; and Mr. Balfour addressed a crowded and enthusiastic meeting in the Free Trade Hall, on Wednesday, November 17. After referring to his defeat in 1906, and declaring that there had since been a great revolution in feeling, he made a passing reference to Home Rule and the Navy, and proposed to deal with Tariff Reform, the Budget, Socialism, and the House of Lords. He was told that Tariff Reform feeling was more lukewarm in Lancashire than elsewhere; people feared an increased cost of living, and a burden on the cotton industry; but he would

never have touched Tariff Reform if it would increase the ordinary cost of living of the working classes. Our competitors were protected, and yet they were gaining on us in the world's markets. Free Traders also seemed to allege that cheap "dumped" steel was necessary to the machinery trade; would Cobden have approved that? The cotton industry would gain by commercial treaties, and also by Colonial preference, which would be a set-off against European, American and Japanese competition, and difficulties in the supply of the raw material. He attributed much of the success of Germany and America to internal Free Trade, and he thought that Cobden, being deprived of his idea of universal Free Trade, would now change his views of the value of the Empire. The Budget, the only practical alternative to Tariff Reform, was a combination of bad finance and muddle-headed Socialism. The tobacco and spirit duties, the valuation machinery, and the death duties, were bad finance; the second characteristic he found in the land taxes. He wished land to be as much distributed and trade in it as free as possible. The Budget taxation was utterly different from taxation of land values. Such taxation was legitimate if it could be shown that the values aimed at did not contribute fairly to local rates. The doctrine of the Budget had been that the whole should go to the Exchequer; it then was that half should go to the Exchequer and half no one knew where. In attacking land, they were attacking capital. It would have been an abuse of the majority won in 1900 to have put forward fiscal reform without an appeal to the people, and he claimed that the alternative fiscal issue should be put to the people also. They knew that Lord Lansdowne was right.

The The workers'

Mr. Haldane replied to Mr. Balfour's "frontal attack" by addressing the "Liberal workers "at a luncheon at De Keyser's Hotel on November 18. He congratulated the "wild men," among them the editors of the Observer (Mr. J. L. Garvin) and National Review (Mr. Maxse) for thus forcing the pace. Cabinet was absolutely united on the Budget. task was to work on the 40 per cent. of the electors who were doubtful and the 20 per cent. who were "highly detached," and of these he had some hopes in view of the election of 1906. The issues were Free Trade and the Budget. Was our Constitution to be changed? The Liberal party desired to make the House of Commons thoroughly representative; to shorten its term, and to secure that the will of the electors should prevail ultimately; and this the House of Lords did not do. Mr. Haldane dealt at some length with the Free Trade question. Lord Milner said that 20,000,000l. could be raised by import duties. But Germany only raised 3,000,000l. at most, and even in her existing financial stress she was not going to raise more. If 20,000,000l. or even 12,000,000l. were to be raised, we must have duties on the necessaries of life. Duties on food led straight to Socialism. It was argued that as the Bill was submitted to

the Lords, they had a right to reject it; but had the King the right to veto it? The unwritten Constitution was very different from the written. Let the Liberal party, like the Romans when Hannibal was at their gates, decree punishment to those who would not fight with their whole heart. Mr. Birrell also spoke. Mr. Runciman also, speaking at Hull on November 18, declared that the Ministry could not negotiate with the House of Lords on the Budget; that House had no more right to reject the Bill than the Crown had to refuse assent.

Among Liberals the resolution was believed to have been the work of Earl Cawdor, Viscount Milner, and Lord Curzon of Kedleston, who, it was said, had forced it on the official leaders of the Unionist party in spite of their own judgment and the private remonstrances of the King. Viscount Milner, speaking at Glasgow a few days later (Nov. 26), said it was the duty of those who condemned the Budget not to let it pass and so produce a great Unionist reaction, as some people recommended, but to try to prevent a thing they believed bad, and to "damn the consequences"; he also insisted on the dangers of single-chamber government, and had advised Unionists to prepare for "a dervish rush of barbarian warfare." The stock markets had been expected to respond on publication of the resolution, in accordance with City opinion, but there was no rise, and the City view of the ultimate outcome was shown by insurances at Lloyd's against loss in the event of the Budget becoming law, at a premium of 50 per cent. (Nov. 22). The rejection, however, was confidently expected to lead to "financial chaos." The Lords, it was said, would readily minimise any inconvenience by accepting a short Bill legalising the tea and tobacco duties, the income tax at 1s. 2d., and even the supertax; but by such a Bill Ministers would have conceded the right of the Lords to amend the Budget, and its impossibility was generally recognised and pointed out-notably by Lord Courtney of Penwith (Times, Nov. 19).

Meantime, the financial question was overshadowed to Liberal eyes by the Constitutional issue; but it seemed likely to be obscured also by a revival of the naval controversy, owing to the selection of Lord Charles Beresford as Unionist candidate for a bye-election at Portsmouth; but no writ was issued, owing to the impending dissolution, though the campaign was actually begun. For the same reason, a bye-election in the Uxbridge division of Middlesex, necessitated by the death of Sir F. DixonHartland (U.), was not held. The fiscal issue, of course, was pressed on both sides. Mr. Churchill in a letter to Mr. CrawshayWilliams (Nov. 22) proved to the satisfaction of Free Traders that the net yield of a tax on imported manufactures would be reduced by allowances for partly manufactured articles, Colonial preference, drawbacks for export, and cost of collection, to 3,750,000l. annually, possibly to only 2,250,000l., and that the cost to the consumer would be increased by 50,000,000l. Two

days earlier an important Blue-Book had been issued, exhibiting in graphic form the lead maintained by Great Britain over her trade rivals in the exports of manufactured goods, the comparative prices of bread in London, Berlin, Paris and New York, and other matters bearing on the fiscal controversy.

The Congo question, however, intervened before the opening of the debate. With the exception of the Roman Catholic hierarchy, who preferred to await events and trust to the goodwill and sincerity of the Belgian Government, the religious and philanthropic world united to emphasise the demand for reform. A crowded demonstration was held at the Albert Hall on Friday, November 19. The Primate was in the chair, nine Bishops, some Peers, many leading Nonconformists and about fifty Members of Parliament were present, and various missionary and philanthropic societies had sent deputations. The Primate, while disclaiming any intention of denouncing the Belgian people, laid stress on the responsibility and absolute unselfishness of Great Britain in the matter, and then sketched the falsification by the Congo State of the fair promises attending its foundation. He mentioned that an eminent Belgian had asked leave to move an amendment; to make such a meeting controversial was impossible, but the Belgian case would no doubt receive an opportunity for statement in the Press. Speeches were then made by Dr. Clifford, the Bishop of Oxford, the Rev. C. Silvester Horne and the Rev. J. Scott Lidgett, laying stress on the atrocities and expressly denouncing King Leopold as their author; and finally, the Bishop of London formulated the British demands. The ill-treatment of the natives must cease, the land must be restored to them, proper soldiers and police substituted for the striking force, the "hostage houses" done away with, the mode of abolition of the food taxes made known, the decimation of the natives stopped, and the promise made on annexation of a speedy amelioration fulfilled. He again laid stress on the absolute unselfishness of the motives of the demonstration. Five weeks later, the accession of a new King of the Belgians revived the hopes of reform.

The fateful debate in the House of Lords began on Monday, November 23, in a crowded, but not an excited House. Nearly 400 Peers were present. The King of Portugal was among the spectators. The Earl of Crewe moved the second reading without a speech.

The Marquess of Lansdowne, moving his resolution, claimed that the House's right to reject a Money Bill was expressly recorded in the Commons' argument of 1689; but it required reassertion, because the Commons' privileges were now interpreted strictly, and "tacking" had increased, culminating in the Finance Bill of 1894. Thus the Lords were thrown back on rejection, a right asserted-as he showed by quotations-by Earl Spencer and the Marquess of Ripon. The Scottish Valuation Bill and the Licensing Bill had been rejected, and