manifesto expressing their opinion that Socialism could only advance along practical lines by continuing its association with the Labour party. Mr. Grayson and his friends, on the other hand, regarded the trade-unions as tainted with middle-class Liberalism. The Socialist Congress had rejected with practical unanimity a proposal for closer union with the Independent Labour party; Mr. Grayson had refused to appear on the same platform as Mr. Keir Hardie, and Mr. Hyndman had denounced the Free Trade agitation as a fraud.

At another Congress-that of the National Union of Teachers, which was held at Southport-the difficulties in the way of a settlement of the Education controversy were exhibited afresh by the reaffirmation on the part of the Bishop of Manchester, in his welcome to the delegates, of the position of the extremer Churchmen, and by the President's advocacy of the secular solution. It was also largely the education difficulty which affected Liberal fortunes, through the defection of the Roman Catholic voters at the East Edinburgh bye-election on April 16. The Liberals retained the seat, but by a majority of little more than one-ninth of that of 1906.

The naval controversy was resumed by Mr. Winston Churchill in a letter to the chairman of his committee at Dundee, published on April 15. He protested against "four cardinal errors": (1) that strength was to be measured in Dreadnoughts only, apart from men and guns; (2) that modern fleets could be built in secrecy; (3) that the twoPower standard was a standard of mere numbers; (4) that there was a profound antagonism of interest between Germany and Great Britain. His opponents, however, argued that these so-called errors were shared by his leaders, and that his letter accentuated the differences prevailing in the Liberal party and the Cabinet. The attitude of the Government, however, was defended by Mr. Asquith in a speech at a great meeting in St. Andrew's Hall, Glasgow, on Saturday, April 17. Everywhere, he said, two problems, both involving an unprecedented financial strain, were dominant-that of armaments and that of social reform. The increased Naval Estimates had been interpreted as implying militarism; he himself had been looked on as "a kind of pinchbeck Palmerston"; but the Government had done its best to arrest armaments at the Hague Conference and subsequently. In framing the Navy Estimates, however, they had been faced with two new facts-the enormous addition within twelve months to the productive capacity of Germany, and the acceleration of the German programme. These facts gave no ground for alarm, but suggested the need of timely and adequate preparation. The British Navy was overwhelmingly superior to any possible combination of fleets; in the spring of 1912 we should possess sixteen Dreadnoughts apart from the contingent ships, and forty pre-Dreadnoughts with 152 12-inch guns, against twenty German Dreadnoughts with forty 11-inch

guns. The Government had made a full disclosure spontaneously of the actual state of things, had ascertained the exact position with regard to our productive power, and had made arrangements for facilities of output more than equal to our possible requirements. Were we to build the contingent ships, we should have twenty Dreadnoughts in 1912; the German Government had declared their intention of then having only thirteen complete. The sole point in dispute was now the construction of the contingent Dreadnoughts; the Government had given explicit assurances that these would be built if necessary, but as Lord Rosebery had said at Cardiff on April 14-it was desirable to keep abreast of new developments in naval construction. After referring in cordial terms to the Colonial offers and suggesting a consultation with the Colonies on naval defence, he ridiculed the supposed inconsistency of factory legislation with Free Trade policy; both aimed at maintaining the productiveness of capital and labour at the highest possible level. After references to old-age pensions and the reduction of debt, he mentioned as other problems awaiting solution Poor Law Reform and the treatment of unemployment. They had begun to deal with the latter by Labour Exchanges; they would go on to reduce boy labour, a process begun by the Scottish Education Act of 1908, and to establish unemployment insurance. In an eloquent peroration he sketched the prospect for social reform under Liberal auspices in the session of 1910.

On the other hand, the Tariff Reformers' policy was forcibly set forth by Viscount Milner at Nottingham on April 19. He rejoiced that the Opposition had put national defence in the forefront; this was not for party purposes, for they might be quite satisfied with the progress of the cause of Tariff Reform. His own feeling was not panic, but chronic and reasonable anxiety. If we continued to contract tremendous obligations without knowing how we should discharge them, we must sooner or later come to grief. The lessons of the Boer War had mainly been neglected. Naval expenditure was not enough; we must organise national defence as a whole. He strongly urged national military service, and regarded the voluntary system as inadequate. The Dominions were ready to co-operate with us in the defence of the Empire; its true principles were local self-dependence and mutual help. We were at the beginning of a new chapter of Imperial development, which was intimately connected with fiscal reform. Granting that the immediate profit was the same whether our capital was invested in foreign countries or within the Empire, the development of the Empire was a fresh source of strength to us. Had Argentina offered to build us a battleship? A similar agreement was applicable to British industry nearer home; and he illustrated the effect of German competition on the trade of Nottingham.

At Worksop next day (April 20) Lord Milner said that the last thing the supporters of the Government desired was an

appeal to the country on the present fiscal system. He did not believe the movement against the House of Lords was serious; if it were, the Liberals would be bound to propose some alternative. A single-Chamber system would mean quinquennial dictatorships. After attacking the system of free imports, he pointed out that we might have a beet sugar industry but for the doctrine of an equivalent excise where a duty existed on an imported article, and he again advocated commercial treaties with the Colonies, and hoped that Mr. Chamberlain would live to see the victory of the principles for which he had in a sense laid down his life.

The two rival policies being thus contrasted, the country was left to await the development of one of them in the Budget; but the few days before its introduction were filled by important debates and legislation. The Commons on their reassembling (April 19) passed the Indian Councils Bill through Committee, Mr. Hobhouse, Financial Secretary of the Treasury, taking charge of it during the illness of the Under-Secretary for India. Here, as usual, the Government took a middle course between the Conservatism of most Unionists and many AngloIndians, and the concessions demanded by the friends in the House of the advanced reformers in India. Thus, while rejecting an amendment moved by Mr. Mackarness (L., Newbury, Berks), which would have prevented deportation or imprisonment without trial from disqualifying for membership of the Legislative Councils, Mr. Hobhouse explained that sedition would be punished rigorously, but the offence might be condoned and a fresh start made. The disqualifications would be settled by the Indian Government, the Indian Secretary taking the responsibility. Again, an amendment moved by Dr. Rutherford (L., Brentford, Middlesex) precluding the existence of official majorities in the Legislative Councils, was refused by Mr. Hobhouse as tending to hand over the destinies of these Councils to the Anglicised section of British Indians, whereas the Government was bound to hold the balance fairly between all sections, especially between the organised and the unorganised sections, of the population of India. It was promised, again, that the Mohammedans should have a fully sufficient representation; and a telegram from the Viceroy was read indicating the method of giving it to them. An attempt by Mr. Joynson Hicks to limit the number of ordinary members of the Councils of Madras and Bombay to three at the most, in order to eliminate unofficial and possibly inexperienced members, was rejected by 133 to 30, Mr. Hobhouse explaining that a larger number was demanded to meet a prospective press of business. A later amendment, moved by Sir H. Cotton, provided for territorial representation on the basis of the village communal system; Mr. Hobhouse, however, explained that this system was nearly, if not quite, extinct. After the clauses had been disposed of, Mr. Hobhouse proposed the re-insertion in a slightly amended

F

form of the clause struck out by the Lords empowering the Viceroy in Council to create new Executive Councils. The differences were: (a) that the distribution of business and duties between the Lieutenant-Governor and his Council was to be settled by the former, subject to the approval of the GovernorGeneral in Council; and (b) that the number of members of the Councils would be fixed from time to time by the Indian Government within the limit of four. He quoted high authorities, past and present, as well as Anglo-Indian Press opinion, in support of the clause, showing that there had been several recent conversions to its principle, and urged that the new Executive Councils would facilitate continuity of policy. Such councils existed in all dependencies of the Empire. Earl Percy opposed the clause in a brief, pointed speech; its opponents in the other House, he said, had all held high positions in India; Mr. Hobhouse had adduced no new arguments, and it had not been shown that any Lieutenant-Governor except the LieutenantGovernor of Bengal desired the change. There were other speeches, Sir J. Jardine (L., Roxburghshire), an eminent retired Civil Servant, approving the clause as giving a greater opening to natives of India, and Mr. McCaw (U., Down, W.), who had business connections with that country, and Mr. Rees, another ex-Civil Servant, opposing it for the same reason. It was passed by 118 to 22.

The Bill passed through its remaining stages in the Commons on April 26. An amendment was moved by Lord Ronaldshay (U., Hornsey, Middlesex) requiring that the proportion of Mohammedan and Hindu representatives on all representative bodies from rural boards to the Viceroy's Council should be fixed by executive authority, and that the Mohammedans' representatives should be returned by an exclusively Mohammedan electorate. This was withdrawn after an explanation from Mr. Hobhouse that separate representation would be given to the Mohammedans wherever possible; and he indicated, as the result of the debate on a subsequent amendment, that Parliament would have some control over the creation of Executive Councils outside Bengal. The amendment, therefore, was withdrawn; and the Bill passed its third reading, after a brief debate, without a division, an attempt to discuss the policy of deportation in general being ruled out of order by the Speaker.

It may be convenient to finish the history of the Bill here. On May 4 the House of Lords re-inserted Clause 3 at the instance of the Government, but in a modified form. Bengal was to have its Executive Council at once; but it was provided that in the case of any other province the Viceroy's proclamation to create a Council should lie on the table in both Houses for sixty days, and should be estopped if an address against it were carried in either House. This compromise was accepted by the House of Commons on May 19 after protests from some Liberal members against a concession which, they said, retained for the

Lords the power of disturbing Indian politics; and the Bill received the Royal Assent on May 25.

The Houses of Parliament Bill, due to the Suffragist disturbances of October 28, 1908, and based upon the recommendations of a Select Committee, was debated on the motion for second reading on April 20. It provided that any stranger guilty of disorderly conduct during a sitting of the House should be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for not more than six months or a fine of not more than 100l. The sanction of the Lord Chancellor and the Speaker was to be necessary to enable proceedings to be taken. The Attorney-General moved the second reading, and argued that the existing methods of dealing with disorderly strangers would merely give the advertisement desired by the Suffragists; but Unionists, Liberals and Labour members joined in condemning the Bill, arguing that an equally effective advertisement would be afforded by a sensational trial at a police court; and eventually the Bill was dropped. The galleries, however, were reopened on May 10 under regulations made by the Speaker in general accordance with the report; but ladies were not admitted, as this had suggested, to the Strangers' Gallery, and the Ladies' Gallery was opened only to the relatives of members.

The Board of Trade Bill, introduced as the result of the reconsideration of the duties of various departments promised by the Prime Minister (ANNUAL REGISTER, 1908, p. 20), was discussed on second reading on April 20 and 26. It permitted the Treasury, with the consent of Parliament, to assign a higher salary to the President of the Board than the 2,000l. a year fixed by statute, but at Mr. Churchill's request there was to be no increase during his tenure of the office. Mr. Asquith stated that the inquiry promised had been conducted by a Committee of the Cabinet, which had decided that the Board of Trade and the Local Government Board, which had been saddled of late years with a variety of new duties, should be on the same footing with regard to status and emoluments as the Departments of the Secretaries of State. The Board of Trade, he thought, was now as important as the Home Office. Sir Charles Dilke remarked that Great Britain had many more Ministers in Parliament than any other country, and desired a general redistribution of business between the various Departments; some Labour members criticised the Bill adversely, and it was also suggested that the salaries of the permanent officials would have to be levelled up. On the Unionist side, too, objection was taken to the limitation affecting Mr. Churchill. Eventually the second reading was carried by 152 to 76. The Bill became law.

Although no report had yet been issued by the Welsh Church Commission, the Welsh Disestablishment Bill was brought in by the Prime Minister on Wednesday, April 21. After mentioning that he had introduced a measure on the same lines just