congratulated by its President (Mr. Enoch Edwards, M.P.) on the success of the Eight Hours Act; and passed resolutions in favour of the nationalisation of mines, land, and railways, the appointment of a Minister of Mines, and the raising of the minimum wage.

Meanwhile it had become clear that the Finance Bill was not the only measure on which the two Houses would find themselves in conflict. The Irish Land Bill had been transformed in Committee (Oct. 5-7); the Housing and Town Planning Bill had been further amended, and the opposition manifested in the Commons to certain features of the Development Bill was likely to find more effectual expression in the House of Lords. The Irish Land Bill had passed its second reading, without a division, in the Upper House on September 29, after two days' debate. The Earl of Crewe, in moving the second reading, ascribed the new land hunger in Ireland to the Act of 1903, and argued that the rivalry between the "landless men and the "congests" could only be dealt with by an elected element on the Congested Districts Board. The Bill was strongly condemned by the Earl of Dunraven, who moved the rejection; by other Peers interested in Irish land, and by Lord Curzon of Kedleston, an Irish Representative Peer. The Marquess of Lansdowne and, from a different standpoint, Lord Macdonnell, foreshadowed further amendments; and, in Committee, their intimations were more than realised. Some of the most drastic amendments proposed were withdrawn-in spite of a protest from Viscount Milner-because the House was warned by the Earl of Crewe that they touched finance, and so would be regarded by the Commons as a breach of privilege. But an amendment recasting the provisions as to zones, in order to protect the zone system-on which, however, the Earl of Crewe declared that the Government had no designs-was moved by Lord Atkinson and carried by 136 to 26. On October 6, on Lord Atkinson's motion, the proviso affecting grass farms (p. 197) was struck out by 149 to 32; that framed to exclude bogus tenancies was amended by restoring the date of September 15, 1909; a subsection was struck out (by 116 to 30) which had permitted advances to sons of small holders whose holdings did not exceed 301. in rateable value, and a further limitation on advances was inserted these amendments being specially directed against the cattle-drivers. An amendment moved by Lord Barrymore and requiring the consent of the owner in dealing with congested estates was carried by 116 to 28. At Lord Inchiquin's instance, the subsection was struck out which prohibited a tenant from buying a further holding if the sum advanced under the Land Purchase Acts would thereby exceed 5,000l.; so that the way was again opened to the perpetuation of large grass farms. On Lord Atkinson's motion, compulsory purchase was abolished, by 114 to 26, for estates outside the congested districts; and the Board was prohibited, on the motion of Lord Macdonnell,

by 54 to 20, from acquiring land except through the Land Commission.

One immediate result of the action of the Lords was a telegram from Mr. Redmond to Mr. M. J. Ryan, President of the United Irish League in America, appealing, in view of the general election, for funds to destroy the Lords' veto, the last obstacle to Home Rule. A week later Mr. Redmond, speaking at Ashton-under-Lyne, emphasised the demand for Home Rule, and found a new reason for it in the extravagance involved in the granting of old-age pensions to Ireland.

The Housing and Town Planning Bill had been further amended by the Lords on Report on Monday, October 4, in a manner displeasing to its supporters. Some feeling was excited by the attitude of the Duke of Northumberland towards the proposals made to secure the fitness of cottages for habitation and the closing of insanitary dwellings, inasmuch as certain miners' cottages on his estate at Walbottle, Northumberland, but leased to a mining company, had been closed as insanitary by order of the County Bench. Walbottle" was heard of for some time afterwards at Liberal meetings. The Bill was further amended very considerably on third reading a week later.

66

The Development Bill had already roused the feelings of the Opposition in the Commons. A motion enabling the Grand Committee to which it had been referred to sit after 4 P.M., and while the House itself was sitting, had been passed on September 14 by 221 to 92. Severe criticisms had been passed both on Ministerial management and on the Bill itself, Lord Robert Cecil describing the latter as embodying the principle of the Right to Work Bill; and in Grand Committee there had been stormy scenes (Sept. 17 and 30) due to Opposition discontent with the manner of conducting business. Many Opposition amendments had been proposed unsuccessfully; but there had been one notable concession-the substitution of Commissioners for an advisory Committee.

To return to the Finance Bill; the schedules setting forth the new scales of duty on licences, spirits, tobacco, estates, motor spirit and motor cars were disposed of on October 4, 5 and 6, the Prime Minister and Mr. Herbert Samuel, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, being in charge. Much familiar ground was again traversed, and concessions were made to publicans in Ireland, off-licence holders, seasonal hotels, railway refreshment rooms and music halls, which will be found in the summary on a later page. The licence duties for wholesale dealers in cider, who numbered only twenty, were dropped; Mr. Leif Jones (L.), President of the United Kingdom Alliance, here ranged himself with the minority. Two unsuccessful amendments, taken together, would have established a graduated scale of on-licence duties varying from 5 to 30 per cent. on the annual value, which, it was claimed, would produce 23,000l. a year more than

the Government scheme. The prohibition of the sale of spirits by off-licence holders in quantities of less than one reputed quart bottle was limited to England only, at the instance of the Government. Minor concessions on various points were made or promised for the Report Stage, and the amended schedules were passed; the liquor duties schedule by 154 to 49; that for estate duties by 157 to 45; that fixing the tobacco duties by 141 to 91, but the question was to be reopened on Report; and that specifying the enactments repealed by 150 to 39; on the rest there were no divisions. The result was greeted with loud Minis

terial cheers.

But it was becoming more probable that the Lords would reject the Bill. The leading City financiers had urged this course on them; the necessary expenditure, it was urged, could be met by borrowing; the question of their constitutional right to touch money Bills at all was being much discussed in the Press; and it had been rumoured that the Government might dissolve Parliament on the rejection, or might even anticipate the action of the Lords by appealing to the country themselves immediately after the Bill had left the Commons. Hundreds

of meetings were being held on both sides. Mr. F. E. Smith addressed a Unionist meeting at Limehouse on October 4, where a resolution against the Budget was carried by 4,000 to 8; on the other side, Sir John Gorst, sometime a Unionist Minister, spoke for the Budget. Lord Rosebery had withdrawn from the contest by declining to speak at Birmingham. The King's name was, very properly, kept out of the discussions in the Press in Great Britain; but the London correspondents of Continental papers mentioned rumours that his Majesty was gravely concerned at the prospect of a constitutional crisis; and on October 5 the Prime Minister was suddenly summoned to Balmoral, where the King had been visited a few days previously by Earl Cawdor, who was regarded as one of the leading advocates of rejection, and by the Earl of Rosebery. This was regarded, naturally enough, as an attempt by his Majesty to avert or compromise the contest between the Houses; and, on his return to London, Lord Lansdowne and Mr. Balfour were summoned to Buckingham Palace. But nothing transpired as to the result of these interviews.

Speaking in his constituency of North Bristol on October 8, Mr. Birrell remarked on the scant attendance of other than Irish members at the debates on the Land Bill as illustrating the absurdity of the existing system of governing Ireland. The Lords had transformed the Bill; they were not responsible for order in Ireland; but he intimated that there might be a compromise. He did not think that the Lords would reject the Budget; but the Liberals were ready for a contest. The same view was expressed by Mr. Winston Churchill the same evening, at a dinner to the Lord Chancellor at the National Liberal Club, Rejection, he said, would be a "constitutional

outrage," and would make the House of Lords the chief power under the Crown. It would give the Government a great tactical advantage; but politics was not a game. When the Budget had once left the Commons, there would be no compromise; and, in view of their past record, the Ministry had no fear of the result. The Lord Chancellor also expressed his belief that there would be no collision, and emphasised the need of social reform, and of the Budget as providing the means.

But a more important speech was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at Newcastle-on-Tyne on Saturday, October 9, to an audience of 4,000 men in the Palace Theatre. He claimed that the Finance Bill had been strengthened and improved in Committee, and was now virtually in its final form. Trade had improved since its introduction, but there had been a "slump in Dukes." The objectors were the tariff reformers and the great landlords, the latter because the land taxes would grow, and because of the valuation proposals which would check the extravagant demands of landlords in the future. High railway rates, for example, were due to the high prices asked for land. He gave cases of "landlordism" from the Rhondda Valley and from Yorkshire, and declared that it was against landlords, not foreigners, that the iron industry needed protection. What the Lords would do concerned mainly themselves, and depended principally on the chief Unionist Whip. The Peers were forcing revolution, but the people might direct it. It would be asked, should 500 "ordinary men, chosen accidentally from among the unemployed," override the deliberate judgment of millions engaged in the industries which made the national wealth; and also, who made 10,000 people owners of the soil and the rest "trespassers in the land of our birth."

Mr. Lloyd-George also addressed an overflow meeting of 5,000 men at St. George's Drill Hall; and in the evening, at a dinner at the Liberal Club, laid stress on the prolonged labour expended on the Budget by the Cabinet, and defended his readiness to accept amendments. The House of Commons, he said, was a representative assembly, which was not to vote at the dictation of Ministers. During his sixteen years in Opposition he had felt that a Government ought to accept suggestions. Ministers, in spite of their long preparation of the Budget, would not have been fit to govern had they regarded it as flawless. Yet now the Ministry was taunted with its readiness to meet criticism reasonably. If the Lords interfered with the Budget, the Liberals would have a long account to settle with

them.

Mr. Lloyd-George's speech was denounced by the Unionists as demagogy; but it helped to increase the current speculation as to the coming conflict; and a curious but apparently unwarranted statement was made by the Times three days later, to the effect that the Government contemplated a ferendum on the Finance Bill should it be rejected, probably by

the delivery and return of voting papers through the post. There were various signs, however, that the idea of a referendum to settle disputes between the two Houses, though explicitly rejected by the Liberal leaders in 1906, was coming more into favour among the rank and file of the party.

A referendum, indeed, offered the only escape from the multitude of secondary issues which threatened to complicate the contest. One of these, however, which had been forced forward, was gradually losing its potency through the extravagances of its promoters. The Women Suffragists, seconded by male sympathisers, had vainly attempted to disturb Mr. LloydGeorge's meeting at Limehouse (July 30, p. 181), and a number had been sentenced, as usual, to terms of imprisonment, in default of entering into recognisances to keep the peace. They attempted interference with meetings addressed by Lord Carrington at Exeter, the Earl of Crewe at Glasgow, and Mr. Churchill at Saltburn in August; and at Liverpool, while Mr. Haldane was speaking, on August 20, windows of the hall were broken and the police pelted with bricks and slates from the roof of an unoccupied house adjoining the hall. Outside the meetings addressed by Mr. Birrell at Manchester and by Mr. Churchill at Leicester early in September there was also some stone-throwing and disturbance, followed by arrests. The Women's Freedom League had picketed the House of Commons unsuccessfully for some weeks, in the hope of intercepting the Prime Minister; on Sunday, September 5, three women attempted to disturb him in his retirement at Lympne in Kent, both on his leaving church and in the afternoon at the golf club; and, in the evening, stones were thrown through his windows. Suffragists also attempted to disturb Mr. Samuel's meeting at Dundee (Sept. 13) and that addressed by the Prime Minister at Birmingham four days later. The streets were barricaded, and provision made for secrecy as to Mr. Asquith's entry and exit; but two women pelted the police from a roof adjoining the hall, and, after a vain attempt to dislodge them by the use of a fire hose, they were chased over roofs and captured. Windows were also broken at the local Liberal club, and a stone was thrown into the special train as it started for London. In July, some of the Suffragist prisoners in Holloway, by way of protest against being placed in the second division-a protest renewed, unsuccessfully, by Mr. Snowden on the Appropriation Bill (Aug. 4)had broken windows, assaulted wardresses, and otherwise entered into concerted action to defy the prison regulations. Receiving additional punishment, they had retaliated by adopting the Russian revolutionists' plan of a "hunger strike." Early in August some were released to avert their death from starvation; but some of those arrested at Birmingham were forcibly fed. On September 27 and 28 Mr. Keir Hardie called attention to this in the House of Commons; but the Home Secretary defended the practice, and summonses for assault and civil pro