by the Lords should be presented for the Royal Assent was negatived by 231 to 150. Sir A. Cripps (U., Bucks. S.) then moved an amendment designed to prevent a Bill passed without the assent of the Lords from being described as "an Act of Parliament"; "Parliament," he maintained, meant the King and both Houses. The Attorney-General described this as a specious way of defeating the whole Parliament Bill, and it was defeated after debate by 261 to 187.

Mr.

A question then arose as to the adequacy of the term "Money Bill." The Government accepted an amendment moved by Mr. J. F. Hope, making it clear that private Bills were excluded; and next day, April 11, Mr. Pollock (U., Warwick and Leamington) proposed to define the Bills in question as providing "for the imposition of taxation or for the appropriation of revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual service of the Crown." Asquith, in a conciliatory reply, said that the first object of the Government was to avoid enlarging the field of finance within which constitutional practice and usage (which he traced) had established the authority of the Commons; the Bills within the subsection would be such as by the existing practice the Lords could not amend. The second object was to prevent tacking. The amendment, however, would give the Commons less than they claimed; it ignored Bills for the remission or repeal of taxation, and would exclude Consolidated Fund Bills and Bills imposing taxation for other purposes than that of raising the revenue of the year. Mr. Balfour, after contending that the Lords had a recognised constitutional right to reject Money Bills, argued that the Government's definition was too wide and too ambiguous. He suggested the definite exclusion of Bills for local taxation, and other changes, and Mr. Asquith promising to amend the clause on Report, the amendment was withdrawn. An important debate then took place on an amendment moved by Mr. Cave, striking out the words making the Speaker judge of whether a Bill was or was not a Money Bill. He held that it would put the Speaker in a difficulty, and might tempt a future holder of the office to act as a partisan; some members desired to substitute a judicial tribunal, but he himself thought the decision might be left to a Joint Committee of seven from each House, representing as closely as possible the state of parties in Parliament, the Speaker to be Chairman with a casting vote. Mr. Asquith, however, declared that the Government had decided to retain the words; it was undesirable to introduce an external authority into Parliamentary procedure, and the proposed Committee would be partisan. It would be better to leave the Speaker to exercise his unfettered judgment, he taking such expert evidence as he thought desirable. There was a long debate, in the course of which Mr. Balfour, while rejecting the idea of a judicial tribunal, pointed out that the Speaker, unlike the Presidents of other

Legislatures, was admittedly impartial, and that the new duties. to be imposed on him would overburden him and make him a partisan, the ruler of the House of Lords as well as of the Commons. He himself advocated some Committee representing both Houses, in which the Speaker would have a casting vote. Mr. Herbert Samuel, replying for the Government, contended that under the Bill the Speaker would only be doing what he already did sometimes, as in ruling out Lords' amendments to Bills because they concerned finance; while, in the Committee proposed, he would practically decide by his casting vote. Eventually the amendment was negatived by 253 to 180. A number of other amendments were rejected, and subsection 4, declaring that no amendment should be allowed to a Money Bill which in the Speaker's opinion divests it of its character, was struck out at the instance of the Ministry, on the ground that the procedure of the House of Commons should be regulated by the House itself and not by statute.

On the motion for the Easter adjournment next day, April 12, there was a revival of the old grievance of "blocking notices (ANNUAL REGISTER, 1907, pp. [74], [166]), thirteen of which out of fourteen had been given by Ministerialists, because, it was explained, various subjects interesting to Labour members had been blocked by Unionists. Mr. Balfour, Mr. Redmond, and Mr. W. O'Brien strongly condemned this blocking of debate, and the Speaker also expressed his regret at it, but could not, of course, disregard the rule. [A motion excluding debates on the adjournment from such blockages was promised by Mr. Asquith on April 18.] The subject of most permanent interest left to be discussed. was the control of the Commons over foreign policy, introduced by Mr. J. G. Swift MacNeill (N., Donegal, S.), who complained that the treaty-making power rested with the Cabinet, Parliament and the Dominions having no voice in such matters. He desired to see treaties submitted to Parliament before ratification, and was determined to break down the system by which Foreign Secretaries were hardly at all interfered with by the Commons, though he recognised that there had been a great improvement under the present Government. Sir Edward Grey replied that the Commons controlled the question of peace or war by the power of the purse; questions of the ratification of treaties would not affect war, which arose out of circumstances; the great change involved in the Constitution could not then be discussed, but the House of Commons could discuss foreign policy on the Foreign Office Vote, and would have much more opportunity for doing so after devolution of much of its business to subordinate legislatures. There must, however, be secrecy up to a certain point; if premature disclosures were made an atmosphere would be created not conducive to satisfactory settlement.

The House adjourned for five days only, till Easter Tuesday, April 18.

The Easter recess was too short to break the continuity of the political contest; but it affords a convenient opportunity for reviewing the general situation. The Unionists had not appreciably improved their position in the country, judging from the byeelections (post, Chronicle, Feb.-April), in which the Liberal wastage had not been more than usual when a new register of voters came into force. Seats had been found, however, for two of the ablest of the Unionists ousted at the general election. Mr. Joynson Hicks had been returned unopposed for the Brentford division of Middlesex; Mr. Bonar Law, after a keen contest, had defeated an untried Liberal at Bootle. Some little satisfaction had been gained by the party in matters connected with the education controversy, the appeal of the Board of Education in the Swansea School case (ANNUAL REGISTER, 1909, p. 30; 1910, Chronicle, p. 13) had been unanimously rejected by the judicial House of Lords on April 6; and the legislative House of Lords a day earlier had passed an Address to the Crown adverse to a scheme proposed by the Board of Education for the Wheelwright schools, Dewsbury, the effect of which would have been to eliminate the Church of England religious teaching, though the school was originally a Church of England charity and had been recognised as such by the Endowed Schools Commission. The change was decided by the local education authority, the West Riding County Council, as enabling it to give the school financial assistIn another case, the refusal of a Government grant to a Church school at Towyn, which had revived after a period of decadence, the criticisms of Unionist members on the Education Department were ineffectual (March 23). But, in general, the Unionist party had not recovered from its defeats. The trials of a number of libel cases arising out of the general election had exhibited the bitterness of political feeling, and their results had somewhat intensified it among the Liberal rank and file. A like result was produced by the trials of election petitions, notably by the unseating of the Liberal at Cheltenham-to make way, as it proved, for a Unionist, though the majority was narrow; by the dismissal of that against the return of a Unionist at Boston who had given presents to his supporters, and still more by the award of the seat at Exeter to a Unionist after a prolonged scrutiny Chronicle, April 11-a decision followed by an unseemly altercation at the railway station between the defeated Liberal candidate and Mr. Justice Ridley, one of the election judges. With Liberal embitterment, there were extraneous causes to intensify Unionist depression. The Projected Reciprocity Agreement between the United States and Canada was regarded with apprehensions which, as the Canadian elections showed later, were quite unfounded, but which, the Liberals held, would have been so in any case. The new Anglo-Japanese Commercial Treaty, signed April 3 post, Foreign History, Chapter VI.), involved considerable re

ance.

ductions of the duties on British goods, and so falsified the contention of Tariff Reformers that a Free Trade Government could not negotiate effectively because it "had nothing to bargain with." Indeed, the Home Secretary seemed justified in declaring, at a meeting held in connection with the Free Trade Congress, at Queen's Hall, London, on April 8, that, "after eight years of assaults and argumentative warfare, the ramparts of Free Trade remained unbreached at any point."

CHAPTER III.

FROM EASTER TO THE CORONATION.

THE usual Easter conferences of the National Union of Teachers and the Independent Labour and Socialist parties dealt only with side issues of the great political struggle. The first-named body met at Aberystwith under its first woman President, Miss Isabel Cleghorn, whose advent was duly celebrated by the presentation to her of her own portrait and other gifts. She gave an interesting sketch of an ideal national education in her address; but although the union had thus recognised the equality of the sexes, its members defeated two attempts on successive days to suspend the Standing Orders in order to debate women's suffrage, and there were disorderly scenes. The Holmes circular, and the conduct of the Board of Education generally, received vigorous denunciation. The Independent Labour party at Birmingham complained of the political pressure exercised by Ministers, who treated nearly every motion as a vote of confidence, the rejection of which might entail a dissolution; but a resolution calling on the Labour members to vote on motions on their merits, and a temporising amendment, were both shelved by "the previous question." The conference declared, inter alia, for the nationalisation of mines, the abolition of the House of Lords, adult suffrage, and wider powers of selfgovernment for India. The Social Democratic party at Coventry showed considerable distrust of the Parliamentary Labour party, and adopted resolutions in favour of an adequate Navy and a citizen Army, in view of the probability (insisted on by Mr. H. M. Hyndman) of a German attack on France by way of Belgium. This led to a further split in their ranks.

The House of Commons resumed its work on Easter Tuesday, April 18. After the introduction of the Aliens Bill, which will be more conveniently described later (p. 89), and a demand by the Government for the remainder of private members' time till Whitsuntide-which was accorded, after debate, by 176 to 128-it spent some thirteen hours in rejecting further amendments to the first clause of the Parliament Bill. Among the more noteworthy of these were: (1) an attempt by Lord Hugh Cecil to exempt Bills for payment of members,-on which Mr. Asquith pointed out,

significantly as it proved, that the change could be effected without a Bill, and the amendment was rejected after closure by 186 to 128, after a scene caused by provocation given by Earl Winterton to the Labour members. (2) An amendment moved by Mr. Hume Williams (U., Notts. Bassetlaw) declaring that Bills "in whole or part political" should not be counted as Money Bills, against which Mr. Asquith instanced Tariff Reform, the super-tax, and the great majority of Budgets, and pointed out that the duty imposed on the Speaker would be an impossible one, whereupon Mr. Balfour declared that the Prime Minister's speech was conclusive against "tacking"; the House ought not to set out to modify social life under the guise of finance. The amendment was rejected, after further discussion and closure, by 183 to 121. (3) After other amendments, with an aim somewhat similar to the above, had been rejected, Mr. J. F. Hope moved a new subsection exempting the Civil List of the Crown, or empowering any authority to fix assessments without appeal or to raise any tax not specifically granted in Committee of Ways and Means. was opposed by Mr. Churchill as taking away powers already possessed by the Commons, and rejected by 162 to 112, as were, by about the same majorities, proposals to exempt (4) Bills creating new offices of profit under the Crown, and (5) Bills imposing taxation on only a part of the United Kingdom (so as to preclude the special taxation of Ulster if it refused to accept Home Rule). Three and a half hours were then spent on the passing of clause 1, which was accomplished at 4.40 A.M. on April 19, by 143 to 78.

This

Clause 2 (Bills other than Money Bills) was taken on April 20. The Unionists' efforts were directed mainly to securing that great changes like Home Rule, Welsh Disestablishment, or liquor licensing reform, should not be effected without a further general election. Mr. Cave (U., Surrey, Kingston) moved an amendment to this effect, instancing the three measures specified, on which the electorate had not been consulted. Mr. Asquith briefly replied that this was asking the existing House of Commons to abnegate its functions and the purpose for which it was returned. Mr. Balfour ridiculed the idea that the electorate had given a mandate either for the Parliament Bill specifically or for the other measures suggested, or not suggested, by the Government. Powers seized from the people were being unconstitutionally used to carry out revolutions which the people had never sanctioned. Mr. Bottomley, an independent Liberal, supported this and the next amendment, the Liberal rank and file otherwise, however, keeping silence; and the amendment was rejected after closure by 222 to 136. Another amendment, moved by Mr. Younger (U., Ayr Burghs), limiting the operation of the clause to three years in order to force on the reform of the House of Lords, was rejected after debate and closure by 237 to 188. On the next amendment, moved by Mr. Cassel (U., West St. Pancras), there was a debate of more import

F