mission; and the prolongation of the debate was due chiefly to the desire of such members to clear themselves in their own eyes and the eyes of the world-or at any rate their constituents for taking such a step, seeing that Mr. Asquith had already said all that needed to be said on the subject. The number of Liberal defections proved in the end to be very small. Some ten Liberals voted with the Government, and half a dozen more abstained. The amendment was finally carried at 11 P.M. on January 21 by 328 votes to 256-a majority of 72.

A number of members wished to continue the debate, with the object of bringing in an amendment to the Address condemning Socialism. The Speaker, however, ruled that as the closure had been passed there should be no further debate, and the Address as amended was carried by 328 to 251.

With this step the transference of government from the Unionist to the Labour Party was practically accomplished. A revolution in English politics as profound as that associated with the Reform Act of 1832 had been carried through with a smoothness and rapidity that two months earlier would have been thought impossible. A Party which made Socialism its watchword was already entrusted with the reins of government. This was but the legitimate consummation of a movement which had been gathering strength for some years before the war, but which in the eyes of many had been brought to a stand by the formation of the Coalition. It could easily have been prevented by the renewal of the Coalition or the creation of a new one. The decision lay with Mr. Asquith, and the veteran statesman, in choosing a Labour Government as the lesser evil, proved once more the truth of Disraeli's remark, that " England does not like Coalitions."

Unlike the older parties, Labour in order to obtain office had not had to wait till it commanded a majority in the country. Greatness had literally been thrust upon it, not so much for its own virtues as for the sins of its opponents. That the bulk of Liberals should have preferred enthroning Labour at this juncture, not only to placing the Unionists in power but to sharing power themselves with the Unionists, was a phenomenon as remarkable in its nature as it was far-reaching in its consequences. The reason for it was not to be found in any advances or overtures made by Labour for Liberal support and friendship. On the contrary, almost till the last moment Labour had persistently refused to see any difference in essentials between Liberalism and Unionism, and had treated with disdain Liberal offers of co-operation. If in these circumstances Liberals persisted in turning the other cheek to the smiter, it was because they felt that in this way alone they could still represent themselves in the eyes of the world as a party of progress. The Conservative Party, it is true, through the mouth of Mr. Baldwin, had adopted a programme of social

reform at home and justice and conciliation abroad. But Liberals preferred to judge them by their record in the past rather than by their promises for the future, and decided in favour of a Government which, whatever might be its defects, would be unquestionably progressive.

On the day after the debate, January 22, Mr. Baldwin resigned, and Mr. MacDonald was commissioned by the King to form a Ministry. His plans for doing so were already practically complete, and were put into execution without delay. Mr. MacDonald himself became, in addition to Prime Minister, Minister for Foreign Affairs, the leadership of the House of Commons being entrusted to Mr. Clynes, while Mr. Snowden went to the Exchequer. Two of the new Ministers, the Secretary of State for the Navy, and the Secretary of State for India, were men with distinguished records of public service abroad, Lord Chelmsford having been a Viceroy of India, and Sir Sidney Olivier, Governor of Jamaica. Sir Sidney was soon after elevated to the House of Lords, where the Government was already represented by Lord Haldane, as Lord Chancellor, and Lord Parmoor as Lord Privy Seal. Other prominent Trade Union leaders besides Mr. Clynes who entered the Cabinet were Mr. Thomas (Colonies), Mr. Henderson (Home Office), Mr. Shaw (Labour), and Mr. Jowett (Public Works): and for the first time a woman was given a place in a British Government in the person of Miss Margaret Bondfield, who had last year been elected President of the Trade Union Congress, and who now became Under-Secretary to the Ministry of Labour. The Trade Union officials who joined the Ministry gave up their Trade Union posts (though Mr. Henderson retained his position as Secretary of the Labour Party, as this was held to be not incompatible with his Ministerial duties). A similar step was taken by those members-among whom was Mr. MacDonald himself who were on the Council of the Labour and Socialist International. The question was raised at a party meeting whether any alteration should be made in the salaries of Ministers, and was answered in the negative. Mr. MacDonald, however, took only one salary for his two offices, and the Lord Chancellor consented to accept the same salary as his colleagues -5000l. instead of the customary 10,000l.

The new Government was fairly representative of all sections of the composite party which called itself "Labour." Mr. MacDonald, Mr. Snowden, and Mr. Sidney Webb were known as Socialists of the academic or intellectual type; Mr. Clynes, Mr. Shaw and others belonged to the class of trade union officials; Mr. Ponsonby and Mr. Trevelyan were prominent among the new recruits from the older parties; while the more advanced Socialists known as the Clyde group were represented by Mr. Wheatley. Mr. MacDonald, however, found himself unable to complete his Cabinet from the active workers of his own party, and he accepted the services of at

least three non-party men-Lord Chelmsford, Lord Olivier, and Lord Parmoor, who joined the Government as departmental heads, "in order," as Lord Chelmsford said, "that the King's Government might be carried on." Even with a majority behind it, such a Cabinet could hardly have been described as Socialist; in face of an anti-Socialist majority it was foredoomed, at any rate in home affairs, to a policy of compromise and surrender.

The Premier's first act was to adjourn Parliament for three weeks, till February 12, in order to give the new Ministers an opportunity of making themselves familiar with the work of their departments, and drafting new legislation in their respective spheres. The Civil Service adapted itself automatically to the change of régime, and the administrative machine continued to work as smoothly as ever. The problem of adjusting relations between the Court and the new Cabinet was somewhat more delicate, but with the exercise of tact on both sides was solved with complete success. A number of the new Ministers protested at the outset that they could not possibly afford the elaborate costume which they would be expected to wear at Court functions. The King thereupon graciously permitted the adoption of a more simple dress. Mr. MacDonald on his side left to the King the appointment of certain of the Court officials.

Mr. MacDonald immediately on his advent to power made his presence felt at the Foreign Office. In the field of AngloFrench relations he struck out a new line by addressing, on January 26, a "personal note" to M. Poincaré couched in terms of easy friendship which contrasted strongly with the somewhat censorious formality of his predecessor. After informing his confrère of his accession to office, and sending him his greetings and good wishes, he added that, while grieving to find that there were still so many unsettled points between them causing trouble and concern, he felt sure that by the strenuous action of good will, conflicts could be settled and policies devised in the pursuit of which France and Britain could remain in hearty co-operation, and advance together to establish peace and security in Europe. M. Poincaré replied a couple of days later stating that he was much touched by the British Premier's letter, and expressing almost in Mr. MacDonald's own words his wishes for friendly co-operation between England and France, and for making the entente effective and fruitful of the results which it could and ought to bear. This interchange of courtesies made an excellent impression in both countries, and put an end to the friction which had been caused by the delivery of a number of diplomatic "pinpricks" in the preceding months. The first-fruits of the improved relations between the two Foreign Offices were seen on February 9 in the French ratification of the Coblenz agreement of December 14 concerning the railways in the British zone of occupied Germany. By this step the "blockade" of the Cologne area was at length

raised, to the great relief not only of German but also of British industry. In regard also to the questions of Inter-Allied military control and of the Palatinate M. Poincaré showed himself more accommodating than previously.

In regard to Russia Mr. MacDonald lost no time in completely reversing the policy of Lord Curzon, and so redeeming one of the principal pledges given by Labour at the time of the election. On February 1 a Note was despatched to Moscow stating that Britain "recognised the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics as the de jure rulers of those territories of the old Russian Empire which acknowledged their authority," and inviting the Soviet Government to send plenipotentiaries to London to discuss the questions of existing treaties and of claims both between Governments and individuals the settlement of which seemed to be necessary to complete friendly relations and full commercial intercourse. Mr. Hodgson, the British representative in Moscow, was given the status of Chargé d'Affaires pending the appointment of an ambassador. The reply of the Russian Government was received a few days later. It expressed satisfaction with the contents of the British Note, declared that the Government of the Soviet Union was ready to discuss and settle in a friendly spirit all questions arising directly or indirectly out of the fact of recognition, and to send plenipotentiaries to London for that purpose, and conferred on M. Rakovsky, the Soviet representative in England, the status of Chargé d'Affaires of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics at the Court of St. James, pending the appointment of ambassador. The recognition of the Soviet Government was viewed with misgiving in Conservative quarters, but caused lively satisfaction in Liberal and Labour circles.

Before Parliament reassembled, the Unionist Party took occasion to settle the two pressing questions which had been forced on its attention by its defeat at the polls and its ejection from power, the question of its attitude towards Protection and the question of its leadership. On February 9 a meeting of Lancashire and Cheshire Unionists was held at Manchester, under the chairmanship of Lord Derby, at which the action of the late Government in appealing to the country on the Protection issue was severely criticised, and a resolution was passed by a large majority for omitting Protection from the party programme. A full party meeting was held on February 11 in London. Mr. Baldwin, who presided, said that although the motives which swayed the electorate were always complex, yet he could not resist the conclusion that at the last election the country as a whole had decided in a sense hostile to the main Unionist proposal, which was to introduce a change in the British fiscal system. In these circumstances he did not feel justified in advising the party again to submit the proposal for a general tariff to the country, except upon the clear evidence that on this matter public opinion was disposed to reconsider its judgment

of two months previously. For the rest he outlined a programme of social progress similar to that contained in the King's Speech. Lord Balfour moved "that this meeting, having heard the statement made by the leader of the party, desires to express its confidence in him and its agreement with the policy he has outlined." This motion was supported by a number of speakers, including Mr. Austen Chamberlain, and carried by acclamation. No further attempts were made after this to displace Mr. Baldwin.

A few days before Parliament met-on February 7-a deputation from the municipal authorities of some of the leading industrial centres laid before the Government their plaint on the subject of unemployment. They were received by Mr. Clynes, who was accompanied by the President of the Board of Trade, the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Transport, and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. The Lord Mayor of Newcastle and other speakers expatiated on the burden on the rates caused by unemployment, and suggested that the Government should finance local schemes to the extent of 75 per cent. Mr. Clynes was sympathetic but not very helpful. He said that all the State departments represented at the meeting had been doing their best to grapple with the question since the Government came into office, but he would leave it to the Prime Minister to make at the proper time some announcement of the Government's desires and intentions. He assured the deputation that the Government would provide plans, and meanwhile urged the municipalities to continue to be alert and press for a solution of the problem, in order to awaken the national conscience on the duty of the State in the matter.

When Labour was in opposition it had shown itself highly scornful of the Conservative Government's efforts to solve the two most pressing social problems of the day-unemployment and housing-and had boasted of its ability to produce much better solutions if it were given the opportunity. When therefore the House of Commons met on February 12, after the new Ministers had had three clear weeks in which to formulate their ideas, it was in the expectation of hearing some novel and ingenious plan for dealing at least with these two difficulties, if not others also. This expectation was disappointed. The Prime Minister's opening speech contained no definite proposals either on these or other matters; he confined himself to laying down with some precision the general lines upon which Labour would endeavour to carry on the government of the country.

He first of all made it clear that his Government would not resign if defeated in a snap" division on some matter of minor importance, but only in consequence of a motion of no confidence or an adverse vote on some question of principle. This privilege, he held, would be necessary not only for his Government, but for any Government in future which did not possess an absolute majority in the House. He mentioned with satisfaction the