the miners of not inconsiderable advances in wages, especially for the lowest paid men. The Executive Committee of the Miners' Federation on March 14 rejected these terms as inadequate, and called upon the Government to pass a Minimum Wage Act to secure for the miners a wage commensurate with the cost of living. Unfortunately for the miners the Minimum Wa Vage Bill which had been tabled by a private member had to be dropped owing to the confiscation by the Government of private members' time. The Government at first in return promised to bring in a Bill of its own dealing with the subject immediately after the close of the financial year on March 31, and before the expiration of the National Wage Agreement. But in order if possible to save it from the necessity of such a step, which might be construed as taking sides in an industrial dispute, Mr. Shinwell, the Secretary of the Mines Department, made strenuous efforts to bring the two parties together once more, and set up a Court of Inquiry, which inspired such confidence in the miners that in the end Government action was found to be unnecessary.

Owing to the ravages of an epidemic of foot-and-mouth disease which had been raging over the country for months, the Government during February was forced to ask the House of Commons for permission to exceed the sum usually allowed for expenditure in combating animal diseases, viz. 140,000l. Some idea of the havoc wrought by this visitation was given in a statement made to the House of Commons on February 18. From this it appeared that since the previous August, when the first case occurred, there had been 2,600 outbreaks in 37 different counties in England and Wales and 11 in Scotland, involving the slaughter of 89,000 cattle, 30,000 sheep, 42,000 pigs, and 110 goats. The estimated expenditure on compensation alone was over 2,850,000l. Matters had so far improved in January that the Ministry decided that the isolation policy might safely be adopted instead of slaughter. From that time the epidemic gradually subsided, and practically disappeared early in the

summer.

Among the activities of the Prime Minister at this time none attracted more general attention than the delivery of an address on March 6 to the Free Church Assembly at Brighton, on the relation between Christianity and Socialism. Unlike so many prominent Socialists, he refused to see any conflict between the two systems; on the contrary, he looked on one as the outcome of the other. Socialism, he said, had two values-as an electioneering cry and as a philosophy and system of life. In the latter aspect he regarded it as based on the Gospels. It was the Christian faith which gave them the courage to believe in truth and justice and the moral categories; and the competition in armaments would not cease till they discovered a nation so full of Christian courage that it would say: "The only security we can have is the security of cherishing the moral categories,

justice, fair play, honesty, and uprightness." Religious circles were very favourably impressed by the tone of Mr. MacDonald's address, particularly by his defence of the "Scotch Sunday" as a wholesome and beneficent institution, affording a much-needed opportunity for earnest and detached thought.

The estimates for 1924-25 were published in the first week in March. The Civil Service Estimates were for 227,572,8231. against 251,670,000l. in the previous year-a reduction of 24,097,1777. The Army Estimates were 45,000,000l. against 52,000,000l., and the Navy 55,500,000l. against 58,000,0001. Against these reductions was to be set an increase of 2,000,000l. for the Air Force-from 12,000,000l. to 14,000,000l.

Parliament went into Committee of Supply on March 7, and a Unionist member immediately moved a reduction in the vote on account for the Civil Service in order to challenge the action recently taken by the Government in reducing from 26 per cent. to 5 per cent. the duty on imported German goods under the Reparations Recovery Act of 1921. The effect of this step, it was alleged, would be to transfer the main burden of reparations payments from the shoulders of the German Revenue to those of the British taxpayer. The Government was vehemently criticised by Mr. Lloyd George for parting with a formidable weapon of negotiation for the approaching conference. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Snowden, pointed out that the reduction had been necessitated by Germany's inability to pay more, and had been made purely in the interests of the British trader from whom the Government collected the levy. On the other hand, to have repealed the duty altogether would, he admitted, have been to throw away a weapon of bargaining. He suggested, as Sir John Simon had done before him, that the chief reason why the late Government had not taken the same step four months earlier, when the German Government ceased to reimburse its exporters, was because it favoured a Protectionist policy. John Simon, on behalf of the Liberals, supported the Government's action, and the motion to reduce the Vote on Account was defeated by 70 votes.

Sir

The further discussion of the Estimates revealed painful discrepancies between the Government's professions when in Opposition and its performances when in office. On March 10, it was severely catechised by Opposition speakers on its unemployment policy. Dr. Macnamara, looking to the provision for unemployment in the Estimates, could not find any evidence of the handling of the problem with that "bigger, bolder and braver grasp" which the country had been led to expect. Mr. Baldwin drew a disquieting picture of the state of trade and its prospects. The slight improvement which had recently manifested itself was, he feared, due merely to the large orders which had been placed by the railway companies and others, and which were anticipatory and not repeatable. He asked what

was the Government's remedy, and quoted statements from various members of the Government which seemed to show that in spite of their professions they had no precise plan for solving the problem, and were not even agreed with one another. He demanded to know what was the policy of the Government, because in its election manifesto the Labour Party had stated that it was the only party which had a positive remedy for unemployment. If, he concluded, they had such a remedy, they would have the support of the House and the country, and their name would be blessed; but if they had not, they would find that this problem would in time break them, as it would break every Government that failed to deal with it.

The Governmental reply, made by the Minister of Labour, Mr. Shaw, was in the last degree evasive. He affirmed that six weeks of government after the Estimates had been already prepared were scarcely enough to test either the record or the capacity of the Government. He laid stress on the good intentions of the Government and on the arrangements it had made for accelerating work, but when asked by a member whether it had any new proposals for finding work for the unemployed, he could only answer "Wait and see." From this point his speech, which was mainly an amplification of what he had already said, was interrupted with a constant stream of ironical cheers and laughter from the Unionist and Liberal benches, and in the end he had to fall back on the admission that the one remedy for unemployment was the revival of the country's foreign trade, and that they must wait for the result of the Government's efforts at world pacification.

The next day, March 11, the Air Estimates were considered, and the Unionists in the House of Commons heard with great satisfaction from the Under-Secretary for Air, Mr. Leach, what they regarded as a palinode of the speech which had so gravely disturbed their equanimity a few weeks previously. Many friends of the Government, said Mr. Leach, were asking how a Labour Government could justify itself in demanding an increase of air armaments. He gave two answers. One was that the expenditure on armaments as a whole was being decreased. The other was that to urge the disarmament of Great Britain irrespective of what other countries might do was not a practical proposition, and he did not for a moment delude himself into thinking that the country would ever accept it. International disarmament was his party's watchword, but they did not propose to make the country defenceless by acting alone. He tried to turn the tables on his opponents by pointing out that it was one of his bitterest critics, Major-General Seely himself, who had been Under-Secretary for Air and Vice-President of the Air Council in 1919-20 when the Home Defence Air Force. was scrapped. He showed that the Government was faithfully carrying out the programme laid down by his predecessor, save in one item, that the scheme propounded by Commander Burney

for an airship service to the East, which had practically been accepted by the previous Government, was not to be proceeded with until it had once more been carefully considered. MajorGeneral Seely defended himself against the imputation made by Mr. Leach by pointing out that he had in fact resigned his post as Air Minister because he believed that Mr. Churchill, who was then Minister of War, was sacrificing the Air Force to the Army, and because the air expansion was not rapid enough for his views. Sir S. Hoare complained that both Lord Thomson and Mr. Leach, while accepting the programme which he had initiated, did not seem to show any enthusiasm for it, and a Unionist member sought to pin the Government down to a declaration that "in the national interests it was essential that the Air Force should ensure adequate protection against the strongest force within striking distance.' This resolution was, however, defeated.

A couple of days later (March 13) the Government again received a sharp reminder that it could not expect to have its own way unless it first secured the consent of at least one of the other parties to its proposals. Owing to sparing use of the closure it was falling behind with business, and saw itself in need of extra time for discussing the Estimates if it was to be ready with the Budget on the proper date. To obtain this allowance the natural course would have been to appropriate the time of private members. The Government was loth to do so, however, as this would have meant the scrapping of a Miners' Minimum Wage Bill to which Labour members attached great importance. It proposed therefore to suspend the 11 o'clock rule. Questions addressed by Unionist and Liberal members elicited the fact that, should the proposal be adopted, a motion of some Labour members to reduce the Army by 150,000 men would come on for discussion after 11 o'clock. A number of Liberals joined with the Unionists in objecting to the debating of so important a question at so late an hour, when private members' time was still available, and voted with them against the motion, which was lost by 234 votes to 207. As this, the first defeat of the Government was on a question of tactics and not of principle, it did not, in accordance with the rule laid down at the beginning of the session by the Prime Minister, entail the Government's resignation, but it showed perhaps more clearly than anything that had gone before that the Labour Party, though it held office, was not in power.

In introducing the Army Estimates the Secretary of State for War, Mr. Walsh, found himself able to endorse the policy of his predecessor without any of the qualifications or reservations made by his colleagues in the Air Ministry. While the Estimates were 45,000,000l. against 52,000,000l.-a reduction of 7,000,000l. -the number of troops was 152,592 as against 154,536, a reduction of little more than 2,000. The Minister considered that the necessity of finding garrisons for their distant possessions as

་

well as protecting their own shores made this figure a minimum, and in his opinion rendered the size of the army really a nonparty question. He mentioned incidentally that no fewer than 13,000,000 medals had been distributed for service in the late war. Before the House went into Committee of Supply an animated discussion took place on the pensions of professional ex-ranker officers. During the election, pledges had been given by a number of candidates, including Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, in favour of according these officers equal treatment with other officers as regard pay and pension. Now, however, when a motion to this effect was brought forward, the Prime Minister opposed it on the ground that conditions were not always on all fours. When questioned as to his pledge, he explained that it had been given in inadvertence and without proper understanding of the question, and he complained strongly of the whole practice of exacting pledges from candidates at election time. The motion was defeated by nineteen votes only. When the vote for 161,000 men came on in Committee, an amendment was moved by a conscientious objector, Mr. Ayles, and seconded by an ex-Service man, Mr. Thurtle, to reduce the Army by 150,000 men-to disarm, in fact, regardless of consequences. The speakers obtained a respectful hearing, and sympathy was expressed with their objects, but they found in the division lobby only 13 supporters against 347 adverse votes. The Vote was then carried.

The discussion of the Navy Estimates raised two questions. on which there was an acute division of opinion. After long and thorough consideration and consultation with the Dominions, the Government had decided not to proceed with the construction of the naval base at Singapore which had been commenced by their predecessors. The decision was announced by the Parliamentary Secretary, Mr. Ammon, in introducing the Estimates, and the Prime Minister intervened early in the debate to state the Government's case. He admitted that from the point of view of naval defence there was much to be said in favour of the scheme, which was in no sense contrary to the Washington Agreement. But these considerations had to be over-ruled by others of wider import. The Government were convinced that if they fortified Singapore their action would exercise a most detrimental effect on their general foreign policy. It was their chief object to establish confidence and allay the international suspicions and anxieties which were existing that day, and it seemed clear to them that to continue the development of the naval base at Singapore would hamper the establishment of that confidence and lay their good faith open to suspicion. Regarding the views of the Dominions, he stated that Canada and the Irish Free State had expressed no opinion; Australia, New Zealand, and Newfoundland had warmly urged the continuation of the work; and General Smuts, on behalf of South Africa, had given his whole-hearted approval to the Government's proposal, which he characterised as a bold move towards