enduring peace. He therefore felt that he had a large measure of sympathy in the Dominions with his international policy. He admitted that should the condition of world politics create the necessity of putting into operation a strategy of complete naval defence in the Pacific and providing for Imperial defence primarily by armaments, the whole question would have to be reopened. But their whole object was to prevent such a condition arising. "This country," said Mr. MacDonald, in words which gave the clue to his whole foreign policy, "has a short time-I am afraid it is only going to be a short time-during which it can rest absolutely sure that no war will overtake it within a limited number of years. We can use that time by merely trusting to the development of military defence, or in keeping military affairs down to the nucleus, and while maintaining the country's forces at the highest point of efficiency, showing the same energy and the same decision in pursuing other methods of security, such as agreements, good will, arrangements, disarmament and steps towards disarmament.' The Government proposed to adopt the latter course; and if they failed, and had to go back to other considerations, he was convinced that there was no member on either side of the House who would not profoundly regret it.

In the House of Lords a statement on similar lines was made by Lord Chelmsford, and provoked an immediate counterdemonstration from the Opposition. Lord Curzon moved "that this House, believing that the development of a naval base at Singapore as approved by the recent Imperial Conference is urgently required for the protection of our commerce, the security of our Dominions, and the future maintenance of peace, deeply regrets the decision of the Government not to proceed with the proposal." The Government's action was supported by the Liberal leader, Lord Grey; nevertheless the motion was carried by 56 votes to 19. In the House of Commons further discussion of the subject was postponed till the Report stage of the Estimates, owing to lack of time; meanwhile the Government had to endure an onslaught from the Liberal benches on its proposal to lay down five cruisers to relieve unemployment in the dockyards. On this matter it had the support of the Unionists, and held its own by 304 votes to 114, some seventeen Labour members being included in the minority.

For the second time within a few weeks the Prince of Wales was, on March 15, thrown from his horse owing to somewhat too venturesome riding, and rather nastily bruised. The incident gave rise to some adverse comment in the Press, and in Parliament a member asked the Speaker whether he could not remonstrate with the heir to the Throne against his exposing himself to unnecessary risks. The Speaker replied in the historic words of one of his predecessors, "I have no tongue to speak save as the House shall direct me," and the matter was

not pursued further. The Prince, however, took the hint, and began to use more caution.

On March 22 public feeling in England was deeply stirred by the news of an incident in Ireland which recalled ominously the Anglo-Irish embroilments of a couple of years previously. A party of soldiers from the British force stationed on a small island just outside Queenstown, on going ashore on leave, was fired on by three men in Irish uniform with a machine-gun from a motor-car, and one of them was killed and several wounded, while the assailants escaped in their car. President Cosgrave at once wired to Mr. MacDonald his horror at the crime, and promised that no efforts would be spared to bring the perpetrators to justice; while all parties in Ireland united in denouncing the outrage. In the House of Commons on March 25, Mr. Thomas, the Colonial Secretary, stated that the Government accepted the repudiation of the crime by every political party in Ireland, and regarded it as the act of irresponsible individuals whom the Irish Government could be trusted to bring to justice. Owing to these timely declarations, public feeling was calmed, and although the murderers were not discovered, the incident did not affect the relations of the two countries.

On March 25 the Unionist party made its threatened attack in the House of Commons on the Government's Singapore decision. Its chief spokesman was Sir Robert Horne, who criticised the Government's action as a blow struck at the unity of the Empire. The Empire, he said, could not be an Empire unless there was an absolutely safe means of communication from one end of it to the other. There was only one such means of communication, and that was the British Navy, which was the real link connecting all the Dominions. The Navy could only operate if it had convenient bases, and for this purpose Singapore was of the utmost importance for British interests. He denied that the construction of the base would throw any suspicion on the good faith of Britain in the matter of disarmament. What was there wrong in the creation of larger docks for the accommodation of larger ships? And what about the other forms of disarmament-the Government's decision as to the air, and the cruisers? He refused to believe that the motives behind the Government's decision were as alleged. The Government's message was not addressed to the Chancelleries of the world; it was not a large gesture to the world, but a backward nod to the people who sat behind the Prime Minister. It was a sop to the pacifists who gave him their votes on the ground that he was going to scrap armaments, and who were now growing restless at his naval and air preparations. The Unionist Party would not support proposals which, while weakening the security of the Empire and estranging the loyal sentiments of their fellow-citizens overseas, only served to make a surrender of the present responsibilities of Ministers to their profligate pledges in the past.

In defending the Government's action, Mr. Ammon, the Parliamentary Secretary for the Admiralty, repeated the arguments used by Mr. MacDonald a few days previously, reinforcing them by reference to a statement of the Leader of the Opposition in the Australian Parliament, that Australia was in no danger of an attack. He admitted, however, that should this step evoke no response in any part of the world, the question would have to be considered afresh. Sir John Simon on behalf of the Liberals promised support to the Government, which he believed was boldly taking the proper course. There never had been a time, he said, when there were so many people who were firmly convinced that military preparations led only to war. was far better that the British nation should now by its policy contribute to the moral forces of the world than that by enormous outlay of doubtful ultimate value they should in effect declare that the pursuit of peace by way of disarmament and international agreement was useless and impossible. Towards the end of the debate, Mr. Thomas quoted cables which had been received from the Labour parties in Australia and New Zealand heartily supporting the Government's decision. The Unionist motion for a reduction in the vote on account was in the end decisively defeated by 287 votes to 211.

It

The efforts of the Unionist Party to re-establish internal harmony were about this time seriously disturbed by the activities of Mr. Winston Churchill. A vacancy having occurred in the Westminster Abbey division in London owing to the death of the sitting member, the local Unionist Association, after considering Mr. Churchill's claims, nominated a candidate of their own whom Mr. Baldwin supported. Mr. Churchill, however, presented himself as an independent anti-Socialist candidate, and received support from Lord Balfour and a number of Unionist members of the House of Commons. He all but wrested the seat from the official candidate, and the split in the Conservative ranks enabled the Labour candidate also to come within measurable distance of victory. Undeterred by his defeat, Mr. Churchill continued his efforts to form a middle party with anti-Socialism for its watchword, and to enrol supporters from both the Unionist and Liberal parties in Parliament.

While the Government was discussing matters of high Imperial policy in Parliament, events occurred which forced it to undertake some immediate social legislation at home before its plans were fully elaborated. Taking advantage of certain decisions given in the Law Courts, landlords about this time began to evict tenants without compunction, and as the housing accommodation, in spite of building activity, was still inadequate for the population, a great outcry was caused. The Rents Bill which had recently been introduced by a private member (vide p. 16), and which would have dealt with the matter, was meeting with much obstruction in the special committee to

which it had been referred and had little chance of becoming law in the present Session. On March 24 the question was raised in Parliament, and Mr. MacDonald promised to introduce a Bill immediately.

On the same day also (March 24) a promise was made to introduce a London Traffic Bill for the purpose of co-ordinating transport and traffic machinery in the metropolis. A Bill for this purpose had been prepared by the preceding Government in the previous summer, but it had been postponed on account of more urgent affairs. Now, however, its introduction was rendered imperative by the outbreak of a tram and bus strike on March 22 which took practically the whole of these vehicles off the streets throughout the London area, to the immense inconvenience of the population. The Government immediately set up a Court of Inquiry. This body in an interim report issued on March 24 stated that the demands of the men for an increase of 8s. per week were fully justified, but that the traffic undertakings were unable to earn sufficient to meet the claim, and urged the Government to press forward legislation to co-ordinate control. The Government's Traffic Bill, which was frankly an emergency measure designed to appease the strikers, was introduced on March 26. It entirely failed to achieve its object. Far from showing a more conciliatory attitude, Mr. Bevin, the men's spokesman, announced that, if the men's demands were not granted in full in the meanwhile, the Tube railway men would be called out at midnight on March 28.

The Prime Minister stated in the House of Commons that the Government recognised its responsibility to consider the needs of the London public, and that an Emergency Committee of the Cabinet was meeting at once to present proposals for dealing with the situation. On March 28 the Government's Traffic Bill came up for its second reading. It was strongly criticised from the Liberal and Labour benches, but passed with Unionist support. At the same time Mr. MacDonald used all his personal influence to keep the negotiations going between the two parties, and fortunately for the London public the Tube men remained at work until a settlement was finally reached. On March 31 the men accepted the employers' offers, and returned to work the next day, after London had been for ten days without any trams and without its regular service of buses.

The settlement of the London traffic strike created on the whole more discontent in the Labour world than it allayed. Its effect was to place the 'bus conductors, who were doing unskilled work, in a superior pecuniary position to skilled engineers who owing to the depressed condition of their industry had to accept wholly inadequate wages. It thus brought into relief the advantage possessed by men in "sheltered" tradestrades that is which had not to meet foreign competition-over those in "unsheltered" trades, and accentuated the unrest

already prevailing among the latter. Further, it created an evil precedent by increasing the wage-bill of the tram and bus men beyond what the industry could bear, and saddling the public with the responsibility for the balance. The success of the busmen immediately stimulated the building operatives engaged on the Exhibition at Wembley to demand higher wages under threat of bringing operations to a standstill, and the middle classes, which were growing used to a Labour Government, again became apprehensive.

The returns for the financial year issued on its concluding day, March 31, showed that there was a surplus of 48,324,0731. Revenue had amounted to 837,169,2847., or nearly nineteen millions more than the Estimates, the largest excess being in respect of income tax. Expenditure amounted to 788,430,000l. or nearly 28,000,000l. less than the original estimate, and over 40,000,000l. less than the revised estimate. The chief savings had been 16,200,000l. on the Fighting Services and 12,300,0007. on the Civil Services. The floating debt had been reduced by 35,432,000l. and now stood at 774,475,500l. Concurrently with the issue of this return the Government took an important step towards lightening the burden of war debt by offering to convert 200 millions of the 5 per cent. War Loan 1929-47 into 4 Conversion Loan 1940-44 at 1037.

In the midst of his labours of mediation between the parties in the traffic strike, Mr. MacDonald had found time to make an important statement on foreign affairs. On March 27, he was questioned by Mr. Asquith regarding recent French activities in the Ruhr and the Rhineland. The Liberal leader wanted to know whether in the opinion of the Government certain agreements recently made by the French with Ruhr industrialists did. not contravene the Treaty of Versailles, and whether they would not have the effect of preventing the stabilisation of German currency and materially injuring British interests; further, whether the French were not violating the Treaty in the Saar basin also. Mr. MacDonald stated that the Government had examined the agreements referred to, and had come to the conclusion that they did not actually contravene the Treaty, though they might easily be made the occasion for a redistribution of reparations settlements, in which case the Government would at once protest. As to the Saar, the Government's hands were tied by previous commitments. Dealing with the general question of Anglo-French relations, Mr. MacDonald said that France could never get security by any series of special pacts, but only by the guarantee of some co-operative organisation, of the wide scope and moral authority of the League of Nations. If that was their aim, then the thing to be done first was to settle the problem of reparations. The problem of security with a full agreement on reparations to which Germany would be a willing partner was very small and presented few difficulties. But with an agreement between the Allies and a sulky Germany it was a