evictions which had already been read a second time unopposed, and try to shape it according to their own ideas in Committee. Some questions addressed to Ministers a few days later elicited the fact that the actual figures for evictions in the Clyde district, while showing that there was hardship, were far from bearing out the pathetic picture painted by Mr. Wheatley in his appeal to the House a few days earlier to pass his Evictions Bill. This deprived the Government of all excuse for proposing drastic measures, and they contented themselves with amending Mr. Simon's Bill in the direction of greater simplicity, making it rather less than more favourable to the tenant. Even so they were unable to put it through before Easter.

In regard to the wider aspects of the housing problem the Government was even slower in getting to work. On April 16 the Minister of Health explained to the House of Commons the steps which the Government had taken and the progress they had made in the preparation of their housing proposals. While he described the Housing Act of 1923 as wholly inadequate to meet the situation, he was not able as yet to point to any definite advance which he himself had made on the policy of his predecessor. The two steps for which he could and did claim credit were purely preparatory. One was the procuring of a comprehensive report from representatives of the building industry and of the manufacturers of building material on the possibilities of erecting new houses during the next ten or fifteen years. The other was an interview with representatives of the local authorities of the country in which he had explained the principles which the Government thought it necessary to observe in giving practical effect to the report he had mentioned. Mr. Wheatley characterised the Report as "extraordinarily valuable," but this opinion was not shared by the Opposition, and it was strongly attacked by various speakers, and notably by a Liberal member, Mr. Masterman, as recommending the establishment of a building trust or monopoly which would keep prices up and production down. The agreement of the local authorities to the Minister's schemes was also by no means a foregone conclusion. Thus for all practical purposes, whatever ideas Mr. Wheatley might be elaborating for the future, the policy of Mr. Neville Chamberlain still held the field.

While the Government was wrestling wearily with the evictions problem at home, two matters of supreme importance in foreign policy became ripe for further consideration-AngloRussian relations, and German reparations. On April 10, the first-fruits of Britain's recognition of Russia were seen in the arrival in London of a delegation sent from the latter country to take part in an Anglo-Russian Conference. It was headed by Mr. Rakovsky, the Soviet Chargé d'Affaires in England, and was thoroughly representative of Russian political and economic interests. Its coming was viewed with no little mistrust in anti-Socialist circles, and the Government's wisdom in

inviting it had been gravely questioned in a debate in the House of Lords a few weeks earlier. Now too (April 13) a note of warning was issued by the leading bankers of London, in a memorandum addressed to the Prime Minister setting forth what in their view were the means for the restoration of Russia's credit in Great Britain. These included an agreement between the two countries on the recognition of debts, an arrangement for the restitution of private property to foreigners, the institution of a proper legal system in Russia, establishing the sanctity of private contract, guarantees against the confiscation of private property, freedom for private trade, and the cessation of propaganda against the institutions of other countries.

The Conference began on April 14. Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, in his opening speech, defined its scope and added some weighty remarks on the attitude of his Government towards Russia a subject on which much nervous apprehension was felt in Conservative quarters. He said that the Conference was complementary to the formal act of de jure recognition recorded in Mr. Hodgson's Note of February 2. That recognition, he now took occasion to point out, was quite unqualified; they had no wish to recede from the position taken up or to avoid any of its consequences. Their tasks at the Conference were mainly three: first, to liquidate the past, by settling claims and counterclaims as between the two countries; secondly, to discuss the various treaties still nominally in force between the two countries; thirdly, to provide as far as possible for peaceful and profitable relations in the future by substituting a commercial Treaty for the trade agreement, and similar steps. In addition there would have to be a very frank discussion on what had been alluded to in correspondence between the two Governments as "propaganda" or "hostile activities," to see whether difficulties of that kind could not be prevented from recurring under their new relations.

Having outlined the work before the Conference, and explained its modus operandi, Mr. MacDonald added some significant remarks on the spirit in which he approached its proceedings. He spoke, he said, not only as the head of that party in the country which had shown itself most consistently and wholeheartedly in favour of recognition, but as the head of a Government which was genuinely prepared to show to Russia all the consideration which it properly could, and as representative of the country which was best able to assist Russia in her economic reconstruction. He asked the Russian delegates to meet him in the same friendly spirit, and not to let themselves be influenced by attacks made on them in this country any more than he was by attacks made on him in Russia; he referred in particular to a violent diatribe recently uttered by Zinovieff, the head of the Third International, to which the Government's attention had been pointedly called in the debate in the House of Lords a short time previously. At the same

time Mr. MacDonald made it abundantly clear that he approached the Conference from a strictly national and not an international standpoint. "You will not expect me," he said, "to give way upon anything which would be regarded by my countrymen as the paying of an improper price for agreement, and I shall not do it, nor do I expect that of you.' Within those limits, however, he was sure they could come to terms, and justify the hopes of many millions who were looking upon that meeting with so much expectation.

Mr. Rakovsky, in reply, stated that the importance attached by his Government to the Conference was shown by the fact that his Delegation was invested with full political authority to take on the spot all necessary decisions. He expressed the entire willingness of his Government to come to an understanding with Britain not only on the questions outstanding between them, but also on questions of wider import, such as international disarmament and the authority of the League of Nations. He did not think that the difference in the social structures of the two countries need be any obstacle to their political and economic collaboration, as was shown by the progressive devolopment of Anglo-Soviet commercial relations, and he emphasised the necessity of mutual non-intervention in internal affairs. He did not allude in his speech to the bankers' manifesto, but in published statements he expressed strong disapproval of the document, as did also representatives of the Labour Party in England.

The Anglo-Russian Conference afforded the Government an opportunity of redeeming itself from the ignominy which seemed to dog its attempts to assert itself in home affairs; and it was equally favoured by the new development which now took place in the reparations situation.

On April 9 the Committees of Experts which had been investigating Germany's finances at last issued their long-awaited Reports. This was the occasion for which Mr. MacDonald had declared himself more than once to be waiting, in order to come to closer grips with the problem of restoring Europe. The circumstances were in many respects more favourable than he could have dared to hope. Not only had the Reports been signed unanimously by the experts, but they had been accepted unanimously and without hesitation by the Reparations Commission, and the German Government had also expressed its general assent to the plan proposed. Mr. MacDonald gave the first public intimation of his attitude on the matter in the House of Commons on April 15. Asked by Mr. Baldwin whether he had any statement to make on the Experts' Reports, he said that in the Government's opinion these Reports constituted an unbiased and carefully thought-out endeavour to aid the Governments concerned in their task of reaching a settlement, and that there would be a universal desire that they should be used for that purpose. He emphasised the fact that the

principal report, that of the first Committee, presided over by General Dawes, was presented by its signatories as an indivisible whole, and that they renounced all responsibility if certain of the recommendations were accepted and others rejected. The Government, he said, attached so much importance to agreed recommendations which could be brought into immediate operation that it was prepared to support the scheme in its entirety, provided all the other parties concerned were willing to take the same course; and already on the 10th inst. they had communicated that view to the Governments interested, including the United States. Mr. Baldwin assured the Prime Minister that he would have the united support of the British people in the attitude he had taken up a statement which was fully confirmed by the tone of Press comment on his speech.

The next day a convenient opportunity was given to the Premier of adding an important rider to his statement on the Experts' Reports. Major-General Seely asked him whether he could not see his way to take a step to limit air armaments and stop the race in them which was now beginning, adding the significant remark that he was informed that the present was a propitious moment for lifting the burden from all the peoples of Europe, especially France and England. The Premier replied that as soon as they could clear away some of the pressing difficulties of Europe, the danger of armaments must be faced. He was prepared to make approaches if he felt there was the least chance of their obtaining a welcome, and if any invitation was extended to him by any other Power to help in bringing about such an arrangement, he was sure the whole House was with him when he said that his door was open to such an invitation.

A few days before the Easter recess the House of Commons voted a supplementary Estimate of 70,000l. for providing members with free railway passes first class between London and their constituencies. A similar proposal had been negatived in 1922, but now the House on a free vote decided in favour of the measure by 245 votes to 112. On April 11, it passed by 169 votes to 129 the second reading of a Bill for extending the period of Summer Time to six months and making it permanent.

On April 11 the shipbuilding industry in Great Britain was brought to a standstill by the issue of lock-out notices to the members of fifteen trade unions employed in shipyards. About 100,000 men were affected. The employers took this step in consequence of a strike in the Southampton shipyards, which had already lasted some eight weeks and in which the men persisted in defiance of the orders of their own trade union. executives. After a few days the Southampton men offered to return to work if the employers would enter into negotiations to discuss their grievances. The employers consented, and the lock-out was raised on April 24, after the Easter holidays.

On the same day (April 11) was announced the decision of

the miners on the terms offered by the employers some months before to replace those of the existing agreement which expired on April 17. On a large poll there was a majority of some 16,000 against acceptance. The Executive Committee of the Miners' Federation at once reported the result of the ballot to Mr. Shinwell, the Secretary for Mines, and on his recommendation the Ministry of Labour set up a Court of Inquiry, similar to that which had dealt with the traffic dispute, to investigate the question of wages in the mining industry. The vote against acceptance being much less than two-thirds of the whole, there was no question of a general strike, and temporary arrangements were made between the masters and men, pending the issue of the Committee of Inquiry's Report.

The uneasiness felt in Conservative quarters at the situation in India found expression on April 15 in a motion of Viscount Curzon, stating that the House viewed with anxiety recent events in India, and regretted the lack of a clear statement of policy by the Government. The mover referred pointedly to statements of members of the Government expressing sympathy with the Swarajist or Home Rule movement in India. The Under-Secretary for India in his reply did not go beyond the statement made by Lord Olivier a few weeks earlier. He asked the House to wait for the result of the inquiry which was now being conducted in India into Indian grievances, and the motion was not pressed to a division.

On April 16 Parliament rose for the Easter recess. After three months of office the Government was still placing its programme of social legislation somewhere in the future; whether it would survive long enough to make its ideas actual was already a matter of uncertainty. It depended for its existence on the support of the Liberals, and this was daily becoming more problematical. Almost from the first some members of the Liberal Party had consistently joined with the Unionists in opposing the Government; and even the more progressive section was finding it increasingly difficult to co-operate with the Labour Party. At a Liberal Party meeting held on April 15, several members expressed resentment at the hostility shown by Labour in the House towards the Liberal Party, and at the way in which Labour attacked Liberals in the constituencies. Mr. Lloyd George expressed the view that the time had arrived when Liberals should reconsider their position in relation to the Government. He was supported by Mr. Asquith, and it was agreed that the question should be considered again immediately after the Easter recess. A few days later (April 22), at a public meeting in Wales, Mr. George stated that at the Parliamentary meeting there had been "a revolt against humiliating conditions under which the Liberal Party was expected to keep in power a Government that never concealed its hostility towards that party, and seemed to regard it as an offence which ought to be kicked out of the way." He appealed