proposals would make the discrepancy even more striking. He anticipated that the Government's schemes for old age pensions, housing and unemployment, would involve a considerable deficit in the course of the year. He was still doubtful whether the national credit was safe in the hands of the present Government, because the Labour offices were pouring out a stream of literature entirely contradictory to the declarations of Ministers on the sanctity of industrial capital and the need for maintaining the nation's credit. He asked whether the abolition of the McKenna duties was the price which the Government had to pay for Liberal support, and in regard to Imperial Preference wondered whether the attitude of the Government and the Liberal Party was not determined by the theory of Cobden, that Free Trade would gradually and imperceptibly loosen the bonds that bound the Colonies to England.

Mr. Thomas, the Colonial Secretary, immediately repudiated the suggestion that the Labour Party was a less jealous guardian of the Empire's unity than the Conservative. He pointed to the fact that in the last ten weeks two new Labour Governments had come into office in the Empire, and said that out of 32 resolutions passed by the Imperial Conference 28 were being put into operation by the Government. Mr. Graham, the Financial Secretary of the Treasury, rejected the theory that direct and indirect taxation ought to be more or less equal, and said that this year only 5.1 per cent. would be raised in indirect taxation on articles of an unmistakably food character-the lowest figure for about twenty-four years. Mr. Snowden, in closing the debate, said that if the Labour Party had come into a "lavish inheritance," it had at least known how to make use of it. He claimed that indirectly the Budget was doing much to relieve unemployment, because it put 30,000,000l. more into the hands of the people to stimulate and encourage trade. He also assured the House that he had made adequate provision in the Budget to pay for the scheme of old age pensions which the Government intended soon to introduce. On the discrepancy between the Parliamentary and propaganda voices of Ministers both Mr. Snowden and Mr. Graham discreetly said nothing.

While the Budget united the Liberal and Labour Parties in an invincible phalanx in defence of most of its provisions, there was one point in which it was vulnerable. On the question of retaining or dropping the McKenna duties, the Cabinet itself had been divided. Mr. Snowden had wished to let them fall at once, while Mr. MacDonald had favoured their renewal, and their retention till August 1 represented a compromise. From the moment that their abandonment was threatened, a storm of protest had been raised by and on behalf of the motor industry which had been built up as a consequence of the duties levied on foreign importations. The cry was heard that a large number of workmen would be thrown out of employment, and

there were many Labour members who, in spite of their Free Trade principles, attached great weight to this argument. In response to a request from Mr. Baldwin, the Government set aside May 12 for a discussion of this point.

The Liberal Party in the House of Commons, in accordance with the decision taken just before the recess, met on April 30, the day after the introduction of the Budget, to consider its relations to the Government. Liberal resentment against the Labour Party, to which Mr. Lloyd George had given public and forcible expression during the recess, had been considerably modified by the Budget, which was regarded as a triumph of Liberal principles, and an earnest desire was shown by the meeting to co-operate with the Government. As the best means of securing a modus vivendi between the two parties in the constituencies, the adoption of proportional representation recommended itself, and it was decided to invite the Government to give official support to the Proportional Representation Bill which was to be introduced by a private member a couple of days later. The Labour Party immediately held a special meeting to consider the invitation, and decided by a large majority that no facilities should be afforded by the Government, and that the question should be left to a free vote of the House.

When the motion was brought forward on May 2, Mr. Asquith confessed that it was only at a late stage of his political life that he became a convert to the idea of proportional representation, though not so recently as the previous Wednesday. He denied that he was supporting proportional representation out of party spirit, though the party to which he belonged was for the time being the greatest sufferer from the evils of the present system. Mr. Henderson, on behalf of the Government, adopted a stiff attitude, and refused to have anything to do with the proposal. He said that had the main proposal of the Bill been the alternative vote, both the Government and many of his Labour colleagues would have been much more favourably disposed to it. Replying to a Liberal interjection, he challenged the Liberal Party to throw the Government out, and said that if they were to be threatened with dismissal every time they refused to take the course desired by the Liberals, he could only retort by saying, "Get on with the job." The challenge was not taken up by any speaker from the Liberal side, and the Bill was rejected by 238 votes to 144. Nearly all the Liberals present voted in the minority, along with a number of Labour members (including several Ministers) and a handful of Unionists.

From this moment there was no longer any pretence of amity between the Liberal and Labour Parties. As Mr. Asquith said a few weeks later: "The Liberals have no reason to love the Government, not the slightest." For the next few months the attitude of Liberals towards the Government was that of being "willing to wound, but yet afraid to strike," and time

Ꭰ

after time they deliberately refrained from turning the Government out because they did not judge the moment opportune for testing their strength in the constituencies. The Government on its side was careful not to take any step which would render Liberal support impossible, and so maintained its equilibrium, though somewhat unsteadily, for the rest of the Session.

On May 1 M. Theunis, the Belgian Prime Minister, and M. Hymans, the Belgian Minister for Foreign Affairs, crossed over to London from Paris, where they had interviewed M. Poincaré earlier in the week, and proceeded without delay to visit Mr. MacDonald at Chequers, in order to discuss with him the possibilities of united Allied action on the Experts' Reports. The discussions were kept strictly private, but on leaving London on May 4 the visitors declared that they were returning with a favourable impression, and M. Hymans, in an interview given at Ostend, said that, judging from the conversations he had had with Ministers, it seemed to him that an Inter-Allied Conference was nearer than might be thought. The British Ambassador a few days later informed M. Poincaré officially of the conversations between Mr. MacDonald and the Belgian Ministers, while a much fuller report was sent to him from Brussels. On May 9 it was announced that M. Poincaré himself had accepted an invitation from Mr. MacDonald to visit him at Chequers on May 20.

On May 2 and the succeeding days, Mr. Baldwin gave a series of addresses to Conservative meetings for the purpose of strengthening the unity of the party and making known its principles and policy. At the first of these, the annual demonstration of the Primrose League Grand Habitation, held at the Albert Hall and presided over by Lord Curzon, Mr. Baldwin's principal theme was the need for maintaining the unity of the Empire. He admitted that other parties beside his own were proud of the Imperial connexion and heritage. But to preserve this, wisdom was required as well as pride, and, judging from the performances of the present Government, he doubted if such wisdom was to be found outside of the Conservative Party. Mr. Baldwin was everywhere well received, and his position as leader of the party seemed to be assured. His three speeches were shortly afterwards issued in pamphlet form by the National Unionist Association, under the title "Looking Ahead," as a comprehensive statement of Unionist policy. Mr. Winston Churchill, who a few weeks earlier, at the Abbey by-election, had posed as a rival, now seemed to aspire no further than to acting as a lieutenant. Addressing a great Conservative meeting at Liverpool on May 7, he proposed that they should return to the arrangement offered to the Conservative Party by the National Liberals in February, 1922, namely, a strong united Conservative Party with a Liberal wing co-operating in whatever way might be found most conducive to national and common

interests, and, in particular, for the defeat of Socialism at the polls. Mr. Baldwin in a speech delivered at the Queen's Hall on May 9, welcomed Mr. Churchill's suggestion, saying that co-operation among those who believed in the broad lines of policy laid down in the King's Speech and amplified by himself in the preceding week would, he believed, contribute materially to the defeat of Socialism whenever it was put as a clear and single issue to the electors.

In the Report stage of the Budget debate (May 6) Unionist members tried to obtain new preferential reductions in the duties on Empire-grown tea, cocoa, and sugar, but without success. Mr. Snowden again showed himself an uncompromising Free Trader. He raised a momentary cheer from the Unionists by saying that the preference which had been given to Empire-grown sugar during the past five years had undoubtedly been beneficial, but dashed their hopes by adding "to the West Indian planters." He denied that the consumer got the benefit, or that the quantity of Empire-grown sugar had increased to any extent in consequence of the preference; while in regard to tea, he said that the Indian and Ceylon tea companies did not require encouragement, as it was quite an ordinary thing for them to declare dividends of from 100 to 150 per cent.

When the Navy Estimates came up for discussion on May 7 the Government was pressed from various quarters to institute an inquiry into the best and most economical way of adapting the dockyards to existing naval needs. A Unionist member, Commander Burney, impressed on the Government the necessity of making preparations in case Mr. MacDonald's disarmament gesture did not obtain the success which it deserved and which they all desired to see. Chatham was particularly instanced as a place which, owing to its exposed position and the development of modern offensive weapons, had become unsuitable as a naval dockyard. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty took occasion in reply to state that the resolutions passed by the United States Senate in regard to a further conference to consider the question of a reduction of armaments had been noted with very great friendliness and pleasure by the Government, which would do all it could to show a reciprocal desire to enter into negotiations or discussions, no matter by whom they were started. He promised that the point raised by Commander Burney should be carefully considered, but he gave no undertaking to institute an inquiry.

On May 7 an anti-Zionist Peer, Lord Raglan, raised the question of the administration of Palestine in the House of Lords, asking the Government whether they were aware that the Emir Abdulla's rule in Transjordan was tyrannical and unpopular, and whether it was their policy to reconcile the people of Palestine to Zionist tyranny by establishing a worse tyranny in Transjordan under the Emir Abdulla. Lord Arnold, the Under-Secretary for the Colonies, protested against the

insinuation conveyed in the words "Zionist tyranny," and paid a tribute to the fairness and impartiality of the High Commissioner, Sir Herbert Samuel. He intimated that the Government would continue the policy of their predecessors towards the country. With regard to Transjordan he was not prepared to say that the present state of affairs could be regarded with unmixed satisfaction, or that there was no room for improvement, but the Government were fully alive to their responsibilities in mandated territories, and would do their utmost to place matters on a satisfactory footing.

On May 5 the Eviction Bill which the Government had taken over from a Liberal member passed its third reading, and tenants were in consequence able to breathe more freely. But a measure for dealing with the problem of providing housing accommodation for the poorer classes seemed as far off as ever. Mr. Wheatley was still interviewing members of the building trades, but no tangible result of the negotiations was yet in sight. The continued failure of the Government to produce any concrete plans for dealing either with this problem or with that of unemployment was causing serious perturbation to the rank and file of its supporters. At a meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party on May 7, Mr. Shaw was pressed to reveal his plans, but could only repeat his dictum that "remedies for unemployment could not be produced like rabbits out of a hat; there was little hope of doing anything until the Government acquired a freer hand for dealing with private property.

More resourceful than his colleague, Mr. Wheatley immediately afterwards made definite progress in the elaboration of his housing scheme. On May 8 and 9 he received in conference representatives of the local authorities of Great Britain, and obtained their assent to a number of proposals, the chief of which was that the Government would provide a subsidy of 91. per house for forty years on the understanding that the local authorities would provide a further subsidy of 41. 10s. per house for forty years, the rents to be, as far as possible, equivalent to those now prevailing in each locality for working-class houses built before the war. Having already come to an agreement with the building trade, he was able to express the hope that he would propose a Housing Bill to Parliament before Whitsuntide. On the allied subject of rent restriction the Government made no promises. On May 14 Parliament decided to proceed no further with the Rent Restrictions Bill which had been introduced by a Labour member some months earlier with the Government's blessing, and which was still being held up in the Standing Committee by the shameless obstruction of the Conservative members. The Conservatives defended their conduct on the ground that the Government ought to define its attitude towards the Bill, and had no right to shirk responsibility in such a matter.

The Court of Inquiry concerning miners' wages which had