Woman Suffrage Throughout The World
(North American Review, September, 1907)._
Dr. Tekla Hulsin, referred to above, now a woman member of the
Finnish Diet, speaking at a suffragist meeting in London, in
September, 1909, gave the following account of the action of
the women members of that body:
"The granting of woman suffrage had caused no change in the
strength of the respective political parties. Every citizen in
Finland who was entitled to vote was also eligible for
membership of the Diet. There had been no rivalry between the
men and women candidates; they recognized that they were there
for common ends. The women members of the Diet had followed
their parties on party questions, but had joined on women’s
questions for humanitarian ends. They had presented petitions
for the raising of the marriageable age from 15 to 17, the
exemption of women from their husband’s guardianship, the
reception of Government employment on the same grounds as men,
and on the subject of the prevention of cruelty to children
and animals. These had all been accepted by the Diet."
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE:
International Council of Women.
See (in this Volume)
WOMEN, INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL.
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE:
International Woman Suffrage Alliance.
"Since the Conference held at Copenhagen in August of 1906,
which closed with thirteen countries in membership, the
Alliance has been growing till its influence is felt as far as
South Africa. On the first day of the Conference, held in
Amsterdam June 15, 1907, there was presented an application
from the Woman Suffrage Associations of Natal and Cape Colony
for auxiliaryship in the Alliance. … The second request for
auxiliaryship was presented by Switzerland, which had formed a
National committee of seven Cantonal Associations. … The third
new member, and the last one to enter the Alliance, was the
National Bulgarian Alliance for Women’s Rights. This body is
composed of thirty local societies working in different lines,
and is somewhat like our Federation of Women’s Clubs here, or
a National Council of Women. … The full membership roll of the
Alliance now includes Australia, Bulgaria, Canada, Denmark,
Finland, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, Italy, the
Netherlands, Norway, Russia, Sweden, United States, South
Africa and Switzerland. Perhaps the most important new
departure at Amsterdam was the fact that official
representatives were sent to that meeting by the Australian
Federation, Norway and the State of Utah. Those coming from
Australia and Norway were not only delegated by the Government
but their expenses were borne by the National Treasury, and
they were sent as students of the whole question as
represented internationally by the Alliance, and expected to
report upon it to their respective governments. … Fraternal
delegates came to the Alliance from the International Council
of Women, and from the National Councils of Belgium, Denmark,
France, Germany, Great Britain, the Netherlands, New Zealand,
Norway and Sweden; and in addition to these fraternal
delegates were sent by seventeen associations from the
countries already mentioned and Scotland in addition; making
in all twenty-one countries represented either by regular
delegates or by fraternal delegates at the Amsterdam
conference."
_Proceedings of the 40th Annual Convention of the
National American Woman Suffrage Association, at Buffalo,
New York, October, 1908._
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: New Zealand:
Its working in that country.
Sir Joseph George Ward, Prime Minister of New Zealand,
returning home from England in August, 1908, passed through
the United States, and was questioned in New York about the
working of woman suffrage in his country, where women have
been voters for the last sixteen years. He declared his
conviction that New Zealand had found it to be one of the most
far-sighted policies ever put into effect, for the ballot in
the hands of women had exercised a great influence for the
general good. "A stranger coming to New Zealand," he said,
"would not recognize any difference between our institutions
and those here, so far as the right of women to vote is
concerned. He would see no women politicians, no campaign
orators of the other sex, no disturbances such as are so often
pictured as one of the attendant ills of woman’s suffrage.
{228}
"Under our laws women cannot stand for Parliament, nor hold
any other office. They do not mix it up in a campaign. You
never hear of them in this way during an election. They attend
public meetings, they are present at all of the public
ceremonies, and are unusually well-informed upon all public
questions. When they vote they vote intelligently, and any
woman over twenty-one years of age and a citizen of the
country can vote. Her right to vote does not, as many imagine,
cause family dissensions, nor family wrangles such as
cartoonists picture. There are no more differences over
politics in New Zealand families than there are over domestic
problems in the United States. The ballot in the hands of the
women, so far as I have observed, means only the healthy
influence of the home injected into politics. Our law
prohibits the solicitation of votes on election day; the
placarding of streets and houses, the use of vehicles to carry
voters, the exerting of any influence to obtain a vote. A wife
may accompany her husband to the polls, to the door of the
booth, but no further. The laws absolutely protect the privacy
of the ballot.
"In New Zealand the granting of the privilege of voting to
women did not result in the levelling of the wage scale, or
the competition between men and women in labor. In comparison
with other countries the proportion of wage-earning women in
New Zealand is small. She has her place to fill in the home,
and there are no truer and more devoted mothers of families in
the world. I believe that her influence upon man is all the
greater and better by reason of her suffrage. She recognizes
the position of man as the head of the household, and he is,
generally speaking, always the wage-earner, and I firmly
believe that if women could under our laws be elected to
office and have a part in the making of laws, they would not
seek legislation that would tend to further advance themselves
and limit the activity of the men.
"Women’s suffrage has surely resulted in the raising of the
standard of education in our country. The class of ignorant
people is very small, and growing smaller and smaller with
each succeeding generation. … The country has not been without
its political and labor demagogues, but the conservative
judgment of the voters has always prevailed in the end. Graft
is something unknown in New Zealand."
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE:
The Increasing Vote of Women at local option polls and
in general elections.
See (in this Volume)
ALCOHOL PROBLEM: NEW ZEALAND.
----------ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: End--------
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE.
See, (in this Volume)
MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT.
ELECTRICITY.
See (in this Volume and in Volume VI.)
SCIENCE AND INVENTION, RECENT.
ELECTRO-CHEMISTRY.
See (in this Volume)
SCIENCE AND INVENTION: ELECTRO-CHEMISTRY.
ELECTRONS.
See (in this Volume)
SCIENCE AND INVENTION, RECENT: PHYSICAL.
ELEVATOR COMBINATION, Dissolution of the.
See (in this Volume)
COMBINATIONS, INDUSTRIAL: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1901-1906.
ELGIN, The Earl of:
Secretary of State for the Colonies (British).
See (in this Volume)
ENGLAND: A. D. 1905-1906.
ELGIN, The Earl of:
Presiding at Imperial Conference.
See (in this Volume)
BRITISH EMPIRE: A. D. 1907.
ELIOT, Charles W.:
Retirement from Presidency of Harvard University.
See (in this Volume)
EDUCATION: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1901-1909.
ELKINS, Anti-Rebate Law.
See (in this Volume)
RAILWAYS: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1903 (February).
ELKINS CLAUSE, The.
See (in this Volume)
RAILWAYS: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1906-1909.
EMERGENCY CURRENCY ACT.
See (in this Volume)
FINANCE AND TRADE: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1908.
EMERY CLAIM, The.
See (in this Volume)
CENTRAL AMERICA: A. D. 1909: NICARAGUA.
EMIGRATION.
See (in this Volume)
IMMIGRATION; also
RACE PROBLEMS.
EMPIRE DAY.
See (in this Volume)
ENGLAND: A. D. 1903 (MAY).
EMPLOYERS’ LIABILITY.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR PROTECTION.
ENCYCLICALS.
See Papacy.
ENDJUMEN FUTUVAT, The:
An anti-parliamentary party.
See (in this Volume)
PERSIA: A. D. 1906-1907.
----------ENGLAND: Start--------
[Footnote: For convenience of use in the many references to
this heading throughout the Volume, the name of England is
made to stand for The United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Ireland,—a stretch of meaning which seems often permissible.]
ENGLAND: A. D. 1870-1905.
Increase of Population compared with other European Countries.
See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1870-1905.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1900.
Comparative Statement of the Consumption of Alcoholic Drink.
See (in this Volume)
ALCOHOL PROBLEM.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1901.
Census of the British Empire compiled.
See (in this Volume)
BRITISH EMPIRE.
{229}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1901.
Census of England and Wales, and of the United Kingdom.
Population.
Relative numbers of males and females.
Agricultural industry.
Extent of various uses of the soil.
The different kinds of areas.
The eleventh Census of the population of England and Wales was
taken April 1st, 1901, "ascertaining the required information
relating to the persons returned as living at midnight on
Sunday, March 31st." The number enumerated in England and
Wales, as finally revised at the Census Office, was
35,527,843; showing an increase of 3,525,318, or a decennial
rate of increase of 12.17 percent, upon the number returned at
the preceding enumeration in April, 1891. Of the persons
enumerated in England and Wales in 1901, 15,728,613 were males
and 16,799,230 were females, the latter exceeding the former
by 1,070,617. This, however, does not represent the relative
numbers of the two sexes that _belong_ to the population
of the country; "for there are always men temporarily absent
abroad as soldiers or seamen or for business purposes"; while,
on the other hand, "the enumerated population temporarily
includes some soldiers and sailors who were born in Scotland
and Ireland, as well as foreign sailors and business
representatives." Making reckonings for these, "the population
_belonging_ to England and Wales at the date of the
Census may be estimated at 32,805,040 persons, of whom
16,005,810 were males, and 16,799,230 were females." During
the ten years prior to 1901 the recorded male births in
England exceeded the female births by 160,987, while the
recorded deaths of males exceeded the deaths of females by
155,363. This would have about evened their numbers in the
population of 1901; hence the existing excess of females is
due, in the main, to the more extensive emigration or
temporary absence of males.
Of the population of England and Wales less than 4 per cent.
was born outside of those two divisions of the United Kingdom;
not quite 1 per cent. was born in Scotland; a little more than
1.3 per cent. was born in Ireland; a trifle more than 1 per
cent. in foreign countries, and an insignificant fraction in
British colonies and dependencies. England, it will be seen,
is troubled very slightly with problems arising from a mixed
population.
The Census of Scotland and Ireland, taken simultaneously with
that of England and Wales, gave the former a population of
4,472,103, and the latter 4,458,775. Scotland had gained
46,456 since 1891; Ireland had lost in the same period
245,975. In the sixty years since 1841 Ireland had lost more
than 3,700,000. The total of population in the United Kingdom,
at midnight, March 31, 1901, was found to be 41,458,721; and
the females exceeded the males in number by 1,253,905. The
excess was least in Ireland.
Judged by the numbers engaged therein, the Agricultural
Industry is still the most important in the United Kingdom;
but, since 1881, it had been reduced from 2,362,331 males to
2,109,812 in 1901. The decline was far less in Ireland than in
England, Scotland, or Wales. In England and Wales, the whole
area of land, amounting to 37,129,162 acres, or 58,014 square
miles, is divided by the census report into areas as follows:
Acres.
Corn Crops 5,886,052
Green Crops 2,511,744
Clover and grasses under rotation 3,262,926
Flax, Hops, Small Fruit 120,683
Bare Fallow 336,884
Permanent Pasture or Grass 15,399,025
Mountain and Heath Land used for Grazing 3,556,636
Woods, Plantations, Nursery Grounds,
Houses, Streets, Roads, Railways,
Waste Grounds, &c. 6,055,212
Total Land Area of England and Wales. 37,129,162
The enumeration of "different kinds of areas," in England and
Wales, as set forth in the Census report, is interesting in
some particulars—such as these:
54 Ancient Counties;
62 Administrative Counties;
468 Parliamentary Areas;
2 Ecclesiastical Provinces;
35 Ecclesiastical Dioceses;
14,080 Ecclesiastical Parishes;
14,900 Civil Parishes;
67 County Boroughs;
28 Metropolitan Boroughs with their Wards;
54 County Court Circuits;
500 County Court Districts;
1122 Urban Districts
(including 316 County or Municipal Boroughs) with the
Wards of those which are so subdivided;
664 Rural Districts.
_Census of England and Wales, 1901.
General Report.
(Parliamentary Papers, 1904, Cd. 2174.)_
ENGLAND: A. D. 1901 (NOVEMBER).
An addition to the Titles of the King.
The following is part of the proclamation of an addition to
the titles of the King which was made on the 4th of November,
1901:
"Whereas an act was passed in the last session of Parliament,
entitled ‘An act to enable His Most Gracious Majesty to make
an addition to the royal style and titles in recognition of
His Majesty’s dominions beyond the seas,’ which act enacts
that it shall be lawful for us, with a view to such
recognition as aforesaid of our dominions beyond the seas, by
our royal proclamation under the great seal of the United
Kingdom issued within six months after the passing of the said
act, to make such addition to the style and titles at present
appertaining to the Imperial Crown of the United Kingdom and
its dependencies as to us may seem fit; and
"Whereas our present style and titles are, in the Latin
tongue, ‘Edwardus VII Dei Gratia Britanniarum Rex, Fidei
Defensor, Indiæ Imperator,’ and in the English tongue, ‘Edward
VII, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Ireland King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of
India,’ we have thought fit, by and with the advice of our
privy council, to appoint and declare, and we do hereby, by
and with the said advice, appoint and declare that henceforth,
so far as conveniently may be, on all occasions and in all
instruments wherein our style and titles are used, the
following addition shall be made to the style and titles at
present appertaining to the Imperial Crown of the United
Kingdom and its dependencies—that is to say, in the Latin
tongue, after the word ‘Britanniarum,’ these words, ‘et
terrarum transmarinarum quœ inditione sunt Britannicâ’; and in
the English tongue, after the words ‘of the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Ireland,’ these words, 'and of the British
Dominions beyond the Seas.’"
ENGLAND: A. D. 1901-1902.
The last year of the Boer-British War.
Peace preliminaries.
Text of the Treaty concluded.
See (in this Volume)
SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1901-1902.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1901-1902 (NOVEMBER-FEBRUARY).
Treaty with the United States to facilitate the construction
of a Ship Canal between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.
See PANAMA CANAL: A. D. 1901-1902.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1902.
Arbitration and mediation between the Argentine Republic and
Chile.
See (in this Volume)
ARGENTINE REPUBLIC.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1902 (JANUARY).
Agreement in the nature of a Defensive Alliance with Japan.
See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1902.
{230}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1902 (FEBRUARY).
Wei-hai-wei found valueless.
Fortification abandoned.
The British public was unpleasantly surprised on the 11th of
February, 1902, by an official announcement in Parliament that
the fortifying of the port of Wei-hai-wei, on the Chinese
coast (extorted from China in 1898 as an offset to the cession
of Port Arthur to Russia, had been abandoned, for the reason
that military and naval opinion agreed in concluding that the
place had no strategic value.
See, in Volume VI. of this work,
CHINA: A. D. 1898, MARCH-JULY).
It would not be returned to China, however, having usefulness
for experiments in naval gunnery, and as a sanitarium. The
announcement drew much sarcasm on the Government.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1902 (February).
Opposed deliverances of Lord Rosebery and
Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman on Irish Home Rule.
See (in this Volume)
IRELAND: A. D. 1902 (FEBRUARY).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1902 (MARCH-NOVEMBER).
Passage of the Education Act, in the interest of voluntary or
church schools.
"Passive Resistance" of Nonconformists.
See (in this Volume)
EDUCATION: ENGLAND: A. D. 1902.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1902 (MAY).
Treaty with Abyssinia.
See ABYSSINIA: A. D. 1902.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1902 (JUNE-AUGUST).
Illness and deferred Coronation of King Edward VII.
While England was preparing, in the last half of June, 1902,
for the great ceremony of the Coronation of King Edward VII.,
appointed to take place on the 26th, disquieting accounts of
his Majesty’s health began to appear. Some exposure at
Aldershot, during military reviews, had brought on a chill, it
was said; and though it was made light of in the reports,
there was anxiety abroad. The King and Queen came to London
from Windsor on the 23d, and all seemed to promise well. That
evening he attended a State banquet; but a little before noon
the next morning the nation received a dreadful shock from the
announcement: "The King is suffering from perityphlitis [more
familiarly known as appendicitis]. The condition on Saturday
was so satisfactory that it was hoped that, with care, his
Majesty would be able to go through the Coronation ceremonies.
On Monday evening a recrudescence became manifest, rendering a
surgical operation necessary to-day." A serious disappointment
as well as a grave anxiety was produced. Preparations for the
pageant and the solemnities of the Coronation had been made on
a splendid scale. London was crowded with visitors from all
parts of the world, and specially decorated as never before.
The sudden descent of grief and fear and gloom on the gayeties
of the scene was a transformation which London and England can
never forget.
Within three hours from the first startling report the success
of the operation was made known. The King had borne it well
and was in a satisfactory state. From that time on there were
none but good reports. On the 5th of July he was declared to
be out of danger. On the 15th he was removed to the royal
yacht _Victoria and Albert_ and taken to Cowes. At the
end of seven weeks he had recovered so fully as to be able to
bear the fatigues and the strain of a trying ceremony, and the
King and Queen were crowned in Westminster Abbey on the 9th of
August, with somewhat less of magnificent public show than had
been prepared for the 26th of June, but nevertheless with
regal pomp.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1902 (June-August).
Conference with the Prime Ministers of the Self-Governing
Colonies.
See (in this Volume)
BRITISH EMPIRE.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1902 (July).
Resignation of Lord Salisbury.
Mr. Balfour’s succession to the Premiership.
The new Ministry.
Failing health compelled the Marquis of Salisbury to ask, on
the 11th of July, for relief from the cares of the office of
Prime Minister. His resignation was accepted, and Mr. Arthur
J. Balfour, First Lord of the Treasury in Lord Salisbury’s
Ministry, was invited by the King to the vacant place. Some
changes in the Cabinet followed, Sir Michael Hicks-Beach
retiring from the Chancellorship of the Exchequer, and being
succeeded by Mr. C. T. Ritchie; Mr. A. Akers-Douglas entering
the Cabinet as Home Secretary; Mr. G. Wyndham continuing in
the office of Chief Secretary for Ireland, but coming into the
Cabinet; Mr. Austen Chamberlain, son of the Right Honorable
Joseph Chamberlain, also receiving a Cabinet seat as
Postmaster-General.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1902 (August).
Passage of Licensing Bill.
See (in this Volume)
ALCOHOL PROBLEM: ENGLAND: A. D. 1902.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1902 (September).
Arrangements of the Government with the Cunard Company and
the International Mercantile Marine Company.
See (in this Volume)
COMBINATIONS, INDUSTRIAL: INTERNATIONAL.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1902-1904.
Coercive proceedings against Venezuela concerted with Germany
and Italy.
Settlement of Claims secured.
Reference to The Hague.
See (in this Volume)
VENEZUELA: A. D. 1902-1904.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1902-1904.
The Mission of Colonel Younghusband to Tibet.
Its advance in force to Lhasa.
The Treaty secured.
See (in this Volume)
TIBET: A. D. 1902-1904.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1903.
Passage of the Land Purchase Act for Ireland.
See (in this Volume)
IRELAND: A. D. 1870-1903.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1903.
Declines to be a party to the building of the Bagdad Railway.
See (in this Volume)
RAILWAYS; TURKEY: A. D. 1899-1909.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1903 (March).
Debate in Parliament on the South African Labor Question.
See (in this Volume)
SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1903-1904.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1903 (March).
Passage of the Employment of Children Bill.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR PROTECTION.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1903 (June).
The Celebration of Empire Day.
A Canadian custom of celebrating Queen Victoria’s birthday,
June 24, as Empire Day, was taken up in Great Britain in 1903,
and "the movement," says the London _Times_, "has spread
with striking rapidity." The day is made especially
interesting in the schools, where the morning of the day is
given to addresses on citizenship and the Empire and to the
singing of patriotic songs, while the afternoon is a
half-holiday.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1903 (May-September).
Mr. Chamberlain’s declaration for Preferential Trade with
the British Colonies.
The political commotion excited.
Mr. Balfour’s puzzling attitude on the questions raised.
It is made clear by the correspondence when Mr. Chamberlain
resigns.
The latter’s propagandism.
In June, 1902, when, as Secretary of State for the Colonies,
Mr. Joseph Chamberlain addressed the Conference of Prime
Ministers from the self-governing British Colonies, his mind
was manifestly not prepared to accept as a practicable
proposition their request that the United Kingdom would grant
"preferential treatment to the products and manufactures of
the Colonies."
See (in this Volume)
BRITISH EMPIRE: A. D. 1902)
{231}
"Preferential treatment" meant an Imperial protective-tariff
policy, with discrimination of duties in favor of imports from
British colonies. As the products of the colonies were mostly
food stuffs and raw materials for manufacture, it meant a
taxing of the supplies of these to British tables and British
industries from every source outside the colonies. It meant an
artificial higher pricing in the market of the British Isles
for everything in which cost bears hardest on the livelihood
and the living of their people. Mr. Chamberlain, in 1902, was
waxing ardent in the high mission he had undertaken, of
unifying and consolidating the great British Empire,
strengthening the ties of family between Mother England and
her scattered brood; but he had not yet been persuaded that
the mother could afford to expend quite so much as this of her
own well-being on premiums for the allegiance of her
offspring.
In the course of the next year, however, the Colonial
Secretary spent some weeks in South Africa, and seems to have
been remarkably intensified in his imperializing aims by what
he saw and learned. He came home filled with the conviction
that England must, for the sake of a really unified and
incorporated Empire, abandon the free opening of her markets,
which gave her people the cheapest food and the cheapest
materials for labor that the world at large could furnish, and
must wall them and gate them, with differing keys to the
locks, so that her own colonists might be given the
"preferential" admission they claim. If he had arrived at that
conviction before going to South Africa he had made no sign of
it; but it was proclaimed soon after his return, in a speech
to his constituents at Birmingham, on the 15th of May, which
shook England as no sudden development in politics had done
for many years. The time had come, he declared, when the
country must decide for or against a deliberate policy of
Imperial unification, which required it to reciprocate the
preferential tariffs which the colonies had adopted or were
offering to adopt. Canada had given Great Britain a preference
in her tariff, first of 25 per cent., afterwards increased to
33 1/3 per cent., and was ready to go farther if the British
Government would reciprocate, in allowing a drawback on the
shilling corn duty (a duty which had been levied for a year
past, and was about to be removed). At the Colonial Conference
of the previous year the representatives of Australia and New
Zealand had expressed readiness to act on the same line. A
recent conference of the British colonies in South Africa had
recommended the Legislatures of those colonies to give the
Mother Country a similar preference on all dutiable goods of
25 per cent. Whether this policy of the colonies should be
developed in the future or withdrawn depended now on the
treatment given to it by the people of Great Britain.
"The people of the Empire," continued Mr. Chamberlain, "have
two alternatives before them. They may maintain if they like
in all its severity the interpretation—in my mind an entirely
artificial and wrong interpretation—which has been placed on
the doctrines of Free Trade by a small remnant of the Little
Englanders, of the Manchester school, who now profess to be
the sole repositories of the doctrines of Mr. Cobden and Mr.
Bright. They may maintain that policy in all its severity,
though it is repudiated by every other nation and by all your
own Colonies. In that case they will be absolutely precluded
either from giving any kind of preference or favour to any of
their Colonies abroad, or even protecting their Colonies
abroad when they offer to favour us. That is the first
alternative. The second alternative is that we should insist
that we will not be bound by any purely technical definition
of Free Trade, that, while we seek as one chief object free
interchange of trade and commerce between ourselves and all
the nations of the world, we will, nevertheless, recover our
freedom, resume that power of negotiation and, if necessary,
retaliation whenever our own interests or our relation between
our Colonies and ourselves are threatened by other people.
"I leave the matter," said Mr. Chamberlain, "in your hands. I
desire that a discussion on this subject should be opened. The
time has not yet come to settle it, but it seems to me that
for good or for evil this is an issue much greater in its
consequences than any of our local disputes. Make a mistake in
legislation. Yet it can be corrected. Make a mistake in your
Imperial policy. It is irretrievable. You have an opportunity;
you will never have it again."
Naturally this speech, from a Minister of the Crown, as
important and influential in the Government and in his party
as Mr. Chamberlain, caused an immense political commotion. It
had suddenly injected a new issue into the politics of the
United Kingdom, involving some reconstruction of the party in
possession of power, and a fundamental readjustment of
principles in some part of it, more or less, according to the
following that Mr. Chamberlain secured. Would he leave the
Ministry or the Ministry leave him?—was the question of the
hour. It remained unanswered for three months or more, while
controversy over the propositions of Mr. Chamberlain raged and
the situation became more puzzling every day. Meantime the
head of the Government, Mr. Balfour, was acting like a
faithful adherent to the English principle of freedom in
trade, by advocating a repeal of the incongruous corn duty
levied the year before, but speaking, at the same time, like a
man of open mind on the question of preferential trade,
treating it as one that demanded careful thought. "If foreign
countries," he said, "should take the view that our
self-governing colonies could be treated as separate nations
we must resist their policy by fiscal retaliation. There must
be a weapon to our hands with which to meet those who might
attempt to disintegrate the Empire by fiscal means. The
question whether we should be justified in raising revenue
with the object of drawing the different portions of the
Empire more closely together was certainly well worth
consideration."
All that he said in these months conveyed the impression that
he was in an undetermined, waiting state of mind on the
question raised by Mr. Chamberlain, not yet convinced that his
colleague should be supported in the new policy proposed, but
quite likely to be. That, however, was not the attitude in
which he could hold the two coalesced parties, Conservative
and Liberal Union, that were behind him in the Government. The
issue had instant activity there, dividing both. The Premier
could suppress debate on it in Parliament, as he did, but
everywhere else in the kingdom the rage of controversy
gathered heat, and party lines on the side of the Government
were rapidly confused. Two members of the Cabinet resigned,
while Mr. Chamberlain kept his place in it until the 9th of
September, when he addressed to Mr. Balfour a letter which
offered his resignation, for reasons stated as follows:
{232}
"Owing to admitted differences of opinion in the Unionist
party the political organisations of the party were paralysed
and our opponents have had full possession of the field. … I
recognise that serious prejudice has been created, and that,
while the people generally are alive to the danger of
unrestricted competition on the part of those foreign
countries that close their markets to us while finding in our
market an outlet for their surplus production, they have not
yet appreciated the importance to our trade of Colonial
markets, nor the danger of losing them if we do not meet in
some way their natural and patriotic desire for preferential
trade.
"The result is that, for the present at any rate, a
preferential agreement with our Colonies involving any new
duty, however small, on articles of food hitherto untaxed is,
even if accompanied by a reduction of taxation on other
articles of food of equally universal consumption,
unacceptable to the majority in the constituencies. …
"I suggest that you should limit the present policy of the
Government to the assertion of our freedom in the case of all
commercial relations with foreign countries, and that you
should agree to my tendering my resignation of my present
office to his Majesty and devoting myself to the work of
explaining and popularising those principles of Imperial union
which my experience has convinced me are essential to our
future welfare and prosperity."
Mr. Balfour’s reply to this, when published, disclosed the
fact that he was wholly in agreement with Mr. Chamberlain, and
that they were now parting company in order to pursue a common
purpose more effectually on different lines. Both saw that
England was not to be drawn easily away from its fundamental
belief in freedom of trade; that what they had undertaken
would require much persuasive labor and considerable time, if
accomplished at all; wherefore Mr. Chamberlain accepted an
assignment to the missionary field of the imperialist cause,
while Mr. Balfour would continue his endeavor to hold a party
in waiting for the fruits of the mission, and in possession of
the government as long as circumstances might permit. The
programme was disclosed frankly in the two letters. In that of
Mr. Balfour he said:
"Agreeing as I do with you that the time has come when a
change should be made in the fiscal canons by which we have
bound ourselves in our commercial dealings with other
Governments, it seems paradoxical, indeed, that you should
leave the Cabinet at the time that others of my colleagues are
leaving it who disagree on that very point with us both. Yet I
can not but admit, however reluctantly, that there is some
force in the arguments with which you support that course,
based as they are upon your special and personal relation to
that portion of the controversy which deals with Colonial
preference. You have done more than any man, living or dead,
to bring home to the citizens of the Empire the consciousness
of Imperial obligation, and the interdependence between the
various fragments into which the Empire is geographically
divided. I believe you to be right in holding that this
interdependence should find expression in our commercial
relations as well as in our political and military relations.
I believe with you that closer fiscal union between the Mother
Country and her Colonies would be good for the trade of both,
and that, if much closer union could be established on fitting
terms, its advantage to both parties would increase as the
years went on and as the Colonies grew in wealth and
population.
"If there ever has been any difference between us in
connection with this matter it has only been with regard to
the practicability of a proposal which would seem to require,
on the part of the Colonies, a limitation in the all-round
development of a protective policy, and on the part of this
country the establishment of a preference in favour of
important Colonial products. On the first of these
requirements I say nothing, but if the second involves, as it
almost certainly does, taxation, however light, upon food
stuffs, I am convinced with you that public opinion is not yet
ripe for such an arrangement. …
"I feel, however, deeply concerned that you should regard this
conclusion, however well founded, as one which makes it
difficult for you, in your very special circumstances, to
remain a member of the Government. Yet I do not venture, in a
matter so strictly personal, to raise any objection.
"If you think you can best serve the interests of Imperial
unity, for which you have done so much, by pressing your views
on Colonial preference with the freedom which is possible in
an independent position, but is hardly compatible with office,
how can I criticise your determination? The loss to the
Government is great, but the gain to the cause you have at
heart may be greater still. If so, what can I do but
acquiesce?"
So Mr. Chamberlain left the Cabinet, with Mr. Balfour’s
blessing and God-speed, and went out to preach the gospel of
commercial imperialism, under the more carefully chosen name
of "fiscal reform." His co-laborer, who stayed at the helm of
State, was so favored by circumstances as to hold it for
somewhat more than another year. But the propagandism made no
satisfying progress in that year; it seems doubtful, indeed,
if Mr. Chamberlain won as many disciples as he lost from his
first following.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1903 (August).
Employment of Children Act.
See (in this Volume)
CHILDREN, UNDER THE LAW: AS WORKERS.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1903 (August).
Communication to the Powers that were parties to the Berlin
Act of 1884-1885, asking their attention to the Administration
of the Congo State.
See (in this Volume)
CONGO STATE: A. D. 1903-1905.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1903 (October).
Settlement of the Alaska boundary question.
See (in this Volume)
ALASKA: A. D. 1903.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1903-1904.
Canadian measures to establish British sovereignty over land
and sea of Hudson Bay region.
See (in this Volume)
CANADA: A. D. 1903-1904.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1904.
Arbitration of boundary dispute between British Guiana
and Brazil.
See (in this Volume)
BRAZIL: A. D. 1904.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1904.
Her rivals in the Persian Gulf.
See PERSIA: A. D. 1904.
{233}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1904 (April).
The agreements of the Entente Cordiale with France.
See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1904 (APRIL).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1904 (April-August).
Agitation over the Licensing Bill, which passed Parliament
after much bitter debate.
See (in this Volume)
ALCOHOL PROBLEM: ENGLAND: A. D. 1904.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1904 (July).
The question of Church Attendance in school hours.
See (in this Volume)
EDUCATION: ENGLAND: A. D. 1904.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1904 (October).
The Dogger Bank incident of the voyage of the
Russian Baltic Fleet.
See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1904-1905 (OCTOBER-MAY).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1904-1905.
The Esher Army Commission and its Report.
See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: MILITARY.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1905.
Reopened controversy with the United States over Newfoundland
Fisheries questions.
See (in this Volume)
NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1905-1909.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1905.
Action with other Powers in forcing financial reforms in
Macedonia on Turkey.
See (in this Volume)
TURKEY: A. D. 1905-1908.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1905.
Unemployed Workmen Act.
See (in this Volume)
POVERTY, PROBLEMS OF: ENGLAND: A. D. 1905.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1905 (March).
Partially Representative Legislative Assembly created in
the Transvaal.
See (in this Volume)
SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1905-1907.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1905 (April).
Order relating to Underfed School Children.
See (in this Volume)
EDUCATION: ENGLAND: A. D. 1905.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1905 (April).
Treaty with Nicaragua concerning the Mosquito Territory.
See (in this Volume)
CENTRAL AMERICA: NICARAGUA: A. D. 1905.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1905 (June).
Change in the office of Speaker of the House of Commons.
After a service of more than ten years in the speaker’s chair
of the House of Commons, Mr. W. C. Gully resigned, on account
of failing health, and the Deputy Speaker, Mr. J. W. Lowther,
was chosen in his place, with no dissent. Subsequently, Mr.
Gully was raised to the peerage and received an annual grant
of £5000 for life.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1905 (June).
Frauds in the sale of surplus army stores in South Africa.
An exciting scandal, connected with the sale of surplus army
stores, in South Africa, after the closing of the Boer War,
came to light in June. It was found that stores had been sold
to certain contractors at very low prices, and then
repurchased at high figures under new contracts entered into
with the same contractors. Several army officers, including
two colonels, were implicated in what the investigating
committee described mildly as "a cleverly arranged
contrivance."
ENGLAND: A. D. 1905 (August).
New Defensive Agreement with Japan.
See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1905 (AUGUST).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1905 (August).
Resignation of the Viceroyalty of India by Lord Curzon.
See (in this Volume)
INDIA: A. D. 1905 (AUGUST).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1905-1906.
Resignation of the Balfour Ministry.
The Liberal Party in power.
Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman Prime Minister.
His Cabinet.
His attitude toward Ireland.
Strength of the Labor Party in Parliament.
Its representative in the Cabinet.
The Education Act of 1902, the apostasy of Mr. Chamberlain and
his Conservative Unionist followers from British Free Trade
principles, proclaimed in 1903, and the Licensing Act of 1904,
had each, in turn, been productive of bitter disagreements and
ruptures which rapidly lowered the strength of the party in
power. It had been in control of the Government since 1895,
when its opposition to Irish Home Rule was endorsed by a large
majority. The next election, in 1900, during the war in South
Africa, reinforced its Parliamentary support, and it could
count, during the two years following, on more than 400 votes
in the House of Commons, against about 268. After that period
its Parliamentary majority in the popular chamber ran down,
until, in the later months of 1905, it was no more than 75 or
76. This would have been an ample majority if it had
represented an equivalent preponderance of public support,
which, manifestly, it did not. For three years the
"by-elections,"—that is, the special elections ordered for
filling vacancies in the House as they occurred,—had been
going steadily against the Government, and nobody doubted that
a general election would throw it out. It was challenged again
and again to give the country an opportunity to express its
feeling in the matter, by a dissolution of Parliament, without
waiting for any nearer approach to the end of the term. This
it would not do; but, on the 4th of December, 1905, the
Premier, Mr. Balfour, surprised the country, and likewise his
own Cabinet, it was said, by placing his resignation in the
hands of the King.
This proceeding was regarded as an artful manoeuvre in
politics, for the embarrassment of the opposition. As
explained at the time by a journalist who wrote of it on the
side of the latter,—"The Liberals naturally desired that the
country should have an opportunity of going to the polls on
the clear issue raised by the record of ten years of Tory
administration. They regarded Mr. Balfour and his party as
being in the dock, and before they took office they wished to
have the verdict of the country returned by the votes of the
electors. But this, for equally obvious reasons, Mr. Balfour
wished to avoid. By resigning now, he compelled his opponents
to undertake the task, first of forming a new administration,
with all the risks which it involves of personal slight and
sectional differences, and, secondly, of facing the risk of
any untoward incident arising in the next few weeks which
might be used against the new-born government. It also would
enable them to obscure to a certain extent the real issue
before the country. Instead of simply voting for or against
Mr. Balfour and his administration, they would be asked to
express their opinion upon a new ministry, which had not had
any opportunity of giving the country a taste of its quality.
But as Mr. Balfour could not be compelled to stay in when he
had made up his mind to go out, and as it was such a relief to
get rid of him on any terms, the Liberals consented to face
the disadvantages of taking office before the dissolution."
{234}
Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman was invited by the King to form a
Ministry, and accepted the Commission. The organization of his
Cabinet was completed within the week following Mr. Balfour’s
resignation, and it took office at once. Parliament was
dissolved on the 8th of January, 1906, and a new Parliament
was summoned to meet on February 13th. Elections began on the
12th of January and were finished for the most part by the
19th. In their total result, they returned 375 Liberals to the
House of Commons, 55 Labor representatives, who would act on
most questions with the Liberals, and 83 Irish Nationalists,
whose attitude towards the new Ministry would depend upon its
attitude on Irish questions, and seemed more likely to be
friendly than otherwise. Against this array on the side of Sir
Henry and his colleagues, of pledged partisans and conditional
allies, the Conservative Unionists had Secured an Opposition
in the House that numbered only 157. The political overturn
was one of the most remarkable that the United Kingdom has
ever known.
The Cabinet as formed when Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman took
office was made up as follows:
Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury,
Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman.
Lord Chancellor, Sir Robert T. Reid.
Chancellor of the Exchequer,
Herbert H. Asquith.
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs,
Sir Edward Grey.
Secretary of State for the Colonies,
the Earl of Elgin.
Secretary of State for War,
Richard B. Haldane.
Secretary of State for Home Affairs,
Herbert J. Gladstone.
Secretary of State for India,
John Morley.
First Lord of the Admiralty,
Lord Tweedmouth.
President of the Board of Trade,
David Lloyd-George.
President of the Local Government Board,
John Burns.
Chief Secretary for Scotland,
John Sinclair.
President of the Board of Agriculture,
Earl Carrington.
Postmaster-General,
Sydney C. Buxton.
Chief Secretary for Ireland,
James Bryce.
Lord President of the Council,
the Earl of Crewe.
Lord of the Privy Seal,
the Marquis of Ripon.
President of the Board of Education,
Augustine Birrell.
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster,
Sir Henry H. Fowler.
The following were not members of the cabinet, but formed part
of the administration:
Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,
the Earl of Aberdeen.
Under Secretary for the Colonies,
Winston L. Churchill.
First Commissioner of Works,
Louis Vernon-Harcourt.
Attorney-General,
John Lawson Walton.
Solicitor-General,
William S. Robson.
That Lord Rosebery had no place in the new Liberal
administration was due to his wide disagreement with most of
the leaders of his party on the question of Home Rule for
Ireland. When he succeeded Mr. Gladstone as Prime Minister, in
1894, he quite distinctly discarded that line of Irish policy,
and his antagonism to it had undergone no change.
See, in Volume VI. of this work,
ENGLAND: A. D. 1894-1895)
On the other hand, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman had remained
faithfully sympathetic with Mr. Gladstone’s idea of Ireland’s
due from England, and had reannounced his standing on it in a
recent speech. "My opinion," he said, "has long been known to
you. It is that the only way of healing the evils of
Ireland,—difficulties of her administration, of giving
contentment and prosperity to her people, and of making her a
strength instead of a weakness to the empire,—is that the
Irish people should have the management of their own domestic
affairs; and so far from this opinion fading and dwindling as
the years pass, it is becoming stronger, and, what is more, I
have more confidence in its realization. … If I were asked for
advice by an ardent Nationalist, I would say my desire is to
see the effective management of Irish affairs in the hands of
a representative Irish party. … I trust that the opportunity
of making a great advance on this question of Irish government
will not long be delayed, and when that opportunity comes my
firm belief is that a greater measure of agreement than
hitherto as to the ultimate solution will be found possible,
and that a keener appreciation will be felt of the benefits
that will flow to the Irish communities and British people
throughout the world, and that Ireland, from being
disaffected, impoverished, and discouraged, will take its
place as a strong, harmonious, and contented portion of the
empire."
That Sir Henry, maintaining this posture on the Irish question
of questions, could be the accepted leader of the Liberal
party and the Premier of Government, afforded clear evidence
that the party, and the country which confided power to that
party, were at least more nearly prepared to make the great
concession to Ireland than they were to refuse it; but the
question entered slightly into the parliamentary canvass,
though the Conservative-Unionists strove hard to make it the
dominant issue. The public mind was occupied so fully with the
fiscal and educational controversies of the last three years
that the motives in its voting came mostly from them. The
mandates of the vote were understood to be especially for the
amending of recent legislation on those subjects and on the
terms of the licensing of the liquor trade. It was equally
understood that Irish measures in the Gladstone spirit should
be looked for, not hastily undertaken, but in due time.
The fact of most impressive significance in the result of the
parliamentary elections was the sudden weight that had been
given in the House of Commons to the representation of Labor
by laboring men. Since 1903 the Labor Party had emerged in
British politics as a force to be taken into serious account.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR ORGANIZATION: ENGLAND: A. D. 1900-1906; 1903; and
SOCIALISM: ENGLAND.
Of its 55 members in the new Parliament a considerable number
had been elected by a combination of Liberal and Labor votes;
but the same combination went as often to the increase of the
Liberal representation. One large section of the Labor voters,
organized under the name of the Independent Labor Party, stood
aloof from such alliances entirely. It had been formed some
years before, under the lead of Mr. Keir Hardie, a Scottish
miner, with Socialistic beliefs, but opposed to the aims of
the Marxian Socialists, and expecting nothing substantially
beneficial to the working class from any political party. His
mission was to create a Labor Party that would fight its own
battles on its own ground. He made no great headway until the
Taff Vale decision of 1902 roused the British Trade Unions to
fight for their lives. That brought them into the ranks of the
Independent Labor Party, and prepared it for the powerful
showing it made in the elections of January, 1906, when it
polled 303,000 votes, and elected 30 members who are free
lances in the House. The remaining 25 Labor Members act with
these on labor questions, but otherwise are to be reckoned as
allies of the Liberal Party.
{235}
Foremost among these latter is Mr. John Burns, who represents
the Labor Party not only in Parliament but in the Ministry of
Government, being the first of his class to be called to a
Cabinet seat. A London editor who wrote of him when he took
that seat said:
"He has been a working engineer, a strike leader, labor
agitator, a London County Councilor for eighteen years, and
member of Parliament for fourteen. He is a great leader who
never had a party, but whose influence has been felt in every
labor movement in England for the last twenty years. The labor
and social policy of the London County Council has been
largely inspired and directed by him. He has also molded labor
legislation in Parliament. Mr. Burns has ‘scorned delights and
lived laborious days’ for the sake of the workers. He is an
avowed Socialist. He has never changed his principles, only
modified his methods. He is a real Fabian, a skillful
opportunist, a tireless worker, and a first-rate organizer.
Since he became a Socialist who does things, he has been
ostracized by the Socialists who only agitate. Mr. Burns is
exercising great influence within the Cabinet, and is one of
the men in the confidence and in the secrets of the Prime
Minister, who seeks his advice in many matters outside Mr.
Burns’s department."
The same writer gave the following account of the many
important duties and great responsibilities of the office
filled by Mr. Burns, as the President of the Local Government
Board, which supervises the administration of local government
in all England and Wales:
"As President of the Local Government Board, Mr. Burns has
multifarious duties committed to his charge. He has to
sanction local loans, supervise the finances of local
authorities, hold inquiries into proposed new undertakings,
exercise the (almost) legislative powers which Parliament has
delegated to him by way of provisional orders, and is armed
with large powers of initiative, inspection, revision, and
veto, so that in some respects he can revolutionize the whole
system of local administration. In the domain of Poor Law his
authority is paramount. He revises, for example, the rules and
regulations which guide the system of relief and the
administration of the Poor Law, passes plans for new
workhouses, settles the wages of the nurses and porters, and
fixes the amount of snuff (if any) which a pauper may receive.
Sanitary legislation is also under his supervision, as he acts
as Minister of Public Health, and beyond the more strictly
local governmental functions belonging to his department there
is the social side of his work, such as the administration of
the Allotments Acts, the Unemployed Act, inquiring into
housing conditions, etc."
ENGLAND: A. D. 1905-1906.
Sudden German hostility to the Anglo-French agreement
concerning Morocco.
Demand for an International Conference.
The Conference at Algeciras and the Act signed there.
See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1905-1906.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1905-1906.
Pan-Islamic agitation in Egypt.
Menacing attitude of Turkey.
The Tabah incident.
See (in this Volume)
EGYPT: A. D. 1905-1906.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1905-1909.
Action in Persia during the Constitutional Revolution.
See (in this Volume)
Persia.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1905-1909.
The Aliens Act.
A new policy of restriction on the admission of aliens.
Its working.
See (in this Volume)
IMMIGRATION: ENGLAND: A. D. 1905-1909.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1905-1909.
Progress in cooperative organizations of industry.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR REMUNERATION: COOPERATIVE ORGANIZATION.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1906.
Prevention of Corruption Act.
See (in this Volume)
CRIME AND CRIMINOLOGY.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1906 (March).
Report of Royal Commission on Labor Disputes.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR ORGANIZATION: ENGLAND: A. D. 1906 (MARCH).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1906 (April).
Convention for determining and marking the Alaska Boundary Line.
See (in this Volume)
ALASKA: A. D. 1906.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1906 (April-December).
Fate of the Liberal Education Bill, passed by the Commons
and killed by Amendments in the House of Lords.
Resolution of the Commons, contemplating a change of
Constitutional Law respecting the Legislative Powers of the
House of Lords.
The Education Bill was brought forward by the Government in
April and passed by the Commons in December.
See (in this Volume)
EDUCATION: ENGLAND: A. D. 1906
When the bill had been killed by destructive amendments in the
House of Lords, the Prime Minister, Sir Henry
Campbell-Bannerman, proposed to the House of Commons a
resolution, which was adopted, declaring that "the power of
the other house to alter or reject bills passed by this house
should be so restricted by law as to secure that within the
limits of a single Parliament the final decision of the House
of Commons shall prevail." In plainer words, this proposed an
amendment of what has been, since 1832, an unwritten but
understood rule of the British Constitution, namely, that the
House of Lords cannot defeat a measure which has been passed
by the Commons in successive parliaments, and thus certified,
by an intervening election, as being the embodiment of a
popular demand. The proposed amendment is to give the force of
law to a repeated enactment of the House of Commons, even
"within the limits of a single Parliament," and without the
intervention of an election.
The Premier has explained that this resolution is adopted only
to foreshadow action which the Government intends to take at
some convenient future time. So far as indicated by the
Premier’s resolution, he and his colleagues, if they do
anything affecting the peers in Parliament, will not touch the
existing composition of the aristocratic house, but will only
shorten the suspense in which it may hold legislation that is
persisted in by the popular house. As now exercised, the
practical effect of the suspensive veto of the Lords, if not
submitted to by the government, is to bring about what is
actually a referendum of the question at issue to the people.
The proposed constitutional amendment would eliminate the
referendum and empower the Commons to override the opposition
of the Lords.
{236}
The legislative function of the House of Lords would not
differ substantially then from that performed by the President
of the United States. Acts of Congress require the approval of
the President to make them law. His disapproval sends them
back to Congress for reenactment, if two-thirds of both houses
persist in them; annulling them if they do not. The function
is simply a critical one, and involves no exercise of
legislative powers, if the language of our Constitution is
correct; for that instrument, in the first section of its
first article, says: "all legislative powers herein granted
shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which
shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives."
Thus the reference of legislation to the President for his
approval or disapproval is not recognized as a grant to him of
participation in the exercise of legislative powers."
In this view the British House of Lords, when its part in
legislation is reduced, like that of the American President,
to mere criticism, expressed in approval or a suspensive veto,
cannot rightly be regarded as a legislative body, and
Parliament can hardly be counted among the bicameral
legislatures, as we have counted it hitherto. The House of
Commons will hold all the powers of legislation; the House of
Lords will be its official critic, commissioned only to make
it think twice in the enactment of some of its laws.
The King has no voice now in the making of British laws,
although, when his prerogatives are described, it is still
said that "he may refuse the royal assent to any bills." Two
hundred years ago it ceased to be prudent for royalty to
exercise that prerogative, and Queen Anne, in 1707, asserted
it in practice for the last time. The sovereigns of the
reigning House of Hanover have never enjoyed the satisfaction
of refusing assent to an act of Parliament. Even George III.
did not venture it, though he stoutly asserted his right.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1906 (May).
Withdrawal of the last British garrison from Canada.
See (in this Volume)
CANADA: A. D. 1906 (MAY).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1906 (SEPTEMBER).
Army Order instituting the General Staff.
See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: MILITARY.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1906 (December).
Broadened self-government extended to the Transvaal and the
Orange River Colony.
See (in this Volume)
SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1905-1907.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1906 (December).
Passage of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR PROTECTION.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1907.
Drink in its relation to crime.
See (in this Volume)
ALCOHOL PROBLEM: ENGLAND: A. D. 1907.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1907 (August).
Act legalizing Marriage with a Deceased Wife’s Sister.
The following are the main provisions of the Act to legalize
marriage with a deceased wife’s sister which, after many years
of agitation by its advocates and many defeats in Parliament,
was passed finally in 1907:
"1. No marriage heretofore or hereafter contracted between a
man and his deceased wife’s sister, within the realm or
without, shall be deemed to have been or shall be void or
voidable, as a civil contract, by reason only of such
affinity: Provided always that no clergyman in holy orders of
the Church of England shall be liable to any suit, penalty, or
censure, whether civil or ecclesiastical, for anything done or
omitted to be done by him in the performance of the duties of
his office to which suit, penalty, or censure he would not
have been liable if this Act had not been passed:
"Provided also that when any minister of any church or chapel
of the Church of England shall refuse to perform such marriage
service between any persons who, but for such refusal, would
be entitled to have the same service performed in such church
or chapel, such minister may permit any other clergyman in
holy orders in the Church of England, entitled to officiate
within the diocese in which such church or chapel is situate,
to perform such marriage service in such church or chapel.
"Provided also that in case, before the passing of this Act,
any such marriage shall have been annulled, or either party
thereto (after the marriage and during the life of the other)
shall have lawfully married another, it shall be deemed to
have become and to be void upon and after the day upon which
it was so annulled, or upon which either party thereto
lawfully married another as aforesaid.
"2. No right, title, estate or interest, whether in possession
or expectancy, and whether vested or contingent at the time of
the passing of this Act, existing in, to, or in respect of,
any dignity, title of honour, or property, and no act or thing
lawfully done or omitted before the passing of this Act shall
be prejudicially affected nor shall any will be deemed to have
been revoked by reason of any marriage heretofore contracted
as aforesaid being made valid by this Act.
"3.
(1) Nothing in this Act shall remove wives from the class
of persons adultery with whom constitutes a right, on the
part of wives, to sue for divorce under the Matrimonial
Causes Act, 1857.
"(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or the
Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857, it shall not be lawful for a
man to marry the sister of his divorced wife, or of his
wife by whom he has been divorced, during the lifetime of
such wife.
"4. Nothing in this Act shall relieve a clergyman in holy
orders of the Church of England from any ecclesiastical
censure to which he would have been liable if this Act had not
been passed by reason of his having contracted or hereafter
contracting a marriage with his deceased wife’s sister.
"5. In this Act the word ‘sister’ shall include a sister of
the half-blood."
ENGLAND: A. D. 1907.
Probation of Offenders Act.
See (in this Volume)
CRIME AND CRIMINOLOGY: PROBATION.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1907.
French testimony to the good work of the English in Egypt.
See EGYPT: A. D. 1907 (JANUARY).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1907 (April-May).
Conference of Imperial and Colonial Ministers at London.
Discussing Preferential Trade, Imperial Defence, and other
subjects.
Resolutions adopted.
See (in this Volume)
BRITISH EMPIRE: A. D. 1907.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1907 (May).
Proposed Councils Bill for Ireland rejected by the Irish
National Party.
See (in this Volume)
IRELAND: A. D. 1907 (May).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1907 (July).
Capture of Kaid Sir Harry MacLean in Morocco for ransom, by
Raisuli.
See (in this Volume)
MOROCCO: A. D. 1904-1909.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1907 (August).
Convention with Russia containing arrangements on the
subject of Persia, Afghanistan, and Tibet.
See EUROPE: A. D. 1907 (AUGUST).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1907 (August).
Establishment of a Court of Criminal Appeal.
See (in this Volume)
LAW, AND ITS COURTS: ENGLAND.
{237}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1907 (August).
Qualification of women for election to County and
Borough Councils.
See (in this Volume)
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: WOMAN SUFFRAGE.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1907 (August).
Patents and Designs Act.
See (in this Volume)
PATENTS.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1907 (November).
Abortive Compromise Education Bill.
See (in this Volume)
EDUCATION: ENGLAND: A. D. 1907 (November).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1907 (November).
Treaty with France, Germany, Norway, and Russia guaranteeing
the integrity of Norway.
See ENGLAND:
EUROPE: A. D. 1907-1908.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1907 (November).
Treaty with France concerning Death Duties.
See (in this Volume)
DEATH DUTIES.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1907-1908.
Institution of the Territorial Force.
See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: MILITARY.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1907-1908.
Proposals in the House of Lords of Reform in its Constitution.
Consequent, no doubt, on the increase of popular hostility to
the House of Lords which it had provoked by its dealing with
the Education Bill of 1906, and the serious threatenings of an
undertaking in the House of Commons to "end or mend" it as a
branch of Parliament, the Lords, in 1907, gave thought among
themselves to the expediency of a constitutional reformation
of their House. In February, a bill was proposed to them by
Lord Newton which provided in its first two articles as
follows:
"1.
(1) After the termination of the present session of
Parliament a writ of summons to attend and to sit and vote
in the House of Lords shall not be issued to any temporal
peer of the peerage of England entitled by descent to an
hereditary seat in the House of Lords (in this Act referred
to as an hereditary peer), unless he is a representative or
a qualified hereditary peer within the meaning of this Act,
nor to any lord spiritual, unless he is a representative
lord spiritual within the meaning of this Act."
"2.
For the purposes of this Act the expression ‘qualified
hereditary peer’ means an hereditary peer who possesses any
of the qualifications specified in the First Schedule to
this Act."
The schedule referred to was as follows:
"QUALIFICATIONS ENTITLING AN HEREDITARY PEER TO A WRIT
OF SUMMONS:
I. The holding at any time of any of the following Offices:—
1. High judicial office, within the meaning of the
Appellate Jurisdiction Acts, 1876 and 1887.
2. The office of First Lord of the Treasury, Secretary of
State, Chancellor of the Exchequer, President of the
Council, or Head (not being a permanent Civil Servant) of
any other Government Department.
3. The office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and Secretary
to the Lord Lieutenant.
4. Office of Viceroy of India, or a Governor of the
Presidency of Madras or Bombay, or of Lieutenant-Governor
of any Province of India.
5. Office of Governor-General of the Dominion of Canada or
of the Commonwealth of Australia, or of High Commissioner
of South Africa, or of Governor of any Colony.
6. The Office of Parliamentary Under Secretary,
Parliamentary Secretary, or permanent Under Secretary, in
any Government Department.
7. Office of Lord of the Admiralty or member of the Army
Council.
8. Office of Minister plenipotentiary, or any higher
office, in His Majesty’s Diplomatic Service.
9. Office of Vice-Admiral, or any higher office, in His
Majesty’s Naval Forces, or of Lieutenant-General, or any
higher office, in His Majesty’s Land Forces.
"II. Election to serve in the House of Commons on not less
than two occasions before succeeding to the peerage."
In addition to the hereditary peers thus qualified to sit in
the House of Lords as proposed to be reformed, the Bill
provided for the election by the peers, from their own number,
of representatives, to the extent of one-fourth of their whole
number; and likewise for the election by the lords spiritual,
from their ranks, of representatives in the same proportion of
number; such representatives to form part of the House of
Lords in Parliament. It authorized, further, the appointment
by the King of peers for life, to be "peers of Parliament,"
these never to exceed one hundred in number.
Debate on the Bill in May resulted in the substitution for it
of a resolution, that "a Select Committee be appointed to
consider the suggestions which have from time to time been
made for increasing the efficiency of the House of Lords in
matters affecting legislation, and to report as to the
desirability of adopting them, either in their original or in
some modified form." The report of the Committee (twenty-five
in number, having Lord Rosebery for its elected chairman) was
not brought in until near the close of the following year. Its
recommendations were considerably on the lines of the Bill
described above. It suggested that the reformed House of Lords
should be made up of three classes of members, namely,
hereditary peers who had held certain high public offices—
much the same as those scheduled in Lord Newton’s Bill; two
hundred representative "Peers of Parliament," elected from the
whole body of the peerage, not for life, but for a single
Parliament, and ten lords spiritual, to include the two
archbishops and eight bishops to be elected. The
self-governing colonies, in the judgment of the Committee,
should be represented in the House of Lords, and twenty years
of service in the House of Commons should entitle an Irish
peer to a seat in it.
The plan submitted by the Committee would reduce the House
from 617 members to about 350. No action has been taken on the
report.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1907-1908.
The Small Holdings Act.
The first year of its operation.
In 1907 an Act passed Parliament which provided for the
acquisition by local authorities of land to be divided into
small holdings for sale or lease to buyers or tenants who
could not otherwise be placed on it for self-support. The
results from the first year’s operation of the Act was
reported in September, 1909, by the Board of Agriculture and
Fisheries, which administers the law. The following are
statements from the report of the Board:
"Stated shortly, the result, so far as small holdings are
concerned, of the first year’s work since the Small Holdings
and Allotments Act, 1907, came into operation has been that
23,285 applications have been received by county councils for
373,601 acres, that 13,202 applicants have been approved
provisionally as suitable, that the estimated quantity of land
required for the suitable applicants is 185,098 acres, that
21,417 acres have been acquired by county councils, of which
11,346 acres have been purchased for £370,965, and 10,071
acres leased for total rents amounting to £11,209, that the
land acquired will provide for about 1,500 of the applicants,
and that 504 of them were in actual possession of their
holdings on December 31, 1908.
{238}
"It may seem at first sight that the progress that has been
made in satisfying the keen demand for small holdings which
the Act has disclosed has been small, but the figures do not
give at all an adequate idea of the amount of work that has
been actually done. It must be remembered that practically the
whole of the first six months of the year were occupied in the
preliminary work of constituting committees, issuing forms,
receiving and tabulating applications and holding local
inquiries, and that until this work was completed little
progress could be made in the acquisition of land. … The rate
at which land is being acquired is now increasing rapidly, and
we have little doubt that by Michaelmas, 1909, not less than
50,000 acres will have been obtained. In addition to the
holdings which have been provided by county councils, the
returns we have obtained show that over 700 applicants have
been supplied with holdings by landowners direct, mainly
through the intervention of the councils.
"In considering the results already accomplished it must also
be borne in mind that the problem is to fit particular men to
particular land, and not merely to acquire whatever land may
be in the market and to offer it in small holdings. The great
majority of the applicants desire land in close proximity to
their homes, and it is obviously more difficult to acquire a
large number of detached plots than to take a whole farm or
estate and divide it into a number of small holdings. …
"A striking feature of the applications made under the Act has
been the small extent to which the applicants desire to
purchase their holdings. Out of the 23,295 applications
received during the year, only 629, or 2.7 per cent.,
expressed a desire to purchase. … The Act imposes no direct
obligation on councils to provide houses, but we are of
opinion that where an applicant desires a holding to which he
will devote his whole time and from which he will get his
whole living councils should be prepared to erect a house and
the necessary buildings."
ENGLAND: A. D. 1907-1908 (December-March).
Appeals to other Powers for effective measures to
rescue Macedonia from its dreadful state.
See (in this Volume)
TURKEY: A. D. 1905-1908.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1907-1909.
Anglo-Russian action in Persia.
See (in this Volume)
PERSIA: A. D). 1907, and after.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1907-1909.
The Campaign of the Militant Woman Suffragists or Suffragettes.
See (in this Volume)
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: WOMAN SUFFRAGE.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1907-1909.
The disaffection in India.
Its character, causes, and meaning.
Hindu and Moslem feeling.
The past of British Government and its fruits.
See (in this Volume)
INDIA: A. D. 1907-1909.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1907-1909.
Negotiation by the President of the Board of Trade of a
General System of Conciliation and Arbitration Boards for
Settlement of Labor Disputes in the Railway Service.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR ORGANIZATION: ENGLAND: A. D. 1907-1909.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1908.
Estimate of King Edward VII. as a Diplomatist.
Mr. Isaac N. Ford, the American newspaper correspondent in
London, has much well-informed opinion in Europe and America
to support him in the following estimate of the diplomatic
influence exerted by King Edward, which he expressed in
January, 1908:
"At the opening of King Edward’s reign Berlin was the center
of European diplomacy, as Paris had been when Bismarck entered
upon his series of machinations and triumphs. The personal
ascendency of the German Emperor was unchallenged in Europe. …
In the course of seven years conditions have been transformed.
London is now the diplomatic capital of Europe. Resentful
enemies like France have been reconciled; friendships with
America, Austria-Hungary, Italy, and Spain have been
strengthened; strained relations with Russia and Germany have
been eased; and by the alliance with Japan forces have been
readjusted for the maintenance of existing order in the
Pacific. A new balance of power has been established in
Europe, and the diplomatic resources of the British Empire
have been reinvigorated and enlarged. While there have been
eminent statesmen in the British Foreign Office—Lord Lansdowne
and Sir Edward Grey—these transformations have been mainly
King Edward’s work. Fifty years hence there may be a true
sense of proportion, so that his services as an empire-builder
and a peace-maker can be judged aright."
ENGLAND: A. D. 1908.
Invitation of an International Naval Conference preliminary
to the establishment of an International Prize Court.
See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1907
(appended to account of Second Peace Conference
at The Hague).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1908.
Municipal and County Offices opened to Women.
See (in this Volume)
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: WOMAN SUFFRAGE.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1908.
North Sea and Baltic agreements.
See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1908.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1908.
Passage of the Coal Mines Eight Hours Act.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR PROTECTION: HOURS OF LABOR.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1908.
Rejection of the Liberal Licensing Bill by the House of Lords.
See (in this Volume)
ALCOHOL PROBLEM: ENGLAND: A. D. 1908.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1908 (March).
Communication to the Belgian Government respecting obligations
involved in its proposed annexation of the Congo State.
See (in this Volume)
CONGO STATE: A. D. 1906-1909.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1908 (April).
Resignation and Death of Prime Minister
Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman.
Succession of Herbert H. Asquith.
Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman was forced by ill health to
resign the premiership on the 5th of April, 1908, and his
death occurred on the 22d of the same month. He was succeeded
in the headship of the Government by Mr. Herbert H. Asquith,
previously Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose place in the
latter office was filled by Mr. David Lloyd-George. Mr.
Lloyd-George had been President of the Board of Trade, and
that office was now filled by Mr. Winston Churchill, while Mr.
Reginald McKenna became First Lord of the Admiralty.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1908 (April).
Treaty with Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and
Sweden for maintenance of the Status Quo on the North Sea.
See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1907-1908.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1908 (April).
Treaty with the United States respecting the Demarcation of
the International Boundary between the United States and Canada.
See (in this Volume)
CANADA: A. D. 1908 (APRIL).
{239}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1908 (September).
Withdrawal of intervention in Macedonia.
See (in this Volume)
TURKEY: A. D. 1908 (JULY-DECEMBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1908 (December).
Passage of "The Children Act."
See (in this Volume)
CHILDREN, UNDER THE LAW: AS DEPENDENTS AND OFFENDERS.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1908 (December).
The Shipbuilding Agreement between Employers and
Trade Unions to prevent strikes and lockouts.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR ORGANIZATION: ENGLAND: A. D. 1908.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1908-1909.
Attitude on the question of the Austrian annexation of
Bosnia and Herzegovina.
See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1908-1909 (OCTOBER-MARCH).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1908-1909.
Old Age Pensions Act.
Its working.
Its disclosures of poverty.
See (in this Volume)
POVERTY, PROBLEMS OF: PENSIONS, &c.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1908-1909.
Passage of the Indian Councils Bill.
Its provisions for popular representation in the
Legislative Councils of India.
See (in this Volume)
INDIA: A. D. 1908-1909.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909.
Chief source of Food Supplies.
See (in this Volume)
ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1909.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909.
Concentration of Wealth.
See (in this Volume)
WEALTH, THE PROBLEMS OF.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909.
Development and Road Improvement Funds Act.
See (in this Volume)
CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES: GREAT BRITAIN.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909.
Naval questions.
"Dreadnought" building.
Distrust of Germany.
The Territorial Force, etc.
See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909.
Official reports and statements concerning Public Education.
See (in this Volume)
EDUCATION: ENGLAND: A. D. 1909.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909.
Passage of the Housing and Town-planning Act.
See (in this Volume)
SOCIAL BETTERMENT: ENGLAND: A. D. 1909.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909.
Principal Socialist organizations.
See (in this Volume)
SOCIALISM.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909.
Report of Royal Commission on the working of the Poor Laws
and Relief Systems, and the existing pauperism of the
United Kingdom.
See (in this Volume)
POVERTY.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909.
Summary of the total prospective military defensive strength
of the Empire.
See (in this Volume)
BRITISH EMPIRE: A. D. 1909.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (January).
The Waterways Treaty with the United States, concerning
waters along the Canadian boundary.
See (in this Volume)
CANADA: A. D. 1909 (JANUARY).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (February).
The Opening of Parliament.
The session of Parliament was opened by the King with due form
and ceremony on February 16. "The Royal procession from
Buckingham Palace to Westminster," says a report of the
occasion, "took place in the dim grey light of a typical
February afternoon, and the pageant lost much of its beauty in
consequence. In spite of the cold wind and the absence of the
genial sunshine which is such a valuable asset on occasions of
spectacular display, there appeared to be as many people as
ever along the route of the procession. These formal openings
of Parliament, which have become customary since the beginning
of the present reign, are clearly popular with those of the
King’s subjects who know nothing, except by hearsay, of the
impressive scenes which are to be witnessed in the House of
Lords. The immense crowds who assembled to watch the King and
Queen pass yesterday, waiting patiently for hours in order to
enjoy a few minutes’ ecstatic sight-seeing, welcomed their
Majesties with a cordiality of the meaning of which there
could be no doubt. The King and Queen, in their wonderful gold
coach, with its sides of glass, must have been gratified with
the respect and affection which were manifested from all
quarters."
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (February).
Debate in Parliament on the annexation of the
Congo State by Belgium.
Recognition of the annexation dependent on reforms.
See (in this Volume)
CONGO STATE: A. D. 1906-1909.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (February).
Represented in International Opium Commission at Shanghai.
See (in this Volume)
OPIUM PROBLEM.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (March).
Representation of the People Bill.
Proposed Universal Suffrage, including women.
Its second reading.
On the 20th of March, 1909, the second reading of a bill
described as "the Representation of the People Bill" was moved
and seconded in the House of Commons. Its provisions were
substantially for universal suffrage, including women. In
explaining the measure, the member who moved the second
reading—a representative of the Labor party, Mr. Howard—said:
"It was difficult, if not almost impossible, to deal with a
reform of the franchise without at the same time dealing with
woman suffrage, and it was difficult to deal with woman
enfranchisement without at the same time making some
alteration in the existing franchise law which should meet the
condition of the new elements proposed to be placed on the
register. The House must face the situation as a whole and
handle the two reforms in one scheme, because by a
coordinated Bill there would be a better chance of getting
nearer a settlement. In the Bill that he submitted to the
House there was no abolition of any old franchise. It proposed
to create a residential franchise in order to do away with the
hardships which any one with a knowledge of registration knew
to exist in connexion with the occupation vote of men. The
second clause provided for a restriction of plural voting, and
the third clause related to the removal of the sex
disqualification."
Before debate began another member presented a monster
petition against the political enfranchisement of women, said
to contain 243,000 signatures.
The attitude of the Government toward the bill was explained
by Mr. Asquith, the Premier. It was well known, he said, that
on the issue whether women should be granted the suffrage
Ministers were not of one mind. But they were strongly in
favour of a wide reform of the existing suffrage. They desired
the abolition of plural voting, the disappearance of the
artificial distinctions between occupiers and lodgers, the
material shortening of the period of qualification, and an
effective simplification of the machinery of registration. But
any measure to bring about these reforms ought, in his
opinion, if it was to take its place on the Statute-book, to
proceed from the responsible Government of the day, and to be
carefully remoulded in the light of prolonged Parliamentary
discussion. For these reasons he thought it was not necessary
that the members of the Government should vote for the second
reading of the Bill under consideration.
After some hours of debate the closure was moved and the
second reading of the bill was carried by 157 votes against
122.
{240}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (March).
Defeat of the Progressives in the London County
Council Election.
See (in this Volume)
LONDON: A. D. 1909 (MARCH).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (March).
Cession by Siam of suzerainty over three States
in the Malay Peninsula.
See (in this Volume)
SIAM: A. D. 1909.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (March-July).
The question of " Dreadnought" building, with reference to
the accelerated expansion of the German Navy.
Debates in Parliament and excitement in the country.
See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: NAVAL.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (April).
The National Debt of the United Kingdom.
The following official statement of the national debt of the
United Kingdom was published in April, 1909:
"On the 1st April, 1908, the aggregate gross liabilities of
the State amounted to £762,326,051. On the 1st April, 1909,
the corresponding figure was £754,121,309, showing a reduction
of £8,204,742.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (April).
Announced Governmental projects of Afforestation, and other
measures for Development of Natural Resources.
See (in this Volume)
CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES: GREAT BRITAIN.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (April-December).
Mr. Lloyd-George’s Budget.
Its features of taxation, denounced as Socialistic.
Seven months of vehement debate.
Adopted by the Commons and rejected by the Lords.
Warnings to the Lords against their action.
Preparation for appeal to the people.
The 29th of April, 1909, when the financial proposals of the
Government for meeting the needs of the coming year, called
"the Budget," were brought before Parliament, and the 30th of
the following November, when, after seven months of arduous
and angry debate, and after their adoption by a great majority
of the Commons, the Bill embodying them was overwhelmingly
rejected by the Lords, will be memorable dates in English
history if the consequences of the action of the Peers are
what, at this writing, they seem likely to be. Even failing
those consequences, the production of the Budget will be in
itself an event of no small moment, from what it signifies of
the development of democracy in Great Britain.
As a formulated "Finance Bill," the Budget was not submitted
to the House of Commons and to the public in print until the
28th of May. It was then entitled "A Bill to grant certain
Duties of Customs and Inland Revenue (including Excise), to
alter other Duties, and to amend the Law relating to Customs
and Inland Revenue (including Excise), and the National Debt,
and to make other provisions for the Financial Arrangements of
the Year." Until then its provisions were known only from the
statement of them made four weeks before by the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, Mr. David Lloyd-George, in a speech extended
through several hours, which even his opponents were forced to
characterize as "a wonderful effort."
The Chancellor’s explanation of the Budget rested primarily on
the fact that an anticipated deficit of £15,762,000 required
to be filled from new sources of revenue. Of the main causes
of the deficit he said: "Were I dealing with a shortage due
only to a temporary cause like forestalments, I might have
resorted to some temporary shift which would have carried me
over until next year when the revenue would resume its normal
course. But unfortunately I have to reckon not merely with an
enormous increase in expenditure this year, but an inevitable
expansion of some of the heaviest items in the course of the
coming years. What is the increase of expenditure due to? It
is very well known that it must be placed to the credit of two
items, and practically two items alone. One is the Navy, and
the other is old-age pensions. Now I have one observation
which I think I am entitled to make about both. … The
increased expenditure under both these heads was substantially
incurred with the unanimous assent of all political parties in
this House. There was, it is true, a protest entered on behalf
of honourable members below the gangway against increased
expenditure in the Navy, but as far as the overwhelming
majority of members in this House are concerned the increase
has received their sanction and approval. I am entitled to say
more. The attitude of the Government towards these two
branches of increased expenditure has not been one of rushing
a reluctant House of Commons into expense which it disliked,
but rather of resisting appeals coming from all quarters of
the House for still further increases under both heads. …
"We are told that we ought not to have touched old-age
pensions, at least not at the present moment, when heavy
liabilities were in sight in connexion with the defence of the
country. I may point out that when we introduced our Old-Age
Pensions Bill that emergency had not arisen. But, apart
altogether from that, we had no honourable alternative left.
We simply honoured a cheque drawn years ago in favour of the
aged poor, which bore at its foot the signatures of all the
leaders of political parties in this country. They had all
promised pensions at election after election, and great
political parties have no right to make promises to poor
people in return for political support, valuable to them, and
all these people had to give, and then time after time return
the bill with ‘No assets’ written across it."
Proceeding next to survey the "inevitable expansion" of future
expenditure to which he had referred at the outset, and which
could be foreseen in connection with the navy and with social
reform, the Chancellor dealt at length on the demands that
were pressing from the latter side and would not be postponed.
"What the Government have to ask themselves," he said, "is
this: Can the whole subject of further social reform be
postponed until the increasing demands made upon the National
Exchequer by the growth of armaments has ceased? Not merely
can it be postponed, but ought it to be postponed? Is there
the slightest hope that if we deferred consideration of the
matter we are likely within a generation to find any more
favourable moment for attending to it? I confess that, as to
that, I am rather pessimistic. And we have to ask ourselves
this further question—If we put off dealing with these social
sores are the evils which arise from them not likely to grow
and to fester until finally the loss which the country
sustains will be infinitely greater than anything it would
have to bear in paying the cost of an immediate remedy?
{241}
There are hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children in
this country now enduring hardships for which the sternest
judge would not hold them responsible; hardships entirely due
to circumstances over which they have not the slightest
command—the fluctuations and changes of trade, or even of
fashions, ill-health, and the premature breakdown or death of
the bread-winner. … Last year, while we were discussing the
Old-Age Pensions Bill, all parties in this House recognized
fully and freely that once we had started on these lines the
case for extension was irresistible. The leader of the
Opposition, in what I venture to regard as the most notable
speeches he has probably delivered during this Parliament,
recognized quite boldly that, whichever party was in power,
provision would have to be made in some shape or other for
those who are out of work through no fault of their own, and
those who are incapacitated for work owing to physical causes
for which they are not responsible."
The speaker then developed at length the intentions of the
Government on these lines of social reform, which will have to
include undertakings of some system like the German, of
compulsory insurance against sickness, accident and
unemployment, and which will have to look to the organization
of labor exchanges and to the opening of wider fields for
employment, by development of neglected resources of the
country, through afforestation, through promotion of
agriculture, and the extension and improvement of roads.
And now, at last, he began to unfold his plans for raising the
means with which to deal with all these augmented demands on
the Government, and started them with a schedule of increased
taxes on automobiles. Further details of his scheme are
summarized in the following, from _The Times_ "Review of
Parliament," next morning:
"The right honourable gentleman was listened to with intense
attention when he proceeded to announce an increase of the
income-tax and of the estate duty. He proposed that for earned
incomes under £2,000 the tax should remain at 9d. but that
between £2,000 and £3,000 it should be 1s., and that all other
incomes now liable to the shilling tax should pay 1s. 2d.
Holding that the family man was entitled to more relief than
the bachelor, he proposed that on all incomes under £500, in
addition to existing abatements, a special abatement should be
allowed of £10 for every child under 16 years of age. He hoped
to get £160,000 by the partial restoration of the shilling
duty and £3,000,000 from the additional 2d. on the higher
incomes. There was also to be a super-tax on incomes exceeding
£5,000, to be levied on the amount by which such incomes
exceeded £3,000. The tax would be at the rate of 6d. in the
pound. Exclamations denoting great disapproval arose from the
Unionist benches when this was announced. The yield from this
super-tax, Mr. Lloyd-George explained, would be in a full year
£2,300,000; but this year not more than £500,000. He next came
to the Death duties. There would be no change in the case of
estates up to £5,000, but between this limit and the limit of
two millions graduation would be steepened. The duty on
estates between £5,000 and £10,000 would be 4 per cent.;
"between £10,000 and £20,000, 5 per cent.; £20,000 to £40,000,
6 per cent.; £40,000 to £70,000, 7 per cent.; £70,000 to
£100,000, 8 per cent.; £100,000 to £150,000, 9 per cent.;
£150,000 to £200,000, 10 per cent.; £200,000 to £400,000, 11
per cent.; £400,000 to £600,000, 12 per cent.; £600,000 to
£800,000, 13 per cent.; £800,000 to £1,000,000, 14 per cent.,
and above £1,000,000, 15 per cent. This new scale was
estimated to yield £2,550,000 this year, £4,200,000 next year,
and afterwards £4,400,000. The settled Estate duty he raised
from 1 per cent. to 2 per cent. From this source he hoped to
get £50,000 this year and £375,000 in 1910-1911. The Legacy
and Succession duty was to be raised in some cases from 3 per
cent. to 5 per cent., and in all others to 10 per cent. The
yield from this next year would be £1,300,000, and would
increase in the course of time to £2,150,000. Property
alienated _inter vivos_ within five years from death was
to be liable to duty. Objects of national and scientific
interest would only be chargeable for duty when they were
actually sold. There were to be increased duties in bonds to
bearer and in stock and share transfers. The estimated yield
from the increased Stamp Duties would be this year £650,000.
"It was at this point in his speech that the Chancellor of the
Exchequer required rest and that the sitting was suspended.
When in half-an-hour’s time it was resumed, the right
honourable gentleman continued his speech with renewed vigour.
He dealt at considerable length with the subject of licenses,
dwelling on the value of the monopoly granted to the liquor
trade and arguing that the toll exacted by the public was
ludicrously inadequate. He explained in detail a number of
changes which he proposed to effect, the chief being a uniform
charge of 50 per cent., subject to a _minimum_ rate in
urban areas according to population. For clubs there would be
a poundage rate of 3d. on the amount taken for the sale of
liquor. The yield from his revision of the liquor licensing
law would be £2,600,000.
"Then he turned to land, drawing a marked distinction between
the agricultural landowner and the urban landowner, of whom he
spoke with some scorn. He proposed to levy a tax on the value
accruing to land in the future through the enterprise of the
community, taking the land apart from buildings and other
improvements. This duty of 20 per cent. on unearned increment
would be payable on two occasions—when land was sold and when
land passed at death. A preliminary valuation of the land at
the price which it might be expected to fetch at the present
time would be necessary; and as the tax was to be imposed only
on the unearned increment subsequently accruing on that
valuation, the yield would probably be only £50,000 in 1909,
but in future years it should prove a fruitful source of
revenue. It was further proposed to levy an annual duty of one
halfpenny in the pound on the capital value of undeveloped
land and undeveloped minerals. Until the proposed valuation of
the land of the United Kingdom on a capital basis was
completed, it would be impossible to estimate the yield of
this duty, but till then the duty would be calculated on the
declarations of the owners, and in the current year he
expected it to bring in £350,000. A 10 per cent. reversion
duty was to be imposed on any benefit accruing to a lessor on
the termination of a lease, and from this source a yield of
£100,000 was anticipated. The three land taxes were,
accordingly, calculated to produce £500,000 in the current
year.
{242}
"He next dealt with indirect taxation. He proposed to raise
the present duty on spirits by 3s. 9d. per gallon. This would
justify an increase in the retail price of whisky of one
half-penny per glass, which would recoup the publican for the
additional duty and leave him something more to mitigate the
pressure of the new duties on licenses. The yield, during the
current year, he estimated at £1,600,000. He also proposed to
increase the duty on unmanufactured tobacco from 3s. to 3s.
8d. per lb., with equivalent additions to the rates for
cigars, cigarettes, and manufactured tobacco, the return from
which he estimated at £1,900,000 during the current year and
£2,250,000 for a full year.
"The total estimated revenue was £162,590,000 and the total
estimated expenditure £162,102,000, leaving a margin of
£488,000 for contingencies. In conclusion, the right
honourable gentleman—anticipating the charge that he was
imposing very heavy taxation for a time of peace—declared it
was a war Budget. The Government had declared implacable war
against poverty. It was 8 o’clock when the right honourable
gentleman finished, amid the cheers of his supporters."
That Mr. Lloyd-George’s Budget was a gage of battle and that
the fight over it was fierce is known to everybody, for the
din of the conflict penetrated to every corner of every land.
The key-note of the outcry against it was sounded in _The
Times_ of next morning, which opened its editorial comment
with these words:
"One general impression will be very widely made by the
complicated and portentous Budget which Mr. Lloyd-George
expounded at enormous length yesterday. That is that the huge
deficit of nearly sixteen millions is to be raised almost
exclusively at the cost of the wealthy and the fairly
well-to-do. They are struck at in all sorts of ways, through
the income-tax, the legacy duties, the estate duties, the
stamps upon their investments, their land, their royalties,
their brewery dividends, and their motor-cars. So when Mr.
Lloyd-George exclaims rather theatrically—‘Mr. Emmott, this
is a war Budget,’ his words carry a meaning which he did not
intend. He talks of waging war against poverty, but that is
never really waged by unjust exactions from those whose custom
prevents a worse poverty than any we know; and whose brains
and capital count for at least as much as thews and sinews.
Unless men exempt from income-tax either smoke or drink, they
do not pay a single penny towards making up a deficit mainly
due to a pension scheme of which they reap the whole benefit.
The doctrine of social ransom has never been carried quite so
far."
So it was branded by its opponents as a "Socialist Budget" and
its authors as allies of Socialism, throughout the campaign.
This denunciation was applied especially to the tax on
unearned increments of value in land, as such increments
should occur hereafter. On that point of opposition to the
Budget Mr. Asquith, the Prime Minister of the Government,
speaking at a public meeting in London, had this to say: "The
increment duty is a tax of 20 per cent. on the increase in the
capital value of certain kinds of land which is shown on the
occasion of its transfer or devolution, and which is not
attributable to the efforts or to the expenditure either of
the owner or the occupier. That is what the increment duty is.
Now what is it not? I spoke a few moments ago of certain
classes of land. Let me ask you to observe, first, what are
the kinds of landed property which are altogether exempted
from the scope of this taxation. In the first place, all
agricultural land which has no building value above its
agricultural value; next, small properties occupied by their
owners; thirdly, property belonging to local authorities;
again, property held for public or charitable purposes; and,
finally, property belonging to statutory companies, such as
railways, which cannot be used for other than statutory
purposes. …
"Now, suppose the case of land which does not fall within any
of those exempted categories, how is the duty charged? Here,
again, there is a great deal of misapprehension about it, so
it is better to state the case as clearly as one can. You
start with the site value of the land at the present moment,
and by site value—I am not going into technicalities—we mean,
roughly speaking, the value of the land divested of the
buildings. You do not go back into the past, you take things
as they are; you do not rip up the previous history; you do
not interfere with existing or past contracts. You give to
every man, however he has acquired it, the full and
undisturbed enjoyment of the rights, privileges, and property
which he at present possesses. Starting with that datum line,
you will see that in years to come, when that piece of land is
transferred by sale—it may be by lease—or devolves upon death,
the site value (you are comparing like with like, mind you) at
that date—that is to say, the value after giving the owner and
every one who has been interested in the land credit for all
expenditure they have made in the way of improvement and
development in the interval—comparing site with site, if you
find an increment in value there, you say that it is an
increment due to the community, to social causes, to causes
over which the owner was no more responsible than you or I,
and that it is not unfair in point of justice, and that it is
in the highest degree expedient in point of policy that the
State should be entitled to claim for itself in relief of the
necessities of the same community some part—not any
exaggerated or exorbitant part—but some part, of the increment
which has so accrued. I may point out that there is no duty
chargeable at all. So tender has my friend Mr. Lloyd-George
(laughter and cheers) been to the interests concerned—he is a
man of a most sympathetic nature—sometimes I am disposed to
think he is of almost too impressionable a nature when appeals
of this kind are addressed to him—so tender has he been of all
these interests that he has agreed that no duty should be
chargeable unless the increment value amounts to at least 10
per cent., and where it is over, the first 10 per cent. should
escape free. That is the increment duty which Lord Rothschild
tells you—I think I am not misquoting him—is rank and
undiluted Socialism, and which Lord Lansdowne says is going to
shake the very foundations of civilized society. …
{243}
"The propriety and justice of taxing this kind of increment,
in the case of these classes of land, rests upon the most
solid ground both of authority and experience. It has been
advocated for generations by the most eminent economists. It
has been recommended in one shape or another by more than one
Royal Commission. It was approved in principle more than once
even by the late non-progressive House of Commons. It has been
put in practice in various forms for local purposes in not a
few Continental municipalities and in many of our own
Colonies, and, I believe, always with successful results. And
let me add, by way of climax to that catena of authority, that
it is at this moment, or at any rate was a few weeks ago, the
alternative proposal put forward by the Conservative party in
the Reichstag in Germany—an increment duty, not for local but
for Imperial purposes, was the alternative proposal to the
Budget of Prince Bülow put forward by the Conservative party
in the Reichstag in Germany, and this is rank Socialism!"
Next to the proposed land taxes, the most bitterly opposed
feature of the Budget was the increased revenue to be exacted
from the licensed monopolists of the liquor trade. Everything,
however, in its new taxation was denounced by the
Conservatives, who set against it their own project of
obtaining increased revenues by returning to the protective
tariff which England had abandoned three-quarters of a century
ago. The cry for what they preferred to call "tariff reform"
had been silenced since the election of 1906, when the
electors of the Kingdom rejected Mr. Chamberlain's revived
protectionism by an overwhelming vote. Now it was raised
again, and fully made the prime article in the Conservative
creed, as it had not been before.
It was not until the 4th of November that the Finance Bill was
brought to its third reading in the House of Commons, and was
passed, by the heavy majority of 379 to 149. From the
beginning it was known, of course, that the measure had few
friends in the House of Lords, and would go down in defeat
there if the Peers ventured to assume the right to negative a
money Bill. For many generations they had not disputed the
claim of the Commons to exclusive control of revenue
legislation; but a theory had now been mooted, that Mr.
Lloyd-George’s Budget Bill differed from a mere money Bill by
carrying Socialistic implications tacked on to it, which the
House of Lords was under no obligation to accept. Whether the
Lords would or would not be bold enough to act on this theory
and throw down the Bill, as they had thrown down so much of
the non-financial legislation of the Liberal Government, had
been a serious question throughout the debates. Sir Edward
Grey said of it, in a speech at Leeds, in August:
"As to the fate of the Budget—Is it going to be destroyed by
the House of Lords or is it not? The leaders of the Tory
party—with whom the decision rests—are very cautious in
expressing their opinions. Some of the rank and file have said
the House of Lords is going to destroy the Budget, or have
spoken as if it were so. But the leaders—Mr. Balfour, Lord
Lansdowne, and so forth—have been very cautious. They are
great partisans in this matter of the open door, or, perhaps I
should say, of two open doors. They have studiously kept two
doors open, and as far as Lord Lansdowne’s utterances go, he
has kept the door open for passing the Budget in the House of
Lords or rejecting it. He says the House of Lords is bound to
decide so that the people should be properly consulted, and
that that is the function of the House of Lords, to protect
the right of the people to have their say on the subject. A
very nice function if only it was performed impartially; but
when it is a function which has been in abeyance for the
greater part of the last 20 years, and is only to be erected
into operation when a Liberal Government comes into office, it
is not a function for which we can have much respect. But,
nevertheless, it is so in our Constitution at present that the
House of Lords is a weapon—a great gun, if you like to call it
so—which can be pointed only against Liberal measures—not
against Conservative measures—and which is in the hands of the
Conservative party. Now there is the Budget going presently to
the House of Lords; there is the gun pointing when it arrives
there; there is the Conservative finger on the trigger. Are
they going to fire the gun or not? They do not know themselves
yet. They are debating in their own minds what will happen if
they fire the gun. Will they destroy the Budget, or will the
recoil be more injurious to themselves? Or, perhaps, will the
gun burst altogether if they let it off? We know what their
wishes and inclinations are; what we do not know at the
present time is how much nerve they have got. But of this I am
convinced—whatever the House of Lords may do, when the time
comes for an appeal to the country, it will be an appeal on
this Budget as a Free Trade Budget, and against the
alternative of tariff reform.
Others among the prominent Liberals spoke with more temper of
the threatened action of the Lords. Mr. Winston Churchill, for
example, at Leicester, in September, said: "The rejection of
the Budget by the House of Lords … would be a violent rupture
of constitutional custom and usage extending over 300 years
and recognized during all that time by the leaders of every
party in the State. It would involve a sharp and sensible
breach with the traditions of the past; and what does the
House of Lords depend upon if not upon the traditions of the
past? It would amount to an attempt at revolution not by the
poor, but by the rich; not by the masses, but by the
privileged few; not in the name of progress, but in that of
reaction; not for the purpose of broadening the framework of
the State, but greatly narrowing it. Such an attempt,
gentlemen, whatever you may think of it, such an attempt would
be historic in its character, and the result of the battle
fought upon it, whoever wins, must inevitably be not of an
annual, but of a permanent and final character. The result of
such an election must mean an alteration of the veto of the
House of Lords; if they win they will have asserted their
right, not merely to reject legislation of the House of
Commons, but to control the finances of the country, and if
they lose we will smash to pieces their veto. I say to you
that we do not seek the struggle, we have our work to do; but
if it is to come, it could never come better than now."
Very soon after the Bill had been passed over to the House of
Lords it was known that the Conservative leaders had consented
to its death in that body. What may be called the death
sentence was pronounced on the 22d of November, when Lord
Lansdowne moved the following amendment to a motion for the
second reading of the Bill: "That this House is not justified
in giving its consent to this Bill until it has been submitted
to the judgment of the country."
{244}