AUSTRALASIA: AUSTRALIA--NEW ZEALAND--POLYNESIA [494
PART II.
CHRONICLE OF EVENTS IN 1914 _page_ 1
RETROSPECT OF THE YEAR'S LITERATURE (by Miss ALICE LAW),
SCIENCE (by J. REGINALD ASHWORTH, D.Sc., and others), ART (by W. T.
WHITLEY), DRAMA (by the Hon. EVELINE O. GODLEY), and MUSIC (by
ROBIN H. LEGGE) 38
OBITUARY OF EMINENT PERSONS DECEASED IN 1914 75
INDEX 116
CALENDAR, 1914.
+--------------------+ +--------------------+ +--------------------+
| JANUARY | | FEBRUARY | | MARCH |
|--------------------| |--------------------| |--------------------|
| S| M| T| W| T| F| S| | S| M| T| W| T| F| S| | S| M| T| W| T| F| S|
|--+--+--+--+--+--+--| |--+--+--+--+--+--+--| |--+--+--+--+--+--+--|
|..|..|..|..| 1| 2| 3| | 1| 2| 3| 4| 5| 6| 7| | 1| 2| 3| 4| 5| 6| 7|
| 4| 5| 6| 7| 8| 9|10| | 8| 9|10|11|12|13|14| | 8| 9|10|11|12|13|14|
|11|12|13|14|15|16|17| |15|16|17|18|19|20|21| |15|16|17|18|19|20|21|
|18|19|20|21|22|23|24| |22|23|24|25|26|27|28| |22|23|24|25|26|27|28|
|25|26|27|28|29|39|31| |..|..|..|..|..|..|..| |29|30|31|..|..|..|..|
|..|..|..|..|..|..|..| |..|..|..|..|..|..|..| |..|..|..|..|..|..|..|
---------------------- ---------------------- ----------------------
+--------------------+ +--------------------+ +--------------------+
| APRIL | | MAY | | JUNE |
|--------------------| |--------------------| |--------------------|
| S| M| T| W| T| F| S| | S| M| T| W| T| F| S| | S| M| T| W| T| F| S|
|--+--+--+--+--+--+--| |--+--+--+--+--+--+--| |--+--+--+--+--+--+--|
|..|..|..| 1| 2| 3| 4| |..|..|..|..|..| 1| 2| |..| 1| 2| 3| 4| 5| 6|
| 5| 6| 7| 8| 9|10|11| | 3| 4| 5| 6| 7| 8| 9| | 7| 8| 9|10|11|12|13|
|12|13|14|15|16|17|18| |10|11|12|13|14|15|16| |14|15|16|17|18|19|20|
|19|20|21|22|23|24|25| |17|18|19|20|21|22|23| |21|22|23|24|25|26|27|
|26|27|28|29|30|..|..| |24|25|26|27|28|29|30| |28|29|30|..|..|..|..|
|..|..|..|..|..|..|..| |31|..|..|..|..|..|..|..|..|..|..|..|..|..|..|
---------------------- ---------------------- ----------------------
+--------------------+ +--------------------+ +--------------------+
| JULY | | AUGUST | | SEPTEMBER |
|--------------------| |--------------------| |--------------------|
| S| M| T| W| T| F| S| | S| M| T| W| T| F| S| | S| M| T| W| T| F| S|
|--+--+--+--+--+--+--| |--+--+--+--+--+--+--| |--+--+--+--+--+--+--|
|..|..|..| 1| 2| 3| 4| |..|..|..|..|..|..| 1| |..|..| 1| 2| 3| 4| 5|
| 5| 6| 7| 8| 9|10|11| | 2| 3| 4| 5| 6| 7| 8| | 6| 7| 8| 9|10|11|12|
|12|13|14|15|16|17|18| | 9|10|11|12|13|14|15| |13|14|15|16|17|18|19|
|19|20|21|22|23|24|25| |16|17|18|19|20|21|22| |20|21|22|23|24|25|26|
|26|27|28|29|30|31|..| |23|24|25|26|27|28|29| |27|28|29|30|..|..|..|
|..|..|..|..|..|..|..| |30|31|..|..|..|..|..|..|..|..|..|..|..|..|..|
---------------------- ---------------------- ----------------------
+--------------------+ +--------------------+ +--------------------+
| OCTOBER | | NOVEMBER | | DECEMBER |
|--------------------| |--------------------| |--------------------|
| S| M| T| W| T| F| S| | S| M| T| W| T| F| S| | S| M| T| W| T| F| S|
|--+--+--+--+--+--+--| |--+--+--+--+--+--+--| |--+--+--+--+--+--+--|
|..|..|..|..| 1| 2| 3| | 1| 2| 3| 4| 5| 6| 7| |..|..| 1| 2| 3| 4| 5|
| 4| 5| 6| 7| 8| 9|10| | 8| 9|10|11|12|13|14| | 6| 7| 8| 9|10|11|12|
|11|12|13|14|15|16|17| |15|16|17|18|19|20|21| |13|14|15|16|17|18|19|
|18|19|20|21|22|23|24| |22|23|24|25|26|27|28| |20|21|22|23|24|25|26|
|25|26|27|28|29|30|31| |29|30|..|..|..|..|..| |27|28|29|30|31|..|..|
|..|..|..|..|..|..|..| |..|..|..|..|..|..|..| |..|..|..|..|..|..|..|
---------------------- ---------------------- ----------------------
PREFATORY NOTE.
The Editor of the ANNUAL REGISTER thinks it necessary to state that
in no case does he claim to offer original reports of speeches in
Parliament or elsewhere. For the former he cordially acknowledges his
great indebtedness to the summary and full reports, used by special
permission of _The Times_, which have appeared in that journal, and he
has also pleasure in expressing his sense of obligation to the Editors
of "Ross's Parliamentary Record," _The Spectator_, and _The Guardian_,
for the valuable assistance which, by their consent, he has derived
from their summaries and reports, towards presenting a compact view
of the course of Parliamentary proceedings. To the Editors of the two
last-named papers he further desires to tender his best thanks for
their permission to make use of the summaries of speeches delivered
outside Parliament appearing in their columns.
In deference to suggestions which have been made on the subject, a
Calendar has been added to facilitate reference to dates.
THE MINISTRY, 1914.
_Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury_--Herbert Henry
Asquith, K.C.
_Lord High Chancellor_--Viscount Haldane, K.T.
_Lord President of the Council_--Viscount Morley of Blackburn till
August 4; thereafter Earl Beauchamp, K.G.
_Lord Privy Seal_--Marquess of Crewe, K.G.
_First Lord of the Admiralty_--Winston Spencer Churchill.
_Secretaries of State_:--
_Home_--Reginald McKenna, K.C.
_Foreign_--Sir Edward Grey, Bart., K.G.
_Colonies_--Lewis Harcourt.
_War_--Colonel J. E. B. Seely, D.S.O., till March 30; thereafter
Rt. Hon. H. H. Asquith till August 5; thereafter Earl
Kitchener of Khartoum, K.P.
_India_--Marquess of Crewe, K.G.
_Chancellor of the Exchequer_--David Lloyd George.
_Secretary for Scotland_--T. McKinnon Wood.
_Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland_--Augustine
Birrell, K.C.
_Postmaster-General_--Herbert Samuel till February 11; thereafter
H. Hobhouse.
_President of the Board of Trade_--Sydney Buxton till February 11;
thereafter John Burns till August 5; thereafter Walter Runciman.
_President of the Local Government Board_--John Burns till February
11; thereafter Herbert Samuel.
_President of the Board of Agriculture_--Walter Runciman till
August 5; thereafter Lord Lucas.
_President of the Board of Education_--Joseph A. Pease.
_Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster_--Charles Edward Henry
Hobhouse till February 11; thereafter Charles Frederick Gurney
Masterman.
_First Commissioner of Works_--Earl Beauchamp, K.C.M.G., till
August 5; thereafter Lord Emmott, G.C.M.G.
_Attorney-General_--Sir John Allsebrook Simon, K.C.V.O., K.C.
[THE ABOVE FORM THE CABINET.]
_Admiralty_:--
_First Lord--(See under_ Cabinet).
_First Sea Lord_--Admiral H.S.H. Prince Louis of Battenberg,
G.C.B., till October 29; thereafter Lord Fisher of Kilverstone.
_Civil Lord_--George Lambert.
_Parliamentary and Financial Secretary_--Thomas James Macnamara.
_War Office_:--
_War Secretary--(See under_ Cabinet).
_Financial Secretary_--Harold Baker.
_Parliamentary Under-Secretaries_:--
_Home Office_--Ellis J. Griffith. _Foreign Office_--Francis Dyke
Acland. _War Office_--H. J. Tennant. _Colonial Office_--Lord Emmott
till August 5; thereafter Lord Islington. _India Office_--Hon.
E. S. Montagu till August 5; thereafter C. H. Roberts. _Board of
Trade_--J. M. Robertson. _Local Government Board_--J. Herbert
Lewis. _Board of Education_--C. P. Trevelyan till August 6;
thereafter Christopher Addison. _Board of Agriculture_--Lord Lucas
till August 5; thereafter Sir H. Verney, Bt.
_Treasury_:--
_Junior Lords_--John W. Gulland; W. Wedgwood Benn; W. Jones; H. Webb.
_Financial Secretary_--C. F. G. Masterman till February 11;
thereafter Hon. E. S. Montagu.
_Parliamentary Secretary_--P. H. Illingworth.
_Paymaster-General_--Lord Strachie.
_Attorney-General--(See under_ Cabinet).
_Solicitor-General_--Sir Stanley Owen Buckmaster, K.C.
SCOTLAND.
_Lord Advocate_--Robert Munro, K.C.
_Solicitor-General_--T. B. Morison.
IRELAND.
_Lord-Lieutenant_--Earl of Aberdeen, K.T.
_Lord Chancellor_--Ignatius John O'Brien, K.C.
_Attorney-General_--John F. Moriarty, K.C., till his appointment as
Lord Justice of Appeal on June 18; thereafter Jonathan Pim, K.C.
_Solicitor-General_--Jonathan Pim, K.C., till his appointment as
Attorney-General; thereafter James O'Connor, K.C.
ANNUAL REGISTER
FOR THE YEAR
1914.
PART I.
ENGLISH HISTORY.
CHAPTER I.
BEFORE THE SESSION.
The year opened amid continuing apprehension for the peace of Ulster,
and sharp controversies on subjects so widely different as the
discipline of the Church of England and the needs of naval defence.
Though conversations were understood to have been resumed between the
Liberal and Unionist leaders regarding the possible terms of settlement
of the Home Rule question, it was clear that much difficulty would
be found in effecting a solution; and the Bishop of Durham advised
the clergy of his diocese to make the first Sunday of the year a
day of intercession for peace in Ireland--advice which was followed
in other parts of the country also. And the dissatisfaction of the
Ministerialist rank and file at the shipbuilding expenditure of the
Board of Admiralty was expressed by Sir John Brunner, the President
of the National Liberal Federation, and powerfully stimulated by an
interview with the Chancellor of the Exchequer published on the first
day of the year by the _Daily Chronicle_.
Mr. Lloyd George declared that, had British armament expenditure
remained at the figure regarded by Lord Randolph Churchill in 1887 as
"bloated and extravagant," a saving would have been effected equivalent
to 4_s._ in the pound on local rates, or, on Imperial taxes, to the
abolition of the duties on tea, sugar, coffee, and cocoa, and all
but 2_d._ in the pound of the income tax. The question might now
be reconsidered for three reasons: (1) Anglo-German relations were
far more friendly than for years past; (2) Continental nations were
devoting their attention more and more to strengthening their land
forces, so that Germany in particular must be thus precluded from any
idea of challenging British naval supremacy; (3) a revolt against
military supremacy was spreading throughout Christendom, or at any rate
Western Europe. Unless Liberalism seized the opportunity, it would
be false to its noblest traditions, and those who had its conscience
in their charge would be written down for ever as having betrayed
their trust. Sir John Brunner, as chairman of the National Liberal
Federation, urged that Liberal associations should pass resolutions in
favour of reduction of armament expenditure before the Army and Navy
Estimates were settled, and he and several Liberal papers urged, as one
means of reduction, the exemption of private property from capture at
sea.
The Chancellor's statement met with little response in the German
Press, and caused some apprehension in France. It was said that the
First Lord, who was just then visiting Paris, did his best to allay
this feeling; but at home it was regarded as indicating a sharp
division in the Cabinet, and a suggestion by the Chancellor of the
Duchy of Lancaster (Jan. 6) in a speech to his constituents at East
Bristol, that a reduction might be agreed on jointly by Germany and
England in the size and speed of new battleships, was spoken of as
ranging him on the Chancellor's side. The Navy League appealed to the
Mayors or chief magistrates of all towns in Great Britain to call
public meetings in support of naval defence, and gave reasons for
its contention that the actual and prospective naval forces of Great
Britain were inadequate to the needs of the Empire. It also arranged
other meetings, especially in the constituencies of Liberals favouring
reduction. Mr. F. E. Smith told his constituents (Jan. 8 and 10) that
the Chancellor was a "bungling amateur," and promised Unionist support
to the Government in this matter against its own followers; but the
Solicitor-General at Keighley (Jan. 8) declared that there was no
Liberal division; the Government policy was to maintain British naval
supremacy, but to build no more ships than were required for purely
defensive needs.
The Chancellor, in the interview in question, had also pointed to
the success of his land campaign, and had indicated, as other urgent
items in the Liberal programme, legislative devolution, the reform of
local taxation, and measures for the promotion of education, housing,
and temperance. He had also reaffirmed his faith in women's suffrage,
declaring that, but for militancy, he believed the Liberal party
would then be pledged to carrying it out. But other subjects competed
with it for public attention. The Kikuyu controversy (A.R., 1913, p.
439) had raised the question, not only of the practical necessity of
co-operation and intercommunion among the Anglican and Protestant
Christian missions in Africa, but of the precise attitude of the Church
of England in regard both to the Episcopate and the advanced views of
Biblical criticism among her younger members. The controversy went on
actively in the columns of _The Times_ and elsewhere; and the cohesion
of the Church was thought to be in grave danger. Even High Churchmen
acquainted with missionary work argued that the native churches must
not be hampered by restrictions which were the outcome of historical
conditions in Europe, or Anglican missions weakened in the face of the
progress of those carried on by British and American Nonconformists.
Presbyterians and Anglican clergy drew attention to the practice of
admitting Scotsmen and other non-Anglicans to the Lord's Supper in
the Church of England, and to the neglect of the rite of confirmation
in the past. Missionaries and colonial administrators pointed out
that an African Nonconformist could not be repelled from communion in
an Anglican church when, as often happened, his own form of worship
was inaccessible to him, without the risk of estranging him from
Christianity altogether; and Lord George Hamilton (in _The Times_, Jan.
6) urged that division among Christian missions in East Africa would
mean the triumph of Mohammedanism. The Archbishop of Canterbury, in a
letter published on January 1, had mentioned that he had not yet been
informed of the precise question which the Bishop of Zanzibar desired
to raise; and, after the matter had been actively canvassed, it was
allowed to rest pending a further pronouncement by the heads of the
Anglican Church.
A subject of more pressing interest was to be found in the various
movements among organised labour. The ballots under the Trade Union Act
of 1913 as to the establishment of a political fund, which were being
taken in the first fortnight of the year, tended to reassure those
who feared the growth of a strong Labour party, inasmuch as the vote
was generally light (the miners, however, being a notable exception)
and substantial minorities were unfavourable to the establishment of
such a fund, and therefore presumably wished to keep their unions out
of politics. But against this was to be set the marked prevalence of
Labour unrest. A national movement was expected for a minimum wage and
an eight hours' day for surface workers about mines, which might lead
to local strikes, and ultimately to a general stoppage. A lock-out
was threatened in the London building trade, where the presence of
a single non-unionist was now the signal for an instant refusal to
continue to work with him. A conflict was expected in the engineering
and shipbuilding trade on the expiry in March of the existing working
agreement. The abandonment of the Brooklands agreement threatened
the peace of the cotton trade. There were signs of trouble among the
gas-workers and transport workers in various places; and the railwaymen
were preparing for a struggle towards the end of the year on the
questions of recognition of the union, an amended conciliation scheme,
and a shorter working day.
Meanwhile the Unionist party was prepared for the loss of one of its
most imposing figures by Mr. Chamberlain's letters to the Presidents of
the Liberal Unionist and Conservative Associations in his constituency
of West Birmingham, announcing that he would retire from Parliament
at the general election. He had not appeared in the House except
to take the oath and his seat, since his disablement by gout and
partial paralysis in the summer of 1906 (A.R., 1906, p. 180); and,
though his health was not worse than it had been for some time, it
had long been realised that he could never again take an active part
in political life. Still, the announcement marked the close of an
epoch, and of his Parliamentary connexion of more than thirty-seven
years with Birmingham, twenty-nine of them as the first member for
his actual constituency; and it was received with general regret and
with acknowledgment, even by opponents, of his distinguished services
to Great Britain and to the Empire. It was arranged that Mr. Austen
Chamberlain should stand for his father's seat in West Birmingham. A
few days later another Parliamentary veteran of Liberal Unionism, Mr.
Jesse Collings, retired likewise after thirty-three years' service in
Parliament, of which he had spent twenty-seven as member for Bordesley.
He had worked, he said, for over half a century with Mr. Chamberlain,
"and it seems fitting, even as a matter of sentiment only, that we
should put off our harness together and at the same time."
However, the supreme questions were the attitude and the future
of Ulster; and the period of interchange of views and of respite
was rapidly drawing to a close. As _The Times_ noticed (Jan. 5),
responsible Unionists during the period of "conversations" had observed
the "rule of reticence"; and such voices as had been heard were those
of more independent politicians. Mr. William O'Brien, speaking at
Douglas, near Cork (Jan. 4), regretted that the Nationalists had not
accepted Lord Loreburn's proposals or the concessions suggested by the
"All for Ireland" party, which in that event, had Sir Edward Carson
refused them, might have been the subject of an appeal to the country.
He again denounced the idea of the separation of Ulster from the rest
of Ireland. A method of averting this and yet satisfying the fears of
the Ulster Unionists was suggested by Mr. T. Lough, M.P., himself an
Ulsterman and a Liberal, and had the support of Dr. Mahaffy and other
eminent Protestant Irishmen. It was, briefly, to give the Protestant
and Unionist minority a larger representation in the Irish House of
Commons than their numerical strength would entitle them to claim.
But the indemnity fund to compensate the Ulster Volunteers for their
sacrifices for the cause had exceeded 1,000,000_l._ by January 9; and
it was freely reported that the "conversations" had broken down, and
the first important utterances by Unionists confirmed this opinion.
Addressing a Primrose League mass meeting at Manchester, on January
14, Earl Curzon of Kedleston dealt mainly with the naval question and
with Ulster. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement, he said, was
inconsistent with his speech in August, 1913 (A.R., 1913, p. 194).
There was something humiliating in these appeals from British Ministers
for a reduction, and British reductions had merely led to a German
increase. The "naval holiday" proposal had produced no response, and
the policy of independent and isolated reduction would provoke the
exultation of Great Britain's enemies and the anger of her friends.
Collective man seemed to be as selfish, bloodthirsty and brutal as
in the dark ages, and the only guarantee of safety was the knowledge
that a nation could not be attacked with impunity. Giving reasons for
increased expenditure, he said that by the Navy alone could Great
Britain keep her treaties with foreign Powers, maintain the balance
of power in Europe, and be of any value to her friends. A Little Navy
campaign would rouse Unionist protest throughout the country, not for
party purposes, but because it tended to national suicide. As to Home
Rule, he intimated that the conversations between the leaders had
hitherto had no result; and, after pressing for either a referendum
or a general election, he indicated that the Unionists might accept
the Bill were it considerably altered and Ulster excluded. In gaining
Ulster by force, the Nationalists would lose it for ever. To secure a
peaceful Ireland, the Unionists would make sacrifices; but they could
not consent to Home Rule within Home Rule, which Ulster would not
accept. They desired to save the country from a great disaster and must
appeal to the national instincts of the people.
The Lord Chancellor, speaking at Hoxton on January 15, advised his
hearers not to be pessimistic about the discussions between the
leaders; but at Bristol on the same evening Mr. Bonar Law gave no
hope of a successful outcome. The country, he said, was rapidly and
inevitably drifting to civil war. The conversations so far had been
without result, and he expected that there would be none. It was not
for the Unionists to make proposals, and, anxious as they were to avoid
a terrible upheaval, they would accept no proposal which did not meet
the just claims of Ulster. He had thought from the speeches of Mr.
Churchill, Sir E. Grey, and even the Prime Minister at Ladybank, that
the Government were prepared to face the facts, but the Nationalist
leaders had claimed the right to govern Ulster, which they could
not govern by their own strength. The Government knew that if they
appealed to the people and were defeated their whole work of the last
two years would be lost; and they had also incurred obligations to the
Nationalists, and were resolved to carry their policy through. If they
were right, the Ulstermen and the Unionists, who meant to assist them,
were traitors; if the Unionists were right, the Government were acting
as tyrants, and had lost the right to obedience. He argued once more
that Home Rule was not before the electorate at the election of 1910,
and pointed out that the American colonies in 1776, though their cause
for revolt was trivial as compared with that of Ulster, had revolted
on a question of principle while suffering was still distant. He
contrasted the apathy in Dublin with the determination in Ulster, daily
becoming more immovable, and interpreted Sir Edward Grey's statement
at Bradford (A.R., 1913, p. 250) that the Government would put down
an outbreak in Ulster as signifying that the Government hoped that
Ulster would give occasion to put its existence down by force. That was
gambling in human life. The position in Ulster was no longer in doubt.
The people in Ulster, and the Unionist party, had no alternative.
The Unionist leaders fully recognised their responsibility, past and
future; but the path of duty was that of national safety, for, if the
Government once realised that the Unionist party was in earnest, they
would see that they must appeal to the people.
The impression of hopelessness produced by this speech was seen in
the appeal of the Archbishop of York, at Edinburgh, in a sermon
on the following Sunday (Jan. 18), from the text "Blessed are the
Peacemakers," that efforts at compromise should continue so as to
save the country from civil war. But the Nationalists held that
compromise was impossible until the Bill had reached its final stage
in the Commons; and the rank and file of the Ulstermen desired that
the negotiations should fail. Hence, though Mr. William O'Brien
sacrificed his seat (Jan. 17) and stood again in order to prove
that, in spite of the defeat of his following at the Cork municipal
elections, the constituency continued to support the policy of
"conference, conciliation, and consent," the mass both of Ulstermen
and of Nationalists showed no disposition to make peace. The anxiety
was heightened by the proceedings in Belfast (Jan. 17-19). Sir Edward
Carson arrived on the 17th, inspected the East Belfast Regiment, and
emphasised the determination of the force to resist Home Rule. On the
19th the Ulster Unionist Council met in private; and, addressing them
at a luncheon afterwards, he said that Mr. Chamberlain had told him
a few weeks before that "he would fight it out," and they would take
his advice. "Conversations" as to a settlement had been taking place,
but negotiations were useless unless based on the continuance, under
the Imperial Parliament, of the rights which their ancestors had won.
Further conversations might be necessary, but their preparations should
keep pace with their diplomacy. He paid a tribute to the sacrifices
made by the Volunteer Force, and concluded by saying that their loyalty
to the Throne would last to the end, even if they were shot down
cheering the King. An enthusiastic demonstration in the Ulster Hall
followed, and was addressed by the Marquess of Londonderry, Mr. Long
(who assured Ulster of the support of the English Unionists), and Sir
Edward Carson, who again advised "peace, but preparation."
Following this advice, the Ulster Unionist Standing Committee prepared
for action; and at the annual meeting of the Ulster Women's Unionist
Council Sir E. Carson again urged them to stand firm. He recognised the
kindness of the English Unionists in preparing to receive the Ulster
women and children in the event of civil war, but he believed "the
women of Ulster would stand by their men." The women, it must be added,
were actively engaged in preparing to take part in nursing, signalling,
and telegraphic and postal work; and the meeting passed a resolution
declaring its unabated loyalty to the Covenant and its resolve to
continue in the pursuance of the cause and the maintenance of civil and
religious freedom.
Speaking at Batley next day Mr. Birrell said that there was great
prosperity in Ireland, except in Dublin, where, however, things were
settling themselves; and he scoffed at the readiness of the Unionist
party, while detesting Home Rule, to accept the decision of the odd
men at a general election. He welcomed Sir Edward Carson's declaration
that he would not close the door on negotiations; but they must leave
the matter there for the present, resting satisfied that the Liberal
party and its leader were conscious of the sacrifices Liberals had made
to get the question into its actual position. From that they did not
desire to see it recede in the least degree, except in pursuance of the
object they had in view.
Meanwhile the Chancellor's utterance on naval expenditure had
encouraged Liberal expressions of the demand for reduction at meetings
at Manchester, Newcastle-on-Tyne, and elsewhere, even in the City of
London (Jan. 16). This last meeting, at the Cannon Street Hotel, though
not large, was influential, but there was a considerable dissentient
element, and a protest was made in the name of "a great majority of
members of the Stock Exchange." The chairman, Mr. F. W. Hirst, editor
of the _Economist_, condemned the First Lord for not keeping to his
own standard of sixteen to ten; and two resolutions were moved, one
advocating a searching examination into all departments of expenditure,
in order that the Sinking Fund might be maintained without additions to
the taxes; the other urging savings in expenditure on armaments, "in
view of the improved relations with all other Powers and the reduction
in the naval programme of Germany," the next strongest Continental
naval Power. Sir John Brunner and three M. P.'s--Mr. D. A. Thomas, Mr.
Lough, and Mr. D. M. Mason--addressed the meeting, the first-named
advocating the abolition of the right of capture of private property at
sea.
One result of the protests was that the _Daily Telegraph_ (Jan. 20),
by an ingenious conjecture, declared that there was a grave crisis in
the Cabinet, and that both the naval and civil members of the Board
of Admiralty had expressed their intention to retire if the Cabinet
refused the supplies asked for, which they regarded as the bare minimum
necessary; the statement, however, was promptly contradicted officially.
A day earlier the Postmaster-General, speaking at Henley-on-Thames, had
stated that, besides the measures to be passed under the Parliament
Act, the Prime Minister within the year would lay before Parliament
proposals for the complete elimination from it of the hereditary
principle and the thorough democratising of the Second Chamber.
The Ministry thus sat tight and defied its assailants, and the
Opposition felt that their best chance lay in Ulster. Mr. Austen
Chamberlain made it the chief theme of his speech at Shirley, Hants,
on January 23, when he declared that Ulster, in the last resort, would
save herself by her own right arm, and that England would follow her
example.
But within the Unionist party itself there was fresh trouble on
fiscal reform. The Farmers' Tariff League appealed by advertisement
to Unionist agriculturists, manufacturers, and those dependent on
fixed incomes, to vote against supporters of the existing Unionist
fiscal policy; Mr. Rowland Hunt, at the Horncastle branch of the
Farmers' Union (Jan. 14), denounced the postponement of food duties
(A. R., 1912, p. 267) as disastrous, and the existing tariff policy as
"rotten." A 10 per cent. duty was too low for manufactured goods, and
home food producers were left unprotected, although their contribution
to rates and taxes was equivalent to a duty of 15 per cent. Mr. Hunt,
of course, was an independent and irresponsible Unionist, but he did
not stand alone.
More responsible Unionists, too, were constrained by the Government
programme to concede that something must be done to redress the alleged
social grievances, and to propound an alternative and more moderate
policy. Thus Mr. Long, speaking at the Holloway Empire (Jan. 17), after
referring briefly to the threatening cloud of civil war, and promising
that a Unionist Ministry would ask for power to make the Navy adequate,
criticised the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement in that hall
(A. R., 1913, p. 247), pointing out that the number of separate
freehold estates in St. Pancras was not ten, but 1,550. He went on
to suggest that instead of the Chancellor's reform proposals, which
would take some years to carry out and entail a horde of officials and
much un-English Government interference, there should be (1) facility
for continuity of tenure by industrial tenants in London and large
towns under reasonable conditions, or else compensation for loss of
tenancy; (2) reasonable compensation for tenants' improvements which
increased the letting value; (3) protection or relief from unreasonable
covenants restricting the development of property. The Unionists would
give redress through a tribunal modelled on the Wreck Commissioners'
Court, and a non-controversial Bill embodying these changes might
be introduced in the coming session. This would redress the existing
grievances in six or eight months, but, as with housing reform (A.
R., 1912, p. 57) the Radicals were determined that the Unionist party
should not have the credit of carrying a measure of social reform.
[Other items of a Unionist "social programme" were understood to be in
preparation.]
Meanwhile an important subject of non-contentious legislation for any
Ministry that might be in office was afforded by the International
Conference on the Safety of Life at Sea, originally suggested by the
German Emperor and called by King George, which had met in London
on November 12, 1913, and signed a Convention as the result of its
deliberations on January 20. Publication was postponed till it had
been communicated to the eighteen Governments participating (among
them those of Canada, Australia and New Zealand); but the results were
summarised in a speech by Lord Mersey, the Chairman of the Conference.
Five Committees had dealt respectively with Safety of Navigation,
Safety of Construction, Wireless Telegraphy, Lifesaving Appliances,
and Certificates. The provisions are too numerous to be given in
detail here; it may be said that an international service under the
control of the United States was established for dealing with ice and
dangerous derelicts within certain limits in the North Atlantic; ice
must be reported, speed reduced at night in its neighbourhood or the
course altered, boat decks properly lighted, and Morse signal lamps
carried. Steps were taken to revise the international regulations
dealing with collisions. Strict regulations were laid down as to the
subdivision of ships into watertight compartments, and other provisions
against sinking, fire, or collision; and also as to the equipment of
all merchant vessels of the contracting States, when on international
voyages and carrying more than fifty persons, with wireless telegraphy;
lifeboats or their equivalents must be provided for all on board, and
there were minute regulations both as to these and as to other forms
of life-saving apparatus; a specified number of men must be carried
competent to handle boats and life-rafts; and provision was made for
the detection of fire. Ships of the contracting States complying with
the requirements of the Convention would receive certificates which
each of the States would acknowledge. The Convention was to come into
force on July 1, 1915.
A foretaste of the expected Labour troubles was afforded in London
by a strike (Jan. 21), in very cold weather, of the coal porters,
after the failure of negotiations with the employers for increased
pay; two days later the coal carmen came out also, and the number on
strike was about 10,000. Permits were at first given by the strikers,
but afterwards stopped, for the carriage of coal to hospitals and
infirmaries; but the clerks and travellers of the employers, and
the students at the hospitals, volunteered to take the places of the
strikers, and vehicles of all sorts, including motor-cars, were lent
to replace the carts. The strike ended (Jan. 28) with concessions by
the employers, one firm having previously given way. But the dispute in
the London building trade (p. 3) was more serious. The Master Builders'
Association complained that, some twenty times in the past nine months,
men employed on one or other building job had suddenly refused to work
with a non-unionist; and they demanded that each employee individually
should sign an undertaking not to strike against the employment of
non-unionists, under penalty of a fine of 20_s._ The men declined to
discuss these conditions; and on Saturday, January 24, a number were
dismissed, and a general lock-out was threatened. There was some doubt
if the proposed fine would be legally enforceable; and, as the men
were dismissed, they claimed unemployment benefit under the Insurance
Act, but in vain. And the dispute was complicated by the raising
of other questions as a condition of the resumption of work. About
a thousand of the men submitted; the great majority remained firm.
Among other examples of unrest was a prolonged strike of chairmakers
at High Wycombe, which led to some rioting; of the taxi-drivers of
London; of the municipal employees at Blackburn; and of the elementary
school-teachers in Herefordshire. And the Prime Minister (Feb. 3)
felt constrained to decline the request made by a deputation of the
Miners' Federation to extend the principle of the Minimum Wage Act to
surface workers, thus widening the visible rift between Labour and the
Government.
The militant suffragists, meanwhile, had not been inactive. A
conservatory in the Glasgow Winter Garden had been damaged, and an
unoccupied house near Lanark fired, on January 24; and two days later
a deputation from the militant organisation submitted to the Bishop
of London a statement (based wholly on inference) from Miss Ansell,
a prisoner in Holloway Jail, to the effect that a fellow-prisoner,
Rachel Peace, was being forcibly fed and brutally treated by the jail
authorities. The Bishop, however, after personally investigating the
matter and talking to Miss Peace, satisfied himself that the statement
was unfounded. The Home Secretary was willing to advise Miss Peace's
absolute release if she would undertake to abstain from crime; this
she was conscientiously unable to promise, and, though the Bishop had
pleaded that she might be released on licence, and she had agreed to
abide by its terms, this course was impracticable under the Act. The
Bishop's letter stating these facts was published January 31; the
militants met it by interrupting the service while he was consecrating
a church at Golder's Green next day, and on the day following another
militant deputation asked him to visit two other women prisoners in
Holloway, and state his experiences at a meeting of the Women's Social
and Political Union. This last invitation he declined, but he visited
the prison, talked to the two women, Miss Marian and Miss Brady, and
found that while forcible feeding made one of them sick and gave the
other indigestion, no harshness was shown them by the officials, and
they complained of no personal unkindness. He told the militants,
in conclusion, that their action was not only wrong, but impolitic.
The militants were furious at this reply, and the Bishop's house was
picketed by their emissaries, who were, however, unable to see him.
But none of these disturbing questions could interrupt the Home Rule
controversy for long. Speaking at a Home Rule meeting of some 15,000
persons in Waterford on Sunday, January 25, Mr. John Redmond said that
the British people remained absolutely unshaken in their support of
Home Rule, and that, putting aside two unlikely contingencies, the Bill
would in the current year automatically become law. The Prime Minister
would not be intimidated into dropping it; he was the strongest and
sanest Englishman of the day in British politics. Alarmist shrieks
were filling the air, but business in Belfast and Ulster was booming,
and the great body of the people of Great Britain remained unmoved.
There could not be a war without two contending parties; and the
Ulster "army" was for defence only, and would not be attacked. He saw
no prospect of Ulster goodwill being purchased by any concession,
but it was almost a blasphemy to say that "the Nationalists could do
without them." Long ago he had said that there were no lengths, short
of the abandonment of the principle of nationalism, to which he would
not go, no safeguards to which he would object, which would satisfy
the fears of Ulstermen for their religious interests. Subject to the
limits recently laid down by the Premier (A. R. 1913, p. 220) he said
the same that day, and was prepared to pay a big price for settlement
by consent. The Nationalists of Ulster had shown admirable loyalty and
self-restraint, and those of North Cork "magnificent discipline" in
refusing a contest which, whatever its result, would greatly injure
their cause (p. 6). Ireland's travail was almost ended, and they
were about to witness the rebirth of Irish freedom, prosperity, and
happiness. Before the meeting Mr. Redmond had been presented with a
number of addresses from public bodies, and had said that under Home
Rule there would be a need for practical business men; politics would
disappear, and their task would be to apply themselves to practical
problems, and to lift Ireland from the slough of despond in which it
had been for the past thirty years.
Sir Edward Carson replied next day, at Lincoln, that Mr. Redmond seemed
to speak as if he held the Government in the hollow of his hand. If
his speech were the last word, the country was in a lamentable and
critical position. On the other hand, Mr. Birrell, at North Bristol,
ridiculed the Unionist insistence on the danger of civil war as a mere
party move; eulogised Mr. Redmond's speech, and said that before civil
war began, Mr. Asquith would have stated to the world the opportunity
offered to Ulster and refused. All Governments were experimental;
Liberals saw that the only Government now possible for Ireland was one
which should have the authority of the people and time for legislative
work. Should the Tories come in, they would within six months be
introducing a measure only colourably different from that on which they
were threatening civil war.
Mr. Long, at Nottingham (Jan. 28), denounced the obscurity of this
speech, and hinted at a suspicion that the Government were trying to
force Ulster to prejudice its case by committing some act of violence;
and Mr. Austen Chamberlain also replied to the Chief Secretary for
Ireland at Skipton (Jan. 30), denouncing the Government for forcing
on, during a time of turmoil abroad and at home, the Welsh Church,
Home Rule, and Plural Voting Bills. They had found Ireland at peace,
and brought it to the verge of civil war. Their methods had destroyed
the moral basis of their authority. No concession worth speaking of
would avert the dangers then threatening, unless it provided for the
exclusion of Ulster from the sphere of a Union Parliament. The Chief
Secretary's paper safeguards were of no value. The Lord-Lieutenant
would be distracted between the advice of his Ministers and of the
Imperial Government. He could not trust the Nationalists, nor, judging
by the provisions in the Bill, could the Government. England was to
conquer a province and hold it down at the expense of her friends and
for the benefit of her enemies. Against this Ulster appealed to the
nation, and the Unionist party would stand by them.
The Nationalist comment was expressed by Mr. Devlin at Moate, Westmeath
(Feb. 1). After saying that, without compulsion, which was one of the
vital provisions of the pending Land Bill, the land problem would not
be solved either in this generation or the next, he declared that the
only obstacle in the way of Home Rule was the threat of civil war in
Ulster, which had failed to convince or intimidate anybody, not least
in Ulster itself. The so-called Volunteer movement and the Provisional
Government had been reduced to a miserable fiasco, and the whole thing
was a gigantic game of bluff. Among business men in favour of Home Rule
he cited Lord Pirrie, Sir Hugh Mack, Mr. Glendinning, and Mr. Thomas
Shillington, "out of a host of others."
Another brief interruption in the Home Rule controversy, to the
temporary disadvantage of the Government, was now occasioned by the
news (Jan. 28) of the deportation, by the South African Government, of
ten of the Labour leaders concerned in the strike disturbances (_post_,
For. and Col. Hist., chap. VII., 1). The indignation was heightened by
the evasion by that Government of a legal decision on the validity of
the deportation, which was carried out under martial law, and by its
reliance on an Act of Indemnity. The Labour Party Congress in Glasgow
at once passed a resolution protesting against the suppression of trade
union action in South Africa by armed force, expressing sympathy with
the deported leaders, and requesting the Labour members in the Imperial
Parliament to call for a full inquiry, and demand, if necessary, Lord
Gladstone's recall; and next day it passed a further resolution calling
upon the Government to instruct Lord Gladstone to withhold assent to
the Bill until it had been submitted to the King. Strong speeches were
made by Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, Mr. Keir Hardie, and other members,
the first-named declaring that if the Imperial authority could not
stop this attack on the right of combination, he had rather the South
African Union were a foreign Power. On the other hand, Mr. Illingworth,
the chief Liberal Whip, pointed out (at Clayton, Jan. 30) that South
Africa was governed by a Parliament elected on a very free and wide
franchise and quite uncontrolled by the Imperial Government, and that
interference with such independent assembly would wreck the Empire;
Lord Gladstone had acted on the advice of his responsible Ministers, as
the King would in Great Britain; and the Home Government was blameless.
At Hull, on the same evening, Mr. F. E. Smith asked for a suspension of
judgment, and pointed out the inconsistency of demanding that the King
should veto a Bill of Indemnity and repudiating that course on Home
Rule. The South African Government, he reminded his hearers, had been
created with the help of the Labour party.
The Liberal Press had anticipated the Chief Whip's arguments; but at
the North Durham bye-election (Chron., Jan. 30) though the Liberals
held the seat, which had always been regarded as safe for them, it was
said that the deportations had caused the transfer from the Liberal to
the Labour candidate of some 500 votes. In view of this transfer, the
Postmaster-General, speaking at Harrogate, on February 2, had explained
that Lord Gladstone's assent to the deportation of the Labour leaders
was not required by the Constitution of South Africa, and, in fact, had
not been asked. He added that the North Durham result did not support
Mr. Bonar Law's prophecy of an early general election.
Should such an event occur, however, there were plenty of other
questions for the electors besides Home Rule, Some of them, indeed,
might prove dangerous for the Government, notably the land question,
on which its programme did not go far enough for the single-taxers, a
strong body in some districts, especially in Scotland. For this reason
special interest was felt in the speech, which had been repeatedly
deferred, of the Chancellor of the Exchequer at Glasgow on February
4. Many opponents got in with forged tickets; nevertheless he had a
fair hearing. After ridiculing the explanations in the Press of the
postponement as due to differences in the Cabinet, or difficulties
with the Ulster Unionists or the "single-taxers," he said that the
underlying principle of land legislation was that the land was
created for the benefit of all dwellers on it, and that any rights
of ownership inconsistent with this principle should be ruthlessly
overridden. That was the principle of the Scottish Land Act, but there
were still anomalies; the peasantry was emigrating largely, and could
not be spared. While indicating that rural conditions were not so
bad in Scotland as in England, he pointed out that the effect of the
Scottish Land Act had been to reduce the rents on many well-managed
estates, a proof that under the system of competitive rents, part
of a farmer's labour was unconsciously confiscated by rent. After
indicating afresh the main points in the Ministerial scheme, he passed
to the urban problem. Housing was even worse in some Scottish towns
than in England. The cost of clearing the slums was prohibitive.
Municipalities should be able (1) to acquire land at a fair market
price, and (2) in advance of existing needs; (3) there should be an
expeditious method of arriving at the price, and (4) the land must
contribute to public expenditure on the basis of its real value. He
alleged certain instances of the contrary--the Duke of Montrose had
received 2,000 years' purchase from the people of Glasgow on the
basis of his contribution to the public funds; the Cathcart School
Board had paid 3,270_l._ 17_s._, or 920 years' purchase, for an acre
and a half of the rateable value of 3_l._ 10_s._; and 27,255_l._, or
2,452 years' purchase of the rateable value, had been paid for ten
acres for a torpedo range near Greenock. The Clyde Trustees had had
to pay to a Peer 84,000_l._ for nineteen acres--1,400 years' purchase
of the rateable value. A new rating system was wanted, which should
rate property on its real value and not discourage improvement; and
high authorities had approved the rating of site values, notably
Lord Rosebery and Mr. Chamberlain. Of the two proposals--to rate
site value only, and not to rate it at all--he regarded the first
as impracticable, the second as pusillanimous; there were several
alternative methods between these limits, but whichever one was
adopted, there must be a national valuation, and it would be ready in
1915. Of his statements on the Highland clearances he withdrew none;
of course mountains were unsuitable for agriculture, but the glens
were capable of tillage and the hillsides of afforestation. As to the
Sutherland clearances he cited Sir Walter Scott, Hugh Miller, and a
recent book by Mr. Sage, an Established Church minister, to show the
suffering caused, and denounced the Duke of Sutherland (A. R., 1913,
p. 262) for trying to get money out of the proposed redress of the
wrong done by his ancestors. As to the discrepancy between the offer
and the valuation for death duties, "there had never been such a
case since the days of Ananias and Sapphira." In 1748 the Duke of
Sutherland had claimed compensation for the abolition of the right to
hang his subjects; he asked for 10,000_l._ and got 1,000_l._ This was
an instance of the patience with which the people had endured great
injustice. Outside the Highlands hundreds of thousands of men were
working for a wage barely keeping their families above privation,
seeing their children die for lack of light, air, and space; in
the cities there were quagmires of fermenting human misery; but
the chariots of retribution were drawing nigh, and there would be
elbow-room for the poor.
This speech incidentally led to a sharp controversy between the
Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Duke of Montrose, who pointed
out that the land sold by him to the Corporation was sold at a price
awarded on arbitration, and covering many items besides the value of
the land, and that he had no interest in the Cathcart School or its
site.
Two days earlier, the Earl of Derby, speaking at Liverpool, had
elaborately and effectively rebutted attacks made by the Chancellor of
the Exchequer on the management of the Bootle estate, and, in view of
a statement by Baron de Forest in a memorandum attached to the Land
Report (A. R., 1913, p. 212) that the value of the site of Bootle
had risen from 7,000_l._ in 1724 to three or four millions in 1913,
he had offered the estate to Baron de Forest for 1,500,000_l._ The
Baron accepted, on condition that the transfer should include all sums
realised since 1724 by sales, fines, or mortgages--a condition which
terminated the negotiations, though not the epistolary controversy.
The day before the Chancellor of the Exchequer had appeased the
single-taxers, the Foreign Secretary had again disquieted the Liberal
advocates of naval reduction at a dinner given him by the Manchester
Chamber of Commerce (Feb. 3). Beginning with a reference to the
Lancashire cotton industry and the promotion of trade by the Consular
service, he said that one duty of the Foreign Office was to keep open
the world's markets; but further difficulties might be raised by the
effort to do so--in Persia, for example--and the Great Powers could
not as yet interfere to prevent war without the danger of an outbreak
of war among themselves. Happily in the Balkan War the Great Powers
had left the settlement in the main to the States concerned, and had
preserved peace among themselves. British policy, throughout, had made
for peace. But trade was damaged, not only by war, but by the waste
involved in armament expenditure. A slackening by one country, however,
would rather stimulate the others than cause them to slacken; British
naval expenditure was a great factor in that of Europe, but the forces
making for increase were beyond control. To reduce the British naval
programme would probably produce no response in Europe; at any rate,
it would be staking too much on a gambling chance. England, though
she felt the financial strain the least, was calling out against this
expenditure, because, as business men, Englishmen were shocked by the
waste and apprehensive of its effect on the credit of Europe. She
had several times proposed reduction by consent, but had met with no
response. The only schoolmaster for other Powers was finance, and he
thought at no distant date it might begin to be effectual. He closed
with a reference to the great traditions of the Manchester School,
and an expression of hope for the solution of the current problems of
industrial discontent.
The outlook in Europe had been improved, and the position of Great
Britain strengthened, by the reception of the British Note to the
Powers on the solution of the Near Eastern problem (A. R., 1913, p.
357; For. Hist., Chap. III.); but the case for reduction of naval
expenditure had been weakened by the Canadian Premier's announcement
(Jan. 20), that he would not proceed with his naval policy till after a
general election. Nevertheless, a strong feeling in favour of economy
was exhibited in many quarters, notably by the Chambers of Commerce
of Manchester, Bradford, and Burnley, and at public meetings at
Manchester and elsewhere. A meeting to advocate reduction at Queen's
Hall, London (Feb. 3), was addressed by Sir Herbert Leon (chairman),
the Bishop of Hereford, Lord Courtney of Penwith, and Mr. Ponsonby,
M. P. The chairman said it was folly to pay such a rate of insurance
against an impossible catastrophe; the Bishop of Hereford feared
that some Government departments were affected with the poison of
Jingo Imperialism; Lord Courtney of Penwith denounced the "armaments
gang," and suggested that Great Britain might renounce all notions
of alliances, and get rid even of the elusive aspect of _ententes_;
and Mr. Ponsonby ridiculed the futile diplomacy of the First Lord in
proposing a naval holiday in a party platform speech. On the other
hand, a meeting called at the request of a thousand business men in the
City of London (Feb. 9) assured the Government of the support of the
commercial community in any measures necessary to secure the supremacy
of the British Navy and the adequate protection of the trade routes of
the Empire. The Lord Mayor presided, and the non-party character of the
meeting was exhibited by the circumstance that Lord Southwark, a former
Liberal whip, moved the main resolution, and the Hon. Thomas Mackenzie,
Agent-General for New Zealand, supported it.
Speaking at the annual dinner of the Birmingham Jewellers' and
Silversmiths' Association (Feb. 7), Mr. Austen Chamberlain expressed
his grave misgiving at the outlook for the session. The Parliament
Act, he said, paralysed the discussion for the first two years of
measures placed under it, and the desire for the reduction of naval
expenditure was unshared by any responsible person who had access to
the real history of the past two years. Foreign policy had happily
been kept outside party, the Government accepting the policy of its
predecessors. The Foreign Secretary should take the House and the
people more into his confidence, to ensure that they should be united
in a great emergency, and should give a reasoned review of the position
in relation to the affairs of the world such as that accorded by the
Foreign Ministers of other Great States to Parliaments to which they
were less responsible than the British Foreign Secretary was to that of
Great Britain.
To return to domestic politics, the friction set up by the Insurance
Act seemed to be gradually abating; and the results of the Act were
set forth by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at a complimentary
non-political dinner to Dr. Addison, Liberal M. P. for Hoxton,
organised by members of the medical profession, at the Hotel Metropole
on February 6. After eulogising Dr. Addison's services in effecting,
with Sir George Newnes, the medical treatment of school-children and
State provision for medical research, he laid stress on Dr. Addison's
aid, coupled with absolute loyalty to his profession, during the
struggle with the medical men (A. R., 1913, pp. 2, 49). There were
now, including doctors on more than one panel under the same Insurance
Committee, over 20,000 general practitioners on the panels out of
22,500 in Great Britain; nearly 4,500,000_l._ had been distributed
among them, and the average for each was 230_l._, rising in London to
330_l._ and in Birmingham to 380_l._ Besides this there was 933,000_l._
for drugs, and a balance of 310,000_l._ unallotted as between doctors
and chemists. That was for only one-third of the population. Millions
of people must before the Act have been without medical attendance.
A _locum tenens_ had previously received two guineas a week, now he
received eight, nine, or even twelve. Assistants had received 120_l._
with board and lodging, or 180_l._ without them, now they got 200_l._
and 250_l._ respectively, or even more. That was the settlement which
was to ruin the profession. They were at last getting a survey of the
health of the nation such as they had never had before.
But the supreme problem was still Home Rule; and the Nationalist
position had again been emphasised by Mr. John Redmond at a dinner
given him by the National Liberal Club on February 6, the first time
the club had officially entertained a leader of the Nationalist
party in Parliament. He declared that the Unionist opposition to
the Home Rule Bill was essentially directed against the Parliament
Act: the Unionists, he believed, would be Home Rulers to-morrow if
it suited their party interests, and he referred to Lord Carnarvon's
historic interview with Mr. Parnell in 1885, and to the Constitutional
Conference of 1910. Even in 1911 a Tory paper had stated that there
was much to be said for the principle of Home Rule under the name of
federation, devolution, and self-government. The Unionists, however,
had to fall back on Ireland for a policy and a party cry, though
the principle of self-government had been bitterly opposed by their
predecessors for Canada and for South Africa, and they disliked it for
Ireland, having an ingrained belief in the inferiority of the Irish
race. But the Irish would no longer submit to be made the pawns and
playthings of British parties. Were the Home Rule Bill killed, Ireland
would be absolutely ungovernable under the old regime. The issue was
whether the will of Parliament, of Ireland, and of the Empire, was to
be overborne by a threat of civil war from a minority in one province.
As Mr. Balfour had said in 1902, civilised government on such terms was
impossible. But the Nationalists were passionately desirous to avoid
conflict with any section of their own countrymen; they wanted Ireland
to be one nation; and, consistently with an Irish Parliament with an
Executive responsible to it, and consistently with the integrity of
Ireland, he could conceive of no reasonable length to which he would
not be prepared to go to meet even the unreasonable fears of a section
of his countrymen for the sake of an agreement. But any concession must
be as the price to be paid for consent to an agreement; if no agreement
was come to, the Bill must go through as it stood.
Speaking two days later at Longford, Mr. Devlin again promised
every possible concession to the fears of the Protestants, short of
the abandonment of Home Rule, and expressed his belief in an early
Nationalist victory which would bring Ireland peace and goodwill.
A compromise was suggested in a pamphlet by Mr. F. S. Oliver
("Pacificus") and an unnamed collaborator--_viz._ suspension of the
Home Rule Bill, which gave Ireland more powers than she would have
as a State in a Federation, until a Federal system should be created
for the United Kingdom in which she should be treated like England
and Scotland. But a more appropriate and impressive contribution to
the controversy was made by Sir Horace Plunkett--who had just visited
Ulster in the interest of peace--in a lengthy communication to _The
Times_ (Feb. 10). Each side, he said, misunderstood the other. The
Government and the Liberal party regarded the Parliament Act as
designed to overcome the hostility of the House of Lords to Liberal
measures; those passed under it were being passed in order to clear
the ground for social reform; the Ulster Unionists believed that the
Parliament Act was passed solely with a view to Home Rule and under
Nationalist dictation; and they would fight rather than submit to what
they regarded as an incapable and priest-ridden Nationalist majority.
If the Bill passed in the coming session there would be either civil
war or sectarian outrages, possibly leading to retaliation. Objecting
both to "Home Rule within Home Rule" and to the exclusion of Ulster,
as tending to impair the solidarity of Ireland, he suggested that the
Ulster Unionists should accept the Bill under three conditions: (1) A
definite area of Ulster should have a right to secede, after a term of
years, the decision to be by plebiscite in it; (2) both Nationalists
and Unionists, preferably in conference, should be invited to suggest
amendments to be incorporated in the Bill by consent; (3) the Ulster
Volunteers should be allowed to become a Territorial Force, partly
as an ultimate safeguard for the Ulster Unionists. He laid stress on
the other issues which made a settlement of the Home Rule controversy
imperative--the growing unrest among the masses, the education on the
Continent and in India, and the danger involved by "the reopening of
Irish sores" to Anglo-American relations and the consolidation of the
Empire.
And so the questions were set for the first period of the session. Home
Rule stood in the foreground, with some sort of compromise as to the
treatment of Ulster, though the nature of the compromise divided both
parties in both islands; then followed increased naval expenditure;
and, in the background, Welsh disestablishment, the Plural Voting
Bill, reform of the House of Lords, and Social legislation. All these
questions might easily widen the rifts which seemed to be beginning
in the ranks of the Ministerialists; but there was no indication that
the Unionists could produce a practicable programme, or unite in its
support. Still, their organisation was understood to be preparing
for a general election, to take place in May; but the Ministry were
certain not to concede it, partly because they held that the electors
did not demand it, partly because the concession of it would nullify
the Parliament Act. Nor could they amend the Home Rule Bill except by
fresh legislation, or by suggestions accepted by the House of Lords. If
otherwise amended, it would lose the benefit of the Parliament Act, by
becoming a different Bill from that of 1912 and 1913.
CHAPTER II.
THE SESSION UNTIL EASTER.
In spring-like weather and brilliant sunshine the King, accompanied by
the Queen, drove in state to open Parliament on Tuesday, February 10.
The crowds on the route were greater than usual, and the occasion was
marked by no untoward incident, suffragist or otherwise. The ceremony
in the House of Lords was even more numerously attended and more
brilliant than in former years, and the King's Speech was listened to
with profound attention, rewarded by the significant paragraph, read by
His Majesty in measured tones, dealing with Home Rule.
The Speech opened with the usual statement that relations with foreign
Powers continued friendly, and went on to express pleasure at the
King's coming visit to the French President, and to the opportunity
thereby afforded him of testifying to the cordial relations existing
between the two countries. Reference was next made to the recent
consultation with the other Powers respecting the settlement of Albania
and the Ægean Islands, with the view of giving effect to resolutions
adopted by the Powers during the Ambassadors' Conference in London, and
to the measures adopted for erecting the new administration in Albania.
The Baghdad Railway and Persian Gulf problems were, it was intimated,
likely to be solved satisfactorily. Gratification was expressed at the
signature of the Convention on the safety of life at sea, and a Bill
carrying out its provisions was promised; and regret at the drought,
fortunately limited in area, in India. The Estimates were promised,
without the usual reference to economy. The Bills to be passed under
the Parliament Act were dealt with as follows:--
"MY LORDS AND GENTLEMEN,--The measures in regard to which there were
differences last session between the two Houses will be again submitted
to your consideration. I regret that the efforts which have been made
to arrive at a solution by agreement of the problems connected with the
Government of Ireland have, so far, not succeeded. In a matter in which
the hopes and the fears of so many of my subjects are keenly concerned,
and which, unless handled now with foresight, judgment, and in the
spirit of mutual concession, threatens grave future difficulties, it
is my most earnest wish that the goodwill and co-operation of men of
all parties and creeds may heal dissension and lay the foundations of a
lasting settlement."
Bills were also promised reconstituting the Second Chamber; carrying
into effect those recommendations of the Royal Commission on Delay in
the King's Bench Division which required the concurrence of Parliament;
providing for Imperial naturalisation (prepared in consultation
with the Dominion Governments); authorising public works loans to
the Governments of the East African Protectorates; dealing with
housing, national education, juvenile offenders; and, should time and
opportunity permit, providing for other purposes of social reform. The
Speech concluded with the usual invocation of the Divine blessing.
In both Houses the Opposition had determined to emphasise the
gravity of the situation in Ulster by at once moving an amendment
to the Address, humbly representing "that it would be disastrous to
proceed further with the Government of Ireland Bill until it has been
submitted to the judgment of the people." There had been rumours of
coming disorder in the Commons; but they were falsified. Mr. Long
(U., _Strand_) moved this amendment, after the Address had been moved
by Mr. W. F. Roch (L., _Pembroke_) and seconded by Mr. Hewart (L.,
_Leicester_). Before Mr. Long rose the Speaker, in reply to Mr. Ramsay
Macdonald (Lab., _Leicester_), ruled that the usual general debate
might follow the impending discussion.
The debate covered much well-worn ground, but it resulted in a marked
sense of relief. Mr. Long asked how the Opposition could consider the
legislative programme of the Ministry in the face of a threatened civil
war; but his speech was distinctly temperate. Incidentally he mentioned
that there was grave anxiety in the Army and Navy, but he believed that
the Unionists, whenever they had been asked, had advised the members of
the Services to do their duty.
The Prime Minister, after reminding the House that when the Bill
was introduced he had offered to consider further safeguards, if
suggested, for Ulster, pointed out that in the earliest stages of
the Parliament Bill it was contemplated that that measure should
be applied to the Home Rule Bill (A. R., 1910, p. 87 _seq._). The
Unionists said that during the general election of 1910 Ministers
had indulged in a gigantic system of mystification; he did not think
that in all the annals of anthropology there had ever been a case in
which a myth had so quickly crystallised into a creed. He himself had
made it clear that the first use of the Parliament Act would be to
carry the Home Rule Bill. The recent bye-elections showed a somewhat
increased majority for Home Rule. The average elector was not seriously
excited. A dissolution would admit that, so far as concerned Home
Rule--the Parliament Act was an absolute nullity, and, of its three
conceivable results, a stalemate would not improve the prospects of
a solution, a Unionist majority would be faced with the problem of
governing three-fourths or four-fifths of the Irish people against
their will, and a Liberal victory would not lead the Ulstermen to
drop their resistance. Would the Unionists, in that case, acquiesce
in the passing unmutilated of the Government of Ireland Bill? He did
not believe any such guarantee could be given. His conclusion was that
if the matter was to be settled by a general agreement, it would be
much better settled than by "a dissolution here and now." The King's
Speech had mentioned the "conversations" between leaders; they were,
and must remain, under the goal of confidence, The one satisfactory
feature about them was that the Press had been completely at sea
as to what was going on; and, though they had not resulted in any
definite agreement, he did not despair. The language of the King's
Speech ought to find an echo in every quarter of the Chamber. After
touching on the proposed exclusion of Ulster, and Sir Horace Plunkett's
plan (p. 18), he said that the Government recognised that they could
not divest themselves of responsibility of initiative in the way of
suggestion, but suggestions must not be taken as an admission that
the Home Rule Bill was effective; they would be put forward as the
price of peace,--meaning thereby not merely the avoidance of civil
strife, but a favourable atmosphere for the start of the new system.
There was nothing the Government would not do, consistently with their
fundamental principles, to avoid civil war. He agreed that there
ought to be no avoidable delay, and the Governments when the necessary
financial business had been disposed of, would submit suggestions to
the House.
The debate was continued for some hours by Liberal and Unionist
members. Mr. Austen Chamberlain was not very responsive to the Prime
Minister's concessions; but Sir Edward Carson next day (Feb. 11) was
more conciliatory. In an impressive speech, which later speakers
recognised as contributing to the change in the situation, he
emphasised the extreme gravity of the statement in the King's Speech,
and the inability of the House to meet the situation by amending the
Bill. The Prime Minister gave no indication of the steps proposed, and
he thought the Government was manoeuvring for position. Its proposals
could only be made by an amending Bill. The insults offered to the
Ulstermen had made a settlement far more difficult. Ulster must go on
opposing the Bill to the end whatever happened; but if its exclusion
were proposed, it would be his duty to go to Ulster at once and
take counsel with the people there. But if the Ulstermen were to be
compelled to come into a Dublin Parliament, he would, regardless of
personal consequences, go on with them in their resistance to the end.
The Government must either coerce Ulster, or try in the long run, by
showing that good government could come under the Home Rule Bill, to
win her over to the care of the rest of Ireland. He did not believe
that Mr. Redmond wanted to triumph any more than he did, and one false
step taken in relation to Ulster would render for ever impossible a
solution of the Irish question. Hoping that peace would continue to the
end, he declared that, if resistance became necessary, he would not
refuse to join in it.
Mr. John Redmond (N., _Waterford_) said he shared to the full the
anxiety expressed in the King's Speech for an amicable settlement, The
Prime Minister had created a new situation by accepting responsibility
for the Government in initiating proposals for such a settlement; while
accepting the situation to the full, he thought the responsibility
for the initiative might fairly have been left to the Opposition. He
ridiculed Sir E. Carson's statement that the only course possible for
the Government was an amending Bill--which would at once come under the
Parliament Act--and assumed that the Prime Minister meant procedure
by suggestions under that Act. In view of the numerous suggestions
daily being made, the Prime Minister could hardly make proposals at
once. He wished to shut the door in advance on no suggestions, but he
examined critically the possible exclusion of Ulster, pointing out
that what was meant was presumably the four north-eastern counties, in
which, he contended, 37 per cent. of the population were Home Rulers.
None of the Ulster members desired the exclusion of Ulster, and Irish
Unionist opinion was against it, The Nationalists asked only that the
concessions proposed should be consistent with the main principles
of the Bill, and that, as a _quid pro quo_, there should be peace and
consent. He was anxious to remove every honest fear, however unfounded,
and would consider in the broadest and friendliest spirit any proposals
the Government might make.
Later the Chief Secretary for Ireland, referring to a statement by
Lord Hugh Cecil that the Unionists would treat the United Kingdom as
one country, said that there was a new Ireland--not necessarily Home
Rule or Nationalist, but "the renaissance of a nation." He had noticed,
even in Sir E. Carson's speech, a feeling as of an Irishman speaking to
Irishmen. The great difficulty was that the Government, in finding a
solution, exposed itself to the taunt that it was yielding to force. He
hoped for a national solution.
After other speeches, including one from the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, who summed up for the Government,--
Mr. Bonar Law (U., _Lancs., Bootle_), after again admitting the
responsibility of the Opposition in countenancing resistance, confined
himself to the speech of the Prime Minister. If the threatened calamity
happened, the Prime Minister alone would be held responsible. At any
rate, no popular mandate was given for the armed coercion of Ulster,
and, if Ulster was to be coerced, the order should be given by the
people themselves. The Prime Minister's proposals should have been
made at once. His speech had changed the situation; he admitted that
the Bill could not be imposed on Ulster without provisions for its
protection, and that Ulster had a special identity justifying its
separate treatment. If his proposals failed of acceptance, there
was no alternative but to leave Ulster out. Ulster had claimed not
to veto Home Rule for Nationalist Ireland, but to resist the right
of Nationalist Ireland to govern her. If any kind of Home Rule was
possible, the exclusion of Ulster was the only solution. If the Bill
were sincerely meant as part of a general scheme of devolution, of
which there was no evidence, let Ulster be left out till it was
complete. The Nationalists had committed themselves against the
exclusion of Ulster, and, so far as he could judge of Ulster and
speak for the Unionists of Great Britain, such efforts as "Home Rule
within Home Rule" would do the greatest harm; they would be made to
be rejected, merely for the Government to improve its strategical
position. Ulster was determined on resistance, on principle. Serious
people no longer talked about "bluff." The Prime Minister knew that
the passing of the Bill would be the signal for an outbreak of civil
strife of which no man could foresee the end. Leave out Ulster, and
automatically the danger of civil war ceased; or the Government might
avoid it by submitting their proposals to the people. The Parliament
Act, however, was used by Ministers to make themselves dictators. It
was said that the Opposition were opposing Home Rule to defeat that
Act, but until Parliament met the day before the Government could have
submitted its proposals to the people, and if the people were behind
them the Act would not have been interfered with. The Government won
the last election by the cry that the will of the people must prevail;
what they meant by the Parliament Act was that their will was to
prevail even against the will of the people. A general election won by
the Government would change the situation both for the Unionists and
for Ulster, and would give the Government the moral force they lacked.
Or let them take a referendum on Home Rule, and if the decision were
adverse they could go on with their other measures under the Parliament
Act. If the coalition did not then hang together, it would show that
the legislature did not represent the opinion of even the majority of
its supporters. If they went on now there would be bloodshed in Ulster,
and an appeal to the people must follow, and then how would the people
regard them? The game was up. They must either make proposals removing
the resistance of Ulster, or submit themselves to the judgment of the
people.
The amendment was rejected by 333 to 78. There was a majority for it
among the members representing Great Britain of three, but some twenty
Liberals and Labour men were absent.
In the House of Lords, after the Address had been moved by Lord
Glenconner and seconded by the Earl of Carrick, the Opposition
amendment was moved by Viscount Midleton; but the debate added little
to that in the Commons, and only a few points can be mentioned here.
Lord Morley of Blackburn put the Government case in reply to Lord
Midleton; Earl Loreburn, while holding that the exclusion of Ulster
would not effect a settlement, thought that certain other additional
safeguards might be given it; the Marquess of Lansdowne, while
declaring himself not much enamoured of the exclusion of Ulster, said
that if its complete exclusion were accompanied by safeguards for the
Unionists outside Ulster, he was prepared to consider the proposal;
Earl Roberts said briefly that the use of the Army to coerce Ulster was
"unthinkable"; and, after three days' debate, the amendment was carried
by 243 to 55.
Meanwhile the Commons had passed to the Labour amendment moved
(Feb. 12) by Mr. Ramsay Macdonald (Lab., _Leicester_), praying that
the Governor-General of South Africa should be instructed that the
Indemnity Bill should be reserved under Clause 64 of the South Africa
Act, 1909, until after a judicial inquiry into the circumstances of
the proclamation of martial law and the scope of the Bill, especially
the provision relating to the deportation of the trade union leaders.
In moderate language, the mover contended that, on the information
available, which had been carefully sifted and contained the whole
case of the Union Government, the proclamation of martial law was not
justified. Incidentally he described the Syndicalists as the greatest
enemies of organised labour; but he said that the meeting which
resolved on the general strike was perfectly peaceful. Convictions
might have been obtained under the sedition law, but the South African
Government had no evidence, and wanted, by one comprehensive swoop of
illegality, to stamp out trade unionism. The deportation clause was
really a Bill of Attainder, and undesirable aliens should be defined by
legislation; then test cases could be raised by the deported leaders.
One did not desire to interfere with the powers of the self-governing
Dominions, but the Empire was faced with the problem of Imperial
citizenship. If British citizens were not to carry their historical
rights with them, the Empire could not retain its present place of
honour.
The Colonial Secretary (Mr. Harcourt, _Lancs., Rossendale_) made it
clear at once that he would not pronounce any judgment on the action
of the South African Government. British Imperial citizenship did not
exist; the phrase was too literal a translation of _civis Romanus sum_;
what did exist was British subject-hood, entitling the possessor to the
protection of his Sovereign through the Executive, but giving him no
rights of entry or licence in any part of the Empire if he attempted to
violate the laws a Dominion was competent to pass. The circumstances
and laws of the various Dominions differed widely from those of Great
Britain; in South Africa the native and mining population occasioned
special dangers; and the Empire might easily be smashed by meddling
and muddling with Dominion affairs. He reviewed the disturbances from
the Rand strike onwards (A.R., 1913, p. 416 _seq._), and said that
the Union Government, regarding martial law as essential, advised
Lord Gladstone to sign the proclamation establishing it, and he very
properly assented, on the assurance that Parliament would be asked to
ratify it and pass an Indemnity Bill. His consent to the expulsions was
neither sought nor obtained, but he had been informed beforehand that
it might be necessary to deport a dozen men, and that they were aware
of the strong feeling this would excite, and would not do it without
urgent necessity. There were precedents for the inclusion of such a
clause as the deportation clause in the Indemnity Bill. Lord Gladstone
was in the position of a constitutional sovereign; moreover, had he
refused his assent, the Ministry would have resigned, no other could
have been found, and he would have remained a solitary and powerless
figure, with no resources but the Imperial troops. Nagging criticism of
the Dominions' conduct of their internal affairs was the worst cement
for the democracies of the Empire. Lord Gladstone retained the full
confidence of the British Government. The Indemnity Bill must be left
to the South African Parliament. He cited a case in Natal (A.B., 1906,
p. 403) as showing the sensitiveness of the Dominions, pointed out that
expulsion of undesirable aliens was not unfamiliar in South Africa,
and added that the Empire was held together by a silken cord; twist
this into a whiplash, and the crack of the lash would be the knell of
the Empire. Sir George Parker (U., _Gravesend_), who had Canadian and
Australian experience, thought the Colonial Secretary had overstated
the sensitiveness of the Dominions; but little was added to the debate
by the subsequent speakers, and the Labour party was urged from both
sides of the House to withdraw the amendment, as a division might be
misunderstood in South Africa. On their refusal, it was rejected by 214
to 50.
Another Labour amendment was then moved by Mr. Brace (L., _Glamorgan,
S._), regretting the absence of reference in the Speech to the
increasing number of railway and mining accidents and of any promise of
legislation dealing with them. He gave the figures of fatal accidents
to miners in the United Kingdom in 1913--461 from explosions of coal
gas, 614 from falls of ground, 400 from miscellaneous causes--and
declared that the Coal Mines Regulation Act of 1911 was not being
carried out. He indicated the reforms desired by the Miners'
Federation, which included an inspector with a salary of 200_l._
for every 5,000 workmen, involving an annual cost of 40,000_l._ Mr.
Wardle (Lab., _Southport_) dealt with the accidents to railwaymen;
the fatal accidents had fallen considerably since the Act of 1900,
but the non-fatal accidents in 1912 were 27,947. The Home Secretary
replied as to mining accidents, pointing out that the number per
thousand men had been reduced in forty years by more than one half; the
recommendations of the Royal Commission had been more than carried out,
and the number of inspectors doubled in four years. He intimated that
a further increase would be necessary, and promised a small amending
Coal Mines Bill, but could not promise early legislation carrying out
Mr. Brace's suggestions. Next day Mr. Thomas (Lab., _Derby_) showed
that the greatly increased railway traffic was being carried out by
fewer men, and attributed the increase of accidents to the speeding-up
system, and the inability of the Board of Trade to enforce its
recommendations. He complained, also, of the action of the Midland in
connexion with the Aisgill disaster (A.R., 1913, p. 200). The men's
case was endorsed by Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck (U., _Nottingham,
S._); and the Secretary to the Board of Trade, in the unavoidable
absence of the President, while admitting that the number of accidents
in 1913 was alarming, and might be due to the decrease of the staff,
contested Mr. Wardle's contentions, but admitted that there was a case
for inquiry whether the Act of 1900 was sufficient. The debate was
continued by a number of members, nearly all advocating the men's case;
and, after a conciliatory speech by the Under-Secretary to the Home
Office, Mr. Brace, in view of the Ministerial undertakings and of the
opportunity he would have of incorporating his proposals in the Bill
dealing with mines, asked leave to withdraw his amendment. Lord Ninian
Crichton-Stuart (U., _Cardiff_) protested against the withdrawal, and
the Unionists challenged a division. The Labour party, however, were
not disposed to risk injuring the Ministry; most of them voted against
their own amendment, some others abstained, and it was rejected by 239
to 73, amid the jeers of the Opposition at the Labour members' lack of
independence.
Mr. Leif Jones (L., _Notts., Rushcliffe_) then moved an amendment
regretting that no specific reference was made in the Address to
the "long promised and greatly needed" measure of temperance reform
for England and Wales. The licence reduction scheme under the Act
of 1904 had failed, and drinking and the number of convictions were
increasing. Why should there not be an autumn session to carry a
new Licensing Bill? The Prime Minister made a sympathetic reply,
repeating his declaration of 1911, that it was the intention of the
Government to legislate on the subject within the lifetime of the
existing Parliament; but it would do more harm than good to introduce a
first-class controversial measure which must be dropped.
Two days earlier (Feb. 12) important changes were announced in the
Ministry. Lord Gladstone's wish to retire from the Governor-Generalship
of South Africa, for purely domestic reasons unconnected with the
recent troubles, had been known for some time past; he was to be
succeeded by Mr. Sydney Buxton, President of the Board of Trade, who
was shortly afterwards created Viscount Buxton, and was succeeded in
his office by Mr. John Burns; the Presidency of the Local Government
Board vacated by the latter was filled by Mr. Herbert Samuel; Mr.
Hobhouse became Postmaster-General; Mr. C. F. G. Masterman succeeded
him as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and was succeeded
as Financial Secretary to the Treasury by Mr. E. S. Montagu,
Under-Secretary for India, a post now taken by Mr. C. S. Roberts
(_Lincoln_). These changes involved bye-elections at Poplar and Bethnal
Green, which were sure to be hotly contested. Otherwise they were
regarded as somewhat strengthening the Cabinet.
The debate on the Address was resumed in the Commons on Monday,
February 16, with an Opposition amendment demanding that, in view
of the growing hostility to the Established Church (Wales) Bill, it
should not be passed till after submission to the people at a general
election, or to the electors of England and Wales by a Referendum.
Two days earlier a protest, stated to be signed by 15,321 adult
Nonconformists in St. Asaph diocese, had been sent to the Prime
Minister against the proposals to deprive the Church in Wales of her
unclosed ancient churchyards and of 157,000_l._ a year of her ancient
endowments. Of the signatories, twenty-nine were stated to be ministers
or preachers, 158 deacons, and eighteen magistrates, and in many
country parishes more than half the Nonconformists had signed. Stress
was laid on this petition by Mr. Ormsby Gore (U., _Denbigh District_)
in moving the amendment, and also on the silence observed on the Bill
in the King's Speech, and by the Ministers; on the demonstrations
against it, and on the fact that it had been passed only by Nationalist
support. No meetings in its support had been held in England, and those
in Wales had been failures. Ministers desired to establish a precedent
for further spoliation of the Church. The Home Secretary replied by
pointing to the aggregate Liberal majority of 4,221 in the three
bye-elections in Wales since the introduction of the Bill, and the
prominence of the issue in the Bolton election (A.R., 1913, p. 244).
After insisting that the subject was before the electorate in 1910,
he remarked that it was strange that Nonconformists should choose a
diocese for their area, and that the chief promoter was a well-known
Conservative. He asked the House to suspend judgment on the petition.
After other speeches, Mr. Balfour (U., _City of London_) admitted that
the vote of the Welsh members was a _prima facie_ argument that the
Welsh people supported the Bill, but the doctrine that a Bill should
pass the House of Commons for Wales if it were backed by a majority of
the Welsh people was subversive of Parliamentary government. Besides
this was not only a Welsh question. But his object was to point out the
injustice of the Parliament Act in connexion with the Bill. The Prime
Minister's argument, that a measure brought in under that Act and not
supported by the people would lead to discussion and intimations to
their representatives that it was distasteful to them, had had great
weight with the people, but the Government had purposely prevented the
electors from concentrating their minds on any one measure by bringing
in several, and by starting other agitations. He insisted that the
Bill was fundamentally a religious question, and that the tendency was
to see that the greatest religious interests were not bound up with
sectarian differences, and would not be helped by sectarian plunder.
Eventually the amendment was defeated by 279 to 217.
The value of the petition having been questioned, a deputation from its
signatories waited on the Prime Minister on March 4. All those present,
save Mr. Ormsby Gore and the Bishop of St. Asaph, were Nonconformists,
many had seldom or never been to London, and some spoke in Welsh.
They dealt, however, mainly with generalities, and the Prime Minister
ascertained that none of the ministers or deacons who had signed had
come. In reply, he regretted that they had not proceeded by petition
to Parliament, inferred that, as they dealt only with disendowment,
the Nonconformists of the diocese supported disestablishment, from
which disendowment was inseparable, and concluded that, having given no
detailed objections, they had not advanced their case.
To return to the House of Commons; a Tariff Reform amendment
followed, moved by Captain Tryon (U., _Brighton_), regretting that
the Government refused to modify the fiscal system by (1) adopting
Imperial Preference, so far as practicable without imposing fresh
duties on imported foodstuffs; (2) a moderate duty not exceeding an
average of 10 per cent. _ad valorem_ on foreign manufactured goods,
in order to safeguard the stability of British industries and provide
revenue for the assistance of agriculture and social reform. The
mover laid stress on the increasing financial needs of the country,
on such concessions to Protectionism as the encouragement offered to
agriculture in East Africa, and the protection virtually accorded
to beet-sugar and cocoa, and on the fact that the reduced American
tariff was more than twice as high as the tariff proposed. After other
speeches, the Solicitor-General described the proposal as "an anæmic
fragment" of full-blooded Tariff Reform. The agricultural industry was
in open revolt against it (p. 8), and effective Imperial Preference was
impossible without taxing raw material and food. The farmer would be
burdened by the rise in the prices of the goods he used, and the relief
of his income tax from the new revenue would be trifling. The rise in
prices had been very general, though least in Free Trade England; but
agricultural wages had not risen correspondingly. Mr. Bonar Law (U.,
_Lancs., Bootle_) quoted a Consular Report of 1909 to show that wages
in Germany had more than kept pace with the rise in prices; maintained
that a system similar to that proposed existed in Belgium, and was
approached by the new American tariff; and declared that, while the
tariff might slightly raise the prices of goods used by the farmer,
the revenue resulting would be used to relieve the unfair burdens
on agriculture. The plan would bring in at least 10,000,000_l._ of
additional revenue, the average of 10 per cent. being got by putting a
higher rate on articles of luxury; and it would give security in the
home market and Colonial Preference. Canada, he added, was rapidly
becoming industrial. The amendment was rejected by 283 to 200.
The day following (Feb. 17) a lengthy amendment was moved by Mr. Royds
(U., _Sleaford_), of which the substantial import was a complaint
that no legislation was foreshadowed to remedy the adverse influence
of the Budget of 1909 and of the land agitation on working-class
housing, the building trade, and agricultural development. The mover,
in a very clear speech, well supported by evidence, showed that under
the existing conditions there was an actual shortage of cottages,
and there would soon be a house famine in towns. The official land
valuation then in progress was worthless, and the break-up of estates
was causing a feeling of insecurity among tenant farmers. Among
subsequent speakers, Mr. Ellis Davies (L., _Carnarvonshire, Eifion_)
pointed out other factors in the decline in building, such as the rise
in interest and cost of materials, and the increase m local rates;
and Mr. Lane Fox (U., _Yorks., W.R., Barkston Ash_) suggested the
appointment of a Royal Commission. The Chancellor of the Exchequer
replied that such a body was apt to present a conflict of large
interests, and the small holders and agricultural labourers would
not come forward. The Opposition were getting nearer to a practical
acceptance of the case made out by the Land Inquiry. Since the Budget
of 1909, he showed by figures, agricultural wages had increased, the
price of land had risen, and unemployment had lessened, especially
in the building trade. There had been a "house famine" since 1884.
The number of cottages built by private enterprise had gone down,
partly through the rise in interest and prices of material. The first
step was to see that the municipalities investigated thoroughly the
conditions in their districts, and this would be done by the President
of the Local Government Board. Then the aggregate deficiency must be
ascertained, and the Government must consider how far public credit
must be pledged. The problem was largely one of transit, and this the
President of the Board of Trade was investigating. Mr. Pretyman (U.,
_Essex, Chelmsford_) traversed the Chancellor's statements, pointing
out that many men had left the building trade altogether, and that
there was generally no difficulty in acquiring land for housing. He
denounced the Chancellor's personal attacks on the Dukes of Sutherland
and Montrose. Among subsequent speakers, Mr. Pollock (U., _Warwick and
Leamington_) vigorously attacked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and
the President of the Board of Agriculture, who protested against this
attack being made when the Chancellor was unable to reply, was much
interrupted, both directly and by audible comments, necessitating the
Speaker's intervention. He defended the land policy of the Government
in connexion with agriculture, laying stress on its actual progress,
and on the work of the Development Fund. After a reply from Mr. Long
(U.), the amendment was rejected by 301 to 213.
The next amendment, moved (Feb. 18) by Mr. Barnes (Lab., _Glasgow,
Blackfriars_), regretted that there was no mention in the Address
of the recent deplorable events in Dublin, and no promise of an
impartial and representative Commission of Inquiry into the conduct of
the police. Recriminations in this debate had been expected between
the Irish and Labour parties, and Unionist support of the amendment
compelling the Labour party to vote against it as before, to avoid
upsetting the Government, but these expectations were unfulfilled. Mr.
Barnes stated that the Labour party demanded an impartial inquiry, and
compensation to those whose houses were forcibly entered by the police.
The Commission was not of the kind promised by the Chief Secretary,
its reference was too narrow, and the workers would not appear before
it, and such disturbances as took place were really caused by the
police. Mr. Brady (N., _Dublin, St. Stephen's Green_) explained that
the members for Dublin had not intervened in the dispute because they
had not been invited to do so; the only inquiry in which the Irish
people would have confidence was one set up by a Home Rule Parliament
and Executive. Mr. Booth (L., _Pontefract_) denounced the conduct of
the inquiry, at which he had been present, and, after other speeches,
the Chief Secretary for Ireland said that he had been unable to get a
judge or some one with the confidence of the police to serve on the
Commission, and a representative of the working classes could not
have been put on alone. He had, therefore, to fall back on appointing
lawyers of high character and position, previously engaged in police
inquiries, and he believed the people of Dublin were satisfied with
the Commission. He strongly defended the Dublin police. The rioters
were hooligans, the enemies of all citizens. The police misbehaviour in
Corporation Buildings was confined to seven or eight men at most. The
amendment was rejected by 233 to 45.
Sir John Bethell (L., _Essex, Romford_) then moved an amendment
complaining of the unfair distribution of its funds by the Road
Board. He said the West of London was felt to be favoured at the
expense of the East. The new Financial Secretary of the Treasury said
that department had no control over the Road Board, but there was
no evidence of unfairness; the money was allotted roughly according
to population, Scotland having more than its share owing to the
large foreign tourist motor traffic. The Opposition objecting to the
withdrawal of the amendment, it was defeated by 268 to 55.
The Address debate was concluded next day (Feb. 19), when Sir J. Spear
(U., _Devon, Tavistock_) moved an amendment desiring a rearrangement
of local taxation so as to provide from Imperial funds a larger sum
towards the cost of education and the maintenance of main roads.
The local authorities, he pointed out, were raising 65,000,000_l._
a year for national or semi-national services, and receiving only
22,000,000_l._ from the State. The Chancellor of the Exchequer fully
admitted there was a case for the amendment. As to roads, he laid
stress on the amount of traffic, chiefly by motor-vans, which came
from outside a district and took away trade from the shopkeepers in
it. He had expected to have a balance for the relief of local rates
in consequence of the Budget of 1909, but the amount had gone on the
increased equipment of the Navy, owing to the European situation.
Effective steps, however, would be taken in the current year for the
relief of local taxation. The burden of it was arresting municipal
development. Details could not yet be given, but the more heavily
burdened districts would receive larger grants, and greater guarantees
would be taken for efficiency. Of later speakers, Mr. Long (U.) doubted
whether anything could be done in the crowded current session, and the
new President of the Local Government Board intimated that personalty
must be made to contribute more to local taxation, and that "socially
created" values might be dealt with by special legislation.
The amendment was withdrawn and another was moved by Lord E. Cecil (U.,
_Herts., Hitchin_), regretting that the Government did not propose
steps for preventing the growing debasement of the standard of purity
in public life; but the debate was cut short by the closure, which was
carried by 285 to 168, and the Address was then agreed to.
Lord Robert Cecil's amendment had been put so late by the Speaker's
selection as practically to preclude debate on it, and he had a further
opportunity for discussing it; but the subject had been ventilated
in the House of Lords by Lord Murray of Elibank's personal statement
(Feb. 17), and by the debate on the motion originally put down by
Lord Ampthill for a Select Committee to inquire into certain charges
and allegations made in the Press against Lord Murray (Feb. 19). Lord
Murray read his statement composedly amid signs of acute interest, in
the chilling silence characteristic of the Upper House. The facts,
he said, were fully known, and he could only confirm the statements
made before the Commons Committee (A.R., 1913, pp. 80, 136). It ought
to have occurred to him that his action was open to criticism, but
his error was one of judgment, not of intention. His purchase for the
party funds was an error of judgment, and he had taken over the shares
for himself at the price he had paid for them, thereby incurring a
heavy loss. His private transactions and those with the party funds
were alike free from dishonour. He considered, on reflection, that his
course of action had not been wise or correct, and he deeply regretted
it; among the deepest of his regrets would be the thought that his
action should have caused embarrassment to his party, but a fair
judgment would hold that there was nothing in his mistakes to reflect
in any degree on the honour and integrity of public life. He had
tendered his resignation of his office in February, 1912, before he had
ever heard of Marconis, and had only continued in office till the end
of the session at the Prime Minister's urgent request.
The further consideration of Lord Ampthill's motion was postponed till
February 19, when it was moved by the Marquess of Lansdowne, who said
that Lord Murray's statement contained nothing to deter the Opposition
leaders from carrying put their intention of moving for a Committee.
His apology was the best of the Ministerial apologies; at any rate he
did not compare himself to St. Sebastian (A.R., 1913, p. 154), but
certain questions regarding his action as Chief Whip required further
investigation. The Marquess of Crewe did not object, though he thought
the Committee was demanded neither by the dignity of the House nor by
the needs of the public service. The Committee was not appointed till
March 9; it reported on April 30 (_post_, Chap. III.).
The Home Rule agitation, meanwhile, had not been stilled by the Royal
Speech and the Prime Minister's promise. But compromise was in the
air. The _Westminster Gazette_ (Feb. 16) suggested the appointment
of a Statutory Commission of both parties to devise a permanent
reconstruction of the government of the British Isles, following on
a provisional settlement in Ulster, and a fresh form of compromise
was suggested by the publication (Feb. 18) of an open letter to
Mr. Asquith from Mr. Frederic Harrison, the veteran constitutional
lawyer and Comtist, urging the adoption of a scheme which he had
suggested privately to the Prime Minister in 1913, and which might
be established, subject to reconsideration after a general election.
Under it Ulster would have a separate Committee elected by its
constituencies, with complete financial, legislative and administrative
powers, and subject only to the Imperial Parliament and the King in
Council. As a general election would not afford a clear issue, Mr.
Harrison advised that the Home Rule Bill should be submitted to a
referendum at once. On the other hand, an influential meeting of
City men (Feb. 18) passed a resolution, moved by Lord Rothschild and
seconded by Lord Goschen, declaring the Bill impossible to carry into
effect. Mr. Balfour and Sir Edward Carson addressed it, the former
saying that since 1905 Ireland's old wounds had been "torn open" in
the name of good government, and saying that nothing but "a clean cut"
would avoid civil war; the latter mentioning that the position was
detrimental to the relation of Ulster firms with the great English
discount houses, "but we are bearing it cheerfully, and would bear a
great deal more." He and his friends, he added, had just authorised an
expenditure of 60,000_l._ to 80,000_l._; and he called on the City to
stand by them.
The bye-elections, though throwing little light on the feeling of the
electorate as to Home Rule, dealt an awkward blow to the Government
(see _post_, Chron., Feb. 18, 19, 20). In South Bucks, indeed, the
Unionist majority fell off slightly as compared with the last contest
in January, 1910, but the Liberals had expected to do much better, and
their disappointment was ascribed to the abstention of chairmakers on
strike at High Wycombe (p. 10), and to the recent settlement in the
constituency of some 1,800 well-to-do residents, a class generally
Unionist. But in Bethnal Green, Mr. Masterman, who was standing for
re-election on his appointment, (p. 27) was defeated, owing to the
intervention of a Labour candidate, by a majority of 24; and in Poplar,
where there was also a Labour candidate, the Liberal majority was
decreased by 1,551 as compared with December, 1910. True, the Unionist
at Bethnal Green was returned by a minority of the constituency, and
this contest had been largely fought on the Insurance Act, which bore
hardly on casual labour--indeed, complaint was made in the Commons
(Feb. 16), though apparently not with justice, that a scheme dealing
with casual labour at the London docks was launched in the middle of
the election contest, and Mr. Bonar Law intimated to the Unionist
candidate that a Unionist Government would be prepared to appoint a
Committee to consider whether the Act might not be put on a voluntary
basis. But, as at Reading in 1913, the results showed that the Labour
extremists were quite ready to defeat the Government, although they
might not disapprove of its general policy.
These results were not such as to hasten the disclosure of the
Ministerial plans; and the Opposition were unsuccessful in pressing for
it (Feb. 25), by a resolution moved by Mr. Falle (U., _Portsmouth_),
when a Liberal amendment moved by Captain Pirie (L., _Aberdeen, N._),
awaiting the proposals with confidence and hope, was carried by 311
to 238. Nor were they much more successful next day with a resolution
moved by Mr. G. C. Hamilton (U., _Cheshire, Altrincham_), for the
appointment of an impartial Committee to study the working of the
Insurance Act and the possibility of substituting a voluntary system.
Under this, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out, there would
be a premium on the employment of uninsured persons; the Unionist
policy, he said, was "Back to the workhouse." The motion was defeated
by 283 to 199.
Several other debates in both Houses must be passed over; but one
deserves special notice. In the House of Lords (Feb. 23) the Earl of
Selborne had moved a resolution to the effect that a contribution to
party funds should not be a consideration in inducing a Minister to
recommend a person for an honour to the King. Both sides accepted
it, and it was carried with slight modification; but the practice
was generally regarded as a consequence of the party system, which
needed money to educate the democracy. Lord Willoughby de Broke and
Lord Ribblesdale told amusing stories of applications for honours;
the mover suggested that recommendations should be supervised by the
Privy Council, Viscount Milner said that the grounds for conferring the
honour should be stated; Lord Charnwood moved an amendment in favour of
inquiry by a Royal Commission; but the leaders on both sides deprecated
this course, the Marquess of Lansdowne arguing that checks on abuses
might be left to the Sovereign and his advisers to devise.
Outside Parliament, other questions were being pressed on the
attention of the Government. A deputation from the Trade Union
Congress had waited on the Prime Minister a fortnight earlier (Feb.
11), with resolutions advocating railway nationalisation and electoral
reforms--including adult suffrage irrespective of sex--and protesting
against compulsory military service and undue increase of armaments.
His reply did not much advance matters; and protests were raised
against his refusals to receive woman suffragist deputations from 342
Labour organisations represented at a great meeting at the Albert Hall
(Feb. 14), from a deputation of Scottish municipal authorities two days
later--though ten of its members were received by his secretary--and
a third deputation a week afterwards. This latter refusal led to
a protest meeting in Parliament Square, and the arrest of Messrs.
Nevinson, Laurence Housman, Harben, and two ladies, who refused to
be bound over and received one day's imprisonment. A militant young
lady assaulted Lord Weardale, mistaking him for the Premier, at
Euston; and the sentence on another (Miss Phyllis Brady, Feb. 24), of
eighteen months' imprisonment for firing Lady White's house at Ascot,
was followed by the burning of Whitekirk Church, East Lothian. The
claims of compulsory military service were pressed on the Premier
by a deputation from the National Service League, comprising Earl
Roberts, Sir Evelyn Wood, and various eminent civilians, partly on the
ground that "in the considered words of the First Sea Lord, the Navy
alone cannot now protect this country against invasion." The Prime
Minister, however, replied that the First Sea Lord had authorised him
to repudiate these words and had stated that his language had been
misconstrued; and he intimated that the view supposed to be implied had
been negatived by the investigation of a Sub-Committee of the Committee
of Imperial Defence. Physical training for youths from fourteen to
eighteen, as advocated by the League, would be good, but it would not
reach the wastrels, who were useless for military service.
These matters, however, were eclipsed in immediate interest by the
arrival (Feb. 24) of the _Umgeni_ at Gravesend with the deported
Labour leaders from South Africa. They had refused at Las Palmas to
say anything till they had discussed the position with the chiefs of
British Trade Unionism; and great preparations had been made for their
welcome and support. Labour leaders and journalists were awaiting
them at Gravesend; but they unexpectedly refused to land anywhere
except in South Africa, and for many hours all arguments were vain.
The conversations were at first conducted over the ship's side with
the British leaders in a launch; but eventually Messrs. Bowerman
and Henderson were allowed to go aboard, and persuaded them to come
ashore after delivering a signed protest against their deportation to
the captain of the _Umgeni_. Two days later they were entertained at
dinner at the House of Commons; next, at a great meeting at the London
Opera House (Feb. 29), at which some of them spoke, it was announced
that counsel's opinion would be taken as to the legal position of the
South African Government and the steamship company, and, if possible,
proceedings would follow, and resolutions were passed pledging British
labour to help. And on Sunday, March 1, a demonstration in Hyde Park
in their support was attended by one of the largest crowds ever seen
in London. One or other of the deportees spoke at each of the nine
platforms, and a resolution was carried urging the Government to refuse
its assent to the Indemnity Bill till the wrongs of these and other
workers in the dispute were righted. Later, it was announced that they
would go back to South Africa, and would be assisted by Mr. Tom Mann
and other English trade unionists in perfecting their organisation.
Meanwhile another seat had been lost to Ministers by the wholly
unexpected return of the Unionist candidate in Leith Burghs (Chron.,
Feb. 26), though only through the presence of a Labour candidate.
In view of the strike of 1913 the Liberal-Labour split was not
unnatural, and there was actually a slight decrease in the Unionist
poll as compared with 1910. But no Unionist had been returned for the
constituency since 1832, and the Unionists were exultant, though,
taking the poll as a whole, the majority for the Government programme
was over 3,000.
In the following week (March 2) the Prime Minister's statement of
his Home Rule proposals was fixed for March 9; a Unionist private
member's motion pressing for it was consequently dropped. The need of
an early disclosure was emphasised by the publication (March 3) of a
British Covenant, with eminent signatories, including Earl Roberts,
the Duke of Portland, Viscounts Halifax and Milner, Lords Aldenham,
Balfour of Burleigh, and Lovat, Professors Dicey and Goudy, the Dean
of Canterbury, and Mr. Rudyard Kipling. It stated the signatories'
conviction that the claim of the Government to carry the Home Rule Bill
without submitting it to the judgment of the nation was contrary to the
spirit of the Constitution, and declared that, if it were so passed,
they would hold themselves justified in taking or supporting any action
that might be effective to prevent it from being put into operation,
and more particularly to prevent the armed forces of the Crown from
being used to deprive the people of Ulster of their rights as citizens
of the United Kingdom.
The week preceding the Prime Minister's momentous announcement was
occupied largely by skirmishes in other fields. The Supplementary Navy
Estimates, of 2,500,000_l._, which had caused some disquiet among
the advanced Liberals and the Labour party, were taken on March 2.
Postponing his general defence of Admiralty policy to the debate on the
Naval Estimates for 1914-15 the First Lord of the Admiralty limited
himself to defending the main items of the Estimate, (1) 500,000_l._
increased expenditure on the oil reserve; (2) 260,000_l._ on the new
aircraft programme; (3) increase in dockyard wages and prices of
victuals and clothing, nearly 200,000_l._; (4) about 450,000_l._ due to
the earlier beginning, announced on June 5, 1913, of three battleships
in the 1913-14 programme, owing to the delay in the Canadian Naval Aid
Bill; (5) 1,000,000_l._ owing to the more rapid building by contractors
of ships already authorised. (1) The standard of oil reserve was
carefully fixed, and kept as secret as even the standard of reserve of
ammunition; but the oil stored was enough for over three years' peace
consumption of the Fleet in commission and one year of war. All the oil
burnt in the current year, and five-sixths of that burnt in 1914-15,
would be used in ships built before he became First Lord. The Admiralty
had acted throughout on the highest expert authority. (2) The air
service, in which Great Britain had been late in starting, and which
eventually would considerably reduce other classes of naval weapons,
was to be increased in consequence of a careful investigation in July,
1913. Four airships, one a Zeppelin, had been contracted for with
Messrs. Vickers, an Astra-Torres airship had been ordered in France,
and three semi-rigid Forlamini airships--a very promising design--from
Messrs. Armstrong. An additional airship shed had been built in
Chatham, and one in Norfolk. This was modest as compared with France
and Germany, but in view of British superiority in seaplanes it was
sufficient. Of the 260,000_l._, 200,000_l._ would be the year's portion
of a total expenditure on airships of 475,000_l._ and the rest would
be for seaplanes. (3) The increase in wages was necessary to keep pace
with that in other shipyards, and the increase of prices in victualling
and clothing was automatic. (4) and (5) The acceleration of the ships
replacing those from Canada would be set-off by lessened expenditure in
1915 and 1916; the over-earning by the contractors had been foreseen
by him in introducing the Navy Estimates for 1913. There were many
factors of uncertainty in shipbuilding, and delay of one part reacted
on others. It was absurd to charge the Admiralty with miscalculation
in the matter. To have asked for more in the original estimates would
have given a false idea of expansion. He absolutely denied the story
that he had given orders to accelerate construction in August, 1913; he
had neither the will to do so nor the power. To retard construction was
impracticable and undesirable. The House should demand good reasons for
the building of every ship asked for; having done so, it must accept
liability for the cost.
Mr. Lee (U., _Hants, Fareham_) denounced the system of returning
unspent balances to the Treasury as tending artificially to swell the
Naval Estimates, and tempting an astute Minister like the First Lord to
under-estimate, The situation with regard to oil fuel was disquieting,
and he expressed anxiety also about the shipbuilding programme. On the
other hand Mr. Ramsay Macdonald (L., _Leicester_) declared that the
Estimates were not really supplementary, but began a new programme,
and he regarded the British and other Governments as the victims of a
careful plan of the international armament firms, A reduction, moved by
Mr. D. M. Mason (L., _Coventry_), was rejected, after further debate,
by 237 votes to 34.
The debate was continued next day, when there was a stormy scene over
a reduction proposed by Lord R. Cecil (U.) in order to call attention
to the housing of the Admiralty labourers at Rosyth. The Chairman was
charged with unduly favouring the Government, and an attempt at a snap
division was defeated by Mr. Leif Jones, who spoke amid continual
disorder. Eventually the reduction was defeated by 272 to 132, and
later the First Lord, in a general reply, denied that there had been
any acceleration of the shipbuilding programme, and said that there was
no prospect of "breaking the armaments ring" by getting armour from
competing firms abroad. He would do so if he could (a statement which
roused protests) or would start a State factory, but this latter would
involve a heavy capital charge. The Vote was agreed to.
Another basis for an attack on Ministers was still found in the
Insurance Act. Mr. Bonar Law declared that it was insolvent (March
2); and three days later in Supply it was assailed by Mr. Worthington
Evans (U.) and other members, who contended that some of the societies
would be unable to pay the minimum benefits, that the drug fund was
overspent, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was concealing
the facts and using the powers of the Commissioners to influence
bye-elections. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made a spirited defence,
adding that the State was not bound to make up the deficiencies of
badly managed societies. Married women's sickness was a difficulty,
and in certain trades, _e.g._ mining, even slight illness stopped work
and produced a sickness claim. After a vigorous reply by Mr. Bonar
Law, and other criticisms and counter-criticisms, the Government was
supported by 242 to 174. A more interesting debate had been set up by a
Labour resolution, moved by Mr. A. Henderson (March 3), asking for an
extension of the Act to certain other trades and an inquiry into the
provision disqualifying for unemployment benefit workmen unemployed
through a Labour dispute. The new President of the Board of Trade
promised an extension during the current year, and, while regarding
the provision in question as vital, held that means might be taken to
settle more definitely when disqualification began. The resolution was
adopted.
The confidence of the Government in its programme was shown by the
cordial acceptance (March 4) of a motion proposed by Mr. E. Jones (L.,
_Merthyr Tydvil_)for a Select Committee on the redistribution of seats,
with an amendment moved by Major Morrison-Bell (U., _Devon, Honiton_)
inserting "immediate" before redistribution. The President of the Local
Government Board pointed out that Home Rule would remove the great
obstacle--the provision of the Act of Union that Ireland should have
100 members "for ever,"--and proportional representation, as was asked
by a Unionist member, would be included. It would probably take the
form of giving additional members to the larger constituencies, and
electing them on a transferable vote. Mr. Long (U.) gave a somewhat
qualified assent, and the motion was agreed to.
This skirmishing was followed (March 9) by a new stage in Home Rule
problem. Amid intense interest, the Prime Minister announced the
projected concessions to Ulster in moving the second reading of the
Home Rule Bill. Repeating that the Government adhered firmly to this
measure, he said that they were specially anxious that the new regime
should start with the best chance of success. Whether Home Rule as
embodied in the Bill were carried or rejected, the outlook was very
grave. A settlement must involve the acceptance of a Legislature and
Executive at Dublin, and of some form of special treatment for the
Ulster minority. Dismissing as impracticable Lord Loreburn's suggestion
of a round table conference without any preliminary basis of agreement,
he referred to the conditions he had laid down at Ladybank (A.R.,
1913, p. 219) and to the unsuccessful conversations, which would
remain absolutely confidential, between himself, Mr. Bonar Law, and
Sir Edward Carson. These at any rate brought out the difficulties, and
he and his colleagues had devised three ways of attempting a solution.
(1) "Home Rule within Home Rule," exemption of a part, provisionally
undefined, of Ulster from the administration of a Dublin Executive,
with a veto, for that part, subject to an appeal, however, to the
Imperial Parliament, on the application to it of legislation pressed
by the Legislature in Dublin. But this none of those concerned would
accept. (2) Sir Horace Plunkett's plan, which the "conversations" had
anticipated,--an option for the Ulster counties to separate themselves
from Home Rule Ireland after a time. (3) Exclusion of Ulster, to
which there were grave objections in any form. A middle course, the
Government held, might be found in provisional exclusion; and they
proposed that any county in Ulster, including the county boroughs of
Belfast and Londonderry, might vote themselves out on the requisition
of, say, one-tenth of the Parliamentary electors, for a term of six
years from the first meeting of the Irish Legislature in Dublin.
This, he showed at length, would give time to test the working of
the Irish Parliament, and within the six years there would be two
general elections in Great Britain, in 1915 and 1920. The counties
excluded would come into the Home Rule scheme automatically at the end
of six years, unless the Imperial Parliament determined otherwise.
Their representation in that Parliament, and as far as possible
their administration, would continue unchanged meanwhile. Financial
and administrative adjustments would be necessary, and would be set
forth in a White Paper to be published the next day, but he hoped to
work out the details with something like general co-operation. The
proposals were put forward as the price of peace. He appealed for their
dispassionate consideration, referring to the traditions of "give and
take" in the British nation which had made it the pioneer of popular
government.
Mr. Bonar Law (U.) said that if, as he feared, these proposals
represented the last word of the Government, the position seemed to
him very grave. The Government might conciliate Ulster by submitting
the Bill to the judgment of the electors. He must leave Sir Edward
Carson to speak for Ulster; but the Ulstermen were asked to destroy
their fortress, and to come in when they were weak. Remove the Ulster
question, and the general election would be fought on entirely
different lines; even if the Unionists won the first election and
changed the law, the next might reverse their decision. He feared
that the concessions were being made unwillingly and too late; that
the offer was being made to be refused. Let the Government put their
proposals in a Bill and submit it to the people by a referendum.
Mr. Redmond (N., _Waterford_) regarded the proposals as the extreme
limit of concession. If they were accepted, they would elicit the
real opinion of Ulster, which would surprise many people both there
and in Great Britain; and, long before the period of exclusion had
expired, the fears of Ulster would have been disarmed by the moderate
and tolerant government exhibited in Dublin. The Nationalists could
only acquiesce in the proposals if they were frankly accepted by their
Ulster opponents. Otherwise it was the duty of the majority in the
House to proceed forthwith with the Bill, to pass it without delay, and
to face firmly and with all their resources any movement to overawe
Parliament or subvert the law by the menace of force.
Mr. W. O'Brien (I.N., _Cork City_) said that the Ministry seemed to
have picked out the one concession intolerable to any Nationalist.
He protested against "chopping an ancient nation into a thing of
shreds and patches," and urged the Government to try to get a better
settlement through a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons.
Sir E. Carson (U., _Dublin University_) who, being ill, spoke under
great difficulties, declined to accept Mr. Redmond's promises, and
declared that nothing had happened since the introduction of the
Bill to abate the loathing with which it was regarded by every Irish
Unionist. They would never agree, whatever benefits were offered to
Ulster, to the sacrifice of the people of the South and West. Something
was gained towards a peaceable solution by the admission of the
principle of exclusion; but Ulster wanted the question settled at once
and for ever, "We don't want sentence of death with a stay of execution
for six years." The whole Ulster organisation would have to be kept
up, and all the old questions would remain, while the attention of
the British electorate would be diverted to other matters. Would the
Government agree that Ulster should stay out until Parliament otherwise
ordered? If not, they did not really mean exclusion as a safeguard. The
period of six years was fantastic; a whole new system of government
would have to be set up for it; but, if the time limit were removed, he
would feel it his duty to go to Ulster and call a Convention. Did the
country mean to allow the Forces of the Crown to be used to coerce men
who asked only that they might remain with it?
Mr. Ramsay Macdonald (Lab.) said that the Labour party would accept
the proposed compromise as the price of peace in spite of the great
difficulties it entailed in factory inspection and other matters; and
Mr. T. Healy said that he preferred to have no Bill rather than the
Government proposal, which he regarded as _Finis Hiberniæ_. Exclusion
would be permanent, the severance complete, there would be reprisals
and boycotting, and the American Congress would be urged to put a
tariff on Belfast goods. Mr. A. Ward (U., _Herts, Watford_), as a
back-bench Unionist, welcomed the proposals as a great concession and
urged their consideration in good faith.
The debate was adjourned _sine die_ to give time to finish the
necessary financial business; and public interest centred on the
reception of the Bill outside. The White Paper (issued March 10)
added little to Mr. Asquith's outline of his proposals; and the Irish
Unionists both in Ulster and Dublin, as well as in Parliament, were
very unfavourable. The Dublin Nationalists also were against the time
limit, which, it may be remarked, was believed to have been extended
at the last moment to six years, having previously been fixed at
three. In the City, however, and among independent observers, opinion
was decidedly hopeful. That Donegal, Cavan and Monaghan would decline
exclusion was certain, and that Fermanagh and Tyrone would do so was
highly probable; but the areas of Protestant and Catholic population by
no means coincided with those of the counties, nor did the religious
division, especially among the Protestants, with that between Unionism
and Home Rule.