While these proposals were under conside_The Annual Register 1914 A Review of Public Events at Home and Abroad for the Year 1914

House dealt with the Army Estimates, published March 5. Their

total amount was 28,845,000_l._; a net increase as compared with

1913-14 of 625,000_l._, which was almost accounted for by (1) the

new schemes of pay for regimental officers and of promotion from

the ranks (140,000_l._), and (2) the development of the Air Service

(480,000_l._). As the Secretary of State's memorandum pointed out,

when allowance was made for the automatic growth of pension charges

and for the 1,000,000_l._ provided for aviation, the effective cost of

the Army was actually less than in 1907-8, when there was a reduction

of 2,000,000_l._ in the Estimates, and only 250,000_l._ more than in

1909-10, when it was at its lowest since the South African War. Since

1905-6 the expenditure from loans had come to an end, but the general

level of prices had risen by some 20 per cent. The total regular

establishment, the memorandum continued, showed an increase of 800 men,

half due to the growth of the Military Wing of the Flying Corps, half

to additions to the Garrison Artillery for home defence. After giving

details as to cavalry and horses, and promising a new war organisation

of this arm, the memorandum mentioned that there would be a shortage

(of some 8,000 men at that time) in the Infantry owing to the abnormal

number passing into the Reserve. As employment and emigration were also

brisk and the Navy was competing for men, the gaps had not been readily

filled, but better results were being obtained by modern methods of

recruiting. The question was bound up with that of employment for

ex-soldiers, into which a Commission was inquiring, with Sir Matthew

Nathan as its chairman. The health of the Army, including that in India

and the Colonies, was shown by figures to be very satisfactory. The

new rates of pay for regimental officers took effect from January 1.

An inquiry would be held into the conditions of the supply of cadets,

which was disappointing. As to aviation, the _personnel_ of the 5th

and 6th squadrons would be complete by the end of March, and that

of the 7th and 8th, as well as its equipment in aeroplanes, in the

coming year. The lighter-than-air service being concentrated under

the Admiralty, the Army airships had been handed over to the Navy

on January 1. Satisfactory accounts were given of the progress in

_matériel_ of the air service. The strength of the Territorial Force on

January 1, 1914, was 9,366 officers and 239,819 of other ranks, showing

a decrease of 14,220, due to the retirement of time-expired men,

whose number was large owing to the abnormal recruiting of 1909. The

recruiting of 1913, however, showed a satisfactory advance, and more

men had attended camp. Attendance was to be encouraged by an increased

bounty. The National Reserve had increased by January 1, 1914, to

217,000. Particulars were also given as to the supply of horses,

improvement of weapons and building works.

The table on the opposite page shows the net estimate of the several

votes and the difference between the amounts for 1914-15 and those for

1913-14.

Table Legend:

Column B: Votes.

Column C: Net Estimates. 1914-15.

Column D: Increase on Net Estimates.

Column E: Decrease on Net Estimates.

---+--------------------------------------+----------+--------+--------+

| | | | |

B | | C | D | E |

| | | | |

---+--------------------------------------+----------+--------+--------+

| | | | |

A |Number of men on the Home and Colonial| | | |

| exclusive of those serving in India.| 186,400 | 800 | --- |

| +----------+--------+--------+

| II.--Effective Services. | £ | £ | £ |

1 |Pay, etc., of the Army | 8,705,000| 82,000| --- |

2 |Medical Establishment: Pay, etc. | 437,000| --- | 3,000 |

3 |Special Reserve | 724,000| 9,000| --- |

4 |Territorial Forces | 3,086,000| 271,000| --- |

5 |Establishments for Military Education | 156,000| 10,000| --- |

6 |Quartering, Transport, and Remounts | 1,732,000| 38,000| --- |

7 |Supplies and Clothing | 4,388,000| --- |119,000 |

8 |Ordnance Department Establishments | | | |

| and General Stores | 621,000| --- | 99,000 |

9 |Armaments, Engineer Stores, and | | | |

| Aviation | 1,732,000| 55,000| --- |

10 |Works and Buildings | 2,791,000| 356,000| --- |

11 |Miscellaneous Effective Services | 59,000| --- | 7,000 |

12 |War Office | 457,000| 14,000| --- |

| | | | |

|Total Effective Services |24,888,000| 835,000|228,000 |

| | | | |

13 |Half-pay, retired pay, and other non- | | | |

| effective charges for Officers, etc.| 1,846,000| --- | 3,000 |

14 |Pensions and other non-effective | | | |

| charges for Men, etc. | 1,977,000| 27,000| --- |

15 |Civil Superannuation, Compensation, | | | |

| and Gratuities | 134,000| --- | 6,000 |

| +----------+--------+--------+

|Total Non-Effective Services | 3,957,000| 27,000| 9,000 |

| +----------+--------+--------+

|Total Effective and Non-effective |28,845,000|862,000 237,000 |

| Services | | \ / |

| | | \ / |

| Net Increase | | £625,000 |

---+--------------------------------------+----------+-----------------+

The Army Estimates were introduced by the War Minister on March 10.

The cost of living and the air service, he said, would increase the

cost of all armies per man; the number of men was less, the cost was

more. The Regular Army showed a deficiency of 8,000, the Reserve a

surplus of 13,000, so that on the whole number on mobilisation the

surplus would be 5,000. At home there were 121,000 Regulars, abroad

117,000 (white troops recruited in the United Kingdom); and there was

an Army Reserve of 146,000. On the declaration of war an Expeditionary

Force of 162,000 could be mobilised very soon. To deal with a sudden

emergency from oversea 50,000 men could be assembled in a few hours.

Coming to the officers and men, he remarked that it was the first year

of the new scheme of officers' pay, which would involve considerable

promotion from the ranks--as there had been in the Peninsular War,

and, according to Lord Wolseley, the principle was accepted in the

British Army. By 1915 a scheme of education for such officers would

have been devised. Recruiting gave some anxiety, but by advertising the

advantages of the Army an increased number had been attained. But the

Cardwell system, while good for the State, was bad for the men after

their discharge, and of 24,000 men, of good character, who left the

Army in 1913 employment had been found for only 16,000. A Committee,

with Sir Matthew Nathan as Chairman, was studying the problem. In the

Special Reserve, in spite of a reduction of the establishment owing to

the extension of mechanical transport, there was a shortage of 13,000,

which would continue; but the force was valuable as a half-way house

for the Army. The Territorial Force was short of its establishment by

56,000, but 1913 had been its best year for recruiting. This, however,

might be due to the rejoining of time-expired men, and further efforts

were needed. The National Reserve numbered 217,000, of whom 13,000 had

undertaken to serve in any part of the world in the event of a national

emergency, and 45,000 within the British Isles, these latter being a

set-off to the Territorial shortage of 56,000. Of horses the number

needed on going to war was 102,000, the number available 375,000;

the surplus extended to every class of horse, and was largest in the

heavier type. Aviation was very costly, but might be made safer by the

provision of money. One of the leading combatants in the Balkan War

had said to him: "Had we had a single aeroplane, the whole history of

Europe would have been altered." That army had, indeed, aeroplanes and

men, but had not the organisation to ensure that an aeroplane and a man

should be where they were needed. Great Britain, he showed, was not

behindhand, and he appealed to farmers to provide landing-places. He

also gave encouraging information as to the field-gun and the new rifle.

There was little time for criticisms that evening, and the most

important were those of Mr. A. Lee (U., _Hants_, _Fareham_). He was

dissatisfied with the arrangements for promotion from the ranks, and

with the means of defence in the absence of the Expeditionary Force.

The Report of the Defence Committee, too, should have been debated

before the Army Estimates. Next day Mr. Baird (U., _Warwickshire_,

_Rugby_) moved a resolution regretting the serious shortage in the

Military Forces of the Crown, and inviting the Government to state

forthwith its concrete proposals to deal with the situation. He

insisted on the youth of a large proportion of the troops, and Sir

B. Pole-Carew (U., _Cornwall_, _Bodmin_) added that naval experts

now held that the Navy was unable to defend the British Isles. [His

attack on the First Sea Lord's disclaimer (p. 35) led to a scene.]

The War Minister, in his reply, declared that the British Army was

much better trained and was much more formidable as a fighting

machine than any Continental Army, and the Expeditionary Force was

absolutely ready to go on an expedition. Great Britain was more ready

for war than ever before. Eventually the motion was negatived, and

next day in Committee the Under-Secretary for War gave an encouraging

account of the arrangements contemplated for raising the numbers of

the Special Reserve. A reduction was moved by Mr. Worthington Evans

(U., _Colchester_), to call attention to the hardships suffered

by men marrying "off the strength," in which case their wives and

families received no allowances. The War Secretary announced that

recommendations recently made after an inquiry conducted by Mrs.

Tennant would be adopted, entailing an annual addition to the Estimates

of some 60,000_l._ The reduction was negatived by 249 to 212.

The question of the ability of the Navy to protect the British Isles

from invasion had been raised by the Earl of Portsmouth in the Upper

House on March 10. He called attention to the First Sea Lord's

Statement (A.R., 1913, p. 94) that the Fleet alone was not sufficient,

and to the Prime Minister's explanation that the statement had been

misconstrued (p. 35). What, he asked, did the First Sea Lord now

mean? Lord Wimborne replied, on behalf of the Government, that the

First Sea Lord had never used the word "invasion." Before his speech

he had consulted the First Lord, and both he and the Prime Minister

represented the views of the Admiralty and were in harmony with those

of Mr. Balfour (A.R., 1905, p. 157 _seq._). Neither arm was separately

responsible for protection against invasion. The Army had to provide

that no invasion could be undertaken with less than a considerable body

of men; the Navy had to intercept such an enemy; these functions both

arms, now as always, were competent to perform. After other speeches,

the Lord Chancellor closed the debate, saying that the interpretation

put on the First Sea Lord's speech had represented him as deserting the

basic principles of naval strategy. What he had said fully accorded

with the accepted principles of home defence.

Meanwhile a well-meant attempt at strengthening home defence had been

made by Lord Willoughby de Broke's Territorial Forces Amendment Bill,

of which the second reading was moved in the House of Lords on March

13. It proposed to form a new Imperial Force (supported by a 3_d._

income tax), composed of British subjects or domiciled aliens, whose

service would be compulsory between the ages of sixteen and forty-five.

It was confined to public school and university men, members of the

higher professions, and men whose income from all sources was 400_l._

a year. Boys at school were to serve in cadet corps; between the ages

of twenty-one and thirty there were to be annual periods of training;

and at thirty the members would be liable to serve in great national

emergencies. He believed the example set would induce extensive

working-class enlistment in the Territorials. The impracticability of

the Bill was exposed by Lord Newton (who moved an amendment in favour

of universal service), and by the Lord Chancellor, who pointed out that

a measure of taxation originating in the Upper House was not worth

discussing, and that German experience showed that a large home army

and a large overseas army were incompatible. Still, the Bill obtained

considerable support on that and the two following days, less for its

own sake than as a basis of discussion. Several speakers advocated

compulsory cadet training; the Earl of Cromer pleaded for a non-party

settlement, instancing Germany and France; and Earl Roberts and the

Marquess of Lansdowne, while objecting to the class distinctions of

the Bill, were eminently dissatisfied with the existing conditions of

defence. In replying for the Government, Viscount Morley of Blackburn

intimated that Mr. Asquith's Defence Committee of 1913-14 had come to

the same conclusions as that of 1908 and Mr. Balfour's in 1905. The

Bill was rejected by 53 to 34.

The debates on the Army Estimates had been interrupted by an attack on

the Chancellor of the Exchequer (March 10) in the shape of a resolution

moved by Sir John Randles (U., _Manchester, N.W._), and seconded

by Mr. Cassell (U., _St. Pancras, W._), regretting his "repeated

inaccuracies," and his "gross and unfounded personal attacks." The

cases cited can only be briefly indicated. They were (1) the attack

on the Duke of Montrose (p. 14); (2) the Duke of Sutherland's offer

(A.R., 1913, p. 262), the executors' valuation having only been a rough

estimate, less the amount of the mortgages; (3) the inaccurate attacks

on ancestors of the Duke; (4) the Gorringe case (A.R., 1909, p. 181),

where the "fine" was paid partly for the grant of a fresh and very

valuable lease of other premises; (5) the statements (A.R., 1913, p;

248) as to St. Pancras, where there were 1,550 freeholders (instead of

"about ten"), many of the largest being trustees. The Chancellor of

the Exchequer made a spirited defence. Mr. Gorringe was paying for the

value he had created, and his company were paying rates on it. In the

Cathcart case, the Opposition had reduced the number of years' purchase

from 920 to 750. In the Loch Arklet case, Glasgow had had to pay for

383 acres, not 19,000_l._ but 21,000_l._, more than thirty years'

purchase of the whole 11,000 acres. In the Sutherland case, he read a

poignant description of the clearances, written, as he told a Unionist

inquirer, by Mr. Joseph Chamberlain; and claimed that the mortgages

would not reduce the valuation to anywhere near 200,000_l._ Though his

illustrations were questioned his case had never been challenged, and

Mr. Long (p. 8) had accepted it. After a vigorous reply from Mr. F.

E. Smith (U.), who incidentally mentioned that Mr. Lloyd George had

suppressed the passage in his speech telling of the destruction of

mangolds by pheasants (A.R., 1913, p. 212), the motion was rejected by

304 to 140, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer was enthusiastically

cheered by his supporters.

In the following week, in an interval of the new phase of the Ulster

crisis, the House began to deal with the Navy Estimates, issued March

12. They were the largest on record, amounting, according to the First

Lord's introductory memorandum, to 51,550,000_l._, an increase on the

total (including Supplementary) Estimates of 1913-14 of 2,740,700_l._

Of this increase 450,000_l._ represented increased pay and victualling

for the larger _personnel_; 30,000_l._ automatic increase of the

non-effective votes, 40,000_l._ was for fuel and fuel service, owing

to the increased horse-power of the Fleet, and the continued building

up of the oil fuel reserves; 300,000_l._ for development of air

service; 750,000_l._ for increased earnings by contractors on Vote 8;

800,000_l._ for guns, torpedoes, and ammunition, of which 300,000_l._

was due to the acceleration of the three 1913-14 battleships. The

new programme was composed of four battleships, four light cruisers,

twelve destroyers, and a number of submarines and subsidiary craft. On

April 1, 1914, there would be under construction thirteen battleships,

one battle cruiser, sixteen light cruisers, thirty torpedo-boat

destroyers, twenty-four submarines, and various oil-fuel and Fleet

service vessels. Particulars were given _inter alia_ of the New Zealand

Division--where two light cruisers would be kept, and manned from the

New Zealand Naval Force--and of the progress of the naval air service.

A chain of seaplane bases was being established round the coast; five

were already complete. Good progress had been made with the design

of the seaplane, and certain standard types for war service were

rapidly being developed. The practical utility of aircraft for war was

increasingly evident, and experiments in connexion with bomb dropping,

wireless telegraphy, and gunnery had been continuous. Action had been

taken as to aircraft armament, and guns for action against aircraft

were being mounted aboard ship.

The following is the abstract of the net Estimates for the different

Votes, with the increases and decreases indicated in each case:--

+--+---------------------------------------+----------+-------------------+

|V | | Net | Differences on |

|t | | 1914-15. +---------+---------+

|s | | | | |

|. | | | | |

+--+---------------------------------------+----------+---------+---------+

| A|Total Number of Officers, Seamen, Boys,| | | |

| |Coast Guard, and Royal Marines | 151,000 | 5,000 | -- |

| | +----------+---------+---------+

| | II.--Effective Services. | £ | £ | £ |

| 1|Wages, etc., of Officers, Seamen, and | | | |

| | Boys, Coast Guard, and Royal Marines | 8,800,000| 437,800| -- |

| 2|Victualling and Clothing for the Navy | 3,092,000| 74,000| -- |

| 3|Medical Establishments and Services | 292,100| 19,900| -- |

| 4|Civilians employed on Fleet Services | 115,300| 15,800| -- |

| 5|Educational Services | 175,000| 15,300| -- |

| 6|Scientific Services | 64,700| -- | 1,500|

| 7|Royal Naval Reserves | 489,000| 13,900| -- |

| 8|Shipbuilding, Repairs, | | | |

| | I.--_Personnel_ | 3,989,800| -- | 161,300|

| | II.--_Matériel_ | 7,087,400| 502,800| -- |

| | III.--Contract Work |14,287,800| 936,500| -- |

| 9|Naval Armaments | 5,544,300| 828,300| -- |

|10|Works, Buildings, and Repairs at Home | | | |

| | and Abroad | 3,595,500| 87,500| -- |

|11|Miscellaneous Effective Services | 523,700| -- | 93,900|

|12|Admiralty Office | 483,500| 33,500| -- |

| | +----------+---------+---------+

| |Total Effective Services |48,541,000|2,965,300| 256,700|

| | +----------+---------+---------+

|13|Half-Pay and Retired Pay | 1,003,700| -- | 2,100|

|14|Naval and Marine Pensions, Gratuities, | | | |

| | and Compassionate Allowances | 1,605,900| 43,800| -- |

|15|Civil Superannuation, Compensation | | | |

| | Allowances, and Gratuities | 399,400| -- | 9,600|

| | +----------+---------+---------+

| |Total Non-Effective Services | 3,009,000| 43,800| 11,700|

| | +----------+---------+---------+

| | Grand Total |51,550,000|3,009,100| 268,400|

| | | \________|________/|

| | Net Increase | £2,740,700 |

+--+---------------------------------------+------------------------------+

Prefixed to the First Lord's memorandum was the following statement of

twelve years' actual and two years' estimated naval expenditure:--

+-------+-----------+---------+-----------+-----------+----------+-----------+

| | | in |Expenditure| | | |

| | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |

+-------+-----------+---------+-----------+-----------+----------+-----------+

| | £ | £ | £ | £ | £ | £ |

|1901-2 | 30,981,315| 122,255| 30,859,060| 2,745,176 |33,604,236| 8,865,080|

|1902-3 | 31,003,977| 297,895| 30,706,082| 3,198,017 |33,904,099| 8,534,917|

|1903-4 | 35,709,477| 502,010| 35,207,467| 3,261,083 |38,468,550| 11,115,733|

|1904-5 | 36,859,681| 634,238| 36,225,443| 3,402,575 |39,628,018| 11,263,019|

|1905-6 | 33,151,841|1,015,812| 32,136,029| 3,313,604 |35,449,633| 9,688,044|

|1906-7 | 31,472,087|1,094,309| 30,377,778| 2,431,201 |32,808,979| 8,861,897|

|1907-8 | 31,251,156|1,214,403| 30,036,753| 1,083,663 |31,120,416| 7,832,589|

|1908-9 | 32,181,309|1,264,033| 30,917,276| 948,262 |31,865,538| 7,406,930|

|1909-10| 35,734,015|1,325,809| 34,408,206| -- |34,408,206| 9,597,551|

|1910-11| 40,419,336|1,322,752| 39,096,584| -- |39,096,584| 13,077,689|

|1911-12| 42,414,257|1,322,752| 41,091,505| -- |41,091,505| 12,526,171|

|1912-13| 44,933,169|1,322,752| 43,610,417| -- |43,610,417| 13,401,358|

|1913-14| | | | | | |

|(est.) | 48,809,300|1,311,558| 47,497,742| -- |47,497,742| 14,513,500|

|1914-15| | | | | | |

|(est.) | 51,550,000|1,311,558| 50,238,442| -- |50,238,442| 15,282,950|

+-------+-----------+---------+-----------+-----------+----------+-----------+

The First Lord's speech in introducing the Navy Estimates (March 17)

came at an acute stage of the Ulster question and was in great part

an elaborate defence, addressed to his own party, of the increase

during his term of office, and he compared the figures elaborately

with those of 1911-12, his predecessor's last year. The increased

cost of maintenance--6,250,000_l._--was accounted for, he said,

mainly by increased pay, wages, and victuals (2,140,000_l._), oil

reserve (1,500,000_l._), and air service (900,000_l._). Apart from

these two last items, the whole increase was either automatic or

proportioned to the increased size and strength of the Fleet, which

again was proportionate to that of other Powers. Great Britain was

aiming at completing eight battleship squadrons to Germany's five,

with the proper proportion of cruisers and flotillas. Again, against

sixteen _Dreadnoughts_ in full commission in 1911-12, there were now

thirty-three, many of them much larger and more costly, including nine

battle cruisers against Germany's five. As to new construction, about

2,500,000_l._ of the 17,566,000_l._ appropriated in 1911-12 went over

into the succeeding years; but for this, the vote of 1914-15 would

be less; but he expected great progress to be made, and more money

earned by the contractors, in the new year. In 1915-16 the Estimates

would probably be substantially lower. Oil fuel, as he showed from a

statement of the Chairman of the Royal Commission on fuel and engines,

increased the radius of action, saved labour and stowage, rendered

it possible to get fresh supplies at sea, and so to escape submarine

attacks when going to oiling stations; and the oil tanks were a

capital charge. Oil would be used as the sole fuel for small craft

and light cruisers of the _Arethusa_ type, and for capital ships of

exceptional speed. The air service had increased enormously during

his term of office--the number of aeroplanes had increased from 9 to

103, the _personnel_ by the end of the year might be 180 officers and

1,500 men. The seaplane had a great future, especially in scouting and

watching the coast. For the security of the east coast from raids the

Admiralty relied largely on patrol flotillas of aircraft grouped and

held in strong force at strategic points, and able to be directed to

any point of attempted landing. Fifteen airships were built, building,

or ordered, of which ten had a speed exceeding forty-five miles an

hour. Three officers only had been killed, and 131,000 miles flown.

As to _personnel_, there were 146,000 men against less than 134,000

in 1911, and he asked for 5,000 more. The whole fleet could be fully

manned on mobilisation, but the increase in _personnel_ was required

to train the men for the fleet of 1916-17. In 1920 Germany would have

108,000, and was reaching that figure by increments of 6,000 annually.

After noticing the questions of pay and insurance, and mentioning that

instead of grand manoeuvres there would be a general mobilisation of

the Third Fleet, he dealt _inter alia_ with the supply of officers, and

the new rank of Lieut.-Commander (lieutenants of eight years' standing)

and then came to _matériel_. The programme was wholly normal. One of

the four battleships would burn oil only. He extolled the 15-inch gun,

in which Great Britain was ahead of all other Powers. Naval battles

were now like "two eggshells striking each other with hammers"; hence

the "awful importance" of good gunnery. After touching on the submarine

service--the number to be built being secret--and its dangers, the

destroyer flotillas, and the armed merchantmen--seventy by the end of

1914-15, armed with two guns solely for self-defence--he said that the

Cabinet had again considered the capture of private property at sea and

refused to change the practice, but had decided on the abolition of

prize-money. Coming to the question of standards of naval superiority,

he interpreted the 60 per cent. standard of superiority (A.R., 1912, p.

45) in _Dreadnoughts_ for the six years following 1912-13 as follows:--

Great Britain 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4

As compared with Germany 2, 3, 2, 2, 3, 2.

For the provision to cover the period of delay of the Canadian ships,

however, there was a special reason--_viz._, that, in July, 1912, the

Cabinet had decided that a British battle squadron should be maintained

in the Mediterranean, that Great Britain might be the guardian of her

own interests there, and by the end of 1915 a battle squadron of eight

battleships, based on Malta, would replace the four battle cruisers

now stationed there. The force there would then consist of eight

battleships, four large armed cruisers, four light cruisers of the

"Town" type and sixteen destroyers of the _Beagle_ type. Hence the

acceleration of three ships of the 1913-14 programme and two of the

1914-15 programme; these latter would be ready in the third quarter

of 1916. Turning to the Pacific, the situation there was regulated by

the British naval strength in European waters, which protected New

Zealand and Australia from European Powers, and from any present danger

from Japan, and Japan from European attack by sea. The Anglo-Japanese

alliance, renewed up to 1921 and likely to continue, was the true

protection of Australia and New Zealand, and depended entirely on the

maintenance of British naval supremacy. He extolled the policy of New

Zealand in giving a splendid ship to strengthen the British Navy at

a decisive point; and, though the natural desire of the Dominions to

have their ships in their own waters was hard to reconcile with naval

strategy, the combination of the two was aimed at by the design of the

Imperial squadron, a fleet of large ships supported in each Dominion by

local repairing establishments, light cruisers, and small craft, and

bringing sufficient aid wherever needed in war. Finally, the First Lord

dealt with the supreme importance of a strong Navy to Great Britain,

pointing out that while other Powers built navies in order to play a

part in the world's affairs, Great Britain's Navy was to her a question

of life or death. By sober conduct and skilful diplomacy she could

disarm or divide the elements of potential danger; but her diplomacy

depended largely on her naval strength, and, in the face of the

unprecedented armament increase of Continental Powers, the Government

could not feel that they were doing their duty to their country unless

its naval strength were solidly, amply, and unswervingly maintained.

Mr. Lee (U., _Hants, Fareham_) maintained that on the 60 per cent.

standard of superiority Great Britain was five ships short (28 against

the Germans 21, when there should be 33) and that three ships to

replace the Canadian ships should be begun at once; we must keep faith

with the Dominions.

The debate, however, was suspended to allow Mr. Butcher (U., _York_)

a resolution declaring that the House was not satisfied that the

provision for defence against invasion was adequate, and demanding the

publication forthwith of the conclusions of the Defence Committee.

After several speeches, the First Lord, after dealing with special

points raised, replied that of the new factors in the problem,

submarines told against the invader; aircraft and wireless telegraphy

in favour of the strongest fleet; on the other hand, the changes in

the strategic front told against Great Britain. The Invasion Committee

had dealt with all these matters, and the naval manoeuvres had yielded

important lessons, but he deprecated the popular interpretation of

them (A.R., 1913, p. 179). If the Expeditionary Force was at home no

invading force could be large enough, if it had left, the Fleet would

have been fully mobilised. He vindicated Prince Louis of Battenberg's

action and promised a day later in the session for a debate on the

Report of the Imperial Defence Committee; and, incidentally, he made an

attack on Sir R. Pole-Carew (U., _Bodmin_) which caused a scene. The

motion was rejected by 290 to 190.

Next day the debate was continued by a vigorous and comprehensive

attack on Admiralty policy from Lord Charles Beresford (U.,

_Portsmouth_). The number of ships, he said, was inadequate, the

men were overworked and underpaid, the deficiency of officers was

dangerous, and the Admiralty was trusting to oil, which they could

not guard, nor could Great Britain produce it. More significant,

however, was an attack on the "armaments ring" by Mr. Snowden (Lab.,

_Blackburn_) which was applauded (even, contrary to rule, from the

Strangers' Gallery). The shareholders in armament companies, he pointed

out, included Bishops, the President of the Free Church Council,

the Colonial Secretary, and the Postmaster-General; with British

co-operation, battleships were being constructed by members of the

"ring" for Italy, and Whitehead torpedoes for Austria. The debate was

again suspended for a resolution moved by Mr. Aubrey Herbert (U.,

_Somerset, S._), declaring that the protection of the route to India

and other services of the Empire demanded the provision of an adequate

naval force in the Mediterranean. This discussion extended also to

Near Eastern problems. The Foreign Secretary, in the course of a long

reply, held that the understandings between the Powers of the Triple

Entente had made for peace. As Great Britain could not maintain in

the Mediterranean a fleet superior to the combined fleets of all the

other nations represented there, her policy should be to keep there a

fleet equal to any combination she was likely to have to meet. Foreign

policy depended on naval strength rather than conversely, for policy

must be so shaped that the country would not have to face a combination

that the Navy could not meet. In the Near East British policy was to

use diplomatic influence to preserve the integrity of Turkey. There

was nothing to offend Mohammedan feeling in the proposed Turco-Greek

settlement, and it should be considered as a whole. After a speech from

Mr. Lee (U.) on the naval position in the Mediterranean, the motion was

withdrawn.

The debate next week (March 23) on the Navy Estimates was almost

crowded out by the Ulster and Army crises, but the Votes for wages,

victualling and clothing, and works and buildings, were agreed to on

March 23, after debate and two divisions. An additional day for the

discussion of naval policy was promised after Easter.

But meanwhile the Home Rule controversy had passed into a phase of

unprecedented gravity. The "British Covenant" had been supplemented

by a "Women's Covenant," and both documents had been numerously and

influentially signed, about 3 or 4 per cent. of the signatories,

it was said, being Liberals. On the other hand, the First Lord of

the Admiralty had spoken at Bradford (March 14), apparently as the

messenger of the Cabinet. The Chief Liberal Whip, who presided,

declared that the Government's position was impregnable, and that there

would be no general election till the three Bills under the Parliament

Act had become law. Mr. Churchill, on his part, referred to his own

past admissions of Ulster's claim to special treatment; the Prime

Minister had made a fair and reasonable offer, with the assent of the

Nationalist leaders, and it seemed to him final. It represented the

hardest sacrifice ever asked of Irish Nationalism. But the Unionists

were not satisfied. The sole return offered was that there would be no

civil war. The Ulstermen still showed the old spirit of ascendency.

They seemed to think a settlement could only be achieved by threats;

but, in the event of violence, the larger issue would be dominant,

whether Parliamentary government was to be broken down before the

menace of armed force. That had been fought out at Marston Moor.

Apparently some sections of the propertied classes desired to subvert

Parliamentary government. Against such a mood, when manifested in

action, there was no lawful measure from which the Government should or

would shrink. He had had to send soldiers out during the railway strike

(A.R., 1911, p. 209), and there was no Unionist condemnation then.

They knew how the Unionists would treat the Nationalists, and how they

applauded martial law in South Africa. The Government met the menace

with patience, but with firmness. They were responsible for the peace

of the British Empire; who would dare to break it up? There must be one

law for all; Great Britain was not to be reduced to the condition of

Mexico. If Ulster sought peace and fair play, she knew where to find

it; if she were to be made a tool in Parliamentary calculations, if

the British civil and Parliamentary systems were to be brought to the

challenge of force, he could only say, "Let us go forward together and

put these grave matters to the proof."

The finality of the Prime Minister's offer was further emphasised on

that day and the next in speeches by Mr. Dillon and Mr. Devlin; the

adverse feeling of the Independent Nationalists by an "All-for-Ireland"

Conference (March 14) at Cork; and on March 16 the Prime Minister made

a further statement in the Commons, in the form of a collective reply

to twenty-six questions, of which notice had been given. Prefacing

this reply by a general survey of the situation, he said that the

Government had put forward its proposals for the separate treatment of

Ulster not as the best way of dealing with Home Rule, but as a basis

of settlement; if they were accepted in principle, the Bill would

have to be supplemented by a number of adjustments, financial and

administrative, which were being worked out, but to discuss them would

interfere with a discussion on the main issue. He then began curtly to

dispose of the questions; the Unionists objected, as the form of his

reply precluded supplementary questions; and he presently intimated

that the details would not be formulated unless the general principle

were adopted and treated as a basis of agreement. Mr. Bonar Law and

Sir Edward Carson pressed for the details, and, in view of the Prime

Minister's replies, a Vote of Censure was determined on. Incidentally,

the Prime Minister endorsed the First Lord's speech at Bradford, and

the latter was loudly cheered by the Liberals.

The Vote of Censure was moved by Mr. Bonar Law on March 19. It

regretted the refusal of the Government to formulate their suggestions

before the debate on the second reading of the Home Rule Bill. This

moderation in its language was said to represent a reaction from the

impatience manifested three days earlier. Mr. Bonar Law's tone, too,

was more pacific. He laid stress on the danger of the situation and on

his desire to avoid civil war; he and his colleagues had not closed and

would not close the door hastily on any proposal put forward by the

Government in the hope of securing peace. If the principle to which

they were asked to agree was that Ulster was not to be driven out of

the Imperial Parliament into a Nationalist Parliament, they accepted it

as a basis of discussion; if Ulster was to be brought in automatically

against its will, they would help Ulster to resist. He made a formal

offer; if the new suggestions were put into the Home Rule Bill and

accepted by the country on a Referendum, he had Lord Lansdowne's

authority to say that, as far as his influence in the House of Lords

went, he would not oppose the will of the people. That, he maintained,

was a reasonable offer. Were Ulster brought in as a new Poland, what

hope was there for a united Ireland? As to the Army, in a case merely

of disorder, it would and ought to obey; if it were a question of civil

war, "soldiers are citizens like the rest of us." If blood were shed in

Ulster, there would be the same outburst of feeling in Great Britain as

there was in the United States when the first shot was fired at Fort

Sumter.

The Prime Minister, after protesting against Mr. Bonar Law's view as

to the duty of the Army in the case of civil war, restated the aim of

his proposal. Ulster was to be excluded for a term of years, to give

the electorate of the United Kingdom an opportunity of expressing its

opinion, and to enable it to be seen from the working of the Irish

Legislature whether the objections of Ulster were well founded. Suppose

the proposals accepted on a referendum of the United Kingdom, did

the Unionist leaders hold that this would carry with it authority to

coerce Ulster? (Mr. Bonar Law indicated assent.) Then, was not the

Government's proposal more favourable? Would there be plural voting

on the Referendum? (Mr. Bonar Law indicated that there need not.) And

would Ulster accept the decision? (Sir Edward Carson offered to answer

if it were a "firm offer.") On a Referendum it would be impossible

to isolate the issue. He believed the proposals were fair, and the

Government were quite satisfied with the Home Rule Bill as it stood.

Even partial and temporary exclusion was an evil, but it was only

because it offered the only avenue to a pacific settlement that the

Government had felt compelled to take it.

Sir Edward Carson (U.) said that, in view of the First Lord's and Mr.

Devlin's speeches, he felt that if this were the Prime Minister's

last word he ought to be in Belfast. This Government of cowards, who

had postponed dealing with the Ulster movement and would not remove

the time-limit because of Mr. Redmond, were now going to entrench

themselves behind the King's troops. They had been discussing at the

War Office for the last two days how many they would require and

whether they would mobilise. They wanted an outbreak as a pretext for

putting the Ulstermen down. Gamble in anything else, but not in human

life. After a bitter attack on Mr. Churchill, he suggested to the Prime

Minister that the parts of Ulster in question should be excluded till

Parliament further ordered, or till the question was reconsidered with

a view to federation. Ulster, alone in Ireland, had always been on the

best of terms with the Army; but under the direction of the Government

the Army would become assassins.

After a scene, provoked by Mr. Devlin (N., _Belfast, W._), by

denouncing Sir Edward Carson's desertion of the Liberal party, after

Home Rule had been defeated in 1886, as that of "a man on the make,"

Sir E. Carson, who was very unwell, left--for Belfast, however, and

amid a great Opposition demonstration--and Mr. Devlin, continuing,

declared that the civil war in Ulster was a "masquerade" and a sham,

organised by the Unionist party, which had no policy. He ridiculed

some of the "critical incidents" which, according to _The Times_, had

nearly brought about an earthquake, and pointed out that the eleven

bye-elections since August, 1913, had shown 69,661 votes for Home

Rule and 50,885 against it. He thought the exclusion proposals were

needless, and at most only four counties would adopt them, possibly not

one. He emphasised the Nationalist sacrifice, and believed that six

years hence the Protestants would be contributing to the future power

and glory of Ireland.

Among subsequent speakers Mr. Cave (U., _Kingston, Surrey_) suggested

devolution to Irish provincial assemblies, Mr. Pirie (L., _Aberdeen,

N._) moved an amendment, declaring that a settlement might be found

in the exclusion of the Ulster counties until legislative provision

for a general system of devolution for the whole of the United Kingdom

was ready to come into operation, such provision to take place within

six years. Mr. A. Ward (U., _Herts, Watford_) urged the Unionists to

consider their position and press for the continuance of negotiations

between the leaders. Mr. A. Chamberlain, summing up for the Opposition,

complained of the provocative speech of Mr. Devlin, and dwelt on the

dangers of the Government's proposal; he regretted that Mr. Cave's

suggestions, anticipated by some Unionists in the autumn, had been

ignored, and that the Prime Minister would not accept the Referendum.

The Chief Secretary for Ireland, winding up for Ministers, said that it

was a considerable advance to have got to discussing the compatibility

of the exclusion of Ulster and Home Rule. He had thought Ulstermen

would be inclined to accept this proposal on consideration. He laid

stress on the patience of the Ulster Nationalists under provocation,

and thought Mr. Cave's and Mr. Ward's speeches held out hopes of

settlement.

The Vote of Censure was rejected by 345 to 252. The amendment was

consequently not put.

Sir Edward Carson had left the House to go to Ulster; so had eight

Ulster Unionist members. The belief that this portended a new stage in

the crisis was heightened by military movements in Ulster, by reports

that warrants were out for the arrest of "from 30 to 130" leaders of

the Ulster Volunteer Force, and from rumours as to trouble with the

officers at the Curragh. The Chief Secretary for Ireland (March 20) and

the Attorney-General (March 21) endeavoured to reassure public opinion.

But the Chancellor of the Exchequer's utterances at Huddersfield (March

21) had an opposite effect. In one speech he dealt with the land

programme and made an eloquent plea for social reform; but earlier in

the day he violently attacked the House of Lords and the Orangemen

of Ulster, declaring that the former were threatening the doctrine

of popular government, and had produced the doctrine of "optional

obedience," and that the latter were threatening rebellion that they

might not cease to be the dominant caste. He attacked the exclusion of

Ulster, and objected that a Referendum would only produce a poll of 40

or 50 per cent. of the electorate, and a majority on that small poll

would destroy reform. Let the Home Rule controversy be settled, in

order to open the way to deliverance from social wretchedness.

This speech and Sir Edward Carson's departure damped whatever hopes of

settlement had been based on certain passages in the Vote of Censure

debate. Meanwhile rumours had reached London that officers in Ireland

had resigned to avoid serving against Ulster; and many Unionists

believed that British troops were to be ordered to shoot down the

Ulster Volunteers at once. The chief sources for the history are the

Prime Minister's statements to the Press and in the Commons (March 22,

23); the White Paper (March 25); the _Morning Post_ account (March 26),

based on information from the officers concerned; the First Lord of

the Admiralty's speech (March 30), and Colonel Seely's speech (April

9); the Ulster version issued in April, and the consequent debates in

the Unionist motion for an inquiry (_post_, Chap. III.). In December,

1913, the War Minister had warned the Generals commanding in chief,

that while soldiers were justified in contemplating disobedience to

outrageous orders, _e.g._ massacring a demonstration of Orangemen who

were not dangerous, they might have to assist in supporting the Civil

Power, and that they could not pick and choose between lawful and

reasonable orders. Any officer resigning was to be asked for reasons,

and, if he indicated that he desired to choose between orders, the

War Minister would at once submit to the King that his name should be

removed. On March 14 it was determined to protect certain military

stores in Ireland from possible raids by Ulster Volunteers. General

Sir Arthur Paget, commanding in Ireland, was ordered to take the

necessary steps. Cavalry and horse artillery were to support the

infantry, and, as the Great Northern Railway of Ireland was expected

to refuse to convey the troops, preparations were made to send them

by sea, and one company was actually sent by sea to Carrickfergus;

but the railway authorities accepted the troops. As was afterwards

revealed, naval support was provided for the operations (p. 60). On

March 20 Sir A. Paget arrived in Dublin and conferred, first, with

General Gough, commanding the Third Cavalry Brigade, who apparently

refused to serve against Ulster, preferring to be dismissed the

service; next, with the other generals, and, according to the _Morning

Post_ (April 7), his instructions were as follows: The Third Cavalry

Brigade was to move forward to seize the bridges across the Boyne and

to wait there till relieved by the infantry; a fleet was to anchor in

Belfast Lough and co-operate with the Army, 25,000 troops were to be

employed, and a division of infantry got from England. The force was

made large apparently in order to deter the Volunteers from attacking

it, but the Unionists insisted that it was provocative. It appears

to have been intimated also to the officers that the Ulster Unionist

leaders were to be arrested, and possibly--though as to this there is

a conflict of evidence--that the orders were in accordance with the

wishes of the King. It seemed that Sir A. Paget might unintentionally

have misinterpreted the intentions of the Government. However, he

telegraphed to the War Office that evening that the Brigadier and

fifty-seven officers, Third Cavalry Brigade (out of a total of

seventy), preferred to accept dismissal if ordered North; and General

Gough sent him a Minute, saying that, while these officers were

prepared to maintain order and preserve property, they had rather be

dismissed than initiate active military operations against Ulster.

(These officers comprised all those of the Sixteenth Lancers, nearly

all those of the Fourth Hussars and Fifth Lancers, and six out of

thirteen of the Third Brigade Royal Horse Artillery.) Next day, March

21, Sir A. Paget attempted to remove their fears. He assured them

that the measure contemplated was merely a measure of precaution, but

he spoke of "massacres," of "battles," of a possible disarmament of

regiments which refused to move, which would be the "Indian Mutiny

over again," and finally said that "there were worse things than a

Court Martial," which was interpreted to refer to the possibility of

a capital sentence for disobeying orders. For these explanations the

authority is the _Morning Post_ account, based apparently on statements

from the officers concerned. The situation was not bettered by them,

or by the wild rumours which were published in London (March 21 and

22) of mutinies of infantry regiments in Ireland. On Sunday, March 22,

therefore, the Prime Minister authorised _The Times_ to state: (1) That

the recent movements of troops in Ireland were purely precautionary

and intended only to safeguard the depots of arms, while the naval

movements merely consisted in sending troops to Carrickfergus by

two small cruisers without the necessity of marching them through

Belfast; (2) that no warrants were issued for the arrest of the Ulster

leaders, and no such step was contemplated; (3) it was untrue that

the Government contemplated instituting a general inquiry into the

intentions of officers if asked to take up arms against Ulster; it was

hoped that this contingency might never arise.

It was under these circumstances that both Houses met on Monday, March

23. In the Commons the War Minister stated that on the evening of March

20 General Sir A. Paget had notified the War Office that some officers

might be unable to carry out his instructions; the Army Council

telegraphed asking him to state the circumstances, and ordering the

senior officers concerned to report themselves at the War Office. An

inquiry held by the Army Council showed that the incident was due to a

misunderstanding of questions put them by Sir A. Paget, and, with his

approval, they had been ordered to rejoin their units. The movements of

troops ordered on the night of March 19 from information received were:

One company of infantry was instructed to move to Enniskillen, Omagh,

Armagh, and Carrickfergus respectively; one battalion of infantry was

ordered, half to Dundalk and half to Newry, and one from Victoria

Barracks, inside Belfast, to Holywood Barracks, just outside. The

reason was the necessity for protecting Government arms, ammunition,

stores, and other property. All these movements had been completed in

accordance with instructions from the General commanding in Ireland,

and all orders had been punctually and implicitly obeyed.

To make a discussion possible, the Prime Minister moved the

adjournment, at Mr. Bonar Law's request. The latter said that a new

danger had arisen--that the Army should be destroyed before their eyes.

The resignations were not confined to the Cavalry Brigade; an officer

in an infantry regiment at the Curragh had written stating that on

Thursday, March 20, the following proposal had been put before the

officers: "Any officer whose home is in Ulster can be given leave;

officers who object to fighting against Ulster can say so and will

be at once dismissed from service;" and they were given half an hour

to decide. Nine or ten objected to go on any conditions. He read a

letter from an officer who had heard Sir A. Paget's address at the

Curragh, stating that he had said that "active operations" were to be

taken against Ulster, and that he expected the country "to be in a

blaze" by March 21. Officers domiciled in Ulster were to be "allowed

to disappear," and would subsequently be reinstated, but must give

their word not to fight for Ulster; others who would not fight against

Ulster would be dismissed. This meant more than merely protective

operations, and in his belief certain Ministers, probably without the

Prime Minister's knowledge, had made the movement either to provoke or

to intimidate the people of Ulster. Neither officers nor men should be

compelled to take part in civil war against their will. (Labour members

interjected inquiries whether the Army was also entitled to refuse to

act in suppressing the railway strike.)

The Prime Minister replied. It was the duty of the Army to protect

military property and stores, and to aid the civil power in the

maintenance of order. Any officer or private who refused to assist in

doing these duties was guilty of a breach of duty and was liable to

be dismissed. In December, 1913, instructions were issued to General

Sir A. Paget, and the rule as to excusing officers domiciled in an

area of disturbance would apply anywhere as far as practicable. Long

before the First Lord's speech the danger of a seizure of the guns and

stores had been pointed out, and the operation was purely protective,

and was over. The Cavalry Brigade had not been ordered to move. Sir

A. Paget had had no instructions beyond those of December, except

to make these particular movements. Brigadier-General Gough and his

officers had misinterpreted his speech, and he denied using anything

like the language given. General Gough and the officers concerned, had

returned to their posts and expressed their willingness to carry out

the duties required. (These explanations were greatly interrupted by

the Opposition.) Finally, if officers and soldiers were to discriminate

between the validity of different laws, the fabric of society would

crumble. Suppose acute labour troubles and a stoppage of food,

transport, and fuel, were the troops to follow their sympathies?

Mr. Balfour (U.) ridiculed the Prime Minister's explanation, and

contended that the Government had intended to coerce Ulster, and had

shrunk from doing so. Ulster might be wrong, but her conviction was

rooted, and Ministers had aroused forces which could only be pacified

by a broad and statesmanlike treatment which they had given no

indications of being able to adopt.

Mr. Ramsay Macdonald (Lab.) said that the Syndicalists who had failed

to poison the Labour party with their doctrines had apparently

succeeded with the Tories; and Mr. John Ward (Lab., _Stoke-on-Trent_)

declared that the officers had thrown over their allegiance to the

King. The motion for adjournment was withdrawn; and a debate in the

House of Lords added no further information.

The course of the debate and of events pleased only the Labour party,

who foresaw that, since the option given to officers must logically be

extended to men, the Army could not now be used in labour troubles.

The Unionists believed that the Government had meant to coerce Ulster

and had climbed down. Many Liberals held that it had gone too far in

concession to the officers, and a Liberal member was said to have

described the situation as "our Zabern." The _Manchester Guardian_ said

that the Prime Minister had gone very far towards recognising the right

of officers to lay down the conditions of service, and cited Hearson

_v._ Churchill (a naval case, 1892) and Clode's "Military Forces of the

Crown," to show that officers had no right to resign without leave. In

the country the Labour members' deductions made a great impression; on

the other hand, an Ulster Defence Fund, started in the City by Mr. H.

H. Gibbs, soon reached 100,000_l._

The Labour view of the position was emphasised (March 23) in a debate

in the Commons, started by Mr. Amery (U., _Birmingham, S._), on

the Report of the Army Vote. Mr. J. Ward (Lab.) read a Syndicalist

manifesto "to the men of the British Army" published that day, urging

them to remember that officers had exercised an option as to obeying

orders, and asking them to resolve that they would never fire a shot

against their own class. He added that when this once began it was not

officers alone who would have consciences; the question was whether the

people, through their representatives in Parliament, were to make the

law without interference from King or Army. Later, Mr. J. H. Thomas.

(Lab., _Derby_) remarked that the Railway Servants' Union had refused

to assist one of their own members who had distributed pamphlets asking

soldiers not to shoot down their fellow-workmen. He himself agreed

with the action of the Prime Minister in August, 1911, in using troops

to secure the food supplies of the nation in the railway strike; and

he warned the House that his union had given notice to the railway

companies in the name of 400,000 railwaymen which would expire on

November 1. He would do his best to effect an amicable settlement,

but, if the Opposition doctrine held good, his duty would be to tell

the railwaymen to organise their forces and to spend the union's

half-million of capital in providing arms and ammunition.

These speeches greatly pleased the Liberals, and Mr. Ward was

enthusiastically cheered ("for saying what we all think") when he was

introduced by a member into the smoking-room of the National Liberal

Club. It was stated, also, that they roused much sympathy in the Army

among the rank and file. The Liberals were further startled by the

White Paper published next day (March 25). Following the correspondence

already quoted, it contained a letter in which General Gough asked the

Adjutant-General to make clear whether, if the Home Rule Bill became

law, the officers "could be called upon to enforce it in Ulster under

the expression of maintaining law and order;" and a minute was written

in reply, and signed by the War Minister, General Sir John French, and

General Sir J. S. Ewart, which ran as follows:--

You are authorised by the Army Council to inform the Officers of

the 3rd Cavalry Brigade, that the Army Council are satisfied that

the incident which has arisen in regard to their resignations has

been due to a misunderstanding.

It is the duty of all soldiers to obey lawful commands given to

them through the proper channel by the Army Council, either for the

protection of public property and the support of the civil power in

the event of disturbances or for the protection of the lives and

property of the inhabitants.

This is the only point it was intended to be put to the officers

in the questions of the General Officer Commanding, and the Army

Council have been glad to learn from you that there never has been

and never will be in the Brigade any question of disobeying such

lawful orders.

His Majesty's Government must retain their right to use all the

forces of the Crown in Ireland, or elsewhere, to maintain law and

order and to support the civil power in the ordinary execution of

its duty.

But they have no intention whatever of taking advantage of this

right to crush political opposition to the policy or principles of

the Home Rule Bill.

J. S.

J. F.

J. S. E.

23 March, 1914

General Gough, it was rumoured, had at once shown this document and

talked freely to reporters, and had received an ovation on his return

to the Curragh.

The whole White Paper, and especially the letter above quoted, filled

the Liberals with anger and dismay. The _Westminster Gazette_ described

it as "incredible," and declared editorially that it would prefer the

defeat of the Government to an abject surrender to the Army.

On March 25 the position was further elucidated on the second reading

of the Consolidated Fund Bill. Before this, however, there was

another sensation and a scene. Questioned by Lord Charles Beresford

as to the movements of the Third Battle Squadron, alleged to be

meant to intimidate Ulster, the First Lord of the Admiralty said

that a fortnight earlier the Cabinet had decided to station a battle

squadron at Lamlash (Arran) as a convenient place to exercise from,

and near Ireland if there should be serious disorder. On March 22,

the precautionary movements of troops having been carried out without

opposition, it was decided to delay the movement till after the

Easter period of leave. The field-guns were asked for by the Admiral

to exercise the men ashore at Lamlash if the weather was bad (a

statement scoffed at by the Opposition). The insinuation made by a

Unionist member that the precautionary movements were provocative he

repudiated as "hellish." Subsequently Colonel Seely, the War Minister,

stated in detail the facts relating to the correspondence published

and to the statement quoted above. Having seen General Gough, he went

to the Cabinet meeting and said he would ask the Adjutant-General

to draft a document for him. He then had to go to the King, and (he

said parenthetically) the suggestion made outside Parliament that His

Majesty had taken any initiative in the matter was "absolutely without

foundation." When he returned, the Cabinet had separated, having

discussed the draft prepared by the Adjutant-General (Sir J. S. Ewart).

He added the two concluding paragraphs to conform to the statement

he had made. On receiving this document General Gough asked Sir John

French if it meant that he would not be called on to order his brigade

to assist in coercing Ulster to submit to Home Rule, and Sir John

French wrote across it "I should read it so." Sir John French and Sir

J. S. Ewart did not know that it was a Cabinet document, and no blame

rested on them or on Sir A. Paget; but blame rested on himself for

altering it, and, having been absent from the Cabinet meeting, he did

not apprehend that his colleagues had seriously considered the document

and regarded it in the form in which it had left their hands as a

matter of vital concern. Having unintentionally misled his colleagues,

he had tendered his resignation. It appeared, however, that this had

not been accepted; and Mr. Balfour, after scouting the Ministerial

explanation of the naval and military movements and defending Ulster's

right to resist, asked how the Government explained the two "peccant

paragraphs" which were binding on Colonel Seely and the Army Council,

and which "the whole Army would take as its charter." They made it

impossible to coerce Ulster.

The Prime Minister, after declaring that the King had throughout

observed every rule comporting with the dignity of a constitutional

Sovereign, pointed out that in fact the Government had offered

the Ulster counties exclusion till after two consultations of the

electorate against an offer by the Opposition of one such consultation

at once. Was it really believed that there was a plot to provoke

Ulster? The movements were purely protective, and were ordered on

March 14. Sir Edward Carson and his friends might equip a force said

to number 100,000, but, if the Government consulted their general, it

was an intrigue and an outrage. General Paget acted like any prudent

general in the circumstances. The officers were uneasy, as to the

possible initiation of active operations against Ulster, and sent

in their resignations. When they came to the War Office, every one

realised that there had been a misconception. On the 23rd, after the

interviews, the Cabinet received the draft of the proposed letter

from the Army Council to General Gough. They did not know of his

previous letter nor did the War Secretary. They authorised the three

first paragraphs of the letter from the Army Council, which gave no

assurance of any sort and stated plainly the duties of the officers. As

soon as he received the copy of the whole letter, he sent for the War

Secretary, who explained how the two last paragraphs had been added,

and said that it was too late to alter them, for General Gough had had

the letter. Mr. Asquith pointed out to the House that General Gough's

letter shifted the question to a remote and hypothetical contingency It

was not right to ask an officer what he would do in such a contingency,

still less could it be right for an officer to ask a Government to

give him any assurance. Such a claim, once admitted, would put the

Government and the House at the mercy of the Military and the Navy.

(This was received with prolonged Liberal and Labour cheers and waving

of handkerchiefs and papers.) Were that issue once raised, he had

little doubt as to the verdict of the country. The War Secretary, under

great stress, had committed an error of judgment, but to accept his

resignation would be ungenerous and unjust.

Mr. Bonar Law declared that the Government had decided on a great

military and naval demonstration to impress the people of Ulster, and

Sir A. Paget's statement was inconsistent with their explanation.

He read a letter from an infantry officer, stating that Sir Charles

Fergusson had told his officers that "steps had been taken so that

any aggression must come from the Ulsterites." He insisted that the

position amounted to civil war, and, with reference to the Labour

attacks on the Ulster people and the Army, he declared that the Ulster

Volunteers were thoroughly democratic, and the feeling among the rank

and file of the Army was as strong as among the officers. If he were

an officer he would resign, and (he hoped) would face a court martial

rather than be sent against Ulster. The Government's duty was to find

some means of saving the nation from an impossible position.

Mr. Ramsay Macdonald (Lab.) declared that Mr. Bonar Law's statement

was an encouragement to mutiny. The sentence quoted from Sir Charles

Fergusson meant that the offensive must not be taken against Ulster.

The officers were acting as party politicians, and had communicated

with the Press. Had the position revealed in the White Paper been that

of the Government, the Government could not have lived for twenty-four

hours.

Later, the Foreign Minister said that the Government repudiated the two

paragraphs because they appeared as an answer to General Gough's letter

making conditions, and General Gough had returned unconditionally. His

question was not one that an officer should put. No question must be

raised by the Army as to the orders given them.

After a stormy scene, caused by a remark of Mr. Holt (L.,

_Northumberland, Hexham_), Mr. Austen Chamberlain (U.), in a long

speech, said that the Government's account was incompatible with the

permission to officers domiciled in Ulster to disappear, and with the

movements of the Fleet, of which the Prime Minister apparently did not

know when he communicated with the Press on March 22. He also stated

that the draft had been prepared by Colonel Seely in conjunction with

Lord Morley of Blackburn, that it contained the guarantee embodied

in the paragraphs in question, and that Lord Morley was present at

the Cabinet meeting at which the draft was amended. The Cabinet would

not throw over a colleague for doing what it had assented to in fact.

The First Lord replied that Lord Morley's only connexion with the

full document was that the War Minister had shown it to him after the

meeting of the Cabinet when he asked what he was to say in the House of

Lords on behalf of the Government. He said also that two great issues

had emerged, Parliament _versus_ the Army, and the Army _versus_ the

People, and that the Opposition had laid down the principle that it was

always right for the soldier to shoot down a Radical and a Labour man.

The debate ended in uproar, but the second reading was passed and the

Government sustained by 314 to 222.

In the House of Lords, meanwhile, Lord Morley of Blackburn described

the idea of a plot as "a sinister hallucination," and mentioned

incidentally that the peccant paragraphs had been drafted with his aid.

The Marquess of Lansdowne thought the Government had contemplated a

_coup d'état_ by paralysing the loyalists.

Next day the crisis was dealt with in Parliament only by angry

questioning in the Commons; but it was announced in the Press that

Sir John French and Sir J. S. Ewart had tendered their resignations

and persisted in them. A statement was promised, but not made, on the

adjournment of the Commons; and on Friday, March 27, it was officially

promised at 5 P.M., as the Cabinet was still sitting; a suggestion

by Mr. Bonar Law that the House should adjourn was rendered nugatory

by the ruling of the Speaker that only a Minister could move the

adjournment on a Friday, and after a somewhat stormy conversation, the

House passed to other business. Just before 5 P.M. the Prime Minister

entered; and in reply to Sir R. Pole-Carew (U.) he stated that the

officers in question had tendered their resignations, as they had

initialled the memorandum to General Gough; but the Cabinet, as there

was no difference of policy, had asked them not to persist in their

request, as their resignations would be a serious misfortune to the

Army and the State. To avoid future misconceptions, a new Army order

had been issued, as follows. It was headed "Discipline."

1. No officer or soldier should in future be questioned by his

superior officer as to the attitude he will adopt or as to his

action in the event of his being required to obey orders dependent

on future or hypothetical contingencies.

2. An officer or soldier is forbidden in future to ask for

assurances as to orders which he may be required to obey.

3. In particular it is the duty of every officer and soldier to

obey all lawful commands given to them through the proper channel,

either for the safeguarding of public property, or the support of

the civil power in the ordinary execution of its duty, or for the

protection of the lives and property of the inhabitants in the case

of disturbance of the peace.

He repeated that no operations had been contemplated imposing any duty

on the Army not covered by the terms of this Order, and the Government

adhered to all the declarations they had made.

Mr. Bonar Law insisted, first, that the trouble in the Army had arisen

because of the inquisition to which the officers had been subjected,

which was condemned in the Order; next, that the disclosures of the

movements of troops and battleships were totally inconsistent with

the Prime Minister's statement in _The Times_ of March 23. Captain

Morrison-Bell (U., _Honiton, Devon_) denounced the Order as a gross

insult to the Army; there never would be any doubt as to the obedience

to orders. Had the officers not been asked their views the question

would never have arisen.

Sir John French and Sir Spencer Ewart persisted in their resignations;

and on Monday, March 30, there was a new and dramatic development.

Near the end of question-time in the Commons, Colonel Seely entered,

but did not take his place on the Ministerial Bench. A moment later,

in reply to a question from the Opposition leader, the Prime Minister

regretfully confirmed the news as to the resignations. The two officers

retired, not because of any difference with the Government as to the

conditions of service in the Army, but because having initialled

the memorandum given to General Gough they felt bound to do so. The

Secretary of State for War, to his infinite regret, had informed him

that he thought it right to take the same course. He himself had,

therefore, after much consideration and with no little reluctance, felt

it his duty to become Secretary of State for War. (After a momentary

pause of astonishment the mass of the Liberals above the gangway, with

some other Liberals and Nationalists, rose and cheered wildly.) He

must, therefore, offer himself for re-election. Colonel Seely followed,

explaining that his resignation was the consequence of that of his two

military colleagues. He added that great issues were raised; the whole

Army system might have to be recast; but apart from these issues, the

Army had served the country loyally and well. He would continue to

support the Prime Minister, and would have the knowledge that he had

tried to serve faithfully with his colleagues, and to see that fair

play was given to the Army in a difficult time.

Mr. Bonar Law protested that the second reading of the Home Rule Bill

must be postponed, and the Prime Minister intimated that he had vacated

his seat by the advice of the Law Officers, in spite of the adverse

precedent set by Mr. Gladstone in 1873. He then left the House amid a

great display of Liberal and Nationalist enthusiasm.

The motion for the third reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill, which

at once followed, provided another opportunity for reviewing the

crisis. Mr. F. E. Smith (U.) endeavoured to establish the existence

of the alleged plot, and asked how Lord Morley could remain in the

Government if Colonel Seely had left it. The First Lord of the

Admiralty, in a long speech defending the Government, said that the

letter from the Army Council did not arrive in time to be read to the

Cabinet, but that the Prime Minister, who knew the mind of the Cabinet,

cut it down to the first three paragraphs. Lord Morley copied the two

appended paragraphs merely for his coming statement in the House of

Lords. Reviewing the controversy, Mr. Churchill argued that after the

Prime Minister's offer of March 9 the question was not of the coercion

of Ulster, but of Ulster's barring the way to the rest of Ireland.

In January the War Secretary had asked for naval protection for

Carrickfergus Castle, but he refused it till after the offer of March 9

had been made. The military advisers of the Government had counselled

withdrawing the stores and troops to Dublin; the Cabinet decided to

reinforce the depots so that they could only be captured by a serious

military attack. Sir A. Paget thought that the movement would be

provocative, the Chief Secretary that it would not, though interference

with the drill of the Volunteers or arrest of their leaders might be

so. Sir A. Paget received no orders for any movement of troops beyond

these precautionary movements, but he had full discretionary power in

case of resistance. The Secretary of War gave him oral instructions,

but he was not asked to put, nor did he put, a hypothetical question,

and he was determined to take every conceivable precaution to prevent a

collision. A deliberate and unprovoked attack by the Ulster forces on

British troops would have made all the contingent measures absolutely

necessary, but he and the Government had not expected it, and were

right. Suppose a Nationalist Army taking the same course as the Ulster

Volunteers, would not the Government be compelled to take similar

steps? As to the political issues, he withdrew the word that he spoke

at Bradford. What of the provocation from the other side? He charged

the Opposition leaders in both Houses with attempting to seduce the

Army, quoting a number of speeches, a letter from Earl Roberts, and

a circular sent out on House of Commons notepaper by Mr. Hunt (U.,

_Shropshire, Ludlow_). They had been trying to force an election by

creating a rebellion and paralysing the use of the Army to deal with

it, and their followers were boasting that the Army had killed the Home

Rule Bill.

Among subsequent speakers, Mr. Brace (Lab., _Glamorgan, S._) said

that if the King had interfered the Labour party must have made his

action an issue at the next elections. If the two paragraphs had been

maintained, that party would have overthrown the Government. Mr.

Bonar Law contested the charge made against the Opposition leaders

by the First Lord of the Admiralty, and, reading out Lord Morley's

explanation, declared that every member of the Cabinet was in the same

position as the War Minister. Eventually the third reading was carried

by 329 to 251.

In the House of Lords, also, the resignations and Lord Morley's

position were discussed, but without much fresh enlightenment. Lord

Morley stated that when the War Minister showed him the two paragraphs,

he did not perceive, nor did he yet perceive, that they differed in

spirit or substance from the preceding paragraphs. Further explanations

were promised for next day, and, incidentally, Earl Roberts appealed to

Peers and people to end the mischievous and dangerous assertions that

the Army was being made the tool of a party. No man alive, he said,

could seduce the Army in that way. Next day, in reply to a vehement

attack on the Government by Earl Curzon of Kedleston, Lord Morley

explained that Colonel Seely had resigned the second time in order

that it might not appear that any Minister had made a bargain, and he

himself had had no share in sending the letter as a reply to General

Gough's request, of which he was unaware. Sir Edward Grey and the

Prime Minister had taken the same view of the paragraphs, when taken

with the rest of the letter, as himself. Notable speeches were made

by Lord Methuen--to the effect that the Army would do its duty in any

case--and by Earl Loreburn, who appealed to all parties to facilitate

a settlement. The Marquess of Lansdowne thought the new Army order

would not make matters clearer, and the Marquess of Crewe mentioned

that the Royal Irish Constabulary, and Afridis in Indian frontier wars,

were never asked to serve against men of their own country or race

respectively.

Amid all these shocks it was a comparatively trifling matter that the

Arms proclamation was invalidated for a time by the result of Hunter

_v._ Coleman, an action brought by a firm of Belfast gunsmiths at

the Belfast Assizes against the Collector of Customs of the port for

detaining arms consigned to the plaintiffs at Hamburg on December 18,

1913. The sympathies of the jury were obviously with the plaintiffs,

and the Attorney-General described the trial as a "political farce."

The crisis cut short the Royal visit to Lancashire and Cheshire, which

had been arranged for March 24-28. Their Majesties, who were the guests

of the Earl of Derby at Knowsley, decided to give up the Aintree race

meeting and return to London on March 26; but on March 26 they opened a

new infirmary at Chester, visited Messrs. Lever's famous model town of

Port Sunlight, and Messrs. Cammell, Laird and Co.'s great engineering

works at Birkenhead, opened--by pressing a button--a new park in that

town, and subsequently, by similar means, laid the foundation stone

of Wallasey Town Hall. Everywhere they were received with the utmost

enthusiasm.

The Ulster crisis, which had abridged this visit, took much of the

interest out of the resumed debate on the Home Rule Bill (March 31,

April 1, 2, 6). Many people continued to believe that the Chancellor of

the Exchequer and the First Lord of the Admiralty had tried to provoke

Ulster into a rising in order to crush her, with Colonel Seely as their

tool. But the debate, nevertheless, showed signs of conciliation.

Mr. Long (U.) said that the Opposition would consider an offer of an

appeal to the people conditional on such an amendment of the Parliament

Act as would not sacrifice its advantages to the Government. The

Foreign Secretary, who spoke second, was most conciliatory. Various

suggestions, he said, had been made and had found no success; but on

none of them was the door absolutely shut by the Government. They

were not prepared to go beyond the six years' exclusion, but unless

a federal solution were reached Parliament and the country would go

under through the failure of Parliament to conduct its business, and

it might be the subject within the six years of private conversations

between the leaders. The Government could not accept a referendum or

agree to any settlement that did not mean passing the Home Rule Bill.

An election without the plural vote before the Bill came into operation

might be considered. Force must be used if there were outbreaks

in Ulster, or if the Provisional Government defied the Imperial

Government. But it could not be used to coerce Ulster to accept Home

Rule till after an election. The new Army order might be taken as

giving a fair start after the misunderstanding, but otherwise the next

election must be on issues so grave as to change the Constitution.

It was thought that this speech had opened a fresh prospect of

settlement, and this was confirmed by the opening of next day's debate.

Mr. Dillon (N.) welcomed the tendency to conciliation, but declared

that for the Unionists exclusion was simply a political weapon, while

the Nationalist acceptance of the Government's proposal was inspired

solely by a desire for peace. A referendum would not produce a poll of

50 per cent. in Great Britain. Federalism he disliked as implying a

written constitution, but it was not barred by the Bill. If there was

an agreement, the Bill might be amended either by the Lords inserting

the agreed amendments, or by the Home Rule Bill. The Nationalists would

do all they could to secure peace, but must not be asked to do what

they could not do and what their people would not permit. Sir R. Finlay

(U.), however, pressed for a general election; the Solicitor-General

effectively put the Liberal and Nationalist case, and Mr. O'Brien

(N.) strongly deprecated exclusion and urged a Conference. The debate

was cut short by the Labour motion on the rights of British citizens

within the Empire (p. 73), and was resumed on April 2 by Mr. Balfour,

who said that the discussion had shifted from the Home Rule Bill to

the avoidance of civil war. The conciliatory tone of the debate meant

that the House was frightened. Under a voluntary system they could

not prevent the Army having its own views; it had to obey orders,

but questions arose beyond the day-to-day code, and the Army ought

not to have them put to it. After again demanding a referendum or a

general election, he said that, though he had never been a believer

in Federalism, if some moderate form of devolution met with general

acceptance, and would avert civil war, he would not oppose it, but

Ulster must be treated separately meanwhile. The President of the

Local Government Board declared that Mr. Balfour's doctrine would make

the mess-room a debating society. He had rather the Liberal party

was beaten on other issues than that it won on this. He said most

emphatically that there was no secret obligation of any sort between

the Government and the Nationalists; that an election was not wanted,

and would settle nothing, and that the election held after the passing

of the Bill, and adverse to the Liberals, would mean that they would

consent not to the repeal of the whole Bill, but to the exclusion

of Ulster. It was only after the Bill passed that Federalism could

be discussed. Later Mr. Agar-Robartes (L., _Cornwall, St. Austell_)

attacked the Ministry and advocated giving Ulster a second option at

the end of six years; and Mr. Cave (U.) inclined to devolution.

Before the debate was resumed two events affecting it took place

outside (April 4)--the Prime Minister's speech to his constituents at

Ladybank, and a great Hyde Park demonstration to protest against the

coercion of Ulster. At the latter there were fourteen platforms, and

the demonstrators reached the Park in twenty-two different processions;

there was a large Stock Exchange and middle class contingent, and the

speakers included Mr. Balfour (his first appearance at a Hyde Park

demonstration), Sir E. Carson, Viscount Milner, Mr. Austen Chamberlain,

and other Unionist leaders. The militant suffragists attempted a

counter-demonstration, but the police prevented it and arrested Mrs.

Drummond; and a Labour demonstration was meanwhile held in Trafalgar

Square to protest against the different treatment by the Government

of politicians and officers on the one hand and of anti-militarist

strike-leaders and militant suffragettes on the other. The resolution

carried here approved the conduct of the officers, and urged the

rank and file to refuse to take up arms against their own class in

industrial disputes.

Speaking to a select audience representative of his constituency at

Ladybank (April 4), the Prime Minister began by ridiculing the Unionist

rumours in circulation--the story of the plot, the story that he had

accepted his new office to escape for a fortnight from meeting the

Unionist leaders in the House, the statement that his open journey to

his constituency was provocative; and he ridiculed also the hesitation

of the Unionists in opposing him. He had taken his new office in view

of the grave situation that had arisen regarding the discipline of the

Army and its relations to the civil power. As chairman of the Imperial

Defence Committee, he knew the zeal, devotion, and settled traditions

of discipline and honour pervading the military and naval forces of the

Crown. The Army was not, and he prayed that it might never become, a

political instrument; as an Army--and here he cited the elder William

Pitt--it had no voice in the framing of policy and laws. "The Army

will hear nothing of politics from me, and in return I expect to

hear nothing of politics from the Army." The responsibility for the

preservation of domestic order lay with the magistrates and police. In

special emergencies the Army was called in to assist; in these it was

the duty of the soldier, as of the civilians, to comply with the lawful

demands of the civil power. The doctrines recently promulgated by some

of the Tory leaders struck at the roots not only of Army discipline but

of democratic government. As to the Home Rule Bill, he had brought the

question into prominence at St. Andrews on December 7, 1910, and there

was a complete justification for the application of the Parliament

Act to it; but the Government were anxious to work out an agreed

settlement, and hence the proposed optional exclusion of Ulster for a

term of years. He should have preferred other solutions, but this one

satisfied the conditions in his speech of October, 1913 (A.R., 1913,

p. 219). The proposal had led to an unprecedented expression from both

sides of the House of a desire to find some road to settlement, but

any settlement must involve the placing of the Home Rule Bill on the

Statute-book. Finally, Mr. Asquith referred to the other great Liberal

measures pending, and deprecated division among the forces of progress.

The last day of the Home Rule Bill debate exhibited a continuance of

the apparent movement towards a solution by consent, Mr. John Redmond

(N.), after reviewing the various proposals for settlement, said that

the only proposal from the side of Ulster was the total exclusion of

Ulster, which was not a compromise, and was not put forward as the

price of peace; the exclusion of Ulster by counties he regarded as

dead; the Federal solution had been suggested in 1832, favoured by

O'Connell and Parnell, and was the basis of Isaac Butt's movement. If

Federalism meant that Ireland was to have priority, that her powers

under the Bill were not to be watered down, and that the six years'

limit was to stand, the Nationalists raised no objection. But the

Opposition received that proposal with scoffing, and the only course

was to proceed with the Bill as it stood. But even yet he did not

despair of a settlement.

Sir Edward Carson (U.) said that Mr. Redmond's speech showed that there

had been no real advance towards peace and conciliation. He had killed

even the offer of the temporary exclusion of Ulster. If the Bill was

passed, Federalism would be impracticable, for there would be no power

over the Irish Parliament. Did Sir Edward Grey's speech mean that the

Bill would be suspended till after a new Parliament had decided whether

it was to be enforced? There was only one policy possible: "Leave

Ulster out until you have won her consent to come in". Coercion would

mean ruin to Ulster and to Ireland, and possibly to Great Britain also.

This apprehension in Ulster was what the Nationalists had to overcome.

Turning to them he said: "It is worth while your trying. Will you?"

The Attorney-General interpreted this speech as a great and significant

advance towards conciliation. He added that the Prime Minister's offer

of temporary exclusion was not withdrawn, and would remain open to

the latest possible moment. If the exclusion would be till Parliament

otherwise ordered, the House of Lords, at any rate as at present

constituted, might frustrate the decision of the country. As to the

Federal solution, Ireland came first because its case was urgent, and

English opinion on Federalism was less advanced than Scottish, Irish,

or Welsh. The immediate duty of the House was to go on with the Bill

as it stood, but the Government hoped the efforts towards a settlement

would still continue.

Mr. T. Healy (I.N.) in a brilliantly scornful speech, denounced

Ministers for proposing the exclusion of Ulster and the Nationalist

leaders for accepting it, and for making no effort at a settlement by

other means. Exclusion was a device of Sir Edward Carson for killing

the Bill. Later, Mr. Bonar Law (U.), who commented severely on the

absence of the Prime Minister "from causes which might have been

prevented or delayed," and of the Foreign Secretary, said he desired

to convince the House and the country that the Unionists were prepared

to make every possible sacrifice for peace. He had Lord Lansdowne's

authority to say that, if the new proposals were embodied in a Bill and

endorsed by the House and the country, the House of Lords would let it

become law without delay. The Government might justify their denial

of a "bargain" with the Nationalists by some quibble, but Mr. Redmond

had not done so; the "Kilmainham treaty" afforded a parallel to the

denial of the "bargain." The other way of escape was by the exclusion

of Ulster, and the Unionists would welcome that proposal in a form in

which it could be discussed, because the time-limit could not stand

discussion. He described the Foreign Secretary's intimation as to the

Government action towards Ulster as a cold-blooded indication of a

policy securing bloodshed there. It was the duty of the Government to

maintain order, but it was equally their duty to avert a situation

requiring the use of force. The Foreign Secretary would not coerce the

Epirotes, and the British conscience would not permit the coercion of

Ulster.

After a conciliatory speech from the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who

thought considerable progress had been made towards a settlement, the

debate was closured and the rejection of the Bill defeated by 356

to 276. Sir Clifford Cory (L.) and Mr. Agar-Robartes (L.) voted in

the minority; Mr. Pirie (L.) and the eight Independent Nationalists

abstained. The majority for the Bill, putting aside the votes of all

members from Ireland, was five.

Next day the East Fife Unionists decided not to oppose the Prime

Minister, and he was returned on April 8 without a contest.

The militant suffragists, like the Labour members, had used the

action of the Ulstermen and the officers as an argument for their own

militancy; but their acts, while far exceeding anything yet attempted

on the part of Ulster, were vexatious, but hardly formidable. Still,

the perpetrators frequently escaped discovery; punishment was no

deterrent; and imprisonment was speedily ended by hunger and thirst

strikes, entailing temporary discharge under the "Cat and Mouse" Act.

Miss Sylvia Pankhurst and her mother, thus released, were rearrested

on their way respectively to demonstrations in Trafalgar Square (March

8) and St. Andrew's Hall, Glasgow (March 9); rioting followed and both

were released after fresh hunger-strikes on March 15. Meanwhile Miss

Mary Richardson had damaged with a chopper the Rokeby Velasquez in

the National Gallery (bought by subscription in 1906), in order, as

she explained, to protest against the treatment of the most beautiful

character in modern history--Mrs. Pankhurst--by destroying the picture

of the most beautiful woman in mythology; but her sentence of six

months' imprisonment was soon suspended by a hunger-strike. A month

later (April 9) a woman smashed a case in the British Museum containing

porcelain, but did little damage. A charity performance attended by the

King and Queen at the Palladium was interrupted (March 17); an attempt

to carry Miss Sylvia Pankhurst into Westminster Abbey (March 22) was

unsuccessful, but a clergyman conducted a suffragist service outside.

A woman clumsily disguised as a man awaited the Prime Minister and

the Home Secretary in the Commons lobby with a riding whip, but was

detected and sentenced to six weeks' imprisonment (March 16, 17); and

a discussion in the Poplar Borough Council whether its halls should

be let to suffragists (March 26) was broken up by militants in the

Council and the audience. A graver outrage was a bomb explosion at St.

John the Evangelist's Church, Westminster (March 1), after evening

service; a stained glass window was shattered. Damage was done a week

later in Birmingham Cathedral; the interior was daubed with white

paint, suffragist mottoes were displayed, and a stained glass, window

injured. Attempts were made to fire churches at Clevedon (March 21)

and Glasgow (March 28), and an unoccupied house at Stewarton, Ayrshire

(March 12), in revenge for Mrs. Pankhurst's rearrest; and, when Sir

Edward Carson, after some days' picketing of his house, had refused to

press women's enfranchisement under his Provisional Government, a house

belonging to General McCalmont at Abbeylands, near Belfast, was burnt

likewise. Though all this estranged the general public, militancy found

ardent and devoted support among both sexes, and the receipts of the

Women's Social and Political Union, for the year ending with February,

1914, amounted to nearly 37,000_l._, apart from some thousands raised

independently by local branches. Mrs. Pankhurst's American tour in 1913

had produced 4,500_l._

Besides the suffragist troubles, there had been a host of fresh

manifestations of the general Labour unrest. In the London building

trade (p. 3) further proposals for a settlement, made by the National

Conciliation Board, were rejected by the men on a ballot in April by

23,481 to 2,021. A coal strike in South Yorkshire in March and April

on the question whether certain additional payments to the men were to

continue to be paid in spite of an increase of the minimum wage, though

brief, proved costly, and was ended on April 15 by the acceptance

of the terms offered on a ballot by 27,259 votes to 15,866. Other

strikes occurred in the furniture trade at High Wycombe (settled by a

conference under Sir George Askwith on February 23, when an elaborate

code of rules and rates was devised to prevent the recurrence of

disputes) and among agricultural labourers in various places, notably

at Helions Bumpstead in Essex at the end of February, and on Lord

Lilford's estate in Northamptonshire in April, where the men pressed

for increased wages, a Saturday half-holiday, and recognition of the

union.

These Labour troubles seemed beyond the reach of legislation; indeed,

the South Yorkshire coal strike was the direct outcome of the Minimum

Wage Act; but Liberals hoped that the increased cost of living, or

at any rate the housing difficulty, which was a factor in it, might

be mitigated by the achievement of the Ministerial programme of

land reform. Further material for this was provided by the Report

containing the urban land proposals of the Liberal Land Enquiry

Committee, issued as a shilling volume of some 700 pages on April 1.

Broadly, they substantiated the forecasts given by the Chancellor of

the Exchequer at Holloway (A.R., 1913, p. 247), but only the briefest

indication of them can be given here. Skilled observers, armed with

a set of questions to be answered, had investigated the conditions

in London and 100 other towns, and in sixteen London boroughs, and

supplementary inquiries had subsequently been made in these towns and

in 148 others. The inquiry fell into four divisions: (1) Housing; (2)

Acquisition of land by public or _quasi_-public bodies and private

persons; (3) systems of tenure, especially leasehold; (4) the rating

and taxation of land. Wages and labour conditions had been dealt with

in view of their bearing on housing, and the recommendations included

the fixing of a minimum wage, the consideration of remedies for casual

employment, statutory obligation on all local authorities to provide

adequate housing for their working-class population, supplementing

it, if necessary, by schemes of transit; the appointment of district

Government officials to stimulate these efforts; Government power

to order the leasing of undeveloped land and the sale of mining and

prospecting rights, and of land required for churches, chapels, village

institutes, co-operative or trade union halls; copyhold reform under a

pending Bill which was to be made more comprehensive; the prohibition

of future leases for lives, and the conferring of wide powers on the

Land Commissioners to vary and regulate the conditions of existing

and future leases; a rate on site values to meet all future increases

in local expenditure chargeable to the rates; further Imperial relief

to local taxation, possibly amounting to 5,000,000_l._ annually, and

statutory revaluation at least every five years, but annually if

practicable.

To return to the House of Commons, the Home Rule Bill debate had been

interrupted for a Labour protest on the South African deportations, in

the shape of a resolution moved by Mr. Goldstone (Lab., _Sunderland_)

declaring that "the rights of British citizens set forth in Magna

Charta, the Petition of Right, and the Habeas Corpus Act, and declared

and recognised by the Common Law of England, should be common to the

whole Empire, and their inviolability should be assured in every

self-governing Dominion." The mover pointed to the Labour gains at the

South African elections as indicating that the Government would be

supported by the majority in South Africa in intervention. He offered,

however, to withdraw the last clause. The Colonial Secretary pointed

out that many of the rights specified in Magna Charta were obsolete,

and that the Common Law of England did not run throughout the Empire;

in South Africa the law was Roman-Dutch. South Africa could not be

controlled by debates in that House. He suggested an amendment making

the motion read after "Act"--"as representing the freedom of the

subject, are those which this House desires to see applied to British

subjects throughout the Empire." Lord Robert Cecil (U.) pointed out

that Great Britain had less control over an autonomous part of the

Empire than over a foreign country, but he held that the British

Government might and should have offered advice. After other speeches,

the motion as amended was agreed to.

A Conference summoned by the Joint Board of the Trade Union Congress,

the General Federation of Trade Unions, and the Labour party, met

at the Memorial Hall (London) on April 7, and resolved to call on

the Government to counsel the repeal of Clause 4 of the Indemnity

Act passed in South Africa, and to send Mr. Ramsay Macdonald and Mr.

Seddon, both Labour M.P.'s, to present a protest to the South African

Government. An amendment that "failing satisfaction, the Labour party

turn out the Government at the earliest opportunity," was rejected by

more than ten to one, but the party's inaction was severely criticised

by the minority.

The remaining time before the Easter adjournment was filled up

partly by minor Government Bills. The East African Protectorates

Loan Bill (April 7) authorised the Treasury to lend 3,000,000_l._ to

the Governments of British East Africa (l,855,000_l._), Nyasaland

(816,000_l._), and Uganda (329,000_l._). The trade, the Colonial

Secretary explained, was outstripping the facilities for communication.

The Bill was passed with a little adverse criticism. So was the

Mall Approach Improvement Bill, enabling the London County Council

to approve the Charing Cross Approach to the Admiralty Arch. The

cost, 115,000_l._, was to be shared equally between the Council, the

Westminster City Council, and the Commissioners of Works, and the First

Commissioner would have a veto on the architectural design of buildings

erected by the County Council on the superfluous land taken.

A significant contribution towards suffrage reform in the future was

afforded by a debate on the "alternative" or preferential vote, a

device favourably viewed by most of the speakers, but left an open

question by the Government.

The debate on the adjournment (April 7) was ingeniously used to revive

the subject of the obstruction of debate by "blocking motions," a

practice condemned by the House in 1907 (A.R., 1907, pp. 74, 166). A

week earlier attention had been called to the blocking of a resolution

on divorce proposed by Mr. France (L.), through the introduction of

a Divorce Bill by Lord Hugh Cecil (U.), who declined, when appealed

to by the Speaker, to desist, though the Bill, as the Speaker said,

was obviously a bogus one. By way of retaliation, and also to call

attention to the necessity of getting rid of this practice of

obstruction, Liberal members put down 160 notices of motion designed to

bar out all possible subjects from the debate on the adjournment, in

which any matter not thus barred can be discussed. A few questions were

raised, less for their own sake than to exhibit the ingenuity of the

raisers. Eventually a stormy debate was raised by Mr. Amery (U.) on the

reticence of Ministers, which developed into a fresh conflict over the

Ulster "plot." The adjournment, however, was carried by 171 to 21; and

four weeks later the abuse of "blocking motions" was at last disposed

of by a new Standing Order, to the effect that in determining whether a

discussion was out of order on the ground of anticipation, the Speaker

should have regard to the probability of the matter anticipated being

brought before the House within a reasonable time. This reproduced the

chief recommendation made by a Committee in 1907.

The day following the adjournment more light was thrown on the

Army crisis by Colonel Seely at Ilkeston. He did not propose, he

said, either to pose as a penitent or to reproach others; the facts

were these. He had learnt that certain hot-headed persons under no

discipline might try to capture certain stores of arms and ammunition,

and to remove these stores in the face of armed opposition might have

precipitated bloodshed. It was decided to send small detachments to

remove them. No orders were disobeyed; but the Conservative Press

went mad, and thought that there was a plot to overwhelm Ulster by

force of arms. So wicked a plan could not have been thought of by

any Government, least of all a Liberal Government. Reports came that

there had been breaches of discipline, not amongst the troops ordered

to move, but amongst others. The parties concerned were sent for, and

were found to have been under the complete delusion that a hypothetical

question had been put to them. He had told General Gough that the

Government were not contemplating unlawful action, and the General

had promised to obey all lawful commands. The wild stories as to the

King's interference were absolutely untrue, and the King never knew

of the document (p. 60) till the next day. He himself had completed

the document as he had stated it to his colleagues, so as to represent

the substance of what he had said, and the last two paragraphs seemed

to him to represent the true Liberal view of the duty of the Army in

support of the civil power. But the Conservative Press treated the

document as a trophy and a surrender. Having made the mistake of not

calling his colleagues together again, he resigned, to make the task of

the Government easier.

Sir John French and Sir J. S. Ewart had been replaced by General

Sir Charles Douglas and Lieut.-Gen. Sir H. C. Sclater; and the

approach of the Easter holiday gave time for the popular excitement

to abate. On Good Friday one of the most extravagant delusions of

Ulster was shattered by a letter in _The Times_ from two eminent

German Professors, Dr. Theodor Schiemann, whose weekly reviews of

world-politics in the Berlin _Kreuz Zeitung_ were famous, and Dr.

Kuno Meyer, the great Keltic scholar, to the effect that the hope of

interference by Germany was a delusion. The Covenanters, the letter

said, were living wholly in the ideas and sentiments of a bygone age.

In the seventeenth century the cause of Protestantism was at stake. But

at the present day "no civilised country, least of all Germany, could

look favourably on any policy which would run counter to the spirit of

religious comprehension."

CHAPTER III.

FROM EASTER TO WHITSUNTIDE.

The brief Easter holiday was fortunately favoured by fine weather, and

there was a large exodus of pleasure-seekers from the great towns; but

the usual conferences of workers in various employments served mainly

to exhibit the variety of the prevalent unrest. The Independent Labour

party, in conference at Bradford, passed by 233 to 78 a resolution

declaring Cabinet rule inimical to good government, and demanding

that, in order to break it up, the Labour party should be asked to

vote only in accordance with the principles for which that party

stood. A report on the relations of the Liberal and Labour parties

had previously been subjected to a "frank and friendly" discussion

in private, but much dissatisfaction was exhibited in the debate on

the resolution above given at the alleged subservience of the party

to Socialism. The conference also passed a resolution in favour of

uniting with the Fabian Society and the British Socialist party,

originally the Social Democratic Federation; but it declined to allow

its candidates to call themselves "Labour and Socialist," for fear

that adherents of the moderate section would stand as "Liberal-Labour"

or "Progressive Labour" candidates. The party funds were very low,

and there were various indications that many working-men had lost

interest in political means of reform. The speakers at the preliminary

meetings, especially Mr. Snowden and Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, were greatly

interrupted by militant suffragists. At the Elementary Teachers'

Conference a resolution favouring women's suffrage was declared outside

the scope of the union, and a subsequent attempt to annul this decision

was defeated amid disorder. At Conferences of postal employees, a

number of grievances were ventilated.

Some of the grievances of the Civil Service were dealt with in the

Report, published April 14, of the Royal Commission on the Civil

Service (A.R., 1912, Chron., March 14; Chairman, Lord Macdonnell).

It was a strong body, containing prominent members of Parliament,

leading University tutors, and women and others with special knowledge;

and it issued a Majority Report, signed by the Chairman and fifteen

Commissioners, and a Minority Report, signed by three, but qualifying

rather than diverging widely from the views of the majority. The

Commission had still to examine the Foreign Office, the Diplomatic

Service, and the legal departments. Briefly, the majority recommended

that, as to patronage, when an appointment was made from outside the

Service, the reasons for it and the history of the candidate should

be given; the general control of the Service should be exercised by

a new special department within the Treasury; the existing five

classes should be replaced by three, the First Division being called

"Administrative" and recruited as before; the method of appointment

should be harmonised with the national system of education; transfer

between different departments should be permitted, so as to facilitate

promotion; and there were a number of recommendations with regard to

women, including equal pay with men where the work and efficiency were

really equal, and compulsory retirement on marriage. The Commission

discountenanced political action by Civil Servants, and recommended

a special inquiry into the subject of the political disabilities by

persons of experience in industrial conciliation and arbitration.

The House of Commons reassembled on Easter Tuesday, April 14, and

devoted the week mainly to practical legislation. The East African

Protectorate (Loans) Bill passed through Committee without amendment,

after some unsuccessful opposition to its details, chiefly on the part

of Independent Liberals. The Criminal Justice Administration Bill was

read a second time (April 15), amid general approval, and was referred

to a Standing Committee. The Home Secretary explained that its object

was to reduce the number of commitments to prison by allowing not less

than seven days for the payment of a fine of less than 40_s._, the

fine to include all Court fees; to recognise societies for the supply

of probation officers, and to hand them money provided by Parliament

towards their expenses; to amplify the Borstal system; and to introduce

other smaller changes. The Dogs Bill, exempting dogs from vivisection,

was read a second time on April 17. A protest against it signed by

eminent scientific authorities had been published; but Sir F. Banbury

(U., _City of London_), who moved the second reading, justified it on

the ground that the dog was the special friend of man; and he reminded

the Ministerialists that, when the house of their Chief Whip was

burnt, the alarm was given and the lives of the inmates saved by the

barking of a dog. The Bill was opposed by representatives of Cambridge,

London, and Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities (Mr. Rawlinson, Sir P.

Magnus, and Sir Henry Craik) in the interest of physiological research.

The only substitute for a dog for certain purposes, it was said,

was a monkey, and its price was prohibitive. Without inoculation of

dogs, Sir H. Craik stated, the existing great knowledge of tropical

diseases could not have been reached, nor could Carrel have conducted

his experiments on heart surgery. Dr. Chapple (L., _Stirlingshire_)

added that operations as carried on in Great Britain were painless,

and hydrophobia had been abolished by experiments on dogs, not by the

muzzling order. The Under-Secretary for the Home Department suggested,

as a compromise, that the use of dogs should not be permitted unless it

could be shown that no other animal was available. The Bill was passed,

after closure, by 122 to 80, and was sent to a Standing Committee; but

its opponents destroyed it, first by refusing to make a quorum, and

afterwards by extensive amendments; and it was dropped on June 30.

Two other debates of the week deserve brief notice. On April 15 Mr.

Leach (L., _Yorks, W.R._, _Colne Valley_) moved a resolution that in

future no member should, unless by leave, speak in the House for more

than fifteen minutes, or in Committee for more than twenty. Ministers,

ex-Ministers, and movers of Bills and resolutions to be excepted. Sir

A. Verney (L., _Bucks_, _N._) moved an amendment that members should

signify to the Chair the time they would take, and should be reminded

when they exceeded it. It was generally admitted to be desirable that

more members should speak, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board

of Education, in a sympathetic speech, recommended that the subject

should be left to the Committee on Procedure. Sir P. Banbury (U.),

opposing the motion, talked it out.

Next day, in Committee of Supply, there was a debate on housing

conditions in Ireland. Mr. Clancy (N., _Dublin Co._), who began it,

pointed out that over 20,000 families in Dublin lived in one-room

tenements, breeding-places of tuberculosis; but of 5,500 houses only

seventy-three were owned by members of the Corporation, the owners

of the rest were frequently poor, and could not pay for repairs or

demolition. The Corporation had housed 2.5 per cent. of the population.

Unionist members contrasted the conditions in Dublin with those in

Belfast, and the Chief Secretary for Ireland showed that the evil was

largely the result of overcrowding and low wages, but could not promise

State aid. Nothing could be worse, he said, than an attempt to combine

Manchester principles with little patches of philanthropic Socialism.

True, they had built labourers' cottages, but that was a corollary of

Land Purchase. The people did not choose to be moved to the suburbs.

Eventually the resolution was talked out.

The second reading of the Established Church (Wales) Bill was debated

on April 20 and 21 in a rather small House. The rejection was moved

by Lord B. Cecil (U., _Herts_, _Hitchin_). The attack on the Church,

he maintained, had been lifeless; now that individualist theories of

the State had decayed, what was wanted was more Establishment--the

national recognition of religion; and personally, he would gladly see

extended to Nonconformist bodies all the privileges, if they were

privileges, possessed by the Church of England. Voluntaryism--the

theory that a Church ought to depend on the day-to-day contributions

of its members--was absolutely dead; at any rate, the Nonconformist

bodies were all seeking endowments. After contesting the stock Liberal

arguments for Welsh Disestablishment, he said that, apart from the

thirty-one Welsh members, the evidence was that the majority of the

Welsh people was adverse. Besides petitions, meetings, and addresses,

there was the petition of over 103,000 Nonconformists, many of them

Liberals, against the Disendowment clauses of the Bill. People had

been deterred from signing it by the threat that they would lose their

old-age pensions. The Church, as a whole, would not suffer, but some of

the curates would, and the Nonconformists would rue their work.

The motion was seconded by Mr. Hoare (U., _Chelsea_) and opposed by the

Attorney-General, who ridiculed the idea that Wales was adverse; and

read a letter from a Welsh rector stating the writer's conviction that

the majority of the Welsh clergy were in favour of the Disestablishment

clauses, and that, if the leaders of the Church party would accept the

Government's offer of commuting life interests, the loss would readily

be made up by Church people, and the result would be a message of peace

to Wales and a blessing to the Church as a spiritual institution.

The Nonconformist petition had been worked up in rural places by

Conservative landlords and agents, and many of the signatories (though

in this he did not impute blame to the organisers) had signed to

protect themselves and their homes. Speaking as "half a Welshman,"

whose youth had been spent amid the tradition of Welsh Nonconformity,

he said that the movement for Disestablishment was bound up with Welsh

nationalism. The case for Disendowment depended, not on the historical

origin of tithe, but on the difference between the mediæval and the

modern Church, and no scheme had ever been more fair and moderate.

Later Sir Alfred Mond (L., _Swansea Town_) stated that at Newport,

Mon., the Nonconformist petition was organised by four vicars, a

curate, a Tory agent, and a Tory councillor; and that harrowing tales

were told about churchyards being ploughed up.

In the debate next day Mr. Balfour eloquently appealed to the Welsh

people to be more concerned with the great things they shared with the

English people than with the relatively small things they held by a

separate tenure. Granted that the Church had deservedly lost much of

her earlier position, why should she be disestablished and disendowed?

If Disestablishment meant dismemberment, why were the Welsh members to

settle it alone? What good would Disestablishment do? On the central

question of the Bill, Disendowment, weight should be given, not to

Welsh sentiment, but to sound principles of jurisprudence, relating

to corporate property, and these the Bill violated. The United States

Supreme Court had decided that in Virginia Disestablishment did not

involve Disendowment. The Parliament Act was passed to carry Home Rule

and Welsh Disestablishment; it now seemed that these reforms were to be

carried to justify the Act. The country was turning against them. There

was something grandiose about the Irish policy of the Government, but

the Welsh Bill was thoroughly mean.

The Prime Minister asked on what grounds Mr. Balfour asserted that the

country had changed its opinion. No question had had such a hold on

the Welsh mind for the best part of two generations. Deference and

concession, in matters of local concern, to strong local sentiment

were among the first conditions of vivifying and sustaining Imperial

strength. To the vast majority of the Welsh people the Welsh Church

was not a national institution, but four dioceses in the Province of

Canterbury. The Nonconformist deputation (p. 28) were all in favour of

Disestablishment, and were very vague as to the Disendowment effected

by the Bill. Against Establishment he cited the case of the United

States. The Bill dealt with ancient endowments, given to the Church for

charitable and educational, as well as for religious, reasons; it had a

precedent in the Irish Church Act, carried by one of the greatest and

most devout Churchmen of the time, and both parties had impartially

used the released endowments for the most secular purposes conceivable.

What was to prevent the continued community of action of the four

dioceses with the Church of England? The Welsh Nonconformist farmer

would gain the sense of religious equality which he and his forefathers

for two centuries had looked upon as essential to the completion and

quickening of their national life.

Later, Mr. Bonar Law (U.) after commenting on the unreality of the

debate, said that if the Church was alien to the Welsh temperament,

it was the fault of the latter. The Church was the only denomination

in Wales which was increasing its membership. The Irish Church was

disendowed on the ground that the money was not being properly used. He

did not think it would be possible to replace the endowments; one of

the first acts of the next Unionist Government would be to restore them.

After a reply by the Home Secretary, who said that if the voluntary

subscriptions to the Welsh Church were increased from their actual

figure of 300,000_l._ to 345,000_l._ annually its income would be the

same as before, the second reading was carried by 349 to 265.

But the dominant question was still that of Ulster, and the echoes of

the outcry over the alleged plot had continued, and had been reinforced

by fresh revelations. Easter week saw a series of reviews by Sir Edward

Carson of the Ulster Volunteers--of the South Antrim Regiment at Antrim

Castle, of those encamped at Clandeboye, of 2,500 men of the North

Belfast Regiment, and of some 3,000 from North Derry. Everything was

done to make the ceremonies impressive, and Sir Edward reminded the

Volunteers at Antrim, in words that afterwards acquired an unexpected

significance, that they were out not for war but for peace, and were

all willing at any moment to tender their services to the King, the

symbol of the unity of the Empire. On April 17 the Ulster Unionist

Council issued a statement purporting to give the "actual facts" as to

the recent military operations and the plans of the Government. The

War Minister and Sir A. Paget had been in correspondence and personal

consultation (March 15-19), and on March 20 the latter addressed

the Irish generals, summoned by telegram. He then stated that the

Government had determined to undertake active military operations

against Ulster, and had made the offer already mentioned (p. 56) to

the officers; General Gough had thereupon resigned. Later on that day

Sir A. Paget set forth to a meeting of generals and staff-officers the

outlines of the plan of operations. The troops guarding the depots

at Armagh, Omagh, Carrickfergus, Enniskillen, and Dundalk were being

strengthened, the Victoria Barracks at Belfast, untenable as being

commanded by houses, were being vacated, and the inmates ordered to

Holywood; and the barracks at Newry were being prepared for use by the

advance corps of the operating forces. The Third Cavalry Brigade was

to advance and occupy the bridges and strategic points on the Boyne;

the Fifth Division was then to occupy these and release the cavalry for

a further advance; the Sixth Division was to move up from the South

of Ireland to take the places occupied by the Fifth Division; a force

of 10,000 was to come from Lichfield and Aldershot, and these, with

Artillery and Army Service and Army Medical Corps, would bring up the

strength of the total force participating to 25,000. Belfast was to be

blockaded by sea and land, two destroyers had been sent to take troops

to Carrickfergus and keep open communications between Carrickfergus

Castle and Holywood Barracks, two flotillas of destroyers were ordered

to Belfast, and a battle squadron was ordered from Arosa Bay to the

North. The Army was not to begin the fighting; the police would seize

arms concealed by the Volunteers; this would inevitably lead to

bloodshed, and then the Army and Navy would be called in. He spoke of

"battle" and of "the enemy," and, as an inducement to one regiment

reluctant to join, said that when the enemy had been located this

regiment would be sent to suppress a disturbance "arranged" in Cork.

The Unionists found in this statement a complete confirmation of

their views on the plot; the Liberal Press scoffed at it, the ex-War

Minister solemnly declared (April 18) that his whole aim had been a

peaceful settlement; and the Financial Secretary of the War Office (at

Coventry, April 18) said that there was "not one shred of truth in the

document." On April 21 Mr. Bonar Law asked for "a judicial inquiry"

into the military movements in question; the Prime Minister replied

that the proper course was to move a vote of censure, and offered a

day; Mr. Bonar Law asked if the Prime Minister was afraid to have the

facts tested on oath. Stormy scenes took place during the next few days

at question time in the Commons; a Liberal motion was put down calling

on the Opposition leader to substantiate his charges or withdraw them;

and, after seeing Sir A. Paget's account of his conversations with his

officers, issued, with other documents, as a White Paper on April 22,

the Opposition decided to move for an inquiry into the attempt to

impose Home Rule on Ireland by force. This motion was debated on April

28.

The White Paper contained much new matter as to the orders to the Third

Battle Squadron (p. 60), and it was elicited in Parliament (April 22)

that the Prime Minister had only learnt of these orders on March 21,

and had then caused them to be countermanded; it contained, also, Sir

A. Paget's account of his conversations with his officers. He had said

that he was ordered to carry out certain "moves of a precautionary

nature," which the Government believed would be understood to be

precautionary and would not be resisted, but which he thought would

set the country and Press ablaze and might lead to active operations

against organised bodies of the Ulster Volunteers; and he explained the

"concessions" to officers. He had to know before the second conference

(pp. 56, 81) whether the senior officers held that "duty came before

other considerations," and therefore he said that any officer who would

be unable to obey the orders to be given him should absent himself from

that Conference. But he had no intention of ascertaining the intentions

of subordinate officers. He merely wished them to be informed of the

exemptions, and of the penalty for refusal of officers not exempted to

obey orders. But four of the seven generals misunderstood, and thought

that officers not prepared to do their duty were to say so, and would

then be dismissed from the service. Most of the officers of the Fifth

Division, and those of the Third Cavalry Brigade, were thus misinformed

(with a slight difference in the latter case). He regretted the

misapprehension, for which he alone was responsible.

Pending the debate on the proposed motion, the Army Annual Bill went

through Committee (April 23) and Mr. Keir Hardie (Lab., _Merthyr

Tydfil_) moved an amendment making it unlawful to employ troops in

labour troubles unless all the available police force had first

been called out, and then only with the consent of three resident

magistrates. He also desired that the troops should not carry firearms,

but batons, and should be under civil law. The Prime Minister, pointed

out that the latter proposal was out of the question; the law was

contained in the Report on the Featherstone disturbance (issued Dec.,

1893) and no new practice should be established. Military interference

should be as infrequent as possible, and happily the police was more

efficient than fifty or a hundred years earlier. The amendment was

ultimately ruled out of order.

Meantime the King and Queen had returned President Poincaré's visit

of 1913 by a brilliantly successful visit to Paris. Favoured by

fine weather, they left Victoria Station, April 21, with a suite

including the British Foreign Minister, crossed from Dover to Calais

in the Royal yacht _Alexandra_, escorted by the cruisers _Nottingham_

and _Birmingham_, and were met _en route_ by two French cruisers

and a flotilla of torpedo boats and submarines. At the Bois de

Boulogne station they were met by the President of the Republic

and Madame Poincaré, with various high officials, and drove into

Paris amid enthusiastic crowds. At the State banquet at the Elysée

the same evening President Poincaré remarked that the day was the

tenth anniversary of the conclusion of the Anglo-French _entente_,

and that the agreements then made naturally gave birth to a more

general understanding, which was and would thenceforth be one of

the surest pledges of European equilibrium. He was confident that,

under the auspices of the King and the King's Government, these

bonds of intimacy would be drawn daily closer, to the great gain of

civilisation and universal peace. The King's reply was cordial, but

studiously non-political. He said that, thanks to the close and cordial

relations resulting from the agreement, the two countries were able to

collaborate in the humanitarian work of civilisation and peace. The

programme of the visit included, besides this State banquet, a review

at Vincennes on the Wednesday--a magnificent spectacle--followed by a

banquet at the British Embassy and a gala performance at the opera; a

visit on the day following to the races at Auteuil, a banquet given

by M. Doumergue, the Premier, and the exchange of costly presents,

the King giving the French Republic some fine bronze medallions taken

from a statue of Louis XIV. during the first Revolution, and purchased

by King George III. Sir Edward Grey had meanwhile conferred with the

French Premier, and it was officially stated that various questions

affecting the two countries had been taken into consideration, and the

identity of view of the two Ministers on all points had manifested

itself. While placing on record the results of the policy pursued by

the two Governments together with that of Russia, the two Ministers

were completely agreed that the three Powers should continue their

constant efforts for the maintenance of the balance of power and of

peace. Some publicists in both countries desired that the _Entente_

should develop into an alliance; but the British Government was still

reserved. The visit itself, however, greatly strengthened the good

feeling between the two nations; "the State functions," as _The Times_

remarked, were "conducted with a dignified splendour which no Court in

Europe could excel," and which greatly impressed the British people;

the King, on landing at Dover, declared that he and the Queen could

never forget the warmth and hospitality of their reception, and it was

clear that Their Majesties had won a popularity in Paris at least equal

to that of King Edward VII.

Before the Opposition motion for an inquiry into the Ulster "plot," the

Plural Voting Bill was read a second time (April 27). The rejection

was moved by Mr. Hume Williams (U., _Notts, Bassetlaw_) and seconded

by Sir J. Randles (U., _Manchester, N. W._) and supported by the usual

argument that the Bill would alter only one anomaly, and that not

the greatest, in the representative system, for the benefit of the

supporters of the Government. The Colonial Secretary replied that the

various Bills dealing with the subject had been killed by the Lords or

the ladies, and there was no time to pass the other reforms desirable

in the election laws. The penalties under the Bill were less than those

imposed by the Tories in the County Councils Act. In 1906 every Liberal

member had received a direct mandate to establish one man, one vote. He

added that redistribution of seats was made possible by the Home Rule

Bill, and should be passed by consent; and later the President of the

Board of Trade promised that, if the plural vote were abolished, the

Government would confer with the Opposition leaders as to the terms of

appointment of a Redistribution Commission. He suggested single-member

constituencies of approximately equal population, and indicated that

details should be left to the Commission. The second reading was

carried by 324 to 247.

The debate on the motion for an inquiry into the "plot to coerce

Ulster" followed next day; but a new phase in the crisis had been

revealed.

On March 9 a small Norwegian steamer, the _Fanny_, had taken aboard two

members of the Ulster Unionist Council at Dysart, Fife; and at the end

of the month she was reported from Berlin to be shipping rifles from

a lighter, towed from Hamburg by a steamer, off Langeland, Denmark.

Her papers were taken by the port authorities for examination, and she

left without them. The arms, it was suggested, were for ex-President

Castro's use in Venezuela, and it was afterwards stated that they

were for Mexico. But Sir Edward Carson had intimated (March 13) that

preparations were in hand; and on the night of April 24-25 some 35,000

rifles and 3,000,000 cartridges were landed at Larne from a steamer

temporarily bearing the historic name _Mountjoy_, possibly (though

this was denied) the _Fanny_, and were then distributed throughout

Protestant Ulster by motor-lorries and motor-cars. About 10,000 of the

rifles and much ammunition were also transhipped from the _Mountjoy_

into the _Roma_ (commandeered at Larne by Ulster Volunteers) and

another steamer, and landed on the Down coast. Some 12,000 men in

all were engaged in the landing. Volunteers guarded the roads, the

telegraphs and telephones were interrupted, the coastguards were

powerless, and the Custom officers and the police were ingeniously

prevented from learning of the movement in time to interfere

effectively. Every detail of the scheme had been admirably organised,

and nothing was heard of it at Dublin Castle till noon on April 25.

Warships were now posted on the Ulster coast to stop further

gun-running, and military measures were expected; and the Prime

Minister was bombarded with questions in the House on April 27. Most of

them had reference to the alleged "plot" against Ulster; but in reply

to a question from Mr. Lough (_Islington, W._) as to the gun-running

and the steps to be taken by the Government, Mr. Asquith replied that

in view of this grave and unprecedented outrage the Government would

take appropriate steps without delay to vindicate the authority of the

law, and protect officers and servants of the King and His Majesty's

subjects in the exercise of their duties and the enjoyment of their

legal rights.

Other angry questions followed next day (April 28) and then the debate

opened on the Unionist motion for an inquiry into the "plot." But it

took an unsuspected turn. Various Liberal amendments had been put down

to the effect that in view of what had happened subsequently (_i.e._

the gun-running) the Government would be supported in whatever measures

it might take. Mr. Austen Chamberlain moved the motion, which demanded

a full and impartial inquiry, in view of the "incompleteness and

inaccuracy" of the statements of Ministers and of the continued failure

of the Government to deal frankly with the situation. He reviewed the

course of events since the Prime Minister's offer of March 9, referring

to Mr. Churchill's Bradford speech, the incidents at the Curragh,

the Prime Minister's statement of March 22 (which, he said, was

misleading), and he complained that information was still withheld--the

police reports on which the Government had acted, the instructions

given to Sir A. Paget at the War Office, his address to his officers in

Dublin and at the Curragh. He charged the First Lord of the Admiralty

with inventing an elaborate story to support his account of Lord

Morley's connexion with the peccant paragraphs, and said that Colonel

Seely was only the tool of more astute and unscrupulous colleagues.

[Popular rumour had specified the First Lord of the Admiralty and the

Chancellor of the Exchequer.] He commented on the application for

field-guns for the Fleet, the appointment of Sir Nevil Macready as

virtual Military Governor of Belfast, and said also that the Government

had "seized important strategic points." His charges against them

were: (1) That they took measures, not against a few evilly disposed

persons, but on the basis that conciliation was hopeless till they

showed overwhelming force; (2) that the protection of stores was only

a pretext; (3) that they insisted on movements which Sir A. Paget

thought dangerous after he had done all he thought necessary to protect

stores; (4) that the warships' movements were part of the larger plan

never avowed by the Government, but applauded by their followers; (5)

that the withdrawal of troops from Belfast could only be so explained;

(6) that Sir A. Paget's announcement to his officers, that he would

have 25,000 men, was not compatible with the story that only a minor

movement was contemplated. For his own honour the Prime Minister should

have a judicial inquiry.

The Annual Register 1914 A Review of Public Events at Home and Abroad for the Year 1914 · 第 10 / 25 章

While these proposals were under consideration in the country the